How to turn a Tier 2 nation into a Tier 1 nation?

Amazotheamazing

Just looking at the IRB ranking lists (top 30 below).

Ireland at 5 have always struggled to beat 4 of the top ten, (NZ, France, SA, Australia) but would realistically expect to compete with/beat Scotland, Wales, Arg, and would be favourites against Italy, Fiji, Samoa. (I'm ignoring England because we have a weird relationship with them!). From 13 down, we'd be shocked if we lost to any of the teams.

Is there a way to make any of the other teams in the top 30 up to the standard of the top 12? There's a professional league in Russia so you'd expect that that would be a driver for the standard in Russia and neighbouring countries. Is there any way that the IRB can make teams like Romania, Georgia and Russia competitive to the point they can expect to win regularly against teams like Ireland? Are tournaments like the Nations cup and the Churchill Cup enough? What teams are likely to step up over the next 10 - 15 years?

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 93.19
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.45
3(3) SOUTH AFRICA 86.44
4(4) ENGLAND 82.48
5(5) IRELAND 81.79
6(6) FRANCE 81.66
7(7) SCOTLAND 81.20
8(8) ARGENTINA 78.97
9(9) WALES 77.04
10(10) FIJI 74.05
11(11) SAMOA 74.02
12(12) ITALY 73.31
13(13) JAPAN 71.45
14(14) CANADA 69.19
15(15) GEORGIA 68.21
16(16) USA 67.69
17(17) TONGA 67.35
18(18) RUSSIA 65.56
19(19) ROMANIA 65.54
20(20) URUGUAY 60.94
21(21) PORTUGAL 60.94
22(22) NAMIBIA 60.66
23(23) SPAIN 58.64
24(24) CHL 56.68
25(25) BELGIUM 56.44
26(26) MOROCCO 56.11
27(27) KAZAKHSTAN 55.20
28(28) BRAZIL 54.56
29(29) UKRAINE 54.35
30(30) GERMANY 54.26

B0X

They need a chance to play against top tier nations, you don't get better until you get a chance to play against the best.

It's probably fair to say they'd need a healthy domestic competition, it might not have to be professional but that'd at least help.

Amazotheamazing

B0X wrote: »

They need a chance to play against top tier nations, you don't get better until you get a chance to play against the best.

It's probably fair to say they'd need a healthy domestic competition, it might not have to be professional but that'd at least help.

While they do need to play Top Teams, it'd be verging on dangerous to have fully amateur teams play against fully pro teams. Afaik, the IRB are looking at giving teams like Georgia at least one test against a Tier One nation every November.

I'd love to see the provinces play these teams more. I know Ulster and Connacht played Portugal two seasons ago, I'd love to see Munster and Leinster take on similar teams. You'd think Leinster and Munster could get good crowds to games in Donnybrook and Musgrave for a game against teams like Georgia or Romania.

The real big hope has to be the pro league in Russia though. Russia has massive potential (very hard to turn that into results though) in both players and money. Pro teams can afford better coaches, to fund Academies etc. If the league doesn't work out, I can't see the IRB being able to ever make these countries Tier 1.

myflipflops

Playing the top nations would be one the last step.

First up is expanding the player base in the countries. The bigger the pool gets, the better the national team will be. If you can't attract more players then you will not improve. The coaching at youth level needs to developed too. Grass routes development has to be step 1 as nothing will be achieved without that.

From an immediate international point of view, I would like to see the lower tier teams who get eliminated at the World Cup play in a secondary competition against each other, something similar to what happens in 7's rugby.

danthefan

It's an extremely long term thing. It took France probably 40 or 50 years to become competative in Europe.

Gracelessly Tom

+1 for the secondary RWC comp, perhaps also a World Bowl comp for teams that don't make the Cup in the first place?

Also, is there any merit to a relegation/promotion for the 6 Nations, let the team who wins the second tier comp up to the main comp. Can't see the 6 nations being too happy with this idea mind you!!

irishbucsfan

Maybe we should worry about turning Ireland into a tier 1 nation first

razorblunt

The RWC really needs to be revamped to allow for more games for smaller teams, it's such a waste to have them come all the way to be cannon fodder playing only realistically one competitive game against the also rans.

Copy the 7's format of the Shield/Bowl etc for teams that don't make it out of the group, fans have shown before they'll get behind minnows both in 03 and 07 and let the teams put on a show to highlight what they CAN do against similar standard teams and get a bit of national pride in the teams.

Canada/USA have IMHO lots of untapped potential in High School/College football players who never made it to the NFL, get them train them and see where they go with a proper nuturing environment that doesn't throw them into the deep end against full time professional brick out-houses!

CIARAN_BOYLE

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

Also, is there any merit to a relegation/promotion for the 6 Nations, let the team who wins the second tier comp up to the main comp. Can't see the 6 nations being too happy with this idea mind you!!

I'd like to see the 6th place team in the 6Ns play a promotion/regulation test match with the ENC first division champion.

If the Russian league grows I'd expect it to suck in players from Georgia Romania and other eastern European nations giving them a chance to play professionally.

I would be in favor of taking the shield/bowl format from 7s for the RWC

Amazotheamazing

danthefan wrote: »

It's an extremely long term thing. It took France probably 40 or 50 years to become competative in Europe.

The pro era should, to some extent, change that. Countries like Georgia should improve by having a few professional players based in France and Russia, be able bring in top class coaches etc.

It is, of course, still a long term thing but I'd be hopeful that in 20 years we might see more Tier 1 teams.

funky penguin

Whatever happened to Romania, didn't their government spend alot on rugby development?

tolosenc

In terms of the RWC, what I would like to see done is:

Of the 12 auto-qualifiers, 8 go into the group stages, the other 4 going into a 4 team round robin with 3 tier 2 teams. The winner of each round robin would go into a group, and the winners of the 3-country groups qualify for the semis.

Amazotheamazing

funky penguin wrote: »

Whatever happened to Romania, didn't their government spend alot on rugby development?

The former Communist government ran the team sorta professionally, loads of players got jobs in the Army and had time off for training etc. When the Communist regime was ousted, I think a few players were killed in the fighting and there was no more money to bankroll the game.

Iirc, they were so broke that when they played Ireland in the 1990's, the IRFU paid O'Neill's to make up jerseys and the French Union used to pay the salary of their coach.

(actually, it's worth noting that both England and France give loads back to Tier 2 countries, the RFU picks up the bill for the Churchill Cup and France through FIRA have supported rugby in places like Italy and Romania).

desertcircus

Promotion and relegation from the Six Nations is probably the fastest way of pulling another country up - if, say, Portugal managed to beat Italy in a promotion/relegation playoff and squeezed a win against one team the following year, the two years of top-class rugby could make a huge difference to their funding, numbers playing, public profile. Having a big-time team get relegated for a season could be a big draw for the second division too; people might not care much about watching Portugal-Germany, but offer them Romania-Wales or Georgia-Ireland and you'd be talking much bigger gates.

As for getting good players onto those teams: it should be a rule in rugby that a team cannot refuse to release a player for international duty within the designated windows, and the IRB should be funding professionals to meet up with their national sides in those windows. It's of little use to developing nations to have several professionals plying their trade in the Top 14, the Magners, the Super 15 and the Premiership when playing for those clubs makes it impossible to take the time off to represent your country. The English have problems with players in the Top 14 being released for international duty; what chance do Georgia have?

d-gal

Give them another 10years and a lot of the teams will be a force to reckon with. The likes of georgia, russia and the usa will become very good in a world cup or two.
Look at the georgian front 5, all of them are playing for the top teams in france, if they get a decent backrow (have 1 or 2 already) and a good 9 and 10 they will do some serious damage.
USA are developing some great players and all you have to look at is their backs to see potential, it is growing at a very good rate and we will see world class players come from there sooner than we think

I think France has become the main nation to develop other countries players in Europe, the amount of georgians/romanians/spanish/portugese is unbelievable and it is great to see.

I would worry about russian rugby purely because all their players are playing in the Russian league. And the main team to dominate the national team is VVA-Podmoskovye (15 out of the last 22) so that is all amateurs playng against professionals. If even 5 out your 15 play in top tier leagues then you have a much better chance of succeeding as it will bring so much more experience to team. You cannot play average opposition week in week out and then suddenly step it up against seasoned professionals

Fight_Night

In the long run, I think a Superbowl-esque tournament for Europe would be the way forward. For those unfamiliar , the teams are split into two leagues, top 2 of the leagues go into the semis and then winners play each other in the final. This way the lower teams get games against the better teams which would serve to gain the interest in the likes of Russia and Georgia, and at the end of the day the only way for them to get good teams is to get a good youth system, which can only be achieved through interest throughout the country.

Rugby will never overtake soccer in Russia in terms of popularity, but a developed country with 140 million people should easily be able produce a good team if a semi decent youth system is put in place. In the USA its a bit different since they already have 3 and if you include ice hockey, 4 sports that are ingrained into their culture, tbh I don't know how to make the game more popular there because ESPN will never show it at prime time so there will never be much demand for it. Russia also has ice hockey and basketball but they are not nearly as widely supported as they are in the US.

Amazotheamazing

desertcircus wrote: »

Promotion and relegation from the Six Nations is probably the fastest way of pulling another country up - if, say, Portugal managed to beat Italy in a promotion/relegation playoff and squeezed a win against one team the following year, the two years of top-class rugby could make a huge difference to their funding, numbers playing, public profile. Having a big-time team get relegated for a season could be a big draw for the second division too; people might not care much about watching Portugal-Germany, but offer them Romania-Wales or Georgia-Ireland and you'd be talking much bigger gates.

As for getting good players onto those teams: it should be a rule in rugby that a team cannot refuse to release a player for international duty within the designated windows, and the IRB should be funding professionals to meet up with their national sides in those windows. It's of little use to developing nations to have several professionals plying their trade in the Top 14, the Magners, the Super 15 and the Premiership when playing for those clubs makes it impossible to take the time off to represent your country. The English have problems with players in the Top 14 being released for international duty; what chance do Georgia have?

While I agree with you, I don't think we'll ever see relegation/promotion in the six nations. It would just be too upsetting to the status quo.

Somewhere, way down the line, we might get a European Championships run every two/four years or something.

toomevara

funky penguin wrote: »

Whatever happened to Romania, didn't their government spend alot on rugby development?

The one that got away, really depressing tale. At one point Romania were on the cusp of the 5 nations and then the revolution, and it all vanished in a whiff of smoke. this is a superb piece from the guardian in 2007. Well worth a read, to remind ourselves of just how bloody good they were in the mid to late 80's, (they beat wales - twice, scotland - the 84 grand slam side mind, France - twice, drew with Ireland and ran the AB's close) and just how tenuous rugby's roots can be.

Rugby's Forgotten Fairytale

Andy Bull.

The 30th game of the World Cup will be one of the least hyped and little viewed. In Toulouse tonight Romania play Portugal, with both sides seeking a first, and probably final, win to mark their participation. There will be little coverage in the English papers tomorrow, and perhaps just a line or two on the evening news.

Rugby union lives in a near-perpetual state of concern about whether or not it really is an international sport - say in comparison to football or athletics. The extent of its globalisation must be measured by more than just how well the smaller sides perform against the home and Tri-nations. Globalisation depends also on our awareness, appreciation and understanding of the various cultures that have embraced the game. It depends also on not allowing the smaller teams to just slip through the cracks for another four years.

The mutual enjoyment of sport bridges the divides created by languages and cultures. The familiarity the game creates between the otherwise unfamiliar is one of the most important and fun things about the World Cup. Portugal will never beat New Zealand, but if they demonstrate, and we appreciate, their own passion for the game, then the sport becomes more universal.

For much of the 20th century, Romania were the sixth team in Europe rather than Italy. If the game there is especially unknown to British fans, it is because, like Portugal, it grew up under French influence.

English fans may think back to 2001 and the 134-0 defeat of the Romanians that, for us, was simply another marker of the team's inexorable process towards becoming world champions. For Romania, that was the nadir of a terrible era in their rugby history, a low-water mark indicative of the disintegrating popularity, funding and structure of the game there.

Contrary to what we may blithely think, that history is a long and glorious one. Rugby has been played in Romania since the very early years of the last century, when students who had moved to Paris to study returned to Bucharest, bringing with them a set of balls and a copy of the rules for the game they had played in between their studies.

France, for so long excluded from the IRB, nurtured the sport there in an effort to boost their own sphere of influence and create a rival power-base to that of the home nations. By 1914 the Romanian rugby championship was being contested, and it has run almost uninterrupted ever since. In 1919 the national team played their first match, against France in Paris.

Skip forward to 1960, and Romanian rugby was beginning to flourish. They beat France 11-5 in Bucharest, and over the next four years won one rematch 3-0, and drew two more. In 1964 Grivita Rosie become European club champions by beating Mont-de-Marsanin, reigning champions of France, 10-0.

The following year Dinamo Bucharest won the same title, and at the same time Nicolae Ceausescu became first secretary of the Romanian Workers Party. He would become head of state two years later. Romania, communist since the Soviet occupation of 1947, had increasingly been establishing its autonomy from Soviet rule at the same time as its rugby team had been enjoying such success.

The two were to become inextricably linked. Under Ceausescu sport became a vital source of propaganda. For the population, almost completely cut off from the rest of the world due to its increasing isolationism, sport was one means of global interaction, of demonstrating Romanian culture, and as Ceausescu would have it, strength and prosperity, to the outside world.

Gymnastics benefited, football benefited, and so did rugby. Ceausescu poured resources into his national teams. It is almost forgotten now, but in the 1970s and 1980s Romania were one of the best teams in the world.

In 1974 they beat France 15-10, and in 1980 they beat them 15-0 and then held Ireland to a 13-13 draw in Dublin. In 1984 they beat Scotland 28-22. On and on it goes: in 1988, Wales were defeated 15-9 in Cardiff, and in 1990 France went down again, this time 12-6. Throughout that period, Romania beat Italy in 12 of the 20 games they contested.

In the mid-80s, Romania really were one of the best teams in the world, and on the verge of joining the Five Nations. And then the revolution happened. Six of the national team lost their lives in the fight to overthrow Ceausescu. Some of them died because their day jobs were with the army or the police; others, such as the legendary flanker Florica Murariu, were simply victims of the turmoil and confusion of the time. Murariu was shot dead at a roadblock, believed to have been mistaken for a terrorist by a pair of trigger-happy soldiers.

The revolution triggered a rapid decline in Romanian rugby. Shorn of state support, mourning some its leading players and increasingly irrelevant to the new society forming itself, rugby union went backwards. A win against Fiji in the 1991 World Cup marked perhaps the final occasion when the world really took notice of their team.

Professionalism exacerbated the problem, as there was an exodus of players to France. Currently there are 326 Romanians playing at various levels of the French league system. The domestic game, virtually spectatorless and penniless, was crumbling. Included in the first ever Heineken Cup, Farul Constantal lost to Toulouse, and no Romanian team has participated since, though Romania A do play in the Challenge Cup.

"With the revolution children discovered new opportunities," said the team spokesman Radu Constantin. "Nightlife and discos, TV and computer games. Sport, and rugby especially, became less popular as an activity".

When I ask him whether Muriaru is a hero in Romania, he says no: "because football is the king. The man in the street in Bucharest could not tell you who captains our rugby team. Floricau was another man who died in the revolution, he just happened to be a rugby player".

At the time of the loss to England in 2001, the national team had no sponsors and the federation was unable to pay the players. Of late there has been something of a stirring, prompted by that humiliating defeat. Only 15 years previously Romania had lost at Twickenham by just 22-15. The national administration was changed, with some financial help from France, and new sponsors were found.

"For the national team," Constantin continued, "things are improving. We now have nine national teams, across all age groups and sexes, whereas before we only had two. We have an academy too, the only one in eastern Europe. But for the clubs, things are not so good".

This year, Arad, who provided three players for the national team and finished second in the Romanian Championship in 2006, went bust and were shut down. Currently, the game is not a viable business. So while the likes of Argentina and Italy have been welcomed into the top rank of rugby union, Romania have all but disappeared from it. It seems unbelievable given their long and passionate history of playing the game, and the astonishing results they produced in the 1970s and 1980s.

Behind that short paragraph in tomorrow's papers, that 30-second sound-bite on the radio, lies one of rugby union's more remarkable and rare stories. A minor team that took on and beat the established sides, then collapsed and almost vanished from view. If rugby union is serious about becoming a global sport, it will acknowledge Romania's achievements, and help do everything it can to ensure they don't just become a distant and obscure chapter in the game's history.

funky penguin

Cheers for that, great read.

Interesting that France were giving aid in 2007 (wonder if they still are). It seems they're not developing grass-roots though, concentrating on their 'nine national teams'.

profitius

Rugby is growing in many parts of Europe. In Germany for example they've set up a national academy (the Wild academy) and came close to beating an Irish youths team last season in a tournament in Italy. They went on to thrash the Romanian side by about 50pts or more. Not bad considering Romania seniors are better than the Germany seniors.

In Portugal rugby has become a lot more popular mainy because of the rugby 7's side success. Now theres more rugby on TV and in the media and numbers playing are growing.

The Russians have their own league and are building new stadiums. They're very ambitious and if they keep putting money into the sport it'll eventually pay off. Last season in the Churchill cup they outplayed the USA for most of the match until eventually they tired. They also ave the former Leinster schools player playing for them.

Belgium are French speaking and get to see Top 14 games on TV and Spain gets some HEC matches. Perpignan is supposed to be a Catalan club also so maybe that'll help the Spanish.

In Poland rugby is on TV much more these days and I think they've even built (or are building) a new national rugby stadium. The Polish emigrating to the UK and Ireland will also be more familiar with rugby.

Last year Lithuania set a new world record for the amount of games they won in a row. It hit the headlines and no doubt gave the game in Lithuania a boost.

Having rugby on TV gives the game a massive boost. The world cup and 6 nations should be freely available to all these countries to help grow the game.

Also in a decades time if the B 6 nations is improving all the time it might be time to introduce a relegation system into the 6 nations. It would explode the interest in rugby in developing nations and make the 6 nations better to watch. At the moment theres 8 top teams playing each other nearly all the time and that gets boring.

Amazotheamazing

profitius wrote: »

Rugby is growing in many parts of Europe. In Germany for example they've set up a national academy (the Wild academy) and came close to beating an Irish youths team last season in a tournament in Italy. They went on to thrash the Romanian side by about 50pts or more. Not bad considering Romania seniors are better than the Germany seniors.

In Portugal rugby has become a lot more popular mainy because of the rugby 7's side success. Now theres more rugby on TV and in the media and numbers playing are growing.

The Russians have their own league and are building new stadiums. They're very ambitious and if they keep putting money into the sport it'll eventually pay off. Last season in the Churchill cup they outplayed the USA for most of the match until eventually they tired. They also ave the former Leinster schools player playing for them.

Belgium are French speaking and get to see Top 14 games on TV and Spain gets some HEC matches. Perpignan is supposed to be a Catalan club also so maybe that'll help the Spanish.

In Poland rugby is on TV much more these days and I think they've even built (or are building) a new national rugby stadium. The Polish emigrating to the UK and Ireland will also be more familiar with rugby.

Last year Lithuania set a new world record for the amount of games they won in a row. It hit the headlines and no doubt gave the game in Lithuania a boost.

Having rugby on TV gives the game a massive boost. The world cup and 6 nations should be freely available to all these countries to help grow the game.

Also in a decades time if the B 6 nations is improving all the time it might be time to introduce a relegation system into the 6 nations. It would explode the interest in rugby in developing nations and make the 6 nations better to watch. At the moment theres 8 top teams playing each other nearly all the time and that gets boring.

Interesting post. I guess Germany are the next team/country that could support a pro league if things took off there.

There's limited capacity in the current pro leagues in Europe, ideally there would be a pro league in Spain/Portugal (I know there's been some talk of a pro Iberian league) and a pro league in Germany.

profitius

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Interesting post. I guess Germany are the next team/country that could support a pro league if things took off there.

There's limited capacity in the current pro leagues in Europe, ideally there would be a pro league in Spain/Portugal (I know there's been some talk of a pro Iberian league) and a pro league in Germany.

The problem in Germany is coverage of rugby. American football is actually more popular there because its on TV. If more rugby was on TV it could take off. Theres massive potential there. I think its a game the Germans would love.

Hopefully 7's being an olympic sport now will mean more coverage. 7's is also easy to play and enjoyable and maybe that'll lead to people playing the 15 aside game.

its_phil

I really can't see rugby XV's developing too much outside the 6N,3N,Arg,and the Pacific teams to see more competive teams. I do think Japan could come through in next 10 years because they are getting better all the time and the 2019 RWC will aid rugby developing.

But 7's has great potential and i think that is the more successful option for making rugby as a whole bigger in countries such as US (it's more broadcast friendly),Canada and Russia.Russia and the 7's world cup is a big coup for rugby there.

The development of 7's in the next few years is going to be outstanding.

[Jackass]

As said before, it is extremely long term to develop the sport in other nations.

Particularly in Europe, where Soccer is the ONLY sport in a lot of countries, and for places like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany etc. it has such a foothold that it would be tough to draw the crowds, and playing numbers, to the sport.

And when fans are used to Champions League level events and 50,000+ packed stadiums, the appeal of seeing their national or pro teams in poor quality stadiums with only 3,000 or so in a sport they're unfamiliar with, it's very tough to do.

The ONLY way to generate interest in the sport is to develop a grass roots of playing numbers. The more people who play the game, the more likely they are to support a team, but that takes a long time to build up.

As was stated before, France, for many years, were the whipping boys of Europe, and it took decades to get them to a competetive level, let alone a world cup competing level that they are now.

It's a great shame about Romania, as had the oppertunity been siezed upon, there's no doubt that the interest could have been held in the country and that they could be a competetive team now.

But if teams like Portugal can keep qualifying for world cups and if the sport is show cased more in Canada & USA, this will develop over time also.

The real hope is in Eastern Europe though. If the IRB were to sieze on the current oppertunities and create a sub-european level competition and international league (incorporating Russia, Georgia, Ukraine & Romania) there seems to be level of investment there that could see the game grow.

Of course, expansion isn't always a good thing though, and if the sport were to grow sufficiently, it would, inevitably, end up like Soccer, with sugar daddies in Russia and, as already seen in France, pulling together the best players in the world to make super teams, the home grown element is lost and, in my opinion, the whole identity of a team. But I don't think that's something we'll have to worry about outside of France for the time being, but down the line perhaps.

I think the IRB could also chage the laws of the game so that you can only play for the country you were BORN in or have lived for 5+ years, as this would more than likely cull the poaching of Islanders to New Zealand, as some of the best players in the world are from Fiji, Tonga etc. but play for New Zealand through family connections.

There's lots that can be done, but I don't think there'll be any major emergence in the near future.

Italy will one day, I have no doubt, be a major world team, but they are still very much a work in progress.

Only this season have they finally begun to compete in top quality domestic rugby, so they may be able to hold on to more players, but again, a lot of the players are there based on family connections rather than being discovered at Italian grass-root development, and that sort of development is only starting now, so it will take years for that to come to fruition where they could get to the level of being genuine contenders in 6 nations.

One point of concern is not only developing nations and sustaining teams like Italy to attempt to bring them into the sport more, but there's also the threat of losing nations.

Scotland are the first, and barring their history, I think there should be more concern about the state of their game. The interest from the public is non-existant in the domestic game, the national team interest is in decline, the domestic sides are very poor (despite some burts of "freak" seasons by Glasgow & Edinburgh, on balance, they're both bottom half standard Magners teams and "also rans" in Europe) and as a result, the national side has declined a lot also.

That's down to a lot of factors, and also one of where soccer is more prevelant in a country without massive playing resources, but also in terms of finances, IRFU are now struggling to compete like they once could in terms of contract negotiations, and loss of players = loss of performance from provinces = decline in fan numbers = loss of revenue = loss of more players = sharp decline in standards = serious threat to sport in Ireland.

Perhaps slightly dramatic, but not beyond the realms of possability...

wonton

unfortunatly with the world cup(being the biggest showcase of the sport) in new zealand its not going to be great time wise for usa and canada or any european countries.

And to make it worse for getting american fans their first match, which is against ireland ison september 11.

I think having the world cup in second tier countries like japan in 2019 is great.


having it in the usa could do wonders for the sport, like it did for soccer(although soccer already had much more of a foundation).


Tbh as much as it is about players, its more about money and media attention.

Japan has huge amounts of players but from what i heard the tv station just have no interest in showing it.

and appearantly rugby is one of the most popular sports in madagascar but with out money and competition i doubt they could get very good.



but jackass i agree about the kiwis with the pacific islanders, especially because they could really make a difference to the teams, but what about the likes of tim visser, i really would'nt want to wait an extra 2 years to see him play international, and there is no point in him playing for the nederlands until there is some sort of growing game there, which there wouldnt be for years.

funky penguin

wonton wrote: »

Japan has huge amounts of players but from what i heard the tv station just have no interest in showing it.

That's odd (not that I don't believe you).....from what I understand it's growing over there and they have a decent professional league going, attracting lots of 'bigger' nation players.

Add to that the fact that the Japanese just cling onto anything big that comes there way.

wonton

funky penguin wrote: »

That's odd (not that I don't believe you).....from what I understand it's growing over there and they have a decent professional league going, attracting lots of 'bigger' nation players.

Add to that the fact that the Japanese just cling onto anything big that comes there way.

I'm pretty sure i read it somewhere else aswell but here's from wiki

"
As a team sport rugby union is a distant third in the popularity ratings behind baseball and football, and this reality is unlikely to change until Japan's national rugby union team becomes consistently successful on the world stage, especially at the Rugby World Cup.
At present rugby union is rarely seen on the terrestrial TV channels, and is mainly restricted to CS and cable subscription channels, which hinders its growth. (Sometimes the bigger games are shown on NHK TV - e.g. the University championship rugby final and the Microsoft Cup.)"

funky penguin

yeah....Baseball is HUGE over there.

I do think that if they hosted a World Cup though, the TV stations would follow suit.

It makes sense. They'd need the marketing and publication behind it, but that's almost second nature to the Japanese. Build any kind of hype behind....well....anything in Japan and they'll soak it up.

Hell, walk down a street with sunglasses and a friend behind you taking photographs, they'll assume you're a big 'horrywood supahstah!!'.

wonton

funky penguin wrote: »

yeah....Baseball is HUGE over there.

I do think that if they hosted a World Cup though, the TV stations would follow suit.

If? I assume you mean when, it has been confirmed that they will host it.


......hasn't it?

CouchSmart

wonton wrote: »

If? I assume you mean when, it has been confirmed that they will host it.


......hasn't it?

Ye, 2019.

thebaz

good read - didnt realise Russia had a pro league - i would expect them to be next country to break though - Georgia may be too small population wise - and no matter how organised Japan are , think they will struggle due to lack of physical size of its ethnic population - though maybe they could copy New Zealand , and import a Polynesian pack to complement there backs

Fight_Night

thebaz wrote: »

good read - didnt realise Russia had a pro league - i would expect them to be next country to break though - Georgia may be too small population wise - and no matter how organised Japan are , think they will struggle due to lack of physical size of its ethnic population - though maybe they could copy New Zealand , and import a Polynesian pack to complement there backs

You'd be surprised with the likes of Japan. With 130mil people they are bound to produce some big and fast people even if their average height is 5'7 and a half. Also important to remember that in 1942 the average height in Japan was 5'2! In 20 or 30 years they could easily have caught up with us anyway.

Although its probably financially unfeasible, I'd like to see the sport introduced in the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia, countries that have no real sports culture. Both countries are growing fairly rapidly and economically they are on the way up and have huge populations. It would be a good chance to get a foothold on two big countries.

Canada is probably a more realistic prospect, everyone I meet from Canada seems to play rugby, although the statistics tell a very different story. Nonetheless, there is only one real sport that rugby would have to compete with, Ice Hockey. Rugby would never in a million years be able to take over hockey but if it is given a bit of exposure in Canada and introduced in the schools properly then it would definitely have a lot of potential.

funky penguin

wonton wrote: »

If? I assume you mean when, it has been confirmed that they will host it.


......hasn't it?

Woops! News to me, apologies! Good for them!

Well then, the TV stations will definitely follow suit. The sport is growing there, and 8 years will (hopefully) be kind to the sport over there.

Fight_Night

this site probably won't be much help for most of you since it's in turkish but it has a bit of news about the smaller rugby nations and what's going on there, in case you were interested

http://www.rugbyturk.com/


also skip to 1:11 to see russian children playin rugby in the snow:p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR4wVs8TBqk

profitius

Even better video about Russian rugby! Its about 18 months old and since Russia has qualified for the world cup.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYOx0bFsE0k

Bernhard Lapasset talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcRVuckP6zg

wonton

Fight_Night wrote: »

You'd be surprised with the likes of Japan. With 130mil people they are bound to produce some big and fast people even if their average height is 5'7 and a half. Also important to remember that in 1942 the average height in Japan was 5'2! In 20 or 30 years they could easily have caught up with us anyway.

Although its probably financially unfeasible, I'd like to see the sport introduced in the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia, countries that have no real sports culture. Both countries are growing fairly rapidly and economically they are on the way up and have huge populations. It would be a good chance to get a foothold on two big countries.

Canada is probably a more realistic prospect, everyone I meet from Canada seems to play rugby, although the statistics tell a very different story. Nonetheless, there is only one real sport that rugby would have to compete with, Ice Hockey. Rugby would never in a million years be able to take over hockey but if it is given a bit of exposure in Canada and introduced in the schools properly then it would definitely have a lot of potential.

Rugby is actually fairly popular in malaysia but i dont think it has potential to become anywere near professional with out huge investment.


Don't forget canada also has candian football which is the second most popular sport.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Fight_Night wrote: »

Canada is probably a more realistic prospect, everyone I meet from Canada seems to play rugby, although the statistics tell a very different story. Nonetheless, there is only one real sport that rugby would have to compete with, Ice Hockey. Rugby would never in a million years be able to take over hockey but if it is given a bit of exposure in Canada and introduced in the schools properly then it would definitely have a lot of potential.

Rugby is considered a social (non serious game) for ex Canadian football schools players from the canadians I've talked to.

Still it could go good there