Is the gap between the "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" nations closing?

.... and before I start, I am using Tier 1 loosely to cover the 6N and 4N teams.
There have been a few pumpings but not as many as in previous WCs so is the gap closing - look at Russia scoring 3 tries against Oz, Canada geting 2 against NZ, the Japs running rings round the French until sheer power told in the end.
Was this because the "weaker" nations are getting better or because the "better" team eased off, subbed the star players etc.
I think we have seen Georgia and Russia make good strides, Canada, Fiji and Samoa tread water and US, Romania and Namibia fall off the pace a bit. Japamn are a strange one in that their games were perhaps the most exciting to watch but they lost every single one.
Sadly, I don't really see where the next "superpower" will come from as, even with Olympic money, it will still take a couple of generations for kids to pick to ball up aged 5 or 6 as opposed to being fouind when they are in their late teens.

I think it may have closed a bit but there is still a massive drop off outside those sides mentioned with the exception of maybe Samoa, but even then you have to look at what depth they have.

Outside those 10/11 sides there is still a huge gap. Canada are ranked 12th and have no domestic rugby to speak of, little funding and plenty of amateurs in each squad.

Fiji are 16th and have just been pumped by Wales albeit with nothing to play for and their minds probably already back home on the beach.

I don't think any of them will get anywhere without a decent domestic structure.

Whilst Russia and Japan have come on, and Georgia too, where are the likes of Spain and the former power Romania?
Argentina arent the side they were 4 years ago, and it will be a long while before the quad nations helps them improve.
Canada used to beat Wales, and we used to hear about how the US were going to take over the world because a few people had starting playing at university.
Tonga have beaten France before.
Fiji used to be good, now they are rubbish.
Samaoa looked pretty strrong at times but they managed a draw with Wales in Wales last time they played, and have made the quarters in the past. No better than they have been historicaly.
Theres maybe not a gap as such, the bottom of the "9 nations" sides is mixed with the top of the "best of the rest" but look at who made the quarter finals...same old faces ( except scotland) and all sides form teh top two pots.
Perhaps theres more sides capable of being comeptitive and losing by small margins than in the past but I dont see that the world cup currently justifies having 5 pots of teams. Groups of 4 would have avoided the "racism" of Samoa having a midweek game which was entirely repsonsible for them not being as good a side as wales or South Africa (its unfair to blame the ref)

The game is spreading, but lets not kid ourselves that these new "powers" are taking over just yet. Its another generation away at least before we see one gate crash the top table.

If the teams that made the Quarters had to play one of the non 4/6 Nations sides, with probably the exception of Samoa and HAD to win by 25+ points to progress and both were at full strength and fully focussed, I would still bet them to do it 9 times out of 10.

On their day the likes of Canada, Romania etc will give the likes of Scotland and Italy a good game, but then they always did.

In 2007 South Africa, England, Tonga, New Zealand, Scotland, Italy, Australia, Fiji, Wales, Argentina, France and Ireland all qualified for the 2011 World Cup on the back of their performances in that tournament.

In 2011, only Fiji didn't retain their place, losing out to Samoa. No-one has really crashed the party.

its not closing- what we need is to get more teams in the 3 nations for obvious reasons- why arnt they moving rugby forward in the SH?

Have to disagree with most of you on this. I really think that the gap is closing. The performance of teams like Georgia and Canada I feel are evidence of that.

The performance of the so called minnows this tournament has passed all expectation. With the exception of Russia, Namibia and Fiji all the smaller nations have put their hands up and really step up to the mark.

I know money talks, and very loudly, but I would love England to swap the June Baabaa's fixture with an annual Twickenham game against Georgia, Romania, Spain etc.

I think the next big step for Europe is the formation of a European cup while the Lions are on tour. That will promote the game across Europe and give teams a chance to compete against better teams, people laughed at the football European cup in the beginning, but it is huge now.
People laughed at the Rugby world Cup too, saying it would never work, but by 1995 it was the biggest thing in rugby.

mr_stonelea wrote:I know money talks, and very loudly, but I would love England to swap the June Baabaa's fixture with an annual Twickenham game against Georgia, Romania, Spain etc.

I think that's a great idea Stonelea. All the other 6-N teams should follow suit as well. If we want to help the game we all love, to grow, then there has to be a modicum of financial sacrifice from the 6 Nations, to begin with. Tell that to our respective bods upstairs.

Great idea.

As to the question in hand... No. It has not. Wales hammered Fiji by 66-0. That did not happen last time out. Tonga and Samoa were refreshing, but had no chance with the schedule heaped upon them. Canada and USA gave it their all.. but for nations that size? Georgia gave it a lash. Russia? Japan seem to be improving.. But, the structure of the RWC, is a running joke.

Gibson wrote:But, the structure of the RWC, is a running joke.

Think the nail has been hit on the head. Without a proper and fair structure these teams will never get a fair crack of the whip. Remember the teams that took a real hammering, like Japan V the All Blacks and the U.S. V Australia had to play second string sides because they had big games coming up a few days later.
These teams are getting more competitive. Fact. Look at the half time scores for most games. There skills are getting better, players are getting fitter and stronger, defences are getting more organised and these teams attacks are becoming more creative and accurate. If that is not the gap closing...
Imagine what Canada could do with a full professional league and regular international fixtures.

What I would like to see is more integration of the three tiers. For example Ireland's Autumn tour would be-
South Africa (Tier 1)
Canada (2)
New Zealand (1)

While Canada would be-
Japan (Tier 2)
Ireland (1)
Germany (3)
maybe a few more....

Good points Jay.
The half-time scores were interesting, in some cases. So, the differ is better fitness - for one. Structured home-based leagues - another. Better access to playing the top 8/10 teams, outside the RWC - another. A fair schedule, in the RWC, for the 2nd tier teams - is also vital. They need it even more than the top teams.

What else?

I think Samoa earned as much right as Argentina, to join a 5-Nation SH Tournament. But, if that happens, where do NZ & England get their players from?

I don't like the use of 'tier 1' and 'tier 2'.

Rugby is very much like cricket in that the bigger/ traditional nations would just be happy playing each other.

To develop rugby as a proper world sport the smaller teams need to play the bigger teams on a more regular basis.

That is why I would only have the hosts qualify for the world cups automatic and then have proper continental qualifying for the rest.

Take Europe for example. They had nine teams in the world cup. They could be found by having four groups of four something like:-

Group A:- England, Romania, Portugal, Ukraine
Group B:- France, Georgia, Spain, Kazakhstan
Group C:- Ireland, Italy, Russia, Czech Republic
Group D:- Wales, Scotland, Belgium, Moldova

That way the smaller nations will get games against the bigger nations on a more regular basis both home and away.

I think the bonus points do not help either. (Along with the schedule)

I pointed out a number of example regarding bonus points in another thread such as:-

1) Without bonus points Tonga and not France would be in the quarter finals.
2) Canada, had they beat NZ would have had a 2-1-1 record in the RWC, but would have still gone out to France's 2-0-2 record.
3) Had Georgia beat Argentina both teams and Scotland would have had a 2-0-2 record and Georgia should have been able to qualify with a big enough win. Because of bonus points they couldn't finish 2nd or 3rd and effectively had nothing to play for.

The schedule didn't exactly help this either. The big teams had longer between games and could rest players. Also the smaller teams have to focus on certain games.

The RWC schedule should have been something like:- Day 1 Group A, Day 2 Group B, Day 3 Group C, Day 4 Group D, Day 5 rest day.

That way there would have been a four day rest between games with each team effectively getting one eight rest. The group stages would have been completed in 24 days.

JayMaster3000 wrote:Have to disagree with most of you on this. I really think that the gap is closing. The performance of teams like Georgia and Canada I feel are evidence of that.

The performance of the so called minnows this tournament has passed all expectation. With the exception of Russia, Namibia and Fiji all the smaller nations have put their hands up and really step up to the mark.

If it has closed, is this sustainable? Or is it nations peaking and troughing. Georgia and Canada have looked good now (without beating any of the big boys), but Fiji have slipped far behind where you would expect them to be. Romania are along way back on the team they were in the 90s and Namibia probably haven't had a worse campaign.

So it's Georgia and Canada's turn this time, and for them the gap has closed. But will it re-open (as it has with other nations) or is anyone seriously pushing the top 10?

Canada failed at their stated aim of coming 3rd in the group, they let Japan, who were their biggest opponent in terms of putting down a marker, get something out of the tourney by giving them the draw. Totally outclassed by NZ. All in all hardly a successful RWC

Gibson wrote:Good points Jay.

I think Samoa earned as much right as Argentina, to join a 5-Nation SH Tournament. But, if that happens, where do NZ & England get their players from?

I hope you're trying to be funny because then you're just not funny rather than being foolish.
Samoa get their players from NZ of course.

AlynDavies wrote:I think the next big step for Europe is the formation of a European cup while the Lions are on tour. That will promote the game across Europe and give teams a chance to compete against better teams, people laughed at the football European cup in the beginning, but it is huge now.
People laughed at the Rugby world Cup too, saying it would never work, but by 1995 it was the biggest thing in rugby.

They already have the European Nations Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

I was thinking that the 'A' Teams such as the Saxons, Wolfhounds, France A etc could be involved. There'd be arguments about player release no doubt, but to me it is more important to spread the game. I'd also support a fixture against a European nation during the Autumn internationals.

Unfortunately I think if we put the 5 A teams (as Wales don't have one?) in the ENC then Division 1A would just be the 5 A teams and Georgia. Possibly good for Georgia, but no good for anyone else.

robbo277 wrote:Unfortunately I think if we put the 5 A teams (as Wales don't have one?) in the ENC then Division 1A would just be the 5 A teams and Georgia. Possibly good for Georgia, but no good for anyone else.

True, but the structure of the competition could change to be more like a like a world cup knock out competition e.g. Small mixed ability pools and a knock out stage afterwards.

Cumbrian wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:I think the next big step for Europe is the formation of a European cup while the Lions are on tour. That will promote the game across Europe and give teams a chance to compete against better teams, people laughed at the football European cup in the beginning, but it is huge now.
People laughed at the Rugby world Cup too, saying it would never work, but by 1995 it was the biggest thing in rugby.

They already have the European Nations Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

I was thinking that the 'A' Teams such as the Saxons, Wolfhounds, France A etc could be involved. There'd be arguments about player release no doubt, but to me it is more important to spread the game. I'd also support a fixture against a European nation during the Autumn internationals.

Spread the game by killing the few succesful domestic leagues that exist. Good plan.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:I think the next big step for Europe is the formation of a European cup while the Lions are on tour. That will promote the game across Europe and give teams a chance to compete against better teams, people laughed at the football European cup in the beginning, but it is huge now.
People laughed at the Rugby world Cup too, saying it would never work, but by 1995 it was the biggest thing in rugby.

They already have the European Nations Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

I was thinking that the 'A' Teams such as the Saxons, Wolfhounds, France A etc could be involved. There'd be arguments about player release no doubt, but to me it is more important to spread the game. I'd also support a fixture against a European nation during the Autumn internationals.

Spread the game by killing the few succesful domestic leagues that exist. Good plan.

Great sarcasm. Where did I suggest 'killing the few successful domestic leagues'? I'm talking about releasing fringe /young players from premiership clubs for 4/5 games maximum. There isn't enough structure to the 'A' League anyway,I read an article from Dusty Hare saying that the academy players don't get enough meaningful game time to develop properly. Added to that, the Churchill Cup is being binned so there is a gap in the calendar opening up.

Look I know it is pie in the sky and unlikely to happen, but we're apparently having a debate about helping to improve and spread rugby, I'm simply throwing some idea about.

Forgot about the Churchill, that would be the time to do it. If it intereferes with the club season it will suck, Saxons playeras arent fringe players and if its done during the IRB release window sides are already striped of 10+ senior players. Add to that a number of 6 nations B players play for Jeff sides...
In general I dislike the assumption taht any international game no matter how meaningless has primacy over club rugby, which to many people means meore than international....and you can double that when said internationals are only being played as a form of welfare for unions who cant support themselves for a public who doesnt care.

Anyone know what they intend to do with the Saxons instead of the Churchill next year?

I had thought it was closing but now I just think the tier 1 teams were taking it easy. You only have to look at the difference between Wales and Fiji and Irelnd and Italy to see the disparity. They aren't even tier 2 teams really and the difference on the last weekend was astonishing. The only way to properly fit these teams in is to completely restructure the season in North and South.

Teams such as Fiji are a exception to the progress that other teams have made. But what can be expected when they are treated like a second class side. They dumped Wales out of the last world cup but were still ignored by the iRB and most unions. What can you expect.

I keep pointing to teams like Canada, Georgia and Samoa that have obviously made strides in closing the gap on the tier one nations. Look at Canada who pushed Wales the whole way one Friday night in Cardiff. They didn't go back. They beat Tonga, drew with Japan, pushed France and put in a good performance against the All Blacks. Is that not progress?? Not to mention Samoa, Tonga, Georgia, U.S. and Japan! I'm not really sure what most people rate as progress? Like I said above these teams are fitter, stronger and more organised putting in solid performances!

Tier one teams did not take it easy, look at the half time scores, and internationals are always more important than any club game. I would hate it if my club stopped one of our players from playing for his country.

Cumbrian wrote:They already have the European Nations Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

I was thinking that the 'A' Teams such as the Saxons, Wolfhounds, France A etc could be involved. There'd be arguments about player release no doubt, but to me it is more important to spread the game. I'd also support a fixture against a European nation during the Autumn internationals.

No, no, no I mean like the football European cup!

Think about it, the Lions will be on tour in 2013, so the home Nations will be weak anyway.
Add to that Wales will be on a 3 test tour of Japan, while England will be in Argentina, Scotland will be in South Arfica for a tournament against Tier B nations. While France will be in New Zealand for 3 tests.

So while the home nations will be weak anyway for losing players to the Lions, the A team players would theoretically be called up by the National sides to plug the gaps.
This could then leave the B team players to play for the A side in a mini European Cup style competition with the developing 6 Nations B (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Spain, Portugal and Ukraine), and the 6 Nations C (Germany, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Moldova, Czech)
So in theory we'd have a competition like:

Pool A
1 Wales A
2 France A
3 Russia
4 Belgium
Pool B
1 England A (Saxons)
2 Italy A
3 Ukraine
4 Moldova
Pool C
1 Scotland A
2 Georgia
3 Portugal
4 Belgium
Pool D
1 Ireland A
2 Romania
3 Spain
4 Czech

nganboy wrote:

Gibson wrote:Good points Jay.

I think Samoa earned as much right as Argentina, to join a 5-Nation SH Tournament. But, if that happens, where do NZ & England get their players from?

I hope you're trying to be funny because then you're just not funny rather than being foolish.
Samoa get their players from NZ of course.

I have on occasion, tried to be funny... Didn't work out. But in this case. I'm not.

The Colonialists, feed off the very people they morally and brutally - disenfranchised.

And... its still happening. To this very day. These people had no choice. And they still don't. Check the RWC schedule. Check the Aussie, English and Kiwi teams.

White man speak with forked virtual-tongue.

Gibson wrote:

I have on occasion, tried to be funny... Didn't work out. But in this case. I'm not.

The Colonialists, feed off the very people they morally and brutally - disenfranchised.

And... its still happening. To this very day. These people had no choice. And they still don't. Check the RWC schedule. Check the Aussie, English and Kiwi teams.

White man speak with forked virtual-tongue.

Educate yourself and get back to me.

Gibson, whilst I agree with you general overview, I think you lose it when you make the statement about the Aussie, English and Kiwi teams. Unfortunately it makes you look ignorant and undermines your argument. Yes there are people of PI decent in these teams. But it's a two way street. Take the NZ team, all of the current team were born or brought up in NZ from a young age. The samoan team is actually full of players who have been born or grew up in NZ, so who's affecting whom. England has 4 PI's in there team, but it hardly have any would impact on PI teams, outside of NZ. Manu has grown up in England, Flutey and Waldrom have Maori connections, not PI. I'm not sure about Hape, but he was born and grew up in NZ. So I guess NZ is impacted by Englands choice rather than the other PI islands. As to Australia, the majority of the ethnic PI players (Tongan) are born and grew up in Australia. Ione (Samoan) was born in Wellington, but grew up in Australia. The only player in the squads (45 odd players) who could potentially be justifiably questioned (in terms of your statement) is Samo, who was born in Fiji and played age group rugby for them. I should point out I don't know where he grew up. Genia is Papuan, so doesn't enter the equation.

It is rather like comparing apples with oranges,there is not a level playing
field.Obviously if these teams had more cash,played more games together,played the same schedule as Tier 1.
Then things would improve it took France some time to get up to speed.
Italy are now more than capable of winning at least one game in every 6Ns.
Many Tier2 sides the players only play together at RWCs,if they play tests
outside the window it is even a weakened side.
If they had been on the same schedule as tier 1 sides maybe there would have been a few surprises.
tier2 teams also deliberately fielded strong teams only against teams they thought they could beat.
If you take the round 1 matches ALL the minnows did well,comments then were complimentary.
BUT after that these sides were more interested in automatic qualification
for the next RWC than trying to win matches in this one.
tier2 is to much of a blanket term because many of them had beaten tier1sides in the past.Canada,Argentina and the Pacific islands sides especially.

AlynDavies wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:They already have the European Nations Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

I was thinking that the 'A' Teams such as the Saxons, Wolfhounds, France A etc could be involved. There'd be arguments about player release no doubt, but to me it is more important to spread the game. I'd also support a fixture against a European nation during the Autumn internationals.

No, no, no I mean like the football European cup!

Think about it, the Lions will be on tour in 2013, so the home Nations will be weak anyway.
Add to that Wales will be on a 3 test tour of Japan, while England will be in Argentina, Scotland will be in South Arfica for a tournament against Tier B nations. While France will be in New Zealand for 3 tests.

So while the home nations will be weak anyway for losing players to the Lions, the A team players would theoretically be called up by the National sides to plug the gaps.
This could then leave the B team players to play for the A side in a mini European Cup style competition with the developing 6 Nations B (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Spain, Portugal and Ukraine), and the 6 Nations C (Germany, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Moldova, Czech)
So in theory we'd have a competition like:

Pool A
1 Wales A
2 France A
3 Russia
4 Belgium
Pool B
1 England A (Saxons)
2 Italy A
3 Ukraine
4 Moldova
Pool C
1 Scotland A
2 Georgia
3 Portugal
4 Belgium
Pool D
1 Ireland A
2 Romania
3 Spain
4 Czech

And if the Lions tours on whos going to watch this? Unless its truely the major nations Z teams (ie the ones who wont cost a lot to borrow form tehir clubs) in which case it begs the questionw hat would the miinnows get out of it in terms of development through playing better opposition?
Arent this minor nations better puitting their limited resources into competing in sevens? Can they afford to get tehir best players from theri professional clubs?
Is another bloated overlong competition featuring players noones heard of and sides noone cares about really needed? We already have the ECC for that.
Would young professionals from the established nations be better doing their physical development work over the summer or playing in this torunament? Would it be in their best interests to get beaten up for a non cup?

The theory of these expanded euro wide comeptitioons is great. The reality is that they just wouldnt work. The standard of rugby and interest in this countries just isnt high enough to justify such a torunemnt, let alone the practicalities of fitting it into an over busy schedule without ruining the lifeblood of the game that feeds and trains the players, club rugby.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:They already have the European Nations Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

I was thinking that the 'A' Teams such as the Saxons, Wolfhounds, France A etc could be involved. There'd be arguments about player release no doubt, but to me it is more important to spread the game. I'd also support a fixture against a European nation during the Autumn internationals.

No, no, no I mean like the football European cup!

Think about it, the Lions will be on tour in 2013, so the home Nations will be weak anyway.
Add to that Wales will be on a 3 test tour of Japan, while England will be in Argentina, Scotland will be in South Arfica for a tournament against Tier B nations. While France will be in New Zealand for 3 tests.

So while the home nations will be weak anyway for losing players to the Lions, the A team players would theoretically be called up by the National sides to plug the gaps.
This could then leave the B team players to play for the A side in a mini European Cup style competition with the developing 6 Nations B (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Spain, Portugal and Ukraine), and the 6 Nations C (Germany, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Moldova, Czech)
So in theory we'd have a competition like:

Pool A
1 Wales A
2 France A
3 Russia
4 Belgium
Pool B
1 England A (Saxons)
2 Italy A
3 Ukraine
4 Moldova
Pool C
1 Scotland A
2 Georgia
3 Portugal
4 Belgium
Pool D
1 Ireland A
2 Romania
3 Spain
4 Czech

And if the Lions tours on whos going to watch this? Unless its truely the major nations Z teams (ie the ones who wont cost a lot to borrow form tehir clubs) in which case it begs the questionw hat would the miinnows get out of it in terms of development through playing better opposition?
Arent this minor nations better puitting their limited resources into competing in sevens? Can they afford to get tehir best players from theri professional clubs?
Is another bloated overlong competition featuring players noones heard of and sides noone cares about really needed? We already have the ECC for that.
Would young professionals from the established nations be better doing their physical development work over the summer or playing in this torunament? Would it be in their best interests to get beaten up for a non cup?

The theory of these expanded euro wide comeptitioons is great. The reality is that they just wouldnt work. The standard of rugby and interest in this countries just isnt high enough to justify such a torunemnt, let alone the practicalities of fitting it into an over busy schedule without ruining the lifeblood of the game that feeds and trains the players, club rugby.

Yeah pretty much agree. I love watching the "smaller" nations play each other but I don't think that anyone else would, and I also wouldn't enjoy watching Wales A put 100 points on Ukraine.

Realistically if the gap is to continue to close it requires the nations that are ready to get integrated into regular fixtures against tier one teams. Sides like Georgia, Canada, Samoa, America, Tonga, Japan and Fiji should start getting more game time.

While other nations like Spain, Portugal and the Ukraine should really being focused on beating the above teams before they even think about playing the likes of Wales or Ireland.

One thing I would love to see is all these nations really starting to strive towards their own professional league.

kill the lions- its outdated and taking away games that our nations could instead be playing the lkies of georgia,russia,protugal or whoever.

how does the lions help any of our home nations anyway.

if we beat a NZ its like- well we flaming should.

if we loose- its like - how sad- combined we cant even win!!

The Lions tours do nothing to develop rugby and should undoubtedly be scrapped.

However there is an awful lot of nonsense talked about how lower tier teams playing bigger teams will somehow develop them. The gap hasn't closed and won't close until T2/T3 nations get what the T1 nations have - more players. Rugby success is becoming more and more a numbers game populated by the biggest, fastest specimens who can hold a ball.

Take a rugby friendly country like Japan who do have plenty of numbers playing, yet will they ever be able to compete for the RWC? They have to import BIG men to give them any chance, so that indicates that the laws discriminate against countries who are naturally physically smaller than others.

How is the game going to catch the imagination of countries and grow if it naturally excludes 90% of their athletic population? It is easy to see how the sevens game is growing and will increasingly marginalise the international XV game to a clique of no more than 12 teams.

JayMaster3000 wrote:Realistically if the gap is to continue to close it requires the nations that are ready to get integrated into regular fixtures against tier one teams. Sides like Georgia, Canada, Samoa, America, Tonga, Japan and Fiji should start getting more game time.

I posted this on another similar thread so sorry if anyone is reading twice but it's just to show a point on both discussions.

Here are England's 'friendlies' in recent years

2011 Wales (twice) & Ireland
2010 Australia (three times), New Zealand, Australia, South Africa & Samoa
2009 Argentina (three times), Australia & New Zealand
2008 New Zealand (three times), Australia, South Africa & Pacific Islands (?)
2007 France (twice), South Africa (twice) & Wales

Now surely you don't need to play the same teams multiple times in one year? That would free up nine fixtures straight away. England played 6N teams six times in RWC warm up games in 2007 & 2011 (combined). Do they really need to play Wales, France & Ireland outside the 6N & RWC?

That would be 15 games over 5 years that could be freed up for England to play other nations such as Canada, Georgia, Tonga, Fiji, Japan etc. (Away games would be better from a smaller nations perspective).

In 5 years England have only played one game, outside the RWC, against a non 'big 10' team and 49 games against the 'big 10' teams.

Do England really need to play Australia, South Africa & New Zealand every year? Did England really need to play Wales (twice) and Ireland in friendlies before the World Cup? With better planning they perhaps could have played something like Canada at Twickenham and then Samoa and Australia in Australia before the RWC.

If the IRB wants to spread the game and have a far more competitive RWC then the 'closed shop' needs to be broken up.

Sportsville,and Mystrioky kill the Lions why?it is a great tradition and only occurs about once every 4 years
It is for the players concerned often there ultimate achievement,since they very rarely win RWC`s.
Since your ignorance prevails,the Lions have beaten NZ once,not sure about SA and Australia but not on many occassions.
As to how many time playing the big 3 ,question is money and tv rights.
If the 6Ns sides were to play in the European cup with Georgia,Russia,Ukraine etc.
Players are often contracted to Super franchises,top14.or in the UK.
Certainly the Pacific Islands tourney could be expanded to include Sanzar A sides.As the did of yore if cash was available butwhat does it achieve.England A won the Churchill Cup,very few 6Ns sides have A sides.
Nz sent teams to compete in both Churchill and Pacific islands cups duly winning them.
Strange any game but a RWC or a 6Ns/3Ns game is downgraded to friendly status.Except when you win one then you harp on about for ever,France alone of the Nh sides have beaten NZ since 2003 twice.
A win by any NH side versus a SH side is a thing of note,because they do not happen all that often.
Note the tv coverage of the Rwc tier1 sides all on itv 1,some tier 2 on itv4 not universally available.
Argentina wanted warm upgames pre RWC only Wales was prepared to play them.
How many would pay to see England v Georgia or Romania at twickenham,what would tv coverage be like.
Certainly there should be more tours to places like Samoa,Tonga,etc.but the law of economics rule,especially in a bleak economic climate.

emack2 wrote:How many would pay to see England v Georgia or Romania at twickenham,what would tv coverage be like.
Certainly there should be more tours to places like Samoa,Tonga,etc.but the law of economics rule,especially in a bleak economic climate.

It all really comes down to whether the IRB and/ or the 'Big 10 nations' are serious about spreading rugby around the world and making other teams stronger or whether they are happy with a 10 team closed shop.

Now while in the short term England v Georgia made not be too attractive/ financial beneficial to England, a game like Georgia v England for which Georgia would benefit financially and therefore be able to invest in the sport would be beneficial to them.

There would have to be short term loses financial and competitively for the 'Big 10' but it would be for the long term gain of the sport.

The IRB could begin to make it happen by insisting only Japan qualify automatically for the 2015 RWC. All other teams would have to go through regional qualifying. In Europe you would have preliminaries and the final qualifying, possibly four groups of four.

If certain Six Nation games doubled as qualifiers that would leave England with either four or six games to play against the likes of Georgia, Spain, Russia etc over three/ four years. I'm sure swapping six of their 49 'Big 10' games wouldn't have too much affect.

I agree with your principles,but its the same as not seeding any team.
Myself I am all for the no seeding principle but it won`t happen,just imagine
all the Sh sides in one group.Plus England and France that really would be a group of death.
Japan automatic only for 2015,fine by me but if England the host nation fail to qualify?

Effectively the top 10 nations in world rugby all have professional domestic structures, whereas (and please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not 100% on this) all of the remaining nations are amature domestic leagues. Of course the "lower" nations do have professional players but they almost all play in the "top" nations professional leagues.

You will never see the gap close, there will always be flash in the pan results of course, until the sport becomes professional in the "lower" nations.

Metal Tiger wrote:Effectively the top 10 nations in world rugby all have professional domestic structures, whereas (and please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not 100% on this) all of the remaining nations are amature domestic leagues. Of course the "lower" nations do have professional players but they almost all play in the "top" nations professional leagues.

You will never see the gap close, there will always be flash in the pan results of course, until the sport becomes professional in the "lower" nations.

I'm not sure Argentina has much of a professional domestic structure, though the rest of the top 10 do. Samoa and Tonga are too small population wise and too poor & isolated to support a pro structure. Fiji (pop 900k - though around 400k are of Indian/Pakistani descent and aren't generally interested in rugby) potentially has the population, though it's scattered across a lot of small islands. But the political situation in the country, plus poverty (Fiji's biggest export earner is payments from the UN for supplying peacekeepers) makes it difficult.

Russia does have a pro league (I think), and has the population and money to have an impact in time - potentially they could bring Georgia and possibly Ukraine up with them too.

Kiwireddevil wrote: (Fiji's biggest export earner is payments from the UN for supplying peacekeepers)

Whereas New Zealands biggest export is England players

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote: (Fiji's biggest export earner is payments from the UN for supplying peacekeepers)

Whereas New Zealands biggest export is England players

Technically it's dairy products, followed by tourism (which is also Fiji's 2nd biggest "export"*).



*the sale of goods and services to visitors from other countries counts as an export in official stats (yes I did spend 5 years working on the things).

The Great Aukster wrote:The Lions tours do nothing to develop rugby and should undoubtedly be scrapped.

However there is an awful lot of nonsense talked about how lower tier teams playing bigger teams will somehow develop them. The gap hasn't closed and won't close until T2/T3 nations get what the T1 nations have - more players. Rugby success is becoming more and more a numbers game populated by the biggest, fastest specimens who can hold a ball.

Take a rugby friendly country like Japan who do have plenty of numbers playing, yet will they ever be able to compete for the RWC? They have to import BIG men to give them any chance, so that indicates that the laws discriminate against countries who are naturally physically smaller than others.

How is the game going to catch the imagination of countries and grow if it naturally excludes 90% of their athletic population? It is easy to see how the sevens game is growing and will increasingly marginalise the international XV game to a clique of no more than 12 teams.

Have to stand by my argument on this one. It isn't nonsense. You argue that true development comes through playing numbers? And you use Japan as an example. But consider New Zealand. One of the smallest countries on Earth, in terms of geography and population but they have been the best international team for the last century. But when you compare their player base to Japan you see it has nothing to do with how many players a nation has. New Zealand have 27,374 senior male players while Japan have 53,001. Now compare that to Wales 22,408. It's clearly nothing to do with player base as Japan has a bigger playing population than both combined but didn't win a game. New Zealand have one of the smallest player bases but are still, by miles, the team of the century.

Which leads to physical size. Georgia have one of the most dominating forward packs in world rugby. That's hard to argue with. But their size or muscle didn't get them into the knock out stages but did make them very competitive. Size helps but it won't win world cups. Attacking flare and talented backs make a difference. What's that saying about forwards winning games and backs determines by how much. And why do you think rugby excludes 90% of a playing population? Are you sure you'r not thinking of football or rugby league? Both sport require a certain size and shape of player. Rugby needs all sorts and sizes to fill the various sides.

These teams have closed the gap. Look at some of the results, stats and most of all half time scores. It all speaks for itself. I think the key development has been the various professional leagues which have been created. Teams are fitter, faster, stronger and importantly have a more dynamic attack and defense. These nations playing Tier One opposition will make these teams better. When I play with good players, or against, I always raise my game, don't you? Playing the top 10 will make these teams even more competitive. I think so, former players think so and rugby pundits think so. It most certainly won't make these teams any worse. It's worth a try; Georgia Vs England in Tbilisi.

From my understanding all of the top 10 nations have professional leagues except Argentina, who are in the process of establishing a domestic league. Within the next 5-10 years Argentina should have it's own professional league. Though it is worth mentioning that the PIs and Argentina, as we all know, have so many players playing in Europe they might well not bother!
Pretty musk all the Tier 2 nations have professional structures of some form with the exception the PIs. Japan, Russia, Georgia all have full time pro leagues. You can also include the U.S. if you count their 7s program but I wouldn't.
Other nations, such as Canada, U.S., Spain and Portugal have semi-professionalism leagues which range in actual 'professionalism'.

Most of these nations are attempting to establish pro-leagues but that is easier said that done.

Jaymaster Georgia are where Nz were in the 1950-60`s massive packs,a goal kicker,plus 7 chaps at the back that watched.
Japan has the most highly paid leagues in the world,but the clubs are full of mercenaries.
If they were allowed to use ex[all blacks.boks,wallabies etc]they would be formidable.
If the tier2 Pacific nations could play surplus All Blacks as Nz suggested some years ago it would strengthen those teams.
Many are qualified from birth for the All Blacks ,or from a young age but could also choose the other team they are qualified for.
Bryan Williams and Walter Little both have relatives playing in the RWC.

JayMaster3000 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The Lions tours do nothing to develop rugby and should undoubtedly be scrapped.

However there is an awful lot of nonsense talked about how lower tier teams playing bigger teams will somehow develop them. The gap hasn't closed and won't close until T2/T3 nations get what the T1 nations have - more players. Rugby success is becoming more and more a numbers game populated by the biggest, fastest specimens who can hold a ball.

Take a rugby friendly country like Japan who do have plenty of numbers playing, yet will they ever be able to compete for the RWC? They have to import BIG men to give them any chance, so that indicates that the laws discriminate against countries who are naturally physically smaller than others.

How is the game going to catch the imagination of countries and grow if it naturally excludes 90% of their athletic population? It is easy to see how the sevens game is growing and will increasingly marginalise the international XV game to a clique of no more than 12 teams.

Have to stand by my argument on this one. It isn't nonsense. You argue that true development comes through playing numbers? And you use Japan as an example. But consider New Zealand. One of the smallest countries on Earth, in terms of geography and population but they have been the best international team for the last century. But when you compare their player base to Japan you see it has nothing to do with how many players a nation has. New Zealand have 27,374 senior male players while Japan have 53,001. Now compare that to Wales 22,408. It's clearly nothing to do with player base as Japan has a bigger playing population than both combined but didn't win a game. New Zealand have one of the smallest player bases but are still, by miles, the team of the century.

Which leads to physical size. Georgia have one of the most dominating forward packs in world rugby. That's hard to argue with. But their size or muscle didn't get them into the knock out stages but did make them very competitive. Size helps but it won't win world cups. Attacking flare and talented backs make a difference. What's that saying about forwards winning games and backs determines by how much. And why do you think rugby excludes 90% of a playing population? Are you sure you'r not thinking of football or rugby league? Both sport require a certain size and shape of player. Rugby needs all sorts and sizes to fill the various sides.

These teams have closed the gap. Look at some of the results, stats and most of all half time scores. It all speaks for itself. I think the key development has been the various professional leagues which have been created. Teams are fitter, faster, stronger and importantly have a more dynamic attack and defense. These nations playing Tier One opposition will make these teams better. When I play with good players, or against, I always raise my game, don't you? Playing the top 10 will make these teams even more competitive. I think so, former players think so and rugby pundits think so. It most certainly won't make these teams any worse. It's worth a try; Georgia Vs England in Tbilisi.

From my understanding all of the top 10 nations have professional leagues except Argentina, who are in the process of establishing a domestic league. Within the next 5-10 years Argentina should have it's own professional league. Though it is worth mentioning that the PIs and Argentina, as we all know, have so many players playing in Europe they might well not bother!
Pretty musk all the Tier 2 nations have professional structures of some form with the exception the PIs. Japan, Russia, Georgia all have full time pro leagues. You can also include the U.S. if you count their 7s program but I wouldn't.
Other nations, such as Canada, U.S., Spain and Portugal have semi-professionalism leagues which range in actual 'professionalism'.

Most of these nations are attempting to establish pro-leagues but that is easier said that done.

JayMaster3000 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The Lions tours do nothing to develop rugby and should undoubtedly be scrapped.

However there is an awful lot of nonsense talked about how lower tier teams playing bigger teams will somehow develop them. The gap hasn't closed and won't close until T2/T3 nations get what the T1 nations have - more players. Rugby success is becoming more and more a numbers game populated by the biggest, fastest specimens who can hold a ball.

Take a rugby friendly country like Japan who do have plenty of numbers playing, yet will they ever be able to compete for the RWC? They have to import BIG men to give them any chance, so that indicates that the laws discriminate against countries who are naturally physically smaller than others.

How is the game going to catch the imagination of countries and grow if it naturally excludes 90% of their athletic population? It is easy to see how the sevens game is growing and will increasingly marginalise the international XV game to a clique of no more than 12 teams.

Have to stand by my argument on this one. It isn't nonsense. You argue that true development comes through playing numbers? And you use Japan as an example. But consider New Zealand. One of the smallest countries on Earth, in terms of geography and population but they have been the best international team for the last century. But when you compare their player base to Japan you see it has nothing to do with how many players a nation has. New Zealand have 27,374 senior male players while Japan have 53,001. Now compare that to Wales 22,408. It's clearly nothing to do with player base as Japan has a bigger playing population than both combined but didn't win a game. New Zealand have one of the smallest player bases but are still, by miles, the team of the century.

Which leads to physical size. Georgia have one of the most dominating forward packs in world rugby. That's hard to argue with. But their size or muscle didn't get them into the knock out stages but did make them very competitive. Size helps but it won't win world cups. Attacking flare and talented backs make a difference. What's that saying about forwards winning games and backs determines by how much. And why do you think rugby excludes 90% of a playing population? Are you sure you'r not thinking of football or rugby league? Both sport require a certain size and shape of player. Rugby needs all sorts and sizes to fill the various sides.

These teams have closed the gap. Look at some of the results, stats and most of all half time scores. It all speaks for itself. I think the key development has been the various professional leagues which have been created. Teams are fitter, faster, stronger and importantly have a more dynamic attack and defense. These nations playing Tier One opposition will make these teams better. When I play with good players, or against, I always raise my game, don't you? Playing the top 10 will make these teams even more competitive. I think so, former players think so and rugby pundits think so. It most certainly won't make these teams any worse. It's worth a try; Georgia Vs England in Tbilisi.

From my understanding all of the top 10 nations have professional leagues except Argentina, who are in the process of establishing a domestic league. Within the next 5-10 years Argentina should have it's own professional league. Though it is worth mentioning that the PIs and Argentina, as we all know, have so many players playing in Europe they might well not bother!
Pretty musk all the Tier 2 nations have professional structures of some form with the exception the PIs. Japan, Russia, Georgia all have full time pro leagues. You can also include the U.S. if you count their 7s program but I wouldn't.
Other nations, such as Canada, U.S., Spain and Portugal have semi-professionalism leagues which range in actual 'professionalism'.

Most of these nations are attempting to establish pro-leagues but that is easier said that done.

Obviously the success of a team is a function of playing numbers and the quality of athletes it attracts. NZ attracts the cream of the athletic crop as it is their number one sport. Most other nations see their most talented ball players playing with a round ball instead - that's where the money is. If a nation isn't able to attract the most skillful youngsters then it has to rely on picking the most powerful. So the more there is to pick from the better a team will perform especially under the current Laws.
Quoting playing numbers is a bit of a red herring as it should be 'professional' playing numbers that is the indicator of success. Those countries with the biggest number of professional players consistently compete for the RWC, and teams like Georgia etc. have no chance as there just aren't enough of them playing at high enough level.