Who are the best of the Minnow teams.

The greatest thing about world cups is getting to see so many games all in such a short space of time. I also enjoy watching an emerging nation give it a go against one of the worlds big boys.

In recent world cups big teams, the semi finalists, had racked up over a century on smaller teams. This is changing, rugby is getting much closer.

In 1995 New Zealand put Japan to the sword by 145 - 17, last week the gap had closed to 83 - 7. England blew Georgia away 111 - 13 in 2003 this year Georgia had the upper hand in the forwards for much of the game, until they tired in the latter stages and England realised moving the ball wide was working. Final score only 41 - 10.

The thing is that NZ and England and all the other teams from the Six or Tri nations competitions are still very good teams, but the minnows are catching up fast.

This is a great thing for World Cup Rugby.


Who out of the teams ranked outside the IRB top ten do you think have improved the most in the last four years?

Is there any team ranked outside the IRB top ten you always have a soft spot for?

Which of the teams ranked outside the IRB top ten that you think will be in the top ten by the next RWC in 2015 ?

Canada maybe?

I find it difficult to know how to categorise teams.

There are the obvious teams who have a professional domestic competition which is fed from an amateur club system.

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
England
France
Wales
Scotland
Ireland
Italy
Japan

Even though Japan are ranked low, the fact is they have a system in place that is established and should see them improve all the time.

Then you get the countries who do not have a professional league, and most of theri players are playing professional rugby elsewhere, and they do have quality players.

Samoa
Fiji
Tonga
Argentina
Canada

I don't really see them as minnow teams, just countries without the financial means to sustain their own professional league.

And then there are the other nations where some do have the financial means to have a profeesional domestic league and some that don't. Their challenges i think is multiple as they still need to get a rugby culture to grw in their countries and increase their player pools.

but in my opinion Japan is the most likely nation to improve.

One of the things to realise when picking scores from 2003 or 1995 is that those 2 World cups were played on the very hard and fast tracks of SA and Oz where some big scores were posted. There's never been a 100 pointer in NZ and that's possibly because of the slower tracks.

Japan lost to favourites Oz 42-23 in 1987 so you could say they have regressed from there to 1995 then improved again.

In 1991 in the NH- again softer tracks- there were only 3 scores over 50- Japan funnily enough getting one of them.

In 1995 the Japan match was the real blow out so is really a huge exception- even for them. There were 4 over 50 but many 30's and 40's.

In 1999 in the NH there were some very high scores- completely bucking the trend.

But in actually watching the matches I agree. The basics of scrummaging, lineouts, the breakdowns, pick and go, passing and tackling are really at such a high level. Watching Georgia they seemed to have it all, and at pace.

biltongbek wrote:

Then you get the countries who do not have a professional league, and most of their players are playing professional rugby elsewhere, and they do have quality players.

Samoa
Fiji
Tonga
Argentina
Canada

And with Samoa, Fiji and Tonga they also appear as a dot on any map so don't have the geographical resources for a league so travelling is a reality for them regardless. They will always play 'in someone else's league'

I would say Japan,because of there physical build unless they use mercenaries.They are not going to compete in the physicality stakes,but yhey have incredible ball skills.
They are Pacific nations champions,and have beaten every one in that comp except Samoa.
Samoa and Argentina have a proven RWC pedigree,Canada are now no mugs.Fiji seem to have gone back a little,give Tonga another 4 years and watch out.
Looking forward to Japan v Tonga and Canada,they ran Italy close in the
warm ups 3 tries to 4 and beat Canada.

Some of the smaller teams have shown plenty of PEDIGREE, in and out of World Cups.

Canada - beat Wales 26–24 at Cardiff Arms Park
Samoa - beat Australia 32–23 in Brisbane
Italy - beat France 22–21 in Rome
Romania - lost to the All Blacks 14–6 but had two tries disallowed

Have all beaten major nations or come very close.

Teams like Georgia and Russia are relatively new to the top competitions but certainly in Georgia's case punch well above their weight.

I see the future giant slaying minnow team coming from one of the Eastern European teams.

Well Somoa are the obvious one. I'm not sure I'd even class them as minnows as they are right up there with the top sides now.

Beyond that I've been really impressed with Georgia, Canada and Japan. The USA have had a good tournament so far as well.

What this world cup is showing is that these nations are learning from previous world cups and that they need more exposure to the more established nations outside of the world cup.

Agreed MBTGOG they certainly do,a second tier 6Ns and 4Ns would certainly help.

emack2 wrote:Agreed MBTGOG they certainly do,a second tier 6Ns and 4Ns would certainly help.

There is a second tier 6 Nations. And a second tier 4 Nations.

But they also need games against the top tier.

It's a seperate debate but I'd say the "minnows" would do even better if the scheduling was more favourable.

For example Russia play Italy on Wednesday and then Ireland on Sunday, whereas Ireland have 8 days off after the Australia game. That is rediculous and there's no way those teams can compete with that scheduling.

roddersm wrote:It's a seperate debate but I'd say the "minnows" would do even better if the scheduling was more favourable.

For example Russia play Italy on Wednesday and then Ireland on Sunday, whereas Ireland have 8 days off after the Australia game. That is rediculous and there's no way those teams can compete with that scheduling.

Yes it is grossly unfair.

MBTGOG wrote:

emack2 wrote:Agreed MBTGOG they certainly do,a second tier 6Ns and 4Ns would certainly help.

There is a second tier 6 Nations. And a second tier 4 Nations.

But they also need games against the top tier.

Yes more Autumn internationals should be played against teams like Georgia, Romania, Japan etc and less against the top Tri Nations teams for the good of the sport.

Maybe a wider Churchill cup comp at the end of the season would be good too, where top ten ranked teams send A teams and top twenty teams send full first teams?

roddersm wrote:It's a seperate debate but I'd say the "minnows" would do even better if the scheduling was more favourable.

For example Russia play Italy on Wednesday and then Ireland on Sunday, whereas Ireland have 8 days off after the Australia game. That is rediculous and there's no way those teams can compete with that scheduling.

Yeah this is definitely true. In a way it is the lingering trace of early WCs where "minnow" teams were really just invited to make the competition look more creditable as a world sport and mimic the soccer WC. I mean imagine going to any world championship event and finding that your matches had been organised in order to least disturb the preparations of the more favoured competitors. You wouldn't stand for it for a minute.

It is the one area that remains kind of amateur and will remain a big obstacle for the expansion of Rugby WCs if they can truly become world competitions into the future. A top international rugby team having to play 2 truly competitive slugfests in the space of 4 days (or 3 in the space of 7-8 days) is unreasonably attritional on teams with smaller player bases.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote: I mean imagine going to any world championship event and finding that your matches had been organised in order to least disturb the preparations of the more favoured competitors. You wouldn't stand for it for a minute.

.

Yeah I mean imagine if the used a seeding system to ensure top teams arent all in one group.....

they definately need to play the 'Big' Nations more often - I think prior to a 2nd tier 6N's or 4N's (which are good ideas but would take awhile to implement because of things like fixture conjestion and cost) the IRB should introduce a rule where each nation in the Top (say) 8 has to play at least 1 fixture against a nation ranked 10-20, this way these nations should get at least 1, maybe 2 games a year against higher class teams, and this could be combined with playing the top nations A sides in comps like the Churchill Cup or playing the Baby Blacks (as the PI sides do I believe).

If the USA, Russia or Canada and Georgia knew they had a SA, England, France game to look forward to every year then this would increase the profile and popularity of rugby in these countries and also make them stronger for the next WC.

Would there be some merit in extending the RWC to include a Plate competition for those teams that finish 3rd and 4th in their groups? Perhaps play the matches as curtain raisers to the QF, SF and F, so it doesn't hugely affect the logistics of the competition.

Assuming a similar structure to the 1st/2nd place teams and format, you'd have Plate QF match ups of something like:

Canada v Georgia
Italy v Fiji
Scotland/Argentina v Japan
Samoa v USA

Of those, while you'd expect Italy and whichever of Scotland or Argentina to win fairly comfortably, matches between Canada and Georgia or Samoa and USA would probably be good competetive matches. The rewards for winning the plate should perhaps be automatic qualification or some type of seeding into the next RWC.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote: I mean imagine going to any world championship event and finding that your matches had been organised in order to least disturb the preparations of the more favoured competitors. You wouldn't stand for it for a minute.

.

Yeah I mean imagine if the used a seeding system to ensure top teams arent all in one group.....

Absolute nonsense. While seding means the best competitors (normally after having competed for those places) often get byes and play the lower ranked people first as part of the building of the spectacle, etc, etc... that certainly does NOT extend and should NOT extend to purposefully organising the entire competition, match times and match order in order to give the top seeds a significant competitive advantage on the playing field itself!

Seabiscuit... do better seeded teams at soccer world cups get that type of competitive strategic advantage? (i.e. our some WC soccer teams playing noticeably more quickly than other pool opponents?)

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote: I mean imagine going to any world championship event and finding that your matches had been organised in order to least disturb the preparations of the more favoured competitors. You wouldn't stand for it for a minute.

.

Yeah I mean imagine if the used a seeding system to ensure top teams arent all in one group.....

Absolute nonsense. While seding means the best competitors (normally after having competed for those places) often get byes and play the lower ranked people first as part of the building of the spectacle, etc, etc... that certainly does NOT extend and should NOT extend to purposefully organising the entire competition, match times and match order in order to give the top seeds a significant competitive advantage on the playing field itself!

Seabiscuit... do better seeded teams at soccer world cups get that type of competitive strategic advantage?

It isn't ensured for them so that they do well. It's done for the TV as the bigger nations pull in the bigger ratings.

MBTGOG wrote:
It isn't ensured for them so that they do well. It's done for the TV as the bigger nations pull in the bigger ratings.

Well I wouldn't disagree with that statement whatsoever... but that's precisely what so wrong about it. The more truly competitive the WC gets, the less you can keep saying to uber-committed and organised teams that they are going to be fighting not only the bigger teams and their budgets but also an unfair WC format.

Would it not be great to have a sub competition where the 3rd and 4th place teams go through to quarter-finals of a 'Rugby World Shield'. The matches this would create would be great for their teams and fans, but also would still be very watchable rugby.

Why not get rid of midweek games entirely? if its to do with TV and money saying tier 1 games at weekends only.

Why not get rid of midweek games entirely? if its to do with TV and money saying tier 1 games at weekends only.

That would be fairer, and I do agree with you, but could some of the smaller sides afford to compete in a competition that would last the about two to two and a half months? And I don't know about other Unions, but if the RWC was four weeks longer you can bet your bottom dollar that the Jeff sides would really think long and hard about who they recruited to get them through this patch - the ramifications could be very far reaching.

Because it would strecth the torunemanet by a week, its already critisized for being too long.

The other option is to have less teams included, which does the minnows no favours either.

Samoa cant complain that much, if they were a bit better they wouldbnt have been a 4th pot team in the rankings. They were lucky to be allowed in at all after dissapearing half the money they were given.
The cup cant be run for second rate teams whos Unions are on welfare, its not sustainable.

A bracketed knock out would actually make more sense for everyone, where the low placed sides play each other for the right to go through to the higher level competition with those losing dropping down to lower brackets and place playoffs.

TrailApe wrote:

Why not get rid of midweek games entirely? if its to do with TV and money saying tier 1 games at weekends only.

That would be fairer, and I do agree with you, but could some of the smaller sides afford to compete in a competition that would last the about two to two and a half months? And I don't know about other Unions, but if the RWC was four weeks longer you can bet your bottom dollar that the Jeff sides would really think long and hard about who they recruited to get them through this patch - the ramifications could be very far reaching.

Yeah we might end up with some English players in the Jeff

foiled ... so how do we do it then, with the same numbers..?
Unlike some posters on here I know that those sides have EARNED their right to play in the rwc.


Two larger pools with x4 matches a day? the matches need to be clear of each other as home nation tv rights would be up in arms as it would degenerate into a random bidding war between state (free) tv and the likes of Sky

damage_13 wrote:foiled ... so how do we do it then, with the same numbers..?
Unlike some posters on here I know that those sides have EARNED their right to play in the rwc.


Two larger pools with x4 matches a day? the matches need to be clear of each other as home nation tv rights would be up in arms as it would degenerate into a random bidding war between state (free) tv and the likes of Sky

2 larger pools? If you want rid of midweeks then youd have to play 9 weeks of pool games ...its nothing to do with TV rights but the inability of teams to play 2 games in the same weekend.

As for "earning the right" you only have a "right" to be in the world cup because of where the line is drawn. Why shoudnt we say that another 10 teams were good enough to have "earned the right" to be in the competition any less than we should say "look its too long theres too many rubbish teams like Scotland (sorry Wales are doing too well to take cheap shots at them ) clogging it up lets raise the bar and do away with midweeks".
Getting rid of the bottom tier would actually help the likes of Samoa, Italy and Scotland who did have an outside hope of making the quarters but suffer from having to play a midweek.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:"look its too long theres too many rubbish teams like Scotland (sorry Wales are doing too well to take cheap shots at them ) clogging it up lets raise the bar and do away with midweeks".

Aren't Scotland on the same points as England having won both their games ?

Yes they are. problem is they have their two toughest matches left in the pool.

by earning the right I mean that the RWC is in fact the finals

The games to qualify for the finals started years ago.