World League thread

thebaz

Former Former wrote: »

I

On the other hand, starting a brand-new global tournament does provide the opportunity for teams like Fiji, Georgia, Samoa, Canada to have meaningful games and something concrete to aim for. It's a question of how best to do that.

Reallyy ???? I think nearly everyone agrees that the smaller nations will lose if the proposed ring fenced competition goes through - any way its all pie in the sky stuff, sometimes I think thats how a lot of modern professional rugby seams to move - I think a soceer style European Championchip every 4 years might be an idea , that would bring in Romania and Georgia and Russia once every 4 years. Again another pie in the sky idea , but I would like to see rugby grow globally.

thomond2006

https://www.pacificrugbywelfare.com/blog/prpw-rugby-world-cup-boycott

Well this is interesting...

thebaz

well this is more encouraging - some of the Super powers want tier 2 countrys included (according to Indo)
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/all-blacks-and-australia-insist-that-pacific-island-nations-and-emerging-european-sides-must-be-included-in-world-league-37867835.html

MJohnston

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://www.pacificrugbywelfare.com/blog/prpw-rugby-world-cup-boycott

Well this is interesting...

Good on them, hopefully this stupid World League idea gets rethought entirely.

sydthebeat

the inclusion of the US in this is what stinks to high heavens...

ozzyo

If they are intent on going ahead with this then it should be the top 12 teams in the world rankings that qualify, regardless of of how much money a particular team would generate.

troyzer

ozzyo wrote: »

If they are intent on going ahead with this then it should be the top 12 teams in the world rankings that qualify, regardless of of how much money a particular team would generate.

Thus defeating the purpose of the world league which is:

Growing the game in the US could be huge for the sport

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Growing the game in the US could be huge for the sport

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

In fairness in that case there is very little difference between the USA or Fiji.

Tigerandahalf

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

The USA could sell out a 50,000 ground for games against Ire, NZ and possibly England. It makes complete sense to include them.

When will the South Sea teams ever get a 50,000 crowd.

It wouldn't take long for the USA to get up to strength. They have plenty of speedsters and bulk from other codes and they could always 'borrow' a European player or two (AJ McGinty is a fine 10 for example) to fill key positions.

This is actually a great chance to expand the game there. I think their 7s side are doing very well at the moment too.

I wonder what base city the USA would use?
Chicago seems like a good option. You would need a permanent base there. It would be a great season ticket option - guaranteed to see the big teams and then they would go along to the other ones.

stephen_n

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I wonder what base city the USA would use?
Chicago seems like a good option. You would need a permanent base there. It would be a great season ticket option - guaranteed to see the big teams and then they would go along to the other ones.

If they want to grow the game in the states, I’d say they would move the games around the cities.

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

I'd rather they look to build on the American Rugby Cup, give it more promotion and visibility. We've all seen the clips of the Brazilian scrum monstering teams lately, there's talent and potential in these countries that should be nurtured. With the launch of Major League Rugby, there is finally a viable looking professional set up in North America. Talk of having US teams in the ProX or RC is a terrible idea.

Give these leagues time to build on their own, the long term dividends could be much better than trying to shoehorn them into the European or SANZAAR scene.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

In fairness in that case there is very little difference between the USA or Fiji.

in that case yeah, but thats not my original point

theres a huge difference in prospect for both... the USA already have their own professional league.. and a clear path of a natural and organic progression

Fiji have no professional team, young players enticed abroad for economic reasons, test team offered crumbs for touring and then their best players pressurised into retiring early from international scene......

if World rugby wants these teams to survive (georgia, tonga, samoa, fiji etc) then they need to help them out.... which they arent doing.
All actions point to world rugby wanting them to go away.

troyzer

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

The USA could sell out a 50,000 ground for games against Ire, NZ and possibly England. It makes complete sense to include them.

When will the South Sea teams ever get a 50,000 crowd.

It wouldn't take long for the USA to get up to strength. They have plenty of speedsters and bulk from other codes and they could always 'borrow' a European player or two (AJ McGinty is a fine 10 for example) to fill key positions.

This is actually a great chance to expand the game there. I think their 7s side are doing very well at the moment too.

I wonder what base city the USA would use?
Chicago seems like a good option. You would need a permanent base there. It would be a great season ticket option - guaranteed to see the big teams and then they would go along to the other ones.

Colorado is the spiritual home of American rugby and it's the only place where there are purpose built rugby grounds.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

in that case yeah, but thats not my original point

theres a huge difference in prospect for both... the USA already have their own professional league.. and a clear path of a natural and organic progression

Fiji have no professional team, young players enticed abroad for economic reasons, test team offered crumbs for touring and then their best players pressurised into retiring early from international scene......

if World rugby wants these teams to survive (georgia, tonga, samoa, fiji etc) then they need to help them out.... which they arent doing.
All actions point to world rugby wanting them to go away.

I’m not defending this (alleged) selection of teams. If they are going to pick 12 teams it shouldn’t be arbitrary or based on revenue. However in terms of probable results, I’d say there’s very little difference between what either will achieve.

I don’t think any rugby fans want what’s being suggested. It’s not going to help develop the game anywhere.

Jump_In_Jack

AdamD wrote: »

Could turn the 6n into a format similar to the u20s world cup.

2 groups of 4:
6 teams from current 6n
2 top teams from Rugby Europe Championship (Georgia + Russia)

Group A:
Ireland
Scotland
England
Russia

Group B:
Wales
France
Italy
Georgia

Play each team in your group once (3 games).
Winner from group A plays runner up from group B in semi finals
Winner from Group B plays runner up from group A in semi finals
Winners play in final. Losers play in 3rd place play off. 5 matches for all teams involved.

3rd place group A plays 4th group B.
3rd place group B plays 4th group A.
Winners play 5th place play off. Losers play in relegation play off. 5 matches for all teams. Team who comes in 8th place gets relegated and replaced by top team from Rugby Europe Championship of that year.

Of course you lose some of the history of the event but there aren't many crap matches added and you get 2 more teams playing T1 rugby.

If possible would be better if instead of knockout matches the top two teams from each pool played the top two teams from the opposite pool.
Then use the points system to rank the top 4 teams and do similarly to rank the bottom 4 teams and use the final placings to seed the following season.
Also have promotion and relegation for the bottom placed team to swap with the winner of the division below.

Downlinz

To be honest, I'd like the proposal if it had relegation and a pathway for tier 2 nations. Adding extra stakes to the summer and autumn windows seems like a great idea and I've no great love for multi-game tours or the Lions series if those happen to be casualties in all this.

troyzer

Downlinz wrote: »

To be honest, I'd like the proposal if it had relegation and a pathway for tier 2 nations. Adding extra stakes to the summer and autumn windows seems like a great idea and I've no great love for multi-game tours or the Lions series if those happen to be casualties in all this.

The Lions tours are big money and steeped in history. The Brits in particular will never allow it to die if they can help it

Jump_In_Jack

If they put Uruguay or Canada, USA, Argentina. South Africa together as one pool,
And Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji in another pool, and had top two teams from each pool play the top two teams of the other pool and do the same with the bottom two teams of each pool.

Then let the top 6 European teams play the top 6 from the non-European teams in the June and November matches.

swiwi_

sydthebeat wrote: »

in that case yeah, but thats not my original point

theres a huge difference in prospect for both... the USA already have their own professional league.. and a clear path of a natural and organic progression

Fiji have no professional team, young players enticed abroad for economic reasons, test team offered crumbs for touring and then their best players pressurised into retiring early from international scene......

if World rugby wants these teams to survive (georgia, tonga, samoa, fiji etc) then they need to help them out.... which they arent doing.
All actions point to world rugby wanting them to go away.

The 2 countries that voted against promotion/relegation were apparently Italy and Scotland. No surprises there TBH.

Heymans

troyzer wrote: »

The Lions tours are big money and steeped in history. The Brits in particular will never allow it to die if they can help it

From an Irish POV the IRFU shouldn't be too worried about losing the Lions tour. At least our history suggests we should be moving away from it. Bringing the Irish players in a glorified British team stinks if you are Irish born and bred.

That said I don't like the idea of diluting the World Cup. Concentrate on making the tier below the 6 nations better and introduce relegation is the way forward. Plus the English/French clubs won't be having it.

This is a stain on the IRFU if they go for it. Being from a smaller nation should entice feelings of loyalty to Samoa Fiji Tonga Georgia Belgium

bilston

I don't see the point of a world League.

If SANZAAR are struggling for money then bring Japan and one other country in (preferably Fiji). This would give bigger access to a potentially huge market in Japan, on the back of the World Cup, and while Fiji itself isn't going to bring riches, they would enhance the competition through their playing style, which could drive the value of existing TV rights and sponsorship deals up anyway.

The US could in theory bring more TV money in the short term, but long term Americans aren't going to be tuning to watch their national team get humiliated by a small country (in non rugby terms) like New Zealand.

A world league is overkill.

Cookiemunster

Heymans wrote: »

From an Irish POV the IRFU shouldn't be too worried about losing the Lions tour. At least our history suggests we should be moving away from it. Bringing the Irish players in a glorified British team stinks if you are Irish born and bred.

WTF? What circles to you move in if you think that? I don't know any Irish rugby fans who don't like the Lions and the players definitely want to be involved.

The Lost Sheep

Heymans wrote: »

From an Irish POV the IRFU shouldn't be too worried about losing the Lions tour. At least our history suggests we should be moving away from it. Bringing the Irish players in a glorified British team stinks if you are Irish born and bred.

That said I don't like the idea of diluting the World Cup. Concentrate on making the tier below the 6 nations better and introduce relegation is the way forward. Plus the English/French clubs won't be having it.

This is a stain on the IRFU if they go for it. Being from a smaller nation should entice feelings of loyalty to Samoa Fiji Tonga Georgia Belgium

That isnt true at all about the Lions. And your last sentence in Lions is complete nonsense

We shouldnt be diluting the world cup and should be working to help Georgia etc but just introducing relegation isnt the way forward.

Heymans

Cookiemunster wrote: »

WTF? What circles to you move in if you think that? I don't know any Irish rugby fans who don't like the Lions and the players definitely want to be involved.

I suppose it's the inner republican in me that says we should be separate from England in everything we do given our history together. Sure most Irish people love the Lions but an age old tradition that harks back to the time of Unionism isn't the way forward for Ireland.

Heymans

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

That isnt true at all about the Lions. And your last sentence in Lions is complete nonsense

We shouldnt be diluting the world cup and should be working to help Georgia etc but just introducing relegation isnt the way forward.

If relegation isn't the way forward then explain to me how to involve smaller rugby nations in world rugby? Indeed relegation might ruin one of the top tier Unions but it would prevent ring fencing and protecting the top tier

Podge_irl

Call it protectionism if you want, but I simply have no interest in a 6N with Georgia instead of Scotland for example.

troyzer

Heymans wrote: »

Cookiemunster wrote: »

WTF? What circles to you move in if you think that? I don't know any Irish rugby fans who don't like the Lions and the players definitely want to be involved.

I suppose it's the inner republican in me that says we should be separate from England in everything we do given our history together. Sure most Irish people love the Lions but an age old tradition that harks back to the time of Unionism isn't the way forward for Ireland.

This is for the inner republican in you.

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

You are mad as a bag of spiders.

thomond2006

Lions iz a conspuracy, da queen wants r land.