What next for Japan?

In the aftermath of Japan's victory over Scotland Sir Ian McGeechan suggested they come into the Six Nations. Japan have quite obviously broken out of Tier 2 now.

However there can be little argument that the Rugby World is utterly terrible at bringing teams from Tier 2 into Tier One. Italy were the first great pioneers however they have never really kicked on. Having jockeyed with Scotland for fifth in the Six Nations since the noughties achieving the odd fourth place finish they now seem fairly rooted at the bottom of the Six Nations. They've never reached the knockout stages of the World Cup. Argentina followed Italy, first reaching the knockout stages in 2007, they achieved three consecutive knockout appearances. Reaching the semi-final twice. Entering the Rugby Championship in 2012 they've won a grand total of 5 games. They've just failed to reach the Quarter Finals. In the decade prior to reaching entering the Rugby Championship they played Scotland 10 times and won 60% of the games. Since then they have faced Scotland five times and lost each time. Similarly both Italy and Argentina have been ushered into the ranks of Tier One domestic rugby, Los Jaguares entering Super Rugby in 2016 and Italian teams entering the then Celtic League in 2010. Italy saw an initial upturn between 2011 and 2015 following their entry to the elite of domestic rugby winning 5 matches in the Six Nations, including victories over Ireland and France on occasion. Since 2015 they have been woeful failing to win a game and rarely threatening to either. Since bonus points were introduced they have failed to score four tries on any occasion and have picked up only one losing bonus point. It's hard to see any discernible improvement to Argentinian fortunes since their teams entered Super Rugby in 2016. T

Moving on from Argentina and Italy, there's the Pacific Islanders. Rugby's most naturally gifted nation, exploited by rich clubs and rich nations alike with very little return. Fiji having reached the knockout stages of the World Cup in 1999 and 2007. Samoa reached the knockout stages in 1991 and 1995. Tonga have been less successful but did record a notable victory over France in 2011. Of the Tier One Nations (especially if we include Japan) only Argentina and South Africa do not have players of Fijian, Samoan and Tongan descent. You would be hard pressed to find a professional rugby side in Europe without a Pacific Islander. In return they get the odd token game against Tier One opposition in November and every four years or so Scotland go to play there because no one else will have them. The treatment of them is World Rugby's greatest shame.

So how do World Rugby go right with Japan where they have gone wrong so many times before? Given the Sunwolves have been terminated and seem unlikely to be resuscitated any time soon how does World Rugby ensure that Japan cement their status amongst Tier One and remain there. For the National team there's three obvious options: Firstly continuing as they are, Secondly entering the Six Nations, Thirdly entering the Rugby Championship, Fourthly, Rugby changing altogether.

The first option would be incredibly shortsighted, Rugby has few economic powerhouses. Failing to capitalise on Rugby's popularity would be a wasted opportunity. However our existing elite competitions cannot keep expanding every time a new powerhouse emerges. Consider where Japan were 15 years ago being beaten by Matt Williams' Scotland by 100 points compared to today. We could see the USA or Russia embark on a similar journey over the next fifteen years. Why should Japan leap frog the Pacific Islanders? Could World Rugby not invest more in the Pacific Championship.

The Second option is the Six Nations, Japan is only slightly longer in terms of travel from London as from Auckland. The Southern Hemisphere teams have done all the running in terms of expanding rugby since Italy joined the Six Nations. On the other hand the Six Nations is an intrinsically European competition, it exists to find the best team in Europe. Also, as I have argued before, part of its appeal is its parochialism and the cultural aspect. The visits between ancient European capitals that can be done on a budget and of a weekend. Tokyo would be a different kettle of fish. There is also the fact that Georgia are not far away and who knows how rugby will progress in Russia or enjoy a resurgence in Romania. There is the argument that if the Six Nations should expand there are European countries who have been queuing up for years. Why should Japan leapfrog them?

The third option is the Rugby Championship. Japan, in rugby terms, is very much so in the southern hemisphere. Japan is a common retirement location for New Zealanders, Australians and South Africans. In terms of time difference the logistics are better. There is also the fact that travelling fans are less of a feature, for reasons of geography not apathy, in the rugby championship so that wouldn't impact so much. But where you can cite Georgia or Russia for the Six Nations, you can mention Fiji, Tonga and Samoa for the Rugby Championship. In my opinion it is the most natural option but not a straightforward choice by any means.

Fourth, we can change the Rugby Calendar. My objection to this is based entirely on the rather conservative attitude that expansion shouldn't be at the expense of the existing rugby nations. The Six Nations is a brilliant contest. Not just because of the rugby but because of the history. When Wales come to Edinburgh the place picks up, the atmosphere is amazing. Scotland and England have been one country for 312 years yet it's still feels better than anything to beat them, some of my best friends at University were Irish so playing them is a special occasion (for me, I don't think the makeup of nationalities amongst my social circle should impact world rugby, the point being how close these countries are). There is so much history in our set ups that we'd be losing far more than we'd gain by a global calendar in my opinion. There is, however, more than one way to skin a cat. One suggestion I've always been in favour of is regional knockout competitions in "Lions" years. Why not have a European Cup every four years? It would massively favour France as they wouldn't be weakened by the Lions and they, well, aren't Italy. But it would be a developmental option for the Home Nations with their star players away with the Lions (and we in Scotland could try out a new Doctor). Imagine a tournament of 12-16 teams in Georgia. In the "Southern Hemisphere" (in loose rugby terms) we could see the likes of the USA, Canada, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Uruguay, Namibia maybe, in time, Kenya with a regular outlet to test themselves against the best. Again one of these occasions hosted across the Pacific Islands could have a transformative effect. The Rugby Championship sides could put out weakened teams to expose their second/ third stringers to tournament rugby two years out from a World Cup. The only issue being that the teams not involved in the Lions risk their revenue during the June tests. Northern hemisphere teams would have to look at sharing profits in November, but that's a pressing discussion anyway. I don't think it's a solution for Japan (I think they've earned at least a debate about entrance to the top table), but I do think it's a way to expand rugby while preserving what's good about it currently.

Anyway, I have digressed, and the central question remains, what next for Japan?

South Africa

Well firstly, the players will have to/will be coaxed to/ be paid to go off and play for normal clubs.  It seems they gained much from operating as a single entity for quite some time before the WC came around.  They had ample time to plot and plan, train and condition themselves to a specific pattern, with a single set of specific coaches, with a single goal.  And if their coach is to be fully believed [ ] they did all the hard work on around a hundred bucks per training session!

Last time SA played Japan was in Sept of this very year and they put 41 points on them.  Now apparently at this point, on evidence, that wasn't a true reflection of the Japanese threat - they were perhaps holding all their trump cards back... but again, it's presumed further proof that this Japanese team right now is a highly focused project rather than a real International side dragged together from busy club Internationals.
They are having an exceptional WC, and their skills and tactics are real and they are potent.  But the first test of what's next for Japan is seeing how they sustain levels past the WC and under more familiar conditions experienced by other teams.

I’d agree with you SecretFly. It’s very obvious that everything Japan have done since the draw was aimed at beating Ireland and beating Scotland. There’s also that every game has been huge for them with the emotion of the home crowd. But the only way to see how they cope in these situations is to put them there. Or to accept that Japan will just do rugby differently and show up at the World Cup.

Chucking Japan I tot he 6 nations or the wee championship in the SH is not the answer. Italy and Argentina are prime examples.

You cannot expand rugby from the top down. You need to go from the bottom up.

WR need to give money/resources/manpower to feed the grass roots of rugby in tier 2 nations. Japan are riding high right now, but if you put them into the RC they’d get spanked annually by all other than Argentina. When teams get routinely spanked, the fans/youngsters simply turn away.

For rugby to grow in Japan, or anywhere else, 90% of the growth needs to come from within and WR provide that last 10% to provide stability.

Reason the world is utterly terrible in bringing tier two sides into tier one?

Neither had the IP of SH rugby. Italy and Argie are their 'own' sides.

Only reason Japan has been able to flourish is due to a strong domestic pro comp being able to bring in imports. The balance has ensured continuous flow in of resources and IP.

Even the ABs moving on are choosing Japan as their retirement projects.

Whether they go north to 6N or to the RC their success will be dependent on that flow of resource.

As the NH sides enjoy even now.

Why can their not be a type of 6ns for the likes of Japan, Samoa, Georgia. Russia, Tonga, Uruguay.

tigertattie wrote:Chucking Japan I tot he 6 nations or the wee championship in the SH is  not the answer. Italy and Argentina are prime examples.

You cannot expand rugby from the top down. You need to go from the bottom up.

WR need to give money/resources/manpower to feed the grass roots of rugby in tier 2 nations. Japan are riding high right now, but if you put them into the RC they’d get spanked annually by all other than Argentina. When teams get routinely spanked, the fans/youngsters simply turn away.

For rugby to grow in Japan, or anywhere else, 90% of the growth needs to come from within and WR provide that last 10% to provide stability.

Disagree, argie and Italy are based on mostly grassroots, Japan are not. The key in today's game at the pro level is in having a strong pro league. Which Japan has and neither Italy nor Argue have.

They have a NZ coach and NZ/ SA co captains, many PI players etc.

Ireland have a NZ coach and Scotland sacked theirs

Ignore it if you want but SH rugby has just pulled another one over the NH.

Taylorman wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Chucking Japan I tot he 6 nations or the wee championship in the SH is  not the answer. Italy and Argentina are prime examples.

You cannot expand rugby from the top down. You need to go from the bottom up.

WR need to give money/resources/manpower to feed the grass roots of rugby in tier 2 nations. Japan are riding high right now, but if you put them into the RC they’d get spanked annually by all other than Argentina. When teams get routinely spanked, the fans/youngsters simply turn away.

For rugby to grow in Japan, or anywhere else, 90% of the growth needs to come from within and WR provide that last 10% to provide stability.

Disagree, argie and Italy are based on mostly grassroots, Japan are not. The key in today's game at the pro level is in having a strong pro league. Which Japan has and neither Italy nor Argue have.

They have a NZ coach and NZ/ SA co captains, many PI players etc.

Ireland have a NZ coach and Scotland sacked theirs

Ignore it if you want but SH rugby has just pulled another one over the NH.

Japan are ‘NH’.

They need to push the Pacific Nations Cup. Stop calling it Tier 2 might help. But they need regular teams in it and a regular window. Be it in the Six Nations window, the July window, the Rugby Championship window or the November window. Give the tournament the same standing as any other.

You could have Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, playing 3 games on home/away two year rotations or home-and-away rugby championship style. It would depend on how much time would be available.

Obviously one factor would be the Northern hemisphere clubs, which is why I'd probably play it as a 3-week tournament in the July window. They'll lose out on the odd NH tour, so maybe August would be better in line with the rugby championship. After all South African players get release for the rugby championship.

The main things World Rugby can do, in addition, would be to ensure player release and possibly tighten up on "poaching". But as World Rugby is made up mainly of Tier 1 representation I'd be surprised if we saw this happen.

I don't know why it seems to be a point that needs constant affirmation.

It needs no affirmation - New Zealand are pretty good at a game called rugby.  Their coaches are pretty good at coaching a game called rugby.

Is it disputed?  Only by people ignorant of a game called rugby.

But rugby still has to be played in many parts of the world to make things interesting plus because it came from another part of the world to begin with..... so why so much head scratching that teams around the world might think adding a Kiwi to a team as coach or player might be a good idea?

I mean we're slow, ponderous and boring...but we ain't dumb

Andy Farrell might be though.  To date he hasn't picked a Kiwi to assist him.  Bad Karma Andy.  We like some Kiwi.  Fix that oversight pronto!

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Chucking Japan I tot he 6 nations or the wee championship in the SH is  not the answer. Italy and Argentina are prime examples.

You cannot expand rugby from the top down. You need to go from the bottom up.

WR need to give money/resources/manpower to feed the grass roots of rugby in tier 2 nations. Japan are riding high right now, but if you put them into the RC they’d get spanked annually by all other than Argentina. When teams get routinely spanked, the fans/youngsters simply turn away.

For rugby to grow in Japan, or anywhere else, 90% of the growth needs to come from within and WR provide that last 10% to provide stability.

Disagree, argie and Italy are based on mostly grassroots, Japan are not. The key in today's game at the pro level is in having a strong pro league. Which Japan has and neither Italy nor Argue have.

They have a NZ coach and NZ/ SA co captains, many PI players etc.

Ireland have a NZ coach and Scotland sacked theirs

Ignore it if you want but SH rugby has just pulled another one over the NH.

Japan are ‘NH’.

Yes, the map says that, except they play club in a in a SH based comp, they have a SH coach, co-coach, previous coach, joint captains from the SH, many of the squad from elsewhere in the SH.

But yes, you are correct.

Better?

I'm not sure how much the water going down the plughole a different way influences their game but it must be significant.

SecretFly wrote:I don't know why it seems to be a point that needs constant affirmation.

It needs no affirmation - New Zealand are pretty good at a game called rugby.  Their coaches are pretty good at coaching a game called rugby.

Is it disputed?  Only by people ignorant of a game called rugby.

But rugby still has to be played in many parts of the world to make things interesting plus because it came from another part of the world to begin with..... so why so much head scratching that teams around the world might think adding a Kiwi to a team as coach or player might be a good idea?

I mean we're slow, ponderous and boring...but we ain't dumb

Andy Farrell might be though.  To date he hasn't picked a Kiwi to assist him.  Bad Karma Andy.  We like some Kiwi.  Fix that oversight pronto!

Here's why SF, because we have an article and many comments that don't allude to (in fact don't even touch on) the fact that the SH presence in japan rugby is 'demonstrably' influential in this outcome. Without it, Japan would be facing the 100 point losses of the past.

Its called having balance. Something seriously lacking here.

You’re the one who bangs on about hemispheres constantly, basing everything to do with rugby on a line around the globe. So f*** it, I’m joining in and claiming Japan as one of our own!

The SH not having a particularly good showing this year so far - Namibia have been poor, Samoa and Tonga too, Fiji so so, Argentina the worst they’ve been in any World Cup in my memory. SH on the decline? NZ and SA are always strong though, but then we’re comparing hemispheres rather than individual countries aren’t we?

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I don't know why it seems to be a point that needs constant affirmation.

It needs no affirmation - New Zealand are pretty good at a game called rugby.  Their coaches are pretty good at coaching a game called rugby.

Is it disputed?  Only by people ignorant of a game called rugby.

But rugby still has to be played in many parts of the world to make things interesting plus because it came from another part of the world to begin with..... so why so much head scratching that teams around the world might think adding a Kiwi to a team as coach or player might be a good idea?

I mean we're slow, ponderous and boring...but we ain't dumb

Andy Farrell might be though.  To date he hasn't picked a Kiwi to assist him.  Bad Karma Andy.  We like some Kiwi.  Fix that oversight pronto!

Here's why SF, because we have an article and many comments that don't allude to (in fact don't even touch on) the fact that the SH presence in japan rugby is 'demonstrably' influential in this outcome. Without it, Japan would be facing the 100 point losses of the past.

Its called having balance. Something seriously lacking here.

Welsh rugby has been one of the biggest influences on Japanese rugby, believe it or not.

The Oracle wrote:

Welsh rugby has been one of the biggest influences on Japanese rugby, believe it or not.

I don't believe that! It's a damn lie, I tell ya! We let them beat us. That has been much more influential! I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

Sorry World ....but South Africa started it!

SecretFly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Welsh rugby has been one of the biggest influences on Japanese rugby, believe it or not.

I don't believe that!  It's a damn lie, I tell ya!  We let them beat us.  That has been much more influential!  I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

Sorry World ....but South Africa started it!

Yeah, I’m was stretching it a bit! It’s been one of the biggest influences on the president of Japan Rugby though! Quite a nice story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/42026636

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/rugby-world-cup-2019-wales-13899926

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I don't know why it seems to be a point that needs constant affirmation.

It needs no affirmation - New Zealand are pretty good at a game called rugby.  Their coaches are pretty good at coaching a game called rugby.

Is it disputed?  Only by people ignorant of a game called rugby.

But rugby still has to be played in many parts of the world to make things interesting plus because it came from another part of the world to begin with..... so why so much head scratching that teams around the world might think adding a Kiwi to a team as coach or player might be a good idea?

I mean we're slow, ponderous and boring...but we ain't dumb

Andy Farrell might be though.  To date he hasn't picked a Kiwi to assist him.  Bad Karma Andy.  We like some Kiwi.  Fix that oversight pronto!

Here's why SF, because we have an article and many comments that don't allude to (in fact don't even touch on) the fact that the SH presence in japan rugby is 'demonstrably' influential in this outcome. Without it, Japan would be facing the 100 point losses of the past.

Its called having balance. Something seriously lacking here.

I’m not really sure what you’re objecting to here. The question is not how Japan have become good. But rather now that they are good how rugby moves them into the top tier. They have not done this well in the past. Every tier one country aside from France has had a Southern Hemisphere coach. Most have had a New Zealanderas coach, I have no bones praising Vern Cotter’s influence. Nor mentioning the benefit of Sean Maitland, Blade Thomson etc.  No one who’s ever seen a game of rugby in Europe could argue the influence of the Southern Hemisphere or the traditional dominance of NZ and South Africa, and the fact that they have an incredible, beneficial influence over rugby everywhere. However on a discussion specifically about the future of Japanese rugby I don’t see the benefit of beginning with  an ode to all things New Zealand.

I don’t see the need for another NH vs SH debate. But I do wonder if we should all be paying a bit more credit to to William Webb Ellis for coming up with all this. Or that Gilbert fellow who made the balls.

Or Johnson's who made the baby oil.

The Oracle wrote:You’re the one who bangs on about hemispheres constantly, basing everything to do with rugby on a line around the globe. So f*** it, I’m joining in and claiming Japan as one of our own!

The SH not having a particularly good showing this year so far - Namibia have been poor, Samoa and Tonga too, Fiji so so, Argentina the worst they’ve been in any World Cup in my memory. SH on the decline? NZ and SA are always strong though, but then we’re comparing hemispheres rather than individual countries aren’t we?

I count the SH as the original RC nations but for obvious reasons dont feel the need to spell that out all the time to suit your exceptions to the rule arguments. Argie by sticking to their own resources have merit in doing that but its also the reason they are not competing with sides.

SA is the exception and are the only other team that can stand on their own, and win.

You want to ignore the facts thats fine but whats the bet Scotland now go looking for a kiwi coach.

Then perhaps you cam explain that as as an individual country?

I think Japan should join the rugby championship along with a pacific islander team to make it a 6 n as well. I think they more than deserve it

I think the RC should expand to 6 teams like they said they wanted to a few months back.  Joining the 6Ns would be a joke because it is so far away, the 6Ns will most likely only expand to add European teams or maybe SA.

Japan have won less outside of the WC then Italy or Argentina did before being promoted to T1. They are a long project but right now not a T1.  As others have said they are at home with a years training and the best schedule by far at the WC. Samoa and Fiji got no help from their neighbours when they did similar things.

World Rugby should have a PI cup that has fixed members and fixed timetable.

The real question about how good Japan are comes after the RWC. If they can sustain this momentum by winning tests over the next few years - maybe a Lions game as a warm up before the SA tour might be a good indicator of where their game really is.

I get the instinctive calls for Japan to join the 6N or RC, but I'd be interested to hear what specifically about the examples of Italy and Argentina people want to see replicated. You'd hope the buzz from this tournament and the size of the market there would be enough reason for sides to schedule proper tests against them without them needing to join a competition.

Brendan wrote:I think the RC should expand to 6 teams like they said they wanted to a few months back.  Joining the 6Ns would be a joke because it is so far away, the 6Ns will most likely only expand to add European teams or maybe SA.

Japan is a lot further away from South Africa than Europe and not much nearer Australia and New Zealand than Europe.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think the RC should expand to 6 teams like they said they wanted to a few months back.  Joining the 6Ns would be a joke because it is so far away, the 6Ns will most likely only expand to add European teams or maybe SA.

Japan is a lot further away from South Africa than Europe and not much nearer Australia and New Zealand than Europe.

With the World League the RC was eager to add two teams (Japan and Fiji) to their side of the restructured format.  We are told it was the 6N fault that it all fell apart.  If the league was about improving teams then maybe the RC should still do their expansion.

However if it was only ever about getting 6N money as most of us thought the RC could care less about anyone else and Japan and Fiji were just pawns to be now tossed side.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think the RC should expand to 6 teams like they said they wanted to a few months back.  Joining the 6Ns would be a joke because it is so far away, the 6Ns will most likely only expand to add European teams or maybe SA.

Japan is a lot further away from South Africa than Europe and not much nearer Australia and New Zealand than Europe.

Father Ted logic?

It’s clear that in terms of travel times Japan is almost equidistant for the traditional teams. In terms of time zones it’s much more closely aligned to Australia and New Zealand. Logistically it’s a bit of a nightmare for annual competition.

Has anyone asked Japan what they want?! Might be a starting point.

A World Cup seems to it for now.

Then ...when they win it as planned... the next thing they want is a wage hike from the current 100 bucks per training session.

As others have pointed out Japan doesn't have the foundations that Italy and Argentina have (or even Georgia)

At u20 since the annual tournament was created in 2008 here are the countries that are 1.5 Tier.

Argentina 12/12
Fiji 8/12 (spent 4 out last 5 in lower tournament beat Scotland to stay in this year)
Georgia 4/12 (has been the last 4 years so on the up)
Italy 10/12 (have improved over last few years which goes with their young players coming through at international level)
Japan 5/12 (over the last 5 years have become a yoyo club after a 5 year absence)

Samoa and Tonga are fighting it out with each other just to get into the second division.

So under age Japan is improving but not at the same rate as the other teams around them. Italian club teams are improving and will follow the Scottish route. Argentina as long as they only have one club team will result in less players getting exposed to higher levels. Add in it is hard to have competition for places at the international level if the team is being picked weekly by another coach.

Maybe just leave them alone for a bit.

I am sure this RWC will have increased the level of i terest in the game and will have positive effect on development.

Yes. And don't ruin the party at the weekend!

This is payback mate, just hope the Boks bring enough cash to the party.

This whole SH vs NH nonsense is all getting very very boring.

We live in a multi-national world these days with people travelling all over to work and and play. Rugby wouldn’t be the same if the NH didn’t play it in the same way it wouldn’t be the same if the SH didn’t play it.

Trying to say that Japan are only improving because of NZ is not only foolishly incorrect but deeply insulting towards Japanese rugby.

It would be like me saying that NZ have only had success in Rugby because of the Scottish heritage that flows through the country.

tigertattie wrote:This whole SH vs NH nonsense is all getting very very boring.

We live in a multi-national world these days with people travelling all over to work and and play. Rugby wouldn’t be the same if the NH didn’t play it in the same way it wouldn’t be the same if the SH didn’t play it.

Trying to say that Japan are only improving because of NZ is not only foolishly incorrect but deeply insulting towards Japanese rugby.

It would be like me saying that NZ have only had success in Rugby because of the Scottish heritage that flows through the country.

Not sure why we’ve not claimed this before. Reigning Five Nations Champions, reigning Calcutta Cup Winners, second place in the Doddie Weir Cup, record number of Rugby Championship wins, two back to back world cups, three in total. Scottish Rugby is as dominant as ever. Big debate for the best Scottish back row of the 21st Century between Dave Callam and Richie McCaw.

tigertattie wrote:This whole SH vs NH nonsense is all getting very very boring.

We live in a multi-national world these days with people travelling all over to work and and play. Rugby wouldn’t be the same if the NH didn’t play it in the same way it wouldn’t be the same if the SH didn’t play it.

Trying to say that Japan are only improving because of NZ is not only foolishly incorrect but deeply insulting towards Japanese rugby.

It would be like me saying that NZ have only had success in Rugby because of the Scottish heritage that flows through the country.

And that would be your right to say so. But when you watch player after player after player leave before they either start or end their careers, purely because someone else thinks its better to buy off someone else's shelf rather than invest in their own you will find others wanting to comment on it. So as boring as it is, it doesn't make it less relevant in terms of the very discussions being had.
I could say reading sele tions if your teams week after week is very boring. Doesn't stop you doing it

But I dont.Because I know its important to you.

But...fair enough, I’ll tone it down a bit.

Just skimmed a BBC article that wasn't very interesting about breaking into Tier 1. One theme it mentioned that distracted me was that "we need to get more Tier 1 teams going to Fiji, Samoa and Tonga".

Financially, is that even a worthwhile pursuit? How big are their stadiums? How much can they charge for tickets given their economies? Would their take less all costs be greater than a match fee for playing in Europe?

Fiji were charging between $5 and $30 for Pacific Nations Cup games and they had a 15,000 capactiy stadium (of which 4,000 are seats). That's an absolute maximum take of $450,000 or £162k, which is pocket change if we're talking about the global international game. And that's a theoretical maximum and before costs.

Which is why I think they need to push the Pacific Nations Cup as a more worthwhile tournament so they can get TV rights. Playing the odd game in Fiji or Tonga isn't going to help these countries. A multi-million pound TV deal is. So how they achieve that should be the focus.

The problem is that TV money won't show up unless there's strong viewership potential. The time difference makes it unlikely there will be much demand in Europe beyond the most hardcore rugby fan, so its really reliant on the PIs themselves, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Even then, I'd imagine the sports channels in Aus / NZ wouldn't view it as a core part of their offering so its really going to be reliant on Japan if they are part of the competition.

The "best" solution for the PIs and Japan is probably to join an 8 team Rugby Championship, but this probably wouldn't make the existing 4 very happy.

With gate receipts of the amount posted above and minimal TV cash uplift, the current RC unions will be losing money unless World Rugby make up the shortfall somehow

Taylorman wrote:...Yes, the map says that, except they play club in a in a SH based comp, they have a SH coach, co-coach, previous coach, joint captains from the SH, many of the squad from elsewhere in the SH...

Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

Somehow don't recall anyone from NZ rushing to claim credit when John Kirwan couldn't lead Japan to a single World Cup win over his two tournaments in charge. He had so many non-Japanese players in those squads, Eddie Jones had to make a point of selecting local or naturalized players to try and get disappointed supporters back on side.

Why isn't Italy in this conversation too? They recruit regularly from the South for their club game, going back to stars like Kirwan and Campese. There are southern-born players in this year's World cup squad. They also have a history of appointing Southern Hemisphere coaches, in Nick Mallett, Brad Johnstone and Kirwan. One magical SH innovation from Mallett was to play Mauro Bergamasco, an excellent flanker, as a scrum half. If you don't know already, I'll leave you to google how that went.

You can't point to success and claim it's all down to SH roots if you aren't also prepared to take responsibility for failures

BamBam wrote:The problem is that TV money won't show up unless there's strong viewership potential. The time difference makes it unlikely there will be much demand in Europe beyond the most hardcore rugby fan, so its really reliant on the PIs themselves, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Even then, I'd imagine the sports channels in Aus / NZ wouldn't view it as a core part of their offering so its really going to be reliant on Japan if they are part of the competition.

The "best" solution for the PIs and Japan is probably to join an 8 team Rugby Championship, but this probably wouldn't make the existing 4 very happy.

With gate receipts of the amount posted above and minimal TV cash uplift, the current RC unions will be losing money unless World Rugby make up the shortfall somehow

Very valid points. So do they need the US involved? Canada? Does that leave Uruguay behind? If you could pull in a 4th American team you've got two conferences of 4. But now you're diluting the quality.

Jones and Joseph"s success has been going back the running rugby.  In the 90s Japan played fast ball and run from everywhere. Some Top league teams ban their teams from kicking.
The difference now is that they are professional and the players play to a higher standard in the Top league.  As professionals they are now able to run for the whole match and are stronger due to being professional.

So to take credit as a NZ for Japan is a load of rubbish unless you are saying that OZ and NZ success has been down to the heavy influence of the PIs over the years as players with PI heritage have made NZ From good to very good..  The Top league teams are the reason Japan has improvex as they are able provide Japan with a professional set up that has the financial clout to get nearly any player they want and also keep hold of their internationals.  Their 200 days together was only possible because of the domestic teams support.  It was also why the Sunwolves were rubbish because the domestic teams didn't support them.

The simple way to fix the T2 problem is simple but needs money and will power.

Europe has a 7N or 8N with promotion and relegation. The original 6 keep ownership and let the other two keep their own TV money. The gate receipts from their home games would more than cover their expenses and the original members keep their money.
Promotion/relegation between it and the second division.

Second division would have the 7/8 b teams of the top division plus the next 4/5 best teams making 2 conferences of 6 teams. When a Div 2 team is good enough to beat the B teams they go up and the bottom team goes down.

The RC could work on the same principle with regional comps for there D2

Argentina B
SA B
Uruguay
USA
Canada
Namibia

I really don't like B teams in these competitions. I'd love England to play more Saxons team fixtures, but I think they hurt the integrity of these competitions. Maybe it's just me.

Brendan wrote:The simple way to fix the T2 problem is simple but needs money and will power.

Europe has a 7N or 8N with promotion and relegation. The original 6 keep ownership and let the other two keep their own TV money.  The gate receipts from their home games would more than cover their expenses and the original members keep their money.
Promotion/relegation between it and the second division.

Second division would have the 7/8 b teams of the top division plus the next 4/5 best teams making 2 conferences of 6 teams.  When a Div 2 team is good enough to beat the B teams they go up and the bottom team goes down.

The RC could work on the same principle with regional comps for there D2

Argentina B
SA B
Uruguay
USA
Canada
Namibia

Don't want to be the one constantly providing questions with no answers, but do you think the European club sides will be willing to lose more players to the B teams? We'd need some form of break built into the club season for it to even be viable.

Added to that, at least in England, B teams would mean more payments to clubs - are we confident that there will be enough revenue generated from the additional sides. Its sad that it does always come down to money, but its the reality

One of the things I would like to see is how Japan play after the world cup.

From what I have read, the team were together for almost a year, training which is impossible to maintain in the real world.

If this was the case, then it is no wonder they are so slick together (even Scotland would be able to put 4 phases together without dropping it if they trained together that much)

But in the real world they are likely to come down with an almighty bump, when their players have to play real league games

Fiji would certainly get the viewers right now. Then it would be up to Tonga and Samoa to catch up. We know both have been good in the past, Samoa had a great patch not so long ago and the potential is still there. All three require new stadia though. I last seen it when Wales toured there, it looked like they were playing on the beach.

Tonga and Samoa will struggle to draw audiences and revenue, with 200 000 and 400 000 populations it will be difficult

I think their only hope is to receive a huge handout from somewhere, and use it to build new stadia which also happen to be a self-sufficient hotel, etc. These islands are never short of tourists. I think any of them could fill a 50-60K stadium and that might entice some tier 1 nations to go there more often.