Georgia and Romania have a glass ceiling (like a lot of teams.) They have a good, improving program and good support (in Georgia's case) but they will not be a world power. They will not be the next all blacks. They do not have the population to achieve that level.
I don't see your point about population. Georgia has the same population as New Zealand, so why is that "not the population"?
Obviously comparing to New Zealand is wildly different, as New Zealand has a tradition and are established for a century, and the two teams are obviously a mile off the level.
Georgia is a nation with the same population as New Zealand, and also rugby growing in popularity since 2007 to become one of the most popular sports, and also have a physical specimen that is suited to big physical forwards (Georgia also have quite good wrestling/judo pedigree).
Whilst I'm not saying that any Tier 2 nation is "the next All Blacks", I don't see what the population is do with that, it's other factors, if it was down to population then New Zealand wouldn't be the top side.
Also USA and Canada have a glass ceiling, rugby will never be a top sport there. Georgia doesn't as it is more popular there, and the current improvement is still quite new and still has a long way to go, with the first World Cup appearance only back in 2003.
By the way Romania have 19 million population, easily more than Wales, Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand. So I don't see the population has any relevance there either. Their problem is that rugby isn't so popular there any more.
Nz pulls in a ton of money because they have the best brand in the world. This brand gets shown worldwide and reaches a lot of homes. The tv revenue alone is probably the best in the world for rugby with super 15 and all blacks games being shown regularly in NA, Argentina, south Africa, Australia and throughout UK. Georgia's brand will never sniff this ( same as most teams.)
Ireland also have a very successful brand and play an interesting style. A lot of the advertising revenue that Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy enjoy are from the 6 nations as well as being able to cross market advertise due to similarities between the neighbouring countries.
This point again. Again I'm not saying this is going to happen, but if Uruguay suddenly starting playing like the All Blacks then they would become a good brand in the world and be shown worldwide.
The brand point is established by New Zealand being the best side or near in the world for ages. If another nation whoever it be comes along produces a period of excellence then they will become a brand too, look at how Jamaica has come and got a brand in Athletics, which wasn't there in the 1990's, they reach a lot of homes and are shown worldwide as get more money from this as they are the best, simple as that.
Whilst I doubt any Tier 2 nations will get to New Zealand level within the next 30 years, if they did, there would be nothing stopping them (whatever nation it be) being shown worldwide and reaching home and getting more money from TV because of it.
Not saying they will be as rich, but they will be richer obviously.
Anyway, if there is enough money to be able to pay the players, and be able to host matches. If you can do that, then you don't necessarily need to be the richest nation to succeed and break into the top 10, by that logic then USA would already be ahead of Samoa in the rankings, and have more World Cup wins.
As I stated before, rugby isn't a rich nation clique where only a few nations who can afford to play, like Laser Class Sailing or Rowing. Tonga compete and are one of the smallest GDP in the world, just they can't host Tier 1 teams, nor can they get their top players available all the time. If a nation is rich enough to be able to do those two things, then there is no reason why they can't be successful like Tonga, but more sustainably and reach the top 10.
Domestically 4 million people will not provide enough advertising revenue. This is we're GDP comes into play. Even if Georgia had a national tv deal, there is a cap on how much they can earn (which will be really low.) Reasons: GDP is average, unstable region and no foreign interest. It's hard sell and only small number of people could watch the broadcast in Georgia. This will never be a rich program but they do more with less.
Firstly Georgia is hardly an "unstable region". Don't have good relations with Russia, but it is democratic, no civil war. Georgia may be a hard sell now as they aren't a well known rugby nation, but they would be if they improved, as would any. Ethiopia wasn't well known until they became great at running. No Tier 2 nation is as easy to sell as Tier 1 nations. And there is no reason why people couldn't broadcast a match from Georgia all over the world.
Besides this is all about money again. What's this got to with on the pitch matters?
Fiji have much less money than Italy, yet Fiji defeated Italy to relegate Italy to the IRB Junior World Trophy. If you have the talent (like Fiji) and rugby is one of the most popular sport (like in Fiji) then you can still have success and reach the top 10.
Fiji have a much smaller population and are poorer than Georgia, so if Georgia can be adequate (they don't need to be the richest in the world) financially to get their top players then they can still be a top 10 nation.
If the money in programs dictated who was the best, then I'm sure England have more money in theirs than New Zealand yet the latter is more successful.
Even with Canada's pitiful ticket sales, advertising and government funds will put more.money into the program that Georgia would hope for. While the sport takes a back seat in Canada, the country has a high GDP and 30 million people =increased advertising revenue and the government has more money to spend. In Canada and USA it's very easy for niche sports to make a lot of money.
The money point again. This is on field matters not a who has more money competition. USA should already be top 10 the way your talking.
Georgia has a very sustainable program and should not be confused with the broke pacific islanders teams. However it's only source of revenue will be ticket sales.
The current development strategy gets the most while paying relatively little out. Focus on grassroots development while allowing foreign academies to instill the professionalism into the players. Access to top level competition without having to fund professional leagues.
Georgia does have a professional rugby league, this is a common misconception. So does Romania who's domestic league is better than Italy's domestic league, and is also the best in Eastern Europe, and pays well, which is the reason for less Romanians in France than they're used to be. People go on about how Russia has a professional league, but
Georgia's champions beat Russia's champions. The fact the ERC ignores Eastern Europe (I know Romania has a team, but it is not the team that it should be), and continues to put more woeful Spanish and Italian teams in the Amlin Challenge Cup is very irritating.
In terms of your last point, I hAve to disagree.
In regards to poaching players. A general rule for development, fundamentals and game knowledge can be taught, athleticism is developed. That pretty much means that a country with multiple competitive sports programs will always have multisport athletes developing themselves. Whether they are playing hockey, football or basketball, a million dollar athlete is still a million dollar athlete. All that needs to be done is teach them the game and develop some skills.
The USA is very good at the above as majority of their top level athletes followed this development philosophy. Yes scrummaging is a skill but that didn't help Georgia when it came to Canada's backline (athleticism.) Canada's new strategy of getting traditional football schools exposed to rugby at an early age is laying dividends. You seem to think that all you get is washed up players but that is not the case. Many players have nowhere to play after college, take Jason Marshall. He was a bad qb but he's now an international prop.
No it isn't a general rule that fundamentals and game knowledge can be taught that simply.
Somebody who has played the game since the age of 7, would have much more of a rugby brain than somebody who took it up later. So many times I see players who are just put in by their school sides due to their size and they don't know how to play and just run straight, this is why New Zealand are so good, they don't have big guys running straight, they have rugby knowledge and learn about which angles to take.
You can't just put a big strong guy at prop and expect him to outscrummage the prop who has been scrummaging for years and mastered the technique, this could be why North Americans are so crap at scrummaging. Interesting you put Jason Marshall as an example of a player who came to rugby from another sport, as he is crap scrummaging prop who gets shoved about more often than not and a substandard player.
The USA team is full of players with lack of rugby knowledge. They have some athletic guys in their team, but they lack totally on the technical side of the game such as scrummaging, running angles, rucking etc. Canada's team (with the exception of the front row) look like they have played rugby a lot longer than them to be honest, and some skills look a lot more natural.
I disagree that you can take a good athlete from other sports and teach them how to play and then it will all go well. The most similar sport to Rugby Union is Rugby League and some great league players have crossed over and been pants.
NFL is the reason that rugby in the USA is minor sport, they will always get the top talent and I doubt any "million dollar athletes" as you put them, would play rugby.
^ sounds about right.
But I do agree the demographics argument may be over-used and unfounded...NZ has like 3million people and 10 million sheep but they still have the best team by far for e.g. (just as a side-note).
But yeah it seems like this region of the world just doesn't have the "ressources" as you said. No foreign interest, an unstable region etc...it just doesn't look plausible at all in general for Georgia, but you nailed the individual points there I couldn't, clearly...
Georgia rugby world power ? yeah, I ain't bettin on it ! But let's just say that's "just me"...
So what do ppl on here think of Russia again, basically ? Am I bullshitting when I say they've got a good chance ?
Again, Georgia is hardly an "unstable region". I don't see when Georgia has already defeated Italy at age group level that they can't become a top 10 nation within the next 10 years if given the opportunity and can't maintain that in a way that the Pacific Islands struggle to do so.
You're not bullshitting about Russia. But they are a long way behind other nations. It could come, but it would be more likely in 30 years or so rather than 10 or 20 years. They will find it difficult to even qualify for RWC 2015, never mind be a close contest to a nation like Scotland.
Nz beats demographis because of one rule: more money means better program, better program should mean better athletes.
Russia should get up there in a few years. The massive development of professional soccer and hockey in Russia along with Olympics performances has shown the country has a strong development strategy. Couple that with some world class athletes (arshavin, evgeny Malkin, Alex ovechkin)
Rugby is also right up Russia's alley.
What makes you think Russia "should get up there in a few years"? Do you know anything about their side, perhaps I will just show some results this year. They lost 46-0 to Georgia this year, and their U18 team lost 34-14 to Spain. So I don't see how this is simply going to happen "in a few years"
They haven't even beaten Georgia once since the early 1990's, and they have played every year.
Also if "rugby was right up Russia's alley" then they should be able to get more than a few hundred to their matches. Yet because it isn't they can't.
I'd say psychic duck's population arguments are flawed as
a) New Zealand are an absolute freakshow in terms of rugby success against population size and really shouldn't be taken as the norm
b) Any estimate of Ireland's demographics for the purposes of sporting strength that doesn't take into account the simply redonkulous amount of people with Irish ancestry around the globe is inherently wrong.
a) I don't know how you can back that up with any evidence other than just opinion. To be honest, Tonga competing at all is more unlikely than New Zealand being dominant.
b) Even if that is true with Ireland, the point can still be made because Wales has a million less population than New Zealand and Ireland yet still can be a top rugby nation. Pretty sure those population figures are people living in the country, not people who are of Irish ancestry in the globe anyway.
What they do lack is significant playing number and a professional league.
This common misconception again.
Georgia does have a professional league!
Despite it being Georgia's second most popular sport behind football, the IRB have them at just over 5,500 male players and only 50 females. This really needs to improve as there are more than this in counties such as USA (276,353 males and 181,630), Japan (117,709 males - 4,659 femeales), Sri Lanka (87,602 males - 15,723) Canada (43,338 males - 30,326 females), Russia (20,340 males - 1,336 females), Brazil (12,000 males - 1,300 females)...the list could go on and on (
http://www.irb.com/unions/index.html), and these playing numbers could well point to a more promising investment in these countries than Georgia, whose skill in rugby seems more based on a natural athleticism for the game, sound management and good resources in terms of coaching etc. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that Georgia don't deserve to be there, on the performance of their team and with the correct infastructure in place I do believe they should be able to get more teir 1 competition and compete for a sport in the 6 Nations. However I think the IRB are interested as much in the growth of the game from grass roots level which is why resources and oppertunities are more likely to be given to somewhere like the USA or Japan where overall playing numbers are significant, rather than Georgia who competes well above their weight.
Those IRB figures do look very small compared to the other nations, I'll check with a Georgian I know to see whether they are accurate. Different nations register the numbers differently perhaps, Georgia perhaps hasn't had as a thorough up to date census as USA (who despite that stat, still have lots of their side Aussie/SA/Pacific Island expats who went there for college).
But what I do know, is that rugby is most certainly growing in junior levels. With the junior sides improving year on year, at U18 level Georgia beat all of Tier 2 Europe and Italy this year.