The Countries in Rugby World Cup 2015?

[smartcooky]

It's thrown up two points for me. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the majority of those African players (excluding Namibia & Zimbabwe) listed by psychicduck have grown up and learned their rugby in France or England. Which means that some of these African countries are in a similar position to the PI nations, with Samoa and Tonga in particular drawing a lot of players from New Zealand's PI population. Samoa etc. would not be as good were it not for their NZ born players - equally then, if the numbers of African players in English and French rugby continues to increase, then we could see some decent experience coming into these African national teams.

Its more like Argentina really, who would surely not be able to play at anywhere near the level they do now without all the players who play in Europe, particularly the Top14 and ProD2.

Next point is where to grow rugby. We must all agree that now, rugby union is a major world sport. Not with the moneymaking power of football, nor does it have a country like India or USA fully behind it, but it is a big sport, and you'd think now things should keep getting better and better.

The way I see it, there's three main areas in which to concentrate growth -

1) Sustain struggling/ developing 'tier 1' nations. If the top of the sport fails it will never grow. I look in particular at Scotland as a struggling nation, not because of results but because of lack of interest. Italy are in a similar place to Scotland, but at least they've improved rather than declined. And Argentina's boom needs to continue to be encouraged. Other tier 1 guys have it pretty good.

IMO some fans and media in the SANZAR countries an elsewhere are seriously underestimating Los Pumas. Playing the top three teams in the world twice each year will bring a hard edge to their game, and they will be very difficult to knock over in Buenos Aires. They may well not even win a game in their first year, but IMO, their results in the 4N Championship will be better than Italy's were in the first years of their introduction to the 6N.

2) My first class of developing nation - ones for economic development. In Russia and Japan, rugby has two markets that aren't saturated by other sports, and both already have half decent national teams. Investment (time and money) into these two could produce major benefits, especially considering Russia's influence in Eastern Europe. Brazil fits into this category too, they just don't have the national side to back it up with yet. USA is also worth a punt, and Canada falls into this group too. There's money to be made from these guys.

3) This group includes all other nations where rugby plays a significant part in national culture. Pacific Islands certainly, Madagascar (never knew about that one), Kenya, Georgia, Romania, potentially Uruguay and Chile, PNG if they ever want to play more than 7s or league. These are countries that make the world cups interesting. These are countries that, with a push in the right direction, could become as successful as Fiji etc. have been.

All these make for a more competitive world cup... So let's put our funding here please!

Asia is surely where the iRB has to be concentrating some of its efforts, particularly with Japan due to host the RWC in only 8 years time. I have stated many times in the past that the RWC is not, never has been and never will be a development tool; the fact of hosting it in Japan will not be enough on its own.

Both the iRB and the JRFU have to do a LOT of work in the years beforehand to make 2019 a success. The RWC in NZ this year was an unqualified success, mainly because it was an easy sell in a rugby-mad country. The whole country embraced it, adopted second teams. You only had to look at the Ireland v Australia game to realise that. There were probably only a couple of thousand Irish supporters who made the trip, and a couple of hundred ex-pats. The rest of the 50,000 or so "Irish" supporters were all kiwis that dressed up in green white and orange and waved Irish flags and yelled their heads off. Even my partner, who does not like rugby, has no comprehension of it and cannot "get" what I see in the game, was beginning to show a glimmer of understanding when she started making comments about players being offside at rucks, not releasing the ball in the tackle, and being ahead of the kicker. (there's hope yet!)

You simply couldn't go anywhere in NZ without knowing it was on. But a RWC in Japan will not be an easy sell. Rugby Union is a very small blip on the radar in that country; it will be rather like hosting a cricket world cup in the USA, and will present similar sorts of challenges.

 

[james5000]

Its more like Argentina really, who would surely not be able to play at anywhere near the level they do now without all the players who play in Europe, particularly the Top14 and ProD2.



IMO some fans and media in the SANZAR countries an elsewhere are seriously underestimating Los Pumas. Playing the top three teams in the world twice each year will bring a hard edge to their game, and they will be very difficult to knock over in Buenos Aires. They may well not even win a game in their first year, but IMO, their results in the 4N Championship will be better than Italy's were in the first years of their introduction to the 6N.



Asia is surely where the iRB has to be concentrating some of its efforts, particularly with Japan due to host the RWC in only 8 years time. I have stated many times in the past that the RWC is not, never has been and never will be a development tool; the fact of hosting it in Japan will not be enough on its own.

Both the iRB and the JRFU have to do a LOT of work in the years beforehand to make 2019 a success. The RWC in NZ this year was an unqualified success, mainly because it was an easy sell in a rugby-mad country. The whole country embraced it, adopted second teams. You only had to look at the Ireland v Australia game to realise that. There were probably only a couple of thousand Irish supporters who made the trip, and a couple of hundred ex-pats. The rest of the 50,000 or so "Irish" supporters were all kiwis that dressed up in green white and orange and waved Irish flags and yelled their heads off. Even my partner, who does not like rugby, has no comprehension of it and cannot "get" what I see in the game, was beginning to show a glimmer of understanding when she started making comments about players being offside at rucks, not releasing the ball in the tackle, and being ahead of the kicker. (there's hope yet!)

You simply couldn't go anywhere in NZ without knowing it was on. But a RWC in Japan will not be an easy sell. Rugby Union is a very small blip on the radar in that country; it will be rather like hosting a cricket world cup in the USA, and will present similar sorts of challenges.

I personally think it will be tougher for Argentina then Italy, I doubt they will win a game in the 1st three years tbh, I reckon it will take about 5 years minimum. The competition is just too far ahead of them. They will not beat the AB's or the Bok's any time soon and Aussie is getting stronger as well. Argentina is an ageing team, don't expect miracles from the youngsters coming in.

 

[psychic duck]

I personally think it will be tougher for Argentina then Italy, I doubt they will win a game in the 1st three years tbh, I reckon it will take about 5 years minimum. The competition is just too far ahead of them. They will not beat the AB's or the Bok's any time soon and Aussie is getting stronger as well. Argentina is an ageing team, don't expect miracles from the youngsters coming in.

I disagree that it will the Pumas will be thrashed like Italy were coming into the 6 Nations, I think Argentina may be able to pull of an upset against Australia in Argentina as I can very easily see the Pumas pack destroying the Aussie front five

but I do think the odds are against them as you're right that some players are ageing, but the replacements I think will be good once they have experience

 

[Melhor Time]

Change the Qualification System

I´m interested in seeing what the IRB does this time around with qualification.

Will Africa continue to get a spot over South America considering Namibia are winless in four World Cup tournaments. Or is it time to admit they are only at the World Cup because of automatic qualification at the expense of others?
Uruguay should have an equal path to qualification but it does not. They had to knockover the USA then Romania. Namibia had, on the other hand, to defeat Tunisia. Russia showed they deserve to be at World Cup´s. Their tries were all impressive and against all sides. Good match vs the USA too. Romania were unlucky not to defeat Scotland. Both are better than Namibia. Japan showed they are not comparable to Namibia a did Fiji. So, really, only Africa needs attention. I am convinced of this.

Hence, I want Africa stripped of its automatic spot and for there to be real repercharge system. Look at how the Pro d 2 (French second division works). It has 16 teams with the top side advancing to the Top 14 and 2nd through 5th playing semi finals and a final witht he winner also joining the Top 14. I think this is what should happen. Repercharge 1 is the winner (top of the table) and Repercharge 2 is the side that wins the final.

Top 3 per pool from previous World Cup´s getting automatic qualification is fine.

Europe - England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France and Italy.
Americas - Argentina
Oceania - Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga
Africa - South Africa

Qualification

So to answer the thread itself - Who else could qualify?

Europe 2 spots
Americas 2 spots
Asia 1 spot
Oceania 1 spot
Repechage round 2 spots

Europe Georgia and Russia to qualify as Europe 1 and 2.

The next three (Romania, Portugal and Spain) to enter repercharge.

Americas USA and Canada to be Americas 1 and 2.

The next three (Brazil, Chile and Uruguay) to enter repercharge.

Asia Japan to qualify as Asia 1.

The next three (Kazakhstan, Hong Kong and South Korea) to enter repercharge.

Africa Like South America there is no automatic qualification.
The top three (Cote d´Ivoire, Namibia and Tunisia) all enter repercharge.

Oceania Fiji to qualify as Oceania 1

The next two (Papua New Guinea and Cook Islands) enter repercharge.

Repercharge

repercharge to be an actual tournament with everything on the line. As stated, copy the Pro d2. Following the above it would be a tournament played over the years of 2013 and 2014. The final to be played in November 2014 at Twickenham, London on the same day as England vs New Zealand. Neutral venue with the previous hosts and champions as well as the next host team there to make it a global occassion. The winning side would be there too. Lets say Romania top the table and the final is thus Portugal vs Uruguay.

- All sides to face each other once to play 13 repercharge tests (6.5 per year).
- The games to take place during the IRB international test windows of June 2013, November 2013, June 2014 and November 2014 (semi finals and final).
- The winner will be known in June 2014.
- Qualification per continent to take place in 2012 and be finalized by March 2013.

My guess for repercharge:

Brazil, Chile, Cook Islands, Cote d´Ivoire, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Tunisia and Uruguay

 

[nickdnz]

Out of curiousity Melhor, would you be for expanding the tornement to 24 teams with five teams per pool?

 

[M Two One]

That's a great idea, Melhor, Africa definitely shouldn't have a second automatic. The Pro D2 playoff scheme would work well for qualification to the world cup, but I doubt the IRB would ever consider it, which would give us further indication of how stupid they are. Also, I just want to point out that Morocco and Zimbabwe are better and currently ranked higher than Côte d'Ivoire and Tunisia.

 

[Seaton]

That's a great idea, Melhor, Africa definitely shouldn't have a second automatic. The Pro D2 playoff scheme would work well for qualification to the world cup, but I doubt the IRB would ever consider it, which would give us further indication of how stupid they are. Also, I just want to point out that Morocco and Zimbabwe are better and currently ranked higher than Côte d'Ivoire and Tunisia.

Not arguing about what is being said, but Africa only has a single automatic spot.

 

[William18]

Not arguing about what is being said, but Africa only has a single automatic spot.

I guess he was including South Africa as the first automatic spot?

I think the changes suggested would be sensible. You definitely get the feeling that the top 20 teams were not at this tournament and I like the idea of the extended repechage.

 

[William18]

Out of curiousity Melhor, would you be for expanding the tornement to 24 teams with five teams per pool?

Do you mean 24 teams with six pools of four? 24 teams would not work IMO. If you have 6 pools then it is hard to figure out who your 8 quarter finalists are. I'm not too keen on having the 2nd best overall in pools advancing. A tournament with 4 pools of six games would see it last for too long. 20 is the ideal number of teams. It means that it is still a challenge for teams to qualify and there is a limit on the number of really bad teams that you get (Portugal in 2007 or Namibia in any tournament). Having one or two of those teams is fine but you don't want four or five. There will be a limit as to how big the rugby world cup can ever be as players need on average 6-7 days rest between games. At the FIFA World Cup they can pack games in.

 

[nickdnz]

Do you mean 24 teams with six pools of four? 24 teams would not work IMO. If you have 6 pools then it is hard to figure out who your 8 quarter finalists are. I'm not too keen on having the 2nd best overall in pools advancing. A tournament with 4 pools of six games would see it last for too long. 20 is the ideal number of teams. It means that it is still a challenge for teams to qualify and there is a limit on the number of really bad teams that you get (Portugal in 2007 or Namibia in any tournament). Having one or two of those teams is fine but you don't want four or five. There will be a limit as to how big the rugby world cup can ever be as players need on average 6-7 days rest between games. At the FIFA World Cup they can pack games in.

No. I just mean each pool has one extra team than the current set up (so yes, 6 teams in four pools). I think with an additional four teams, it will stake make it very hard for many teams to qualify (at the moment it is too hard for new teams to qualify). At the moment there have only been 25 teams that have qualified for the Rugby World Cup in the history of the tornement. What it would do, is give a team like Russia the chance to play someone near to their skill level, and they may actually record a win at the Rugby World Cup.

Schedualing is the big issue, obviously. But if Samoa can play four matches in 16 days, there is obviously enough squeezing room, or better yet, expand the tornement by a week (yes it will put some of the French and South African teams out a further week, but I'm sure it will do more for the game on the whole).

As for the FIFA reference, that is true, but they have 32 teams. I'm suggesting adding another four teams.

My point is, I just don't think it is fair to expact the sport to become truly global, when a majority of the nations that play rugby, have no chance of making it to a Rugby World Cup, especially considering over half the teams gain automatical qualification and the other half already have resources enough for the game to be competitive. Maybe a solution around this would be to make all teams have to qualify for the RWC except the hoast. You'd end up with a very similar tornement, but it would guarentee that even the smaller teams like Chile and Zimbabwe would get exposure to top level competition on a regular basis.

 

[cardassian]

Do you mean 24 teams with six pools of four? 24 teams would not work IMO. If you have 6 pools then it is hard to figure out who your 8 quarter finalists are. I'm not too keen on having the 2nd best overall in pools advancing. A tournament with 4 pools of six games would see it last for too long. 20 is the ideal number of teams. It means that it is still a challenge for teams to qualify and there is a limit on the number of really bad teams that you get (Portugal in 2007 or Namibia in any tournament). Having one or two of those teams is fine but you don't want four or five. There will be a limit as to how big the rugby world cup can ever be as players need on average 6-7 days rest between games. At the FIFA World Cup they can pack games in.

Increasing the pools to 4 of 6 would only increase the tournament time by 1 week and would help to eliminate the disadvantage to smaller teams due to turn around time.
However if it was a real concern that 1 week more would be a problem you could always go for 8 pools of 3, top goes through to the quarters, 2nd to the plate and 3rd to the bowl.
Would give a real chance to 2nd tier nations (as 1 upset could be enough) and would mean smaller teams get to compete against teams around their own level in the plate/ bowl stages.

 

[Melhor Time]

Out of curiousity Melhor, would you be for expanding the tornement to 24 teams with five teams per pool?

I would be in favor of 24 but for RWC 2023 or 2027. The repercharge syetem I put forward would be for RWC 2015 and for a RWC of 20 teams. Should 24 teams occure then I would change the qualification to be as follows:

Top 3 per pool = Automatic Qualification
Europe = 1, 2, 3 & 4 (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Portugal)
Oceania = 1 (Fiji)
North America = 2 (Canada, USA)
South America = 1 (Uruguay)
Asia = 1 (Japan)
Africa = 1 (Namibia)

Repercharge = 2 (Same format I put forward)

Not arguing about what is being said, but Africa only has a single automatic spot.

Africa gets two.

- South Africa
- Africa 1

South America gets 1 (Argentina). Uruguay missed out on 2007 and 2011 because they had to qualify by beating the USA and then Romania. Namibia faced only African sides.

That's a great idea, Melhor, Africa definitely shouldn't have a second automatic. The Pro D2 playoff scheme would work well for qualification to the world cup, but I doubt the IRB would ever consider it, which would give us further indication of how stupid they are. Also, I just want to point out that Morocco and Zimbabwe are better and currently ranked higher than Côte d'Ivoire and Tunisia.

I should´ve checked the IRB World Rankings to have a more accurate list of African sides.

One thing that is seriously lacking in global rugby is intercontinental matches between third tier sides. Brazil are higher than Cote d´Ivoire and Zimbabwe - two former RWC participants. They´ve never played so we can´t conclude anything just from the ranknigs. Having a repercharge process that counts for Qualification would truely give merit to rankings and really up the importance of rugby throughout the third tier.

 

[igorBastia]

I would be in favor of 24 but for RWC 2023 or 2027. The repercharge syetem I put forward would be for RWC 2015 and for a RWC of 20 teams. Should 24 teams occure then I would change the qualification to be as follows:

Top 3 per pool = Automatic Qualification
Europe = 1, 2, 3 & 4 (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Portugal)

Oceania = 1 (Fiji)
North America = 2 (Canada, USA)
South America = 1 (Uruguay)
Asia = 1 (Japan)
Africa = 1 (Namibia)

Repercharge = 2 (Same format I put forward)



Africa gets two.

- South Africa
- Africa 1

South America gets 1 (Argentina). Uruguay missed out on 2007 and 2011 because they had to qualify by beating the USA and then Romania. Namibia faced only African sides.



I should´ve checked the IRB World Rankings to have a more accurate list of African sides.

One thing that is seriously lacking in global rugby is intercontinental matches between third tier sides. Brazil are higher than Cote d´Ivoire and Zimbabwe - two former RWC participants. They´ve never played so we can´t conclude anything just from the ranknigs. Having a repercharge process that counts for Qualification would truely give merit to rankings and really up the importance of rugby throughout the third tier.

Rugby WC 2023 should be in Argentina: si senor, I'm agree.

 

[Heath Taylor]

Europe 2-Russia
Americas 2-USA
Africa 1-Morroco
Americas 1-Canada
Europe 1-Georgia
Oceania 1:Fiji
Repechage:Uruguay.

 

[THE_DINGMEISTER]

Just adding my own tuppence as an overseas student who lives in Hong Kong and plays rugby:
Rugby 7s definitely the biggest exposure to rugby to HK youth and whilst it is mainly an expat tournament there are a large number of locals who attend part of that may be for the general party atmosphere, although in the youth teams there are a large number of local chinese so it may not just be limited to expat or eurasian families now. the HK XV have the advantage of playing in the HK 7s and from what I've seen play quite a fast dynamic style of play.
I saw HK recently play Brazil as part of the UAE cup of nations in Brazil, running out convincing winners after a tight first half.
HK are definitely the 2nd best team in Asia, whilst a large part of that is due to the prominence of expats it is important to appreciate the position that they hold in HK society as well as Eurasians.
Many local chinese are more introduced to rugby upon going to boarding schools in the UK.

What I regard as one of the biggest barriers to playing rugby in Asia and (I imagine the situation will be quite similar in Japan) is the lack of proper grass and fields, sports prominent in HK are football(soccer) and basketball both of which can be played on concrete surfaces which take up most of the public and school playing areas in HK.
Moneyspinners such as Bledisloe Cup Matches in HK and speculation of a Lions v Babas match mainly attract expats though the prices probably don't help.
Can't really comment on the club situation as I don't have much experience of that.

Whilst I haven't really been very conclusive the point I guess I am trying to make is that rugby still remains a sport primarily played by expat/eurasian communities in HK, although there are rising numbers of local children playing within the youth teams lack of playing fields is what I regard as the biggest obstacle for rugby in HK.

 

[Seaton]

Africa gets two.

- South Africa
- Africa 1

One thing that is seriously lacking in global rugby is intercontinental matches between third tier sides. Brazil are higher than Cote d´Ivoire and Zimbabwe - two former RWC participants. They´ve never played so we can´t conclude anything just from the ranknigs. Having a repercharge process that counts for Qualification would truely give merit to rankings and really up the importance of rugbythroughout the third tier.

No, Africa gets one.

Just because South Africa have qualified for every tournament since their first appearance by virtue of making the quarter-finals at least does not mean that Africa has 2 slots.

Were SA to finish last in their pool in 2011, there would be only one African team (assuming another doesn't qualify through the repeacharage) at 2015

See where I am coming from?

 

[Shaggy]

I'm quite a fan of the whole cup/plate/shield format, and having eight pools of three certainly makes the prospect of a team throwing a game during pool play, more remote.

... however, it does mean that one team from each pool would get to rest for twice as long as the other two teams, between marches ... but it definitely gives all of the participating teams more to play for, regardless of their strength/ranking ... the IRB should be able to cover the expense of keeping all of the teams around for longer, by the extra tv rights for the extra games

Sent from my LG-P925g using Tapatalk