General Rugby Discussion 3

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502094#Comment_122502094

On the last question it's because I believe every round should shave 50% (or as close to in a 5 team group).

75% progression from a group is rewarding mediocrity or worse.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502094#Comment_122502094

Nonsense statement. They didn't 'get another crack it at it'. They performed well enough to get out of their group. Australia didn't.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502098#Comment_122502098

Why is it up to top sides to help other teams? Most unions struggle financially so there's no real room for charity.

Nations will garner more revenue playing bigger teams. What "top" national team would elect to play a minnow (versus another top team) and reduce their income for a glorified training session "for the good of the game"? Top teams will suffer by not competing with teams that are at their level as well so there's no upside to a "top" team playing a smaller team so why would they elect to?

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502121#Comment_122502121

I can understand that. I don't really disagree.

I just see it takes the current format 4 games per team with a lot of dead rubbers to get to the last 8.

I think the new format takes 4 games per team with less dead rubbers to get to the last 8. Yes a team that doesn't really deserve to get out of the group will probably get out. But then that is where their tournament will likely end.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502219#Comment_122502219

You keep saying less dead rubbers while at the same time saying the tournament only starts in the knockouts. Sounds like the whole group stage is a dead rubber.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502162#Comment_122502162

Because the sport is dominated by the top sides. They control the votes and how mo eya nd everything else is distributed. They have closed shop tournaments and dictate what the rest can grow by as a result. We already have seen major financial issues amongst some of the top nations and continuing a closed shop doesn't help that. We need to expand to more markets and get more countries capable of playing to higher levels.

So if Ireland new Zealand etc don't play these other sides be it Georgia or whoever on a regular basis how does the sport grow and develop?

The smaller sides need more games to show a pathway exists for them to get to the top. If they can't play the best more often then the pathway to top is narrower and harder.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502433#Comment_122502433

Or the top nations stop over extending themselves and taking part in an arms race. The likes of England and France need to cop on and just admit it's a small sport and not be bankrupting themselves dragging London teams up to big soccer stadiums in Coventry or paying wages they don't have.

Rugby in Europe has really lost the run of itself because it created one successful tournament in the 6 Nations. But that's a Wimbledon or Tour de France style tournament that doesn't reflect how small the game is week in week out.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502433#Comment_122502433

You're acknowledging that the game has major financial issues and you're suggesting that these will be eased somehow by playing the likes of Namibia, Spain, Germany and the like on a regular basis?

Italy have had the ability to play the top sides since the advent of the Six Nations. They have had access to an annual competition with the best northern hemisphere teams and access to the best southern hemisphere teams in the Autumn series'. Not to mention their domestic teams have access to a competitive league. Neither their clubs nor their international team have done anything of note over a sustained period. They have picked up 18 of 23 Wooden Spoons in the Six Nations.

The notion that teams that are materially inferior to Italy can even get to Italy's level by playing more Autumn or World Cup games is at best, fanciful. That they could get to the level of a top side is delusional. Those teams are where they are, it's not going to change if they're suddenly given more games to play.

At the end of the day, the sport is never more than a hot minute away from a financial crisis somewhere - largely driven by the desire to expand way beyond its abilities (financially and otherwise) and replicate the football model. They should realise what they have is likely all they're ever going to have and work to ease those financial burdens and consolidate what's there now long before they start worrying about the Chile national team's competitiveness. Otherwise the game will fall apart entirely.

sprucemoose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122501979#Comment_122501979

ive always thought something similar - keep the current 20 team tournament and have it run somewhat similar to 7s comps, top 2 in each pool go into the world cup QFs, 3&4 go into the world plate(?) QFs and 5th either just go home or run off a bowl(?) comp

would definitely need some sort of global season alignment though and maybe a move back to the NH summer. no way the various domestic leagues would agree to the players being released if it were in-season

pickarooney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122499816#Comment_122499816

Will we make it to the quarters before losing or lose the first knockout game?

pickarooney

If you just watch the tournament to see who wins, sure.

The most fun I had was watching the new teams last time

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122502524#Comment_122502524

I never said that financial issues would be eased by playing these sides. Yes the game has money problems in some countries but continuing a closed shop at the top won't help that. You have to expand the game. Expanding the top tier has to happen.

Italy at start in 6 Nations didn't have access in provincial rugby to top tier in domestic rugby. They

If these teams aren't going to improve getting more games and access to top sides then we may as well give up growing the sport and trying to expand and if we do then eventually a top tier side will be in very very bog trouble even more than some are now. The sport needs to expand and if that means taken a hit in short term for long term progress then so be it.

Looking To expand a top tier beyond the 6 Nations and rugby championship sides isn't replicating football. It's plain common sense. The sport needs to grow and get more countries to be competitive at highest level.

We can't just say consolidate the top tier who've always been closed off so as to protect them and say to the rest go f*** yourselves lads, ye're on your own to improve.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122504167#Comment_122504167

But if rugby unions are already struggling to survive, it's ludicrous to lay it on their door to pull up other teams. The whole thing will go bust. Some unions are already on their knees yet they should be charged now with ensuring they Namibia and others don't get hockeyed at every world cup? It's just nonsense.

As I said, which you've failed to address, Italy have had access to top competition for twenty years and done nothing and haven't made a dent on the world stage. Why would giving teams that are materially weaker than Italy result in anything different? It's a cast iron example of a team being given all the resources and access to compete... and doing fűck all with it. Yet you think if teams start giving Germany or Romania games every Spring and Autumn, they'll do something different?

Top teams need competition against top teams to stay competitive and test themselves (and also line their coffers). What exactly would an Ireland team gain out of playing Namibia, Spain and Georgia every Autumn instead of New Zealand, Australia etc? Absolutely nothing.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122504473#Comment_122504473

Yes but if you expand the pool of nations in the top tier and are more open to that the sport will be stronger. Sponsorship can increase etc etc

Assist more countries to be able to br somewhat competing at top tier you increase marketability of the sport, sponsorship, tv in̈come rises. There might be short term hit as new teams struggle at start but status quo and slowly/conservatively changing won't help anyone.

Italy have been in 6 nations for 20 years and struggled but their base on joining and mismanagement by their union didn't hel0 them. Look at conor o shea/Steve aboud and their time there. He changed their academy structures etc and they improved hugely at 18s and 20s but clubs took umbrage and his system

So if Ireland or any in 6 nations never play these sides in Autumn or summer how do you expect them to improve?

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122504473#Comment_122504473

Italy have beaten Ireland. And Scotland, Wales and France. Yes they haven't progressed as far as we all hoped due to the aforementioned mismanagement but they have certainly deserved their place. Others could do the same.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122507605#Comment_122507605

I don't think Italy should be dumped out of anything. My point is that trying the same thing or similar with teams that are nowhere near even Italy's level is foolish.

Rugby unions need to focus on their own long term preservation long before they start worrying about other teams given how tricky a position most of them are currently in.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122507605#Comment_122507605

Im a fan of Itay being in the 6N, but the thought of adding an even weaker team seems like a bad idea. The challenge in Europe is to grow the popularity of the Tier two comps and use that to build the popularity and participation in rugby domestically. Interesting comparison between Italy in the 6N and Argentina joining the championship. Obvs Argentina started from a higher level but they've genuinely earned their place, their record over the last 15 years in NZ is better than both the Boks and Oz. Italy are still a long way from that sort of level. Argentina have the ability to go from performing poorly to performing at the highest level over the course of a couple seasons, Italy don't. Its seems unlikely that they'll back up last season this year as other teams improve and we might be waiting a long time for them to get back to that level.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122507853#Comment_122507853

But that's just doing what rugby has done for 100+ years. Keep the top closed and be ultra conservative as there's a potential risk to expansion instead of thinking more countries at top means more interest which mean more potential foe growth.

These teams don't get near enough games or support so won't right now be at italys level. But increase the supports they get, help increase their funding and income and they could reach/surpass Italy

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122507888#Comment_122507888

As a comparison, look at where international Cricket is today compared to 10 years ago. Some former 'Associate' nations (Tier 2) now have Full status and can attract audiences & sponsorship because the traditionally strong nations are in town to play.

That exposure brings interest in participation & that (in time) grows better players & coachs who can compete at the top level.

Some of these nations will never achieve consistency against the top nations but participation builds the game and the nations who gain most are the traditionally strong ones who have a global audience.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509090#Comment_122509090

Speaking of cricket, the ABs just put up a half century unbeaten at Eden Park. Next best is England at Twickenham on 22.

Brief_Lives

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122513346#Comment_122513346

poor Scotland

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122507864#Comment_122507864

I disagree entirely tbh. Ireland were shite forever, France, Wales and Scotland were shite for ages. They are getting better, as their underage teams are showing. The game would be better for playing teams like Spain, Portugal and Georgia more often. They play with a verve and enthusiasm that's a welcome relief from the generic, perfectionist style prevalent in the Tier 1 teams.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122516779#Comment_122516779

Im glad Italy are in and yes, they play a nice game which I hope they can built to consistently compete. But they're still a long way off that, even with a couple of pro teams competing at the highest level. Rugby has also moved on, the top teams are very very good and the prospect of Portugal or Germany or Georgia getting there without first building a strong domestic game are tiny.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122516779#Comment_122516779

I think it is easy to forget just how bad Ireland were and for just how long.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122516969#Comment_122516969

I think given that the funding model of rugby is driven by the international game, it's unfair and unrealistic to expect Tier 2 nations to build up strong domestic games that can allow them to compete with Tier 1 teams. Why ask them to do something that we didn't do?

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122517833#Comment_122517833

There should be a system where T2 teams get x home tests and x away against T1 teams every WC cycle. You could add competition against T1 A Teams annually or bi-annually. Bringing teams straight to 6N level would be counter prouductive.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122518208#Comment_122518208

I'd love to see a Euros comp, during the Lions years. Be great as a summer competition.

Quin_Dub

The problem is money.

There isn't enough money to fund all of this.

Most of the National unions are in debt and don't break even most years - Even the Tier 1 countries.

So playing more games against Tier 2 while totally laudable is just more cost.

Half-full stadia with cheap(er) ticket prices and no meaningful TV/Ad revenue doesn't make financial sense sadly.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520088#Comment_122520088

defo a challenge, but ABs saw 40k show up in Sam Diego a few weeks ago. How many would they/ireland/England/SA get once every few years in Lisbon or Munich? If that’s not viable then the notion of promoting these teams to a higher level seems even more remote.

Jacovs

Just out of curiosity, whats school rugby like in Ireland?

This past saturday saw the end of season game between 2 of the top rugby schools in SA, Paul Roos Gymnasium in Stellenbosch and Grey College. Stadium sold out within minutes, not clear what the capacity is though. And they added additional 2500 seats which also sold out in minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td4eBMfhNsM

You would see the same scenes when Paarl Gymnasium plays Paarl Boys High in their annual interschool derby. And many other schools derbies across the country annually. Games broadcast live on tv and all.

Both teams were also without top players who were representing SA vs Ireland in Paarl in the u/18 competition the same weekend.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520142#Comment_122520142

Exhibition matches between Tier 1 teams in other countries is one thing and can help with general awareness of the game etc.

But Ireland for example travelling to play Spain or Portugal for example is a short term loss maker so the most part.

Long term it would be good , but the costs need to be borne today and as I said , most of the countries are already financially under-water.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520352#Comment_122520352

Plus is would be a second-string Ireland team. So the main reason for a neutral to watch it to buy a ticket wouldn't be there as the big-name Ireland players wouldn't play.

El_Duderino 09

No suggesting it should happen, I'd just like to watch it.

For the 6N, let the top 2 Pacific island teams play each other over 2 legs. Winner plays in the 6N that year, based in Europe (Belgium was often suggested when they talked about Argentina joining the 6N).

They'd be everyone's second team and the money would be a boost to the Pacific island teams.

The Pacific teams must be the vest value for money teams in the world. Samoa has the population of Cork city and tiny resources and make a decent team. They'd be dangerous with half the resources of Ireland.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520206#Comment_122520206

There was a "world schools cup" a few months back - Think St Michaels were the Irish representatives , not sure who won overall but the scores I saw suggested that the teams were all fairly competitive . I wasn't seeing massive wins for SA or NZ teams for example and given the general performances in recent years of the SA and NZ under 20's at the world cups I don't think they are ahead of schools in Europe.

They do seem to get big attendances though..

FtD v2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520206#Comment_122520206

Schools rugby in Ireland is very very regional, and while extremely popular in certain small pockets, probably isn't as representative of wider rugby support in the country as it might be in SA.

All four provinces will have a Schools cup competition, and most tend to be played in the provincial ground with a final around St Patrick's Day roughly in March, and will almost always pull in a pretty good crowd.

The dominant schools in both Leinster & Munster tend to be private (fee-paying) schools. This isn't really the case in Connacht (don't think there are any/many private schools outside of grinds schools) and Ulster.

The Leinster Schools Cup Final will be played in the RDS, and in recent years has pulled in crowds of 10k-15k for the game, depending on the schools involved. Don't think it's quite as large as that in the other provinces but others will be better informed and could comment more closely.

It gets a good level of coverage in sporting media (probably disproportionate to the actual amount of people who care about it I'm in being honest), and amongst rugby anoraks (like the people on this forum for example) people would follow it quite closely because it is still an enormous pathway for players moving into professional rugby.

Similar to the big South African schools - the best rugby schools in Ireland are extremely well funded and have excellent facilities. An awful lot of Irish rugby stars of the past 20 years have gone to a very small number of schools i.e. Blackrock College in Leinster (Brian O'Driscoll, Leo Cullen, Caelan Doris, Garry Ringrose, Hugo Keena etc), PBC in Cork (Ronan O'Gara, Peter O'Mahony, Peter Stringer, Simon Zebo), RBAI in Ulster, and a handful of others historically very prominent.

I looked at this again very recently and think of the c. 234 professional rugby players across the four Irish provinces (and including their academies), 20% of those players attended either Blackrock College (which must be one of the biggest professional rugby player producing schools in the world) or St Michael's College, two schools that are about 3km away from each other in a relatively small pocket of South Dublin.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122504167#Comment_122504167

"You have to expand the game"

Why ?

I understand the argument with something like Gaelic Football where you have counties where it's their number 1 sport and they are shte at it. But the Germans and Spanish are not sitting around bored waiting to be saved by finally having a sport to play.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520578#Comment_122520578

Because 'the game' is not just the professional clubs & international sides. Those who play / coach / work in the pro game originate the amateur clubs & schools. The pro game is paid for by the audience & that audience wants more entertainment, not less. Lose the audience interest & you lose the game.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520631#Comment_122520631

But in the context of adding more weak teams to the tournament how is that entertaining the audience ?

And a fair portion of the "pro audience" don't give a shte about schools or amateur clubs and loads don't even have a pro club. If anything the constant lust for pro/TV fan expansion is the biggest danger to the game.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520352#Comment_122520352

it’s hard to know without seeing it happen but how many punters do you need in Spain/Germany to make a match financially viable? On the A tournament thing I think that would work domestically for tier 2 countries, would Irish/English fans ravel for an A match, not sure but how many are needed to make it viable and how long to generate the tv audience to build it up? For me if WR are committed to building the game and the options are adding teams to the 6N or developing a serious T2 comp with the likes of Ireland France and England involved thru A teams, the latter seems more likely to succeed.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520352#Comment_122520352

You identify the biggest issue with WR, short term mindsets. I don't think it would be catastrophic for the game if tournaments were opened up. Might there be less money for a bit? Quite possibly, but the potential for growth would be worth some pain. Top teams want to eat their cake and have it too. Ring fence their profits, but also expand their reach into new markets

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122522156#Comment_122522156

The problem is that most national unions are so cash-strapped that the "less money for a bit" would send them to the wall.

Playing the long-term game only works if you have the ability to survive the short-term.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122522496#Comment_122522496

Exactly.

Wales couldn't afford to buy the team a second round of Sandwiches after training these days , let alone pay for a squad to go and play in Spain, Georgia etc.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122522713#Comment_122522713

The IRFU is one of the better run unions, and even we usually operate at a breakeven or loss-making basis.

https://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/about/annual-report/

AbusesToilets

Whats the solution, continue to do the same things that have left the game in a precarious situation or look to do something different? There's an argument to be made that the game needs to step back, costs have outstripped profits in a way that's unsustainable.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122520660#Comment_122520660

The regular inclusion of Tier 2 & 3 nations in the RWC is not usually welcomed by regular long standing followers of Tier 1 sides. Games between Tier 1 & lower Tier nations rarely result in anything approaching an even contest and are considered a side show by some. But for rugby followers in Tier 2 & 3 nations these games are hugely important and a source of real pride. It's easy being a follower of a Tier 1 nation, but we don't grow the game.

Ignoring what people want as entertainment sounds elitist and choosing not to engage with & encourage other nations and their followers to improve comes across as self-satisfied. Like it or not, the audience pays for the game.

Expansion benefits the stronger sides more by providing a bigger audience. That audience is not going to be composed of those who already join / play / support the established Clubs / provinces / nations. It's going to be composed of people who never had any connection to rugby before their sides were included.

Rugby is moving closer to imploding, and the solution is expansion (while avoiding the excesses of soccer & golf).

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528149#Comment_122528149

Expansion of the World Cup doesn't necessarily provide a bigger audience. Adding a team like Germany won't move that needle. Spain and Portugal are already in and the vast majority of those countries doesn't give a shte. They are about as popular as the Irish water polo team.

Rugby is moving closer to imploding because of expansion.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528225#Comment_122528225

And rugby will implode if it doesn't expand and gets countries more opportunities and chances to develop. The sport can't stick with a closed off 6 nations and eugby championahip and those 10 sides playing a few others beyond those tournaments occasionally. The sport needs to expand to grow and atrengthn

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528765#Comment_122528765

I agree about the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship I just think the world cup is the wrong place.

Also plenty of sports survive with their small fanbase. Rugby's problem is delusions of grandeur. Stop chasing soccer and it will stop imploding.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528765#Comment_122528765

Rugby will implode a lot quicker if it tries to expand without the correct foundations, which it doesn't have.

You keep saying 'needs to grow' without really giving any reason why it needs to outside of it being 'good for the game' which is just a soundbite. There is nothing to suggest there is material money or footfall in smaller nations outside of sheer optimism. Italy have been in the 6N for twenty years and none of my Italian friends have a notion about the game in Italy.

If we take the here and now - Wales and Scotland are currently on their arse whilst currently being well recompensed in a 6 Nations competition being topped up with additional games in Summer/Autumn against for lack of a better term, Top 10 opposition that generally draw high gate receipts (in rugby terms). In what world is it a smart business decision to start forgoing some of that income for less income because of some charitable 'grow the game' fallacy? Wales are not going to make anything near the money that they currently make placing Australia and South Africa and instead playing Germany and Belgium and if anything it will hurt the domestic game because fans won't turn out en-masse to see Wales put a cricket score on Belgium.

If you're the Scottish Rugby Union, which has just lost £10m in the last financial year, you would be laughed out of the room in a strategic meeting if you thought that the road to turning it around was that Germany, Romania etc. are full of untapped riches that will turn the sport around. Unions don't have the luxury of time or resources that you seem to think they have to forgoe precious existing revenue streams.

Instead of giving some long-term "its good for the game", how exactly do you suggest that a Scotland or Wales try to stay afloat in the short term with their national team? The only answer is to generate revenue, not in 5 years or 10 years, but now.

ersatz

Growing the game is a little meaningless. The game is becoming more popular in Portugal with greater participation and more players than before. It’s now the #2 sport. Japan has seen similar growth over the last decade. None of this has much to do w WR or the kindness of tier 1 teams. There are other examples, U.S.A. is another place where the game has grown significantly over ten years. WR’s function should be to support that by at least facilitating tests against better teams between world cups. The idea that Wales or Scotland can’t afford 1 test a year against a minnow is just blowing smoke, if that’s what kills then then off they go.