General Rugby Discussion 3

Top tier teams could help lower tier nations by sending A teams to play them. It benefits both the established and less established nations; the established team gets their next line of players together in an international tour environment and preping them to step up, the less established nation gets to test themselves against high level professionals. It wouldn't result in less big games for the top teams so no loss of revenue.

Obviously there is a cost involved but it wouldn't be huge and there are benefits accruing from it. The coaches and backroom teams would being paid anyway. The top tier nations wouldn't all have to attend every tournament, it could have a defined attendance schedule (Scotland and Wales could be scheduled for Lions years so they aren't sending 60+ players on tour that summer!).

The Tbilisi Cup was a great competition. A new version involving Spain, Portugal, Georgia and ANother (possibly based on Rugby Europe Championship) with hosting rotating between them. Two 6N teams at each tournament (so everyone only attends every fourth tournament) plus two others (whoever you can get from SANZAAR and Pacific Island nations (most likely European based players only), Japan, USA, etc.)*. Everyone plays 3 games, like the knock out stages of the U20 WC. Keep it short; game days are Friday/Tuesday/Sunday so less than 2 weeks away. Play it the week after URC final.

*could also be three 6N teams per tournament, meaning only looking for one extra team (I'm sure Ireland at least would be happy to attend more regularly)

I agree with that, as I’ve argued above. A tournament w Tier 2 and Tier 1 A squads is realistic (option outlined by @Pete_Cavan above makes sense), and a guaranteed number of tests for tier 2 teams v tier 1 teams per WC cycle. That means an opportunity to grow audiences and a real chance for teams to train together in prep for serious opposition. Ultimately we need these teams to be beating T1s in WC group games, as Japan have learned to do.

I disagree with the idea that affordability precludes tier 1 playing tier 2 teams. Those games shouldn’t lose money but certain T1 unions are suffering from long term mismanagement and decline. Others aren’t. The status quo actually means 2 or 3 top ten teams are in serious difficulty and may drop out of tier 1 altogether over the next ten years, others need the opportunity to step up or the game will decline.

Their clubs aren't good enough for that though - they aren't competitive at the Challenge Cup level, and to put them into the Champions Cup means putting a lot more travel on the other teams and 4 other teams losing out (with the associated loss of revenue).

The idealistic in me would love the game to be expanded, but the reality is Rugby is a niche sport. It always has been.

Player welfare or more games played? You can't have both.

To be fair the 6N and SANZAAR were pretty much left on their own when the game went professional, they are now reaping that reward. The Nations Championship should help somewhat as well with some Tier 2 clubs joining the top level ranks. I think if we want to grow the games in the T2 nations properly it has to start with the clubs though, not the national teams. The club supporters, players and finances will then feed the national team.

Felix Jones has resigned from the England set up. Sounds like there's a lot of discontent amongst the coaches. Third member of the backroom staff to leave this summer.

Interesting.

Borthwick is clearly a terrible head coach and any results England has eked out appear to be in spite of him, rather than because of.

Jones is a very, very ambitious fella, I know this from knowing his family a wee bit.

If I were to take an educated guess where he might now fetch up, it would be either club rugby in France, or club or test rugby in New Zealand.