• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Who do you think will be the new powers of world rugby in the coming decades?

Did you know that Rugby was played in America before Grid Iron? (so Ive heard here on TRF)..and after all those years where is Rugby in America now?..

America aint too bad at Rugby but the games been there for years. Long enough for them to be a force.

Grid Iron, Basketball, Baseball and Nascar will always drown out Rugby in America. Its more traditional, more money and more popular.

And to add to that, The USA was the last team to win a gold medal at the Olympics for Rugby...
 
Georgia/Romania have the support but will have a tough time squeezing the talent out of the small populations.

People constantly saying this is annoying. Some people have got this idea that Georgia is like Northern Hemisphere version of the Pacific Island situation regarding money and population.

Georgia has roughly the same population as New Zealand and Ireland of about 4 and half million, considering rugby is considered now one of the top sports in the country it is receiving more and more player numbers in youths these days and has less competition than other nations in the sports market. They also can attract the largest crowds of any nation outside Tier 1.

In Ireland there are more sports to compete with for rugby for talent, yet they can have a good team, yes they have more money, but Georgia can sustain themselves financially and aren't totally reliant on IRB handouts like the Pacific Islanders.

No, Georgia isn't a world power, but neither is it some tiny San Marino sized nation with no infrastructure. They have a 60,000 stadium, government backing, the matches get on national TV, they have a less competitive sports market than USA Canada Russia, and also a better team.

Whilst Romania has a population of 19 million, population is certainly not their problem, it's how many of them are playing rugby these days.

^ yeah but there's no reason for Italy to slow down. Just like France a century ago, they're brand new, all fresh in the 6N. They already got Wales and Scotland, even got France once and came reaaaaally close against England like 3 times and were one kick away from getting Ireland...they're getting there. In a few RWC they could get to the knock-out stages...they've got good coaching, some world class players...they're developing. It's taking a lot of time, that's for sure...but that's just the standard time it takes teams.

There are reasons for Italy to slow down. They are not like France were ages ago, they are in their own situation.

They were heavily beaten around the 1999-2002 period by the other Tier 1 nations, and also lost to some Tier 2 nations like Canada. However they improved when the likes of Parisse and Castro emerged and have been more solid, but they have been let down by the lack of a passable fly half.

Their junior teams are going awfully, they were relegated from the IRB Junior World Cup getting beaten heavily, and even lost to a Georgian Junior team, their national league has been awful in the Challenge Cup and not progressed and they have Zebre being the whipping boys of the RaboPro12. Their progress is seriously stalling, Castro and Parisse may not be there post 2015 RWC and then they may find difficulty.

To be honest Italy are only as good as Georgia, just Georgia hasn't had the opportunity to prove it. Both are similar sides, good scrum, decent forwards with a talismanic 8, but not so good backs. I would say the home team would win a match between the two.

Little Guy: tell me about Canadian rugby. How do you feel it's evolved, say, from the 90's to the 2000's to now ?

I told you about this earlier. They were competitive and picked up a few scalps including England, Scotland, Wales and France, and they reached a World Cup quarter final in 1991. But as rugby became professional, Canada stayed amateur and got left behind, and by mid 2000's were probably at a low point with heavy defeats against Tier 1.

But after a poor 2008 tour of Europe, they have got their act together and rebuilt their side and have a lively backline, but their weak scrum lets them down and has cost them matches against Italy and Georgia in the past couple of years. If they can improve their scrum, then they would be a top 12 nation, but that is a big if.

Canucks: I totally agree with you man. As decided on this thread, I'm a clueless troll; but still yeah I think US and Russia. They're huge countries, there's the money/population factor that Georgia doesn't have; and I know from legit sources that a looot of Russians are really developing a nation-wide love for the game. There are factors holding both nations back, but if any team can drastically (or considerably) move up, it's them.
The Cold War nations :p

This again. Georgia does not have a population factor. If Georgia has a population factor, then so do Ireland. They are not a third world Somalia like nation as some here are building them up to be, or a small populated island like Tonga who can't afford to host matches against Scotland.

Russia certainly doesn't have "nation-wide love for the game" by the way, if that was the case then they would turn up for their national team's matches, and their national TV stations would show their matches.
 
yeah thx for answering in detail. I kinda wanted to know what Little Guy had to say, being an actual Canadian himself...
Wow you're right !! As much as I like covering and analyzing the RWC wiki pages, I've failed to remember Canada made it to the 1/4 in '91 !! Well pointed out ! They played a strong game against France in fact it seems in the pools (13-19, one try to two) but the others were Fiji n Romania...
It's hilarious they'd meet NZ in their first 1/4 though !! They actually scored two tries that day though...nice.
And yeah I recall Canada STRUGGLING with the scrums this past RWC !...good point.

Well two separate Russian friends that don't know each other told me it was gaining a much wider audience and momentum (rugby) there....but you may be right. Well it seems like a sport of a certain weight at least there, not like football or hockey or even other sports but...yeah...

Well of course Georgia isn't like THAT haha (Somalia :lol:) but obviously they don't have the means Russia or the US have...is all I'm saying. I'd bet on the latter two rather, but I'm probably wrong...:D
 
Hi yoe91 just saw this. I think Psychic gives a good evaluation of what has happened in Canada since the game turned professional. We did still field a fairly good team in most of the 90's with us firmly in the competetive Tier 2 range.

The years of 2004-2008 were very painful for Canadian rugby, massive losses to the Tier One sides, an incredbly boring style of play. Amongst a host of parochial and internal problems with the Union. Luckily the direction has changed in the last few years. Talent has been brought into management, eg. Kieran Crowley, Clive Griffiths(although he is now back in North Wales) Mike Chu and a commitment to the CRC and ARC have all helped.

Canada now has more people participating in rugby than Scotland and Italy do. There is unfortunately a lack of TV coverage with only some of the national team games being televised and very rarely the CRC. This hasn't brought in that casual sports fan that is desperately needed for the sport to grow.

The growth of the game in youth and educational institutions is very encouraging. There will always be the isues of climate(especially in the Prairie provinces) and the large distances between population centres, these are similar problems that Russia and to a lesser degree the United States faces.

I don't see Canada entering the Top 10 anytime soon(unless it's an extremely brief rise after some shock results) but I do think the team is heading to a place where they can be more competetive with Italy, Scotland, the Pacific Nations and perhaps some others if they are having poor cycles.

The one massive disadvantage that Canada faces is the lack of a professional league, a factor compunded by the limited number of overseas spots that virtually all rugby competitions posess. Becoming a Core team in the 7's will keep some of our backs busy and still playing the game, but for many of our decent players there isn't a paying future in rugby. Conor Trainor and Jamie Mackenzie are two examples of players that have gone back to school since they have been unable to get a pro deal. The CRC and ARC are steps in the right direction, but I think a North American pro league(or franchise in another competition) is a must if we are ever to compete with the Tier One sides regularly.
 
^ very insightful, very interesting...
I'd never suspect things like the climate (although I HAVE spent two winters in Mtrl...and uhh...GODDAMN you guys srs have a WINTER there !) to actually be a factor.
Tbh, it's great that Canada can totally hang in there and make the RWC all the time and get a few strong wins along the way; but you can't help but want them to achieve a little more.
It's a bit of a European fantasy (personally at least) to know that even all the way in Canada, miles and miles away in creeping winters, our trans-atlantic cousins are making some noise and keep that rugby tradition goin and well.

And yeah, that seems to be where Can stands now. Right there with Sco, Ita and the Pac nations. Arg has broken through already and are on their way to becoming a true Tier 1 world power in rugby...and Canada can't seem to quite make that leap right now (to connect back to the thread).
It's good that Canada has its own league, but this will be limiting for the talent of course...the entire American continents would need to create a big-ass league. I mean, I know about the Americas Cup but that just doesn't do justice to what I was just explaining...I mean a BIG-ASS league, Europe/SH style...something local, and something big.
 
It's hard to look far into the future and gauge who will be the coming powers in the XV man game. The short term goal must be to bring existing tier 2 countries up to standard. The World Cup is an exceedingly boring competition because it's always the same 8-10 teams challenging for the quarter finals.

For now, every effort must be made to ensure Argentina successfully integrate into the Quad Nations (I hate the other ***le). They're far more likely to win the World Cup eventually than any of Ireland, Wales or Scotland.

Italy too should benefit from Pro 12 involvement where Treviso are already very competitive. Hopefully that country will host a Heineken Cup final before too long. If Italy surge in popularity at home, TV deals and revenue will increase massively.

Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, USA and Canada are next in line. Get them regular action at home against tier 1 countries.

Georgia are clearly the best non 6 Nations competing European team. I'd love to see the 6 Nations show a commitment to them and try to add them to the competition.

Having said all of the above, rugby's main potential for rapid growth is in Sevens. Olympic involvement is huge for the sport. China, Russia, USA and Brazil (poor medal winning record but 2016 in Rio will see a new emphasis on Olympic events) will begin to take the abbreviated form of the game much more seriously now. Hopefully this will filter on to the XVs version with Sevens stars from emerging nations picking up club contracts.

In European club rugby, I believe dismantling the current league structure and instead having a pan-European competition involving 30+ teams/franchises from the 6 Nations, one from Georgia and possible future expansion into Russia, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Portugal is how we'll see the sport grow rapidly beyond the current countries. Money will talk and if the likes of BT Vision, BSkyB, Al Jazeera, Canal Plus and ESPN want it, it could happen. Rugby needs a long term vision to become a global sport rather than killing the goose that laid the golden egg with the same 10 countries playing each other over and over again.
 
yeah it's true...never thought about it this way but Georgia is the best non-6N nation in Europe.
But we'll be the 17 Nations Championship by 2050 at this rate !...^_^

I dunno about Arg being more likely to win a RWC than Wales particularly...you think Wales is just having an excellent selection, like a really good generation but that's it ?...I don't think so. I think they're gonna keep building on that and start winning more games in the 6N again...

Ireland has shown some strong signs lately. Got the Grand Slam in '09 was it, then the victory in the Pool games against Australia, played an excellent game against the AB's few months back, almost won in France for the first time since 2000...almost (and should have, really...) got Wales in the 6N this year...they've still got very solid potential - world class. I don't think we can just count them out, even on the long run. They've yet to make a semi-final though I believe...RWC I mean.
 
NZ :)

as far as emerging rugby nations goes the NS obviously has potential, I also think China will make a drastic improvement as well. With ruby becoming more global and 7's becoming a Olympic sport it is sure to improve in China. And with such a massive population all they need is a small increase in interest and it should translate to a big improvement.

Though I believe it takes many years for a genuine improvement happen on the park from a major system change or spark in interest.
 
People constantly saying this is annoying. Some people have got this idea that Georgia is like Northern Hemisphere version of the Pacific Island situation regarding money and population.

Georgia has roughly the same population as New Zealand and Ireland of about 4 and half million, considering rugby is considered now one of the top sports in the country it is receiving more and more player numbers in youths these days and has less competition than other nations in the sports market. They also can attract the largest crowds of any nation outside Tier 1.

In Ireland there are more sports to compete with for rugby for talent, yet they can have a good team, yes they have more money, but Georgia can sustain themselves financially and aren't totally reliant on IRB handouts like the Pacific Islanders.

No, Georgia isn't a world power, but neither is it some tiny San Marino sized nation with no infrastructure. They have a 60,000 stadium, government backing, the matches get on national TV, they have a less competitive sports market than USA Canada Russia, and also a better team.

Whilst Romania has a population of 19 million, population is certainly not their problem, it's how many of them are playing rugby these days.



There are reasons for Italy to slow down. They are not like France were ages ago, they are in their own situation.

They were heavily beaten around the 1999-2002 period by the other Tier 1 nations, and also lost to some Tier 2 nations like Canada. However they improved when the likes of Parisse and Castro emerged and have been more solid, but they have been let down by the lack of a passable fly half.

Their junior teams are going awfully, they were relegated from the IRB Junior World Cup getting beaten heavily, and even lost to a Georgian Junior team, their national league has been awful in the Challenge Cup and not progressed and they have Zebre being the whipping boys of the RaboPro12. Their progress is seriously stalling, Castro and Parisse may not be there post 2015 RWC and then they may find difficulty.

To be honest Italy are only as good as Georgia, just Georgia hasn't had the opportunity to prove it. Both are similar sides, good scrum, decent forwards with a talismanic 8, but not so good backs. I would say the home team would win a match between the two.



I told you about this earlier. They were competitive and picked up a few scalps including England, Scotland, Wales and France, and they reached a World Cup quarter final in 1991. But as rugby became professional, Canada stayed amateur and got left behind, and by mid 2000's were probably at a low point with heavy defeats against Tier 1.

But after a poor 2008 tour of Europe, they have got their act together and rebuilt their side and have a lively backline, but their weak scrum lets them down and has cost them matches against Italy and Georgia in the past couple of years. If they can improve their scrum, then they would be a top 12 nation, but that is a big if.



This again. Georgia does not have a population factor. If Georgia has a population factor, then so do Ireland. They are not a third world Somalia like nation as some here are building them up to be, or a small populated island like Tonga who can't afford to host matches against Scotland.

Russia certainly doesn't have "nation-wide love for the game" by the way, if that was the case then they would turn up for their national team's matches, and their national TV stations would show their matches.

I apologise I should have elaborated on my comment. Bit difficult on a smartphone.

Georgia is massively different from nz and Ireland. Nz makes 14 million or so per tri nations (probably more now with Argentina.) Ireland also pulls in a fair chunk per 6 nations. Georgia wishes they could pull that in. The difference is the GDP of the countries and the advertising revenue. As well, as a foreigner, I gladly watch nz or Ireland but would not watch Georgia.

In terms of competing with other sports. I feel this benefits Ireland and nz in comparison to Georgia and Romania. Ireland and nz have million dollar athletes, Georgia and Romania don't. Other sports positively impact the overall level of competition as this means more infrastructure and enables poaching. Georgia and Romania do not have this.

I feel my comment was not a dig at Georgia/Romania. They have good programs and will undoubtedly improve. Hopefully they will get some scalps as well. However they won't be a world power because they cannot squeeze enough elite level players out of their populations.

Im still on a smartphone so my points may be a bit disjointed.

I also felt your points regarding Canada are spot on. I would like to add the ongoing issues with the bc rugby union also hamper the development of the national team. I will not start onto them as they only infuriate me and aren't pulling their weight.

Regarding someone elses post regarding USA not having the mentality for rugby. I think that's a very ignorant comment. USA is the top sports country in the world, the only major sports they aren't considered good in are rugby and cricket. The discipline and intelligence to be good in rugby is the same as nfl football. If anything americans have tenacity that a lot of countries would struggle to match.
 
And yeah, that seems to be where Can stands now. Right there with Sco, Ita and the Pac nations.

Not really "there" with the Scotland and Italy yet. But they will be if they can just get a scrum that can be adequate.

Italy too should benefit from Pro 12 involvement where Treviso are already very competitive. Hopefully that country will host a Heineken Cup final before too long. If Italy surge in popularity at home, TV deals and revenue will increase massively.

Interest in Italy is an interesting point, as domestically there seems to be a lack of it. Whilst the national team can sell out the large Stadio Olimpico for the 6 Nations matches, domestically Zebre got a crowd of 2,000 for their Heineken Cup matches, and the Amlin Challenge Cup sides that played at home got 1,000 and 1,100. Hardly impressive attendances.

Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, USA and Canada are next in line. Get them regular action at home against tier 1 countries.

Why have you left Georgia and Romania off this list?

Georgia have beaten Canada and USA when they had a proper team available (the reserves played in June). They were more competitive against Tier 1 than some of these nations at the World Cup as well, 42 points was the most they conceded against England (which was due to fatigue towards the end as they had just played the same side against Scotland 3 days earlier), only Tonga and Samoa had better losing margins than Georgia.

As well as Georgia being at least as good on the field as Canada, and should not be seen as behind them in line. They also get miles more in attendances than these nations, Georgia has an attendance record of 60,000 for the biggest matches, plus a stadium of 27,000 for smaller ones. Both these stadiums easily beat the professional era attendance records of all of these Tier 2 nations. Fiji and Samoa both got to about 15,000 (maximum approximation) for Tier 1 matches against Scotland, but are much lower for Pacific Nations Cup matches, USA set a record this year of 17,000 against Italy, Canada got 12,000 for their fixture against Italy, Japan and Romania neither get up to five figure totals, Tonga don't even have record for their attendances.

As for Romania, they don't have the high attendances, but they are around as good as USA are. They have been sub standard for a while now, but have improved in 2012, and defeated both Italy A and Argentina Jaguars and Russia 25-0. And unlike the North Americans, they can scrummage.

The IRB have continuously ignore Eastern Europe (not one Tier 1 match for non 6 Nation European team outside RWC since 2006, Georgia hasn't had one since 2003), in favour of the countries you name.

I'm in favour of a meritocracy, Tier 2 teams should be able to earn the right to play Tier 1 in between World Cups through their performance in the World Cup. So Samoa and Tonga as the most competitive Tier 2 sides would get rewarded with the most Tier 1 matches during mid World Cup period, whilst a nation like Fiji would get less after their 49-3, and 66-0 thrashings against South Africa and Wales.

The only thing that could get in the way of this, is if the money really isn't there. The Pacific Islands for example struggle to make the costs of hosting nations, so nations touring there is rarer than they should be. But if a nation can hold it's own financially and not have to rely on IRB handouts like the Pacific Nations do, then there should be nothing stopping them earning a a rise upwards in rugby, unlike now where Tier 1 nations basically decide whether said team can go up to their level.

As for Romania, they have been poor for quite a while now, but this year they actually have shown improvement, beating Italy A and Argentina Jaguars this June. They still had one match to be proud of at RWC 2011 as well.

Georgia are clearly the best non 6 Nations competing European team. I'd love to see the 6 Nations show a commitment to them and try to add them to the competition.

Continuing about what I said earlier about meritocracy. This should be true here too. Currently, there is no path for a European nation to rise into the big league, it's just when in some middle aged men in blazers opinion. Whatever the route, there should be one, either promotion/relegation, playoff matches etc. Something should be in place that made it possible, just like any European nation can qualify if they are good enough for Euro 2016, any European nation should be able to get into the 6 Nations if they are good enough and earn their way.

Georgia is massively different from nz and Ireland.

Not in populations terms it isn't.

Nz makes 14 million or so per tri nations (probably more now with Argentina.) Ireland also pulls in a fair chunk per 6 nations. Georgia wishes they could pull that in. The difference is the GDP of the countries and the advertising revenue.

Of course New Zealand and Ireland make more because they are in better competitions, that's just stating the blooming obvious, and has nothing to do with Georgia's potential to rise up the rankings. If Georgia were in a top competition, they would obviously get a lot more money than they currently do.

The difference is the GDP of the countries and the advertising revenue.

Yes, Georgia GDP is not as big as those countries. But the point is that they are not so poor that the Tier 1 nations would be paying to play them like they would to play the Pacific Islands who can't meet the costs sometimes, and their smaller attendances and less profit means that the Tier 1 nations often make a loss playing them away, and the IRB often have to hand out a lot of money to support them (Tonga were due to play Scotland at home this year on their tour, but they couldn't get sufficient enough money to do so). Georgia is obviously not as rich as the Tier 1 nations, but neither are they as poor as Pacific Islands.

Besides, we don't want rugby to simply a rich nations sport do we? If you want it to be like that, go and watch Rowing or Laser Class Sailing. If Tonga can beat France with one of the smallest GDP in the world, then Georgia has the potential to compete with a GDP 32 times bigger.

As well, as a foreigner, I gladly watch nz or Ireland but would not watch Georgia.

Again you're just stating the obvious. This has nothing to do with a nations potential to grow in rugby. Much fewer neutrals would want to watch a match in Football between New Zealand and Ireland than Portugal and Spain. More neutrals would want to watch a World Cup final than a group game. Much fewer neutrals would want to watch Canada too.

If Liberia played like the All Blacks, you would want to watch them. What's your point?

This is has nothing to do with Tier 2/3 nations rising up as you would watch any nation (unless you are a snob towards smaller nations) if they were two of the best teams at the sport, it's just stating the obvious.

In terms of competing with other sports. I feel this benefits Ireland and nz in comparison to Georgia and Romania. Ireland and nz have million dollar athletes, Georgia and Romania don't. Other sports positively impact the overall level of competition as this means more infrastructure and enables poaching. Georgia and Romania do not have this.

I feel my comment was not a dig at Georgia/Romania. They have good programs and will undoubtedly improve. Hopefully they will get some scalps as well. However they won't be a world power because they cannot squeeze enough elite level players out of their populations.

No it doesn't benefit them. For a start, I was comparing Georgia where rugby is one of the most popular sports to USA, Canada and Russia none of whom have got 20,000 plus crowds for a match, and rugby is very much a smaller, minor sport. Not with Ireland and New Zealand, where rugby is popular.

Also how does having more popular sports help the less popular sports in a country?

I don't understand the logic here. For a start, rugby will never get near the NFL in terms of being a top sport in the USA, nor will it overtake the top sport in Canada, so they are limited for a start off.

New Zealand has rugby as a top sport and as a result they can achieve more than would have been possible as a lesser sport, I have no idea how being a sport with lots of competition can improve a nation at rugby.

Australia would be a miles better nation at rugby if rugby league wasn't big there. You say it "enables poaching", but firstly it works both ways and league gets a lot of the talent that could play union.

Also a nation where the players have played the game from a young age, are normally going to be better than players "poached" from other sports later on. Perhaps this is why Georgians have specialist rugby skills such as scrummaging technique, and North Americans don't.

Also facilities aren't the be all and end all either, sure USA might get better ones than in Eastern Europe. But if that were so important then Tonga would have no hope in World Cups, and would be losing to the USA. If you have coaches, playing pool, pitches, and basic training facilities then you're fine. That's why rugby is more global than Laser Class Sailing.

I could go on. But let me put it this way.

Rugby being a top sport with big crowds and on national TV and getting more focus on it and specialist rugby facilities and being able to get talent from minor sports > Rugby being a minor sport on niche TV stations and being that for the foreseeable future and losing talent to major sports (with a few rejects from bigger sports coming to rugby)
 
Psychic duck, I think you misunderstood my argument.

I know you support the eastern European competitions and I think your perspective on how these countries need to grow is valid but you missed what I was saying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
^ 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 ?
 
^ 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 ?

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.
 
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.
 
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment on Georgia. I think it would be very hard to argue that the potential of Georgia with 4 million is the same as the USA with 310 million in terms of making the game more global, however I believe the chance for Georgia to succeed as a power in rugby is considerably more likely given the existing interest and exposure of the sport as well as lack of significant competition. As others have already mentioned, New Zealand's population is actually a bit smaller than Georgia's. Yes we gain revenue because we have a successful brand, great infastructure and a team that competes at the top level, but none of that would have been achievable had we never been able to compete at top level rugby.

As duck mentioned, Georgia are richer and have twenty times the population of Samoa who beat Australia last year. What stops Samoa from ever being able to become a world power is their small population, limited funds and extreme isolation from the rest of the rugby playing world. Georgia are not in the same boat at all. They aren't the richest nation, but they pay to go watch rugby games in a stadium almost as large as Eden Park and watch it on television - not much more you can ask for. Also the fact that they are in Europe is very important, as it means that fans are able to travel to watch games a much shorter distance.

What they do lack is significant playing number and 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.
 
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.
 
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.

a) I didn't really expect to have to do so. Their level of continued success and excellency across generations would be exceptional in any sport imo, and is certainly the best in rugby, and that it is done with such a paper population disadvantage compared to their competitors only heightens the achievement. This is done through a depth of rugby culture and ready access to high level coaching and strong competition that is only found in a few other places in the world, if any. It seems very ambitious to expect any other country to replicate this. And I don't believe anything of what I said there was at all contentious or other than generally acknowledged.

b) Yeah, you could make the point with Wales (I thought it about five minutes after I'd posted actually) - but to continue the point about Ireland, the population figure of about 4m certainly doesn't include the exiles, and it doesn't include NI either. Hence why I didn't find it at all applicable to the argument.

But yes, you can be a good rugby nation with a small population. There's no shortage of examples.

But all of them have had rugby as an established part of their heritage for a hundred years and counting. All the recent break-ins into the Anglophone club have been conducted by nations with big populations. For Georgia to compete, they will have to make top quality rugby - not just rugby, but a very high standard of it - a nation wide obsession. And that is some call. Good luck to them, but I don't imagine I will be the only man to stay skeptical.
 
a) I didn't really expect to have to do so. Their level of continued success and excellency across generations would be exceptional in any sport imo, and is certainly the best in rugby, and that it is done with such a paper population disadvantage compared to their competitors only heightens the achievement. This is done through a depth of rugby culture and ready access to high level coaching and strong competition that is only found in a few other places in the world, if any. It seems very ambitious to expect any other country to replicate this. And I don't believe anything of what I said there was at all contentious or other than generally acknowledged.

I wasn't saying that becoming New Zealand can be replicated or that any Tier 2 team will become nearly as good, just using it as a point that a nation with the same population shouldn't be disregarded on the basis of lack of it.

b) Yeah, you could make the point with Wales (I thought it about five minutes after I'd posted actually) - but to continue the point about Ireland, the population figure of about 4m certainly doesn't include the exiles, and it doesn't include NI either. Hence why I didn't find it at all applicable to the argument.

But yes, you can be a good rugby nation with a small population. There's no shortage of examples.

But all of them have had rugby as an established part of their heritage for a hundred years and counting. All the recent break-ins into the Anglophone club have been conducted by nations with big populations. For Georgia to compete, they will have to make top quality rugby - not just rugby, but a very high standard of it - a nation wide obsession. And that is some call. Good luck to them, but I don't imagine I will be the only man to stay skeptical.

From the original 8 big nations, Argentina and Italy are now considered Tier 1 nations and it is a top 10. But both were in a very different climate to today and Italy especially were helped by the time period they broke in, if they were trying to break in now they would never become a Tier 1 nation.

Georgia on the field is already aroundabout Italy level, and were much better than Italy in the period they entered the 6 Nations, so they have already got very near that level with their population and there would a great chance they could improve given the opportunity. If you think Italy can "compete" (which is a subjective term which I don't know how close a team has to be for them to be "competing" in your opinion, some might say Canada are competing some might say Italy still can't compete), then Georgia can "compete" to already, and aren't going away soon and has only started supporting rugby majorly recently, so has a lot of room for improvement. Unfortunately, they don't get the opportunity to prove they are on a level with Italy as Eastern Europe has been suffering from worse treatment compared to North America and Japan.

Which brings me onto another point. No rugby nation will break into Tier 1 in the forseeable future under the current international system. The international scene has changed a lot since the break ins you refer to are impossible for any nation to achieve, whatever their size.
 
Did I mention that the guy who is Credited for building 90% of Rugby infrastructure in Georgia is also one of the richest men in the world with his private wallet being 3 times the entire budget of Georgia and 1042 times the budget of Georgian rugby Union. Is a long time rugby supporter and will soon become the Prime minister of Georgia after his party won the parliamentary elections on the October 1st... so yeah The Renaissance of Georgian rugby is still ahead of us as most expect the rugby financing to grow 10 times in future... I personally cant wait
 
Yes, I forgot about that factor.

Having a philanthropist worth 6.4 billion and is 153rd on the world rich list backing the side should help.
 
Top