Spreading the game and helping the minnows

So some discussion on this amongst the euro cup stuff on the club boards.   think we would all like to see the game become more widespread and more competitive worldwide with more teams capable of taking on the big boys

two areas I think need to be looked at.
1) helping the European minnows to become competitive in the way Italy have done over the last decade or so

2 helping the international teams outside of Europe become more competitive.  I think the pacific islands in particular get a poor deal.

so answers - for discussion

1) include the European minnows in the autumn internationals.  Maybe against "academy sides or "rabo select" ( Rabo players not in the full international squads playing) or similar rather than full internationals.  It would also give fringe players from the 6N counties the chance to prove themselves.  Georgia and  Romania especially are at a level this could work are they not?  I would also like these countries to play their international teams in the European cup. Georgia might do rather well.  I would imagine the minnows would enjoy playing the european club giants.  Maybe spains level would be to play their international team in the amlin?

2) for the pacific islanders I would like to see the big teams tour more.  Scotland were well received when they did this and the games were entertaining and I believe Scotland learned a bit as well.  I would also like a pacific island lions team play regular internationals.  Canada struggle to get competative games as well do they not - and they are decent side worth playing.

It would mean all the top sides having to give up a bit of money tho as the games would be a smaller draw.  Player release would be hard as well.  there must be a way for these teams to get more meaningful games.  It would put money into the hands of these smaller nations.  Its acrying shame that Fiji for example only get their full squads to play meaningful games in the WC

It's a shame the Churchill Cup is no more. Nations like Tonga, Canada and Uruguay benifitted from that tournament.

It was also a good run out for sides like the Saxons and Ireland 'A'.

I used to enjoy watching it.

Cyril wrote:It's a shame the Churchill Cup is no more. Nations like Tonga, Canada and Uruguay benifitted from that tournament.

It was also a good run out for sides like the Saxons and Ireland 'A'.

I used to enjoy watching it.

I'd second that. Churchill cup was a great idea. I guess it does unfortunately depend on finding someone with deep pockets

If we are serious about spreading the game we all need to take a financial hit. The question is what structure to do this?

Cyril wrote:It's a shame the Churchill Cup is no more. Nations like Tonga, Canada and Uruguay benifitted from that tournament.

It was also a good run out for sides like the Saxons and Ireland 'A'.

I used to enjoy watching it.

It was very good, I agree it would be a good thing to bring back. Also, A-teams like the Saxons get nowhere near enough matches, they are essentially meaningless without the Churchill Cup. We could see them play the likes of Romania

But the minnows ARE being helped...as are teams around the world.

Europe:
6 nations
The Euro Nations leagues - even teams like Denmark, Cyprus, Bulgaria have teams now...are are moving up the divisions. It creates competition.
The top minnows (Romania, Georgia, Russia etc..play in competitions like the former churchill cup etc.
They have teams in the HC (and will have in the new format i have no doubt about that) and Amlin cup that gives them exposure.
More players (from these countries) are playing in the top leagues...the French, Prem and Rabo.

Africa, Asia, South America, ALL have 5 nations competitions with prmotion and relegation formats...Africa in particular look like producing some quality teams...indeed Namibia for so long the second team to SA on the continent will find it difficult to stay there. Check out Madagascar on youtube...rugby is massive over there...huge crowds.

You have the pacific competition with representatives of the Maoris...Ozzie U23's etc.

Things are moving nicely....the problem is people seem to want a quick fix...IT ISNT GOING TO HAPPEN.

As an off the wall idea could you do what was done in Cricket a long time ago - give the minnows an extra player to help them compete? Ie an England 15 against a romanian 16? is that just ridiculous?

Geordiefalcon - is there not a glass ceiling tho where these teams never get to play the big boys?

TJ wrote:As an off the wall idea could you do what was done in Cricket a long time ago - give the minnows an extra player to help them compete?  Ie an England 15 against a romanian 16?  is that just ridiculous?

Definitely a step too far, maybe handicap the better team by removing a player instead?

If you want to help the minnows they need more games.

It doesn't help they play top teams as they will get slaughtered.

It is time for the IRb to group nations into tiers, not the tier system that is currently in place whereby money rules, but into tiers according to ability.

The top 16 teams must be tier one, the next sixteen must be tier 2, regardless of whether they are in Europe or Africa or elsewhere.

the same way we have a HC or Super rugby tournament, these countries must have a similar structure whereby the sixteen tier two nations get funded by the IRb to at least have one professionally paid team.

This way these guys contract to their national unions and play in an annual tournament, the 30 top players per country is contracted full time, and they only play test rugby.

16 teams, 15 matches and then a quarter final plate and cup.

This way each team will get to play regular rugby and build a squad, any new potential players can be setup in an academy.

At the end of every 2 year cycle there can be a promotion relegation for the top two of tier 2 and the bottom 2 of tier 2.

I don't think people want to feel like they are token countries playing with a handicap for instance.

I still think a RWC plate competition is a good idea.

1st & 2nd get QF cup places.
3rd place gets automatic qualification for next RWC.
4th & 5th gets QF plate competition.

if we used the 2011 groupings we would have seen the below KO matches

Canada vs. Romania
Fiji vs Russia
Japan vs Georgia
USA vs. Namibia

SF

Canada vs Fiji
Georgia vs. USA

You could play 2 of the matches on top of each other to maximise ticket attractions and utilise the smaller venues which get discarded at the KO cup stage.

These matches would be watched both by viewers and attendees... look at the figures for the France 07 matches.... we were seeing 30K + attendees for minnow vs. minnow matches.

What people want is a level playing field... not a one sided multi try bore fest. Some of the best rugby in the world cups is played when the minnows go against each other. They won't care if its a plate or a cup... its a trophy, they will love it and it might just help grow the sport in that country.

It would give these nations something to aim for, something to feel good about as lets be honest in 50 years time the way this sport is going, the 4 nations listed on that trophy will probably still be the only names on the trophy... unless FRA gets their act together consistently. Everyone else its a pipe dream.

Messing around with player numbers is just patronising.


I agree with:

Re-instating the Churchill Cup.
Creating something similar in the SH.
NH teams to play at least one Tier 3 team each year in AIs
NH teams to play 1 fixture against as tier 3 side when touring SH.
SH teams do the reverse when they come north - and host a Tier 3 side when NH tour south.
National Teams of non 6Ns countries to get a spot in the second Tier Euro club competition, third tier for others - assuming we ever get one.


Funding is the issue. IRB should sanction Unions and Clubs to run tournaments providing they

a) Agree to help develop the game
b) Pay a percentage of TV/Sponsoship into a development fund.

The Churchill cup equivalent would be best or failing that, seeing as the likes of Wales 'can't afford' an A team, why not let Georgia/Romania take their place in the 6 Nations A league?

The other issue about developing other nations is their domestic leagues. Currently France is where the Georgians etc tend to play (if they are pro) and that is good for world rugby. However if there is a further move towards limiting the numbers of non domestic players, its hard to see where the 'lesser teams' will gain top level experience unless they change allgiences and become French/welsh/whatever.

Without going into a long erc debate again, a 3 tier european stage would be a good step I think, with the winner of the new 3rd tier going into the amlin (and the winner of that going up) and so mapping out a clear route to the top for an ambitious Bupapest (or whoever) side.


A last point about spreading the game, a question I have is, do the teams ranked around 10th ie Scotland/Italy actually want to see Canada, Georgia etc reach their potential? Really all the RFU's want to be seen to be expanding the game, but don't want to be overtaken by those below them.

Absolutely agree to the RWC plate competition too. You could get some really fun match ups. And who wouldnt want to see more of teams like Tonga after the group stages

But there are competitions..involving ALL teams. The AI's for example.

A couple of examples:
South Africa had the summer tournament...them Scotland and Samoa.
In November Romania for example face Tonga, Canada and Fiji

Bucharest Wolves play us (Falcons), Calvisano and Brive in the Amlin...

Georgia are playing Canada, USA and Samoa in the AI's.

I did like the WC structure which split into cup. bowl and plate comps.

Bathman - if these players could play together in the HC for those few weeks then revert back to their clubs?

Edit - this is part of my attrction to the idea of a 36 team european cup with everyone in the group stages then split into cup, bowl and plate comps Mismatches in the groups maybe but everyone gets an opportunity to get into the top tier and everyone gets meaningful games.
6 groups of 6. top two int a 12 team knockout for the cup, next two into the bowl, bottom two into the plate.

Geodie - the SA comp was the sort of thing I was thinking of. seemed to work OK and could be a blueprint for others.

TJ, the problem with tournaments like the one we had in June is time.

You can really only invite 3 teams, there isn't time to extend it to more teams.

Although it was great, you can only really include one minnow team at a time, the other thing is Ireland is coming to Sa next June (I think) after an absence of a decade. so that means nobody else will come.

Aye - but if 4 top nations each held a similar tourney with each with one other top side adn one smaller one? 4 smaller teams get a competition with exposure to the top table. Or the top teams could use A teams.

you can only really include one minnow team at a time

Dont know like Bilt...you had Scotland and Samoa this time

Sadly the demise of the Churchill Cup tells us what the top table really think about spreading the game.

The RFU funded it (perhaps to help secure RWC15?) and paid the Canadian and USA boards a fee. They alos paid people like the IRFU, NZRU to provide teams like the Wolfhounds/Maoris. Now the players had to be paid, so the cash has to come from somewhere.

RFU decided (because they had secured RWC15?) to stop funding it and asked for help with the costs from IRB and other particip[ating major unions, but were rebuffed.

So for a lack of cash the tournament died.

fa0019 wrote:I don't think people want to feel like they are token countries playing with a handicap for instance.

I still think a RWC plate competition is a good idea.

1st & 2nd get QF cup places.
3rd place gets automatic qualification for next RWC.
4th & 5th gets QF plate competition.

if we used the 2011 groupings we would have seen the below KO matches

Canada vs. Romania
Fiji vs Russia
Japan vs Georgia
USA vs. Namibia

SF

Canada vs Fiji
Georgia vs. USA

You could play 2 of the matches on top of each other to maximise ticket attractions and utilise the smaller venues which get discarded at the KO cup stage.

These matches would be watched both by viewers and attendees... look at the figures for the France 07 matches.... we were seeing 30K + attendees for minnow vs. minnow matches.

What people want is a level playing field... not a one sided multi try bore fest. Some of the best rugby in the world cups is played when the minnows go against each other. They won't care if its a plate or a cup... its a trophy, they will love it and it might just help grow the sport in that country.

It would give these nations something to aim for, something to feel good about as lets be honest in 50 years time the way this sport is going, the 4 nations listed on that trophy will probably still be the only names on the trophy... unless FRA gets their act together consistently. Everyone else its a pipe dream.

I really like this concept. It would give more meaning to more matches in the RWC and incentivise the lower-ranked teams.

The problem with people advocating the top teams playing the minnows is that, as others have referred to above, it serves no purpose. To pitch SA against Canada or England against Georgia on a regular basis is not going to advance either team. Yes the saying goes 'you learn more from a loss than a win' but not a regular annihilation. It is simply dispiriting. What is more informative is losing against a team who one can compete with but beat you on the day.

The reason the Churchill Cup was disbanded were actually for sound reasons. Whilst it wasn't a bad idea and it spread rugby, England won that tournament six times, with the other two winner coming from NZ Maori and Ireland A. Firstly, the competition needed re-structuring and secondly it was done in favour of re-instating proper 3 Test summer tours again.

This means larger touring parties and mid-week games such as those against the South America Consur XV and Currie Cup players in SA. All positive moves with better competition for both sides.

There are already a number of tournaments lower down the international leagues and what purpose would it serve a team like Portugal to be instantly promoted to the 6N whilst they were woefully under-prepared for it. It's a slow and gradual process, we all want more teams playing rugby and more teams with the infrastructure to challenge on the big stage. It's incremental though, not instantaneous.

There are already a number of tournaments lower down the international leagues and what purpose would it serve a team like Portugal to be instantly promoted to the 6N whilst they were woefully under-prepared for it. It's a slow and gradual process, we all want more teams playing rugby and more teams with the infrastructure to challenge on the big stage. It's incremental though, not instantaneous.

At last, thank you CHj... 

GeordieFalcon wrote:

you can only really include one minnow team at a time

Dont know like Bilt...you had Scotland and Samoa this time

 

What I am looking for is some way of helping to bridge the gap.

Why did the WC drop the bowl / plate / shield setup? I like the idea of the minnows having a trophy to aim for played amongst the atmosphere of the WC

TJ wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

you can only really include one minnow team at a time

Dont know like Bilt...you had Scotland and Samoa this time

 

 aw just messing ...Samoa are pretty much a top tier team now...

 Hey Geordie  want to join the Rabo?  You might win something.

Ah its ok...we've just had a season in a below par league and walked it...we'll give a proper league ago for a while  

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah its ok...we've just had a season in a below par league and walked it...we'll give a proper league ago for a while  

Apologies for a quick de-rail but i've been pretty impressed with Newcastle's performances so far. Not exactly pretty but hard fought. Young Dom Barrow looks to be kicking on, a good signing.

What about the idea of a team like Georgia playing a one-off against Falcons GF? Would it raise the profile a bit up there?

The first thing that needs to be done is to create a global season so that there is room for an extra game against a minnow in the AIs and Summer tours and also so that teams such as the USA, Canada, Samoa etc can field full strength teams.

The pacific nations cup could be a fantastic competition for all teams involved if all the nations had a full deck to choose from. It is a complete joke that the likes of Manoa has only played for the US 3 times. Until that is fixed we will not see any progress.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The first thing that needs to be done is to create a global season so that there is room for an extra game against a minnow in the AIs and Summer tours and also so that teams such as the USA, Canada, Samoa etc can field full strength teams.

The pacific nations cup could be a fantastic competition for all teams involved if all the nations had a full deck to choose from. It is a complete joke that the likes of Manoa has only played for the US 3 times. Until that is fixed we will not see any progress.

I disagree about a global season but i've got an idea Manoa wasn't even selected by the USA at times in the resent past! Unreal really.

When you say an extra game against minnow teams in the AIs and Summer, against who are you proposing they play?

Surely a few games could be freed up if we stopped the Barbarians. I know it's historic to the game etc but the last few times I've seen them they don't seem bothered. I imagine a game against Canada that would be much better to watch.

I am proposing the minnow splay agaisnt a teams or league select as appropriate. maybe even "england uncapped" or even clubs

LondonTiger wrote:Sadly the demise of the Churchill Cup tells us what the top table really think about spreading the game.

The RFU funded it (perhaps to help secure RWC15?) and paid the Canadian and USA boards a fee. They alos paid people like the IRFU, NZRU to provide teams like the Wolfhounds/Maoris. Now the players had to be paid, so the cash has to come from somewhere.

RFU decided (because they had secured RWC15?) to stop funding it and asked for help with the costs from IRB and other particip[ating major unions, but were rebuffed.

So for a lack of cash the tournament died.

The Churchill Cup was set up to help develop USA & Canada by giving them summer international matches. They stopped it because the IRB said they would start including them in their tournaments & tour schedule instead.

http://www.espn.co.uk/churchill-cup-2011/rugby/story/141830.html

There is currently the 'Pacific Nations Cup' and for European sides the 'Nations Cup' at the time of year that the Churchill Cup used to be held.  This year there was also the Quadrangular in SA, plus the 'Africa Cup' and the 'Tbilisi Cup', as well as the later staged tours

At a similar time as the 6N there is also the separate 'European Nations Cup', 'Pacific Rugby Cup' and Asian Five Nations'.

And this Autumn the match schedule has something for pretty much everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_end-of-year_rugby_union_tests

TJ wrote:What I am looking for is some way of helping to bridge the gap.

Why did the WC drop the bowl / plate / shield setup?  I like the idea of the minnows having a trophy to aim for played amongst the atmosphere of the WC

As I recall this was the England 2007 bid's idea and certain Celtic nations rejected it in favour of the french bid and being able to host games themselves.

TJ wrote:I am proposing the minnow splay agaisnt a teams or league select as appropriate.  maybe even "england uncapped" or even clubs

Thats simply not enough. That kind of stuff is already happening, for example last summer Munster sent a development team to Barcalona to play against the best players over there and also the top Russian club team sent over a team to play against a Connacht and Munster development team and actually managed to win both games.

They need bigger games to generate interest in the countries. The most important thing is that they are able to select their best players. Until that happens there will be no progress.

The Churchill Cup was replaced by adding USA and Canada into the Pacific Nations Cup ie giving them games against Japan, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.


Surely it's possible to do what the All Blacks are doing with Japan this year, but every year and incorporate the European nations too? Have SA, Aus, NZ and Arg play Japan, Georgia, Russia, Romania or Portugal. Have the team largely developmental. Maybe pick a couple of older players. One or two big names to get the match some attention. Having the fringe players play isn't adding more games to the schedules of the top players so burnout wouldn't be an issue.

Perhaps an ANZAC or SANZAR junior team could tour the tier 2 Europeans when the top teams are on the End of Year tour? And if a Carter or a Bismarck is injured then there's a replacement nearby who is match fit

Its all so complex now...Id love to see a test series vs the Boks. Why that isnt in anyones thinking is beyond me- surely the revenue would be through the roof if publicised in the same ways as the Lions tour.

The Churchill cup at one time included Nz Maori/Juniors at one point and maybe other SH
Asides as well.Again SH A sides contested Pacific Nations Cups surely there is no reason
some of the richer Nations England for example.Could`nt organise more tours to develop players.Ploughing monies into helping develop minnows rather than lining the pockets
of the Blazers.Also I would like the NZ suggestion of PI players only capped the odd game
for NZ/OZ could be qualified for there native country too.That naturally means Samoa,Tonga,Fiji ,lineage even if NZ/Aus born/qualified too

I liked the quad cup. South Africa, Scotland, Italy and Samoa. Personally I'd go for two of these. Take the top 16. During the summer (NH), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina each host one based on seedings. So this year it would be:

New Zealand, France, Scotland and Fiji

South Africa, Wales, Tonga and Japan

Australia, Ireland, Italy and Georgia

Argentina, England, Samoa, Canada

Of course the big problem is these games won't make as much money for the home side as before. Also why should it just be the SH that lose money. So for the AI you could have something similar, maybe the Tri-nation games so each of the current 6 hosts get to host it.

This wouldn't help the minnows with getting home games but if they got a certain amount from taking part it could be profitable.

why the heck is englands group so lame in comparison to the rest dude!

The only real problem with the Quad cup idea is it devalues or will the RWC,that does`nt
matter to me but the train spotters.

However - I must say . I am well up for getting more teams into this game.

The asian islands are the hard done by nations..

At least we have brought on France and now italy. 

Anyway my solution to the rest of europe has allways been to have a european tournament every other year and only a 6nations every 2 years

mystiroakey wrote:why the heck is englands group so lame in comparison to the rest dude!

England are in the top 4 so don't get one of the big three. They were only made up though

mystiroakey wrote:why the heck is englands group so lame in comparison to the rest dude!

hey that's what Arg said.

What we all have to remember is that the powers that be think differently from us fans. It's fair to say that we would all love to see Russia move forward, Romania get back to former glories, Georgia to continue their development BUT the national unions may not like it. Put yourself in the SRU Committee Room - how would you vote if the IRB proposed a competition which, over time, could lead to one of these other countries possibly replacing you in the 6n? Because of all of this self-interest, I can't see too many countries getting to the top or the second top table for quite a while. Look how long it took Italy and Argentina to be allowed to join their respective competitions

I think that hypothetical England group looks more dangerous than the rest- Samoa are an excellent team

CJ I certainly wouldn't call Samoa minnows in any context!

Well i think what hammor has done is by putting argentina up first it looks weaker!!

England wouldnt lose any game in that group put it that way.

But if they were up agianst any of the other groups (in second spot) they would have a problem. But in reality it would look different if he rightly put england at the front of the list!

Edit- I understand why he has done it- They are the hosts!!!

Samoa are as much a minnow as Scotland, Argentina etc are these days. Not amongst Wales, England, Ireland etc.

But lets not forget... they do get a lot of NZ players, most of their players are similar to a Jack Charlton Ireland football team of the 90s.