General Rugby Discussion 3

But you're agreeing then that its more games for the sake of more games. It won't add more top clashes, it'll add more 71-3 type wins (a la New Zealand v Namibia) - what is the point of that?

And its clearly not pointless. As Breezy said, there's been a relatively big name dumped out of the Group every year. How exciting was Pool C this year with Fiji's qualification coming down to the last game. A Round of 16 would just mean that Australia would have had another change at progressing and Fiji's Group Stage win would have been irrelevant. Its ludicrous to say that it wasn't important.

Why should Australia get another crack at it? Who cares if it would be a good game. They had their chance and blew it.

I don't think we do agree.you have to start with the world cup and then build in the other 46 months of the world cup cycle to help do things that in time will see them improve.

Continuing Example of Namibia they would improve if they got more games against sides from the top tier. If they rarely play these sides in november or june/July then how can they improve at a world cup? Same with any other side outside of the 6 nations and rugby championship

These nations don't have playing base in some cases or infrastructure and the top sides don't do enough to help that.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.