Proposed Nations Championship

[Omar Comin']

Except that it hasn't

As has been said in a few posts, it's giving T2 nations a stable platform for growth and improvement. If they were bundled in with T1, at this stage, it would be a bloodbath.

While that's true for the lower ranked tier 2 teams, it's evidently not true for the top few. How are the likes of Georgia, Portugal, Samoa, Tonga etc supposed to improve if they don't get to play at least some games against better teams in the July/November windows or have realistic opportunities to progress into better competitions?

 

[Wilson]

Hopefully like Wilson said if they move to the RC then they will slot in.

that pool logic makes a lot of sense though

I like the pool logic as stated, particularly for keeping costs down, but it probably won't adapt so well to the addition of Uruguay and Chile. Maybe they'll look to 8 teams at that stage to keep it balanced, like @Jimmy_Crouch suggests, but with Aus A and All Blacks XV on the pacific side.

 

[Braveheart81]

While that's true for the lower ranked tier 2 teams, it's evidently not true for the top few. How are the likes of Georgia, Portugal, Samoa, Tonga etc supposed to improve if they don't get to play at least some games against better teams in the July/November windows or have realistic opportunities to progress into better competitions?

In 2022 Georgia played tests in the July and November windows against Argentina XV (not a test), Italy, Portugal, Uruguay, Samoa and Wales. My guess is that these countries are largely on board with the changes because it's not making things any worse.

It is highly likely that all teams in the top tier will play a few more tests each year which the likes of Georgia would have a chance to be involved in.

 

[Omar Comin']

In 2022 Georgia played tests in the July and November windows against Argentina XV (not a test), Italy, Portugal, Uruguay, Samoa and Wales. My guess is that these countries are largely on board with the changes because it's not making things any worse.

It is highly likely that all teams in the top tier will play a few more tests each year which the likes of Georgia would have a chance to be involved in.

When could they play these extra tests that the likes of Georgia could be involved in? Isn't the release window only 3 weekends in both months, and they'll need all 6 for the new tournament? I don't think playing tests outside the window is really an option for T2 teams with a lot of France based players.

 

[Braveheart81]

When could they play these extra tests that the likes of Georgia could be involved in? Isn't the release window only 3 weekends in both months, and they'll need all 6 for the new tournament? I don't think playing tests outside the window is really an option for T2 teams with a lot of France based players.

We mostly play four tests on an End of Year Tour. A fair few other teams do the same.

If Georgia finds two games a year against tier 1 teams they are improving on where they currently sit. It's pretty likely that teams heading north for the End of Year tests will be looking for a warm up game.

I'm not arguing that it's dramatically improved in the short term but it isn't worse. They weren't getting these opportunities with the existing schedule.

 

[Members Section]

We mostly play four tests on an End of Year Tour. A fair few other teams do the same.

If Georgia finds two games a year against tier 1 teams they are improving on where they currently sit. It's pretty likely that teams heading north for the End of Year tests will be looking for a warm up game.

I'm not arguing that it's dramatically improved in the short term but it isn't worse. They weren't getting these opportunities with the existing schedule.

I agree there but most of their players are in France & wont get released for that a test outside the window

 

[Ignoto]

Any thoughts on how this impacts the Australia A program? They've had some good tours over the last couple of years so it'd be sad to see that all go to waste if the pacific nations are tied up with this competition.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Until some sort of profit share arrangements tier two will continue to get the rough end of it.

 

[RugbyReg]

Any thoughts on how this impacts the Australia A program? They've had some good tours over the last couple of years so it'd be sad to see that all go to waste if the pacific nations are tied up with this competition.

send them to Portugal and Spain or Uruguay and Chile

 

[Members Section]

send them to Portugal and Spain or Uruguay and Chile

they are playing in the tier 2 comp in the nov window

 

[Omar Comin']

We mostly play four tests on an End of Year Tour. A fair few other teams do the same.

If Georgia finds two games a year against tier 1 teams they are improving on where they currently sit. It's pretty likely that teams heading north for the End of Year tests will be looking for a warm up game.

I'm not arguing that it's dramatically improved in the short term but it isn't worse. They weren't getting these opportunities with the existing schedule.

I think it actually is worse in the years the tournament is played. At the moment a lot of the 6 nations teams will play a T2 team in the window, and then have a 4th game against the Wallabies or All Blacks outside the window. That won't be possible now, and I doubt the smaller teams will be able to negotiate an extra week of release for their best players.

The trade off in the press release seems to be that in the other 2 years of the cycle there'll be an increase in T1 vs T2 games, but that doesn't seem a great deal to me. It's a shame they couldn't agree on a structure that provided more immediate incentive for the improving teams.

12 teams is possibly too many for each division. If you had 3 divisions of 8 then the 2nd division would also be pretty strong so being relegated for one year wouldn't be such a disaster.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it actually is worse in the years the tournament is played.

We need to wait and see I think.

My only point was that it couldn't really be much worse than it already was.

It's substantially better for Japan and Fiji than it's every been before and likewise, there's now a stronger structure in place for Tonga, Samoa, USA and Canada.

 

[Dctarget]

So how does this work?

July, 6N teams tour SH:
Italy (H)
Ireland (H)
England (H)

August, TRC:
South Africa (A)
Argentina (A)
Japan (H)

September, TRC + Bled:
Fiji (H)
NZ (H)
NZ (A)

November, Pacific teams tour the remaining 6N teams in NH:
France (A)
Scotland (A)
Wales (A)
Potential play off against 6N conference winner (A)

Why do we even have conferences if it's just a round-robin?

 

[noscrumnolife]

Perhaps a bit unpopular amongst some. I think keeping a closed shop for four years (2026-2030) is not the worst thing in the world. As long as proper promotion and relegation does come into it after that. World Rugby's focus should be on ensuring Japan and Fiji are consistently competitive at the top level, not just capable of springing upsets at the World Cup. If that means locking them in amongst the top 12 for four years, I am for that.

I'm also unconvinced that Uruguay and Portugal (eg) playing 'Tier 1' opposition consistently will miraculously make them competitive at the World Cup. They are still a long way off the level required to be solid against the big boys. As Italy have demonstrated, simply playing the top teams often has a marginal impact on your development. More important is the funding allocation and professionalisation of their player bases.

 

[Bandar]

To make sure it’s not NZ v SA every final

 

[Omar Comin']

It's substantially better for Japan and Fiji than it's every been before and likewise, there's now a stronger structure in place for Tonga, Samoa, USA and Canada.

Yeah I think it's an improvement for the majority of the top 24 nations. The biggest winners being Japan, Fiji and the bottom of the 2nd tier. It's the handful of teams just outside the top 12 that are maybe losing out a little bit.

 

[Omar Comin']

I'm also unconvinced that Uruguay and Portugal (eg) playing 'Tier 1' opposition consistently will miraculously make them competitive at the World Cup. They are still a long way off the level required to be solid against the big boys. As Italy have demonstrated, simply playing the top teams often has a marginal impact on your development. More important is the funding allocation and professionalisation of their player bases.

I think Italy suffer a little from almost only playing tier 1 teams. A better structure would have them, as well as others around that level playing close to an equal number of games against both higher and lower ranked teams every year.

 

[John S]

Instagram

www.instagram.com

Looks like some rumblings are kicking off.

 

[LeCheese]

Instagram

www.instagram.com

Looks like some rumblings are kicking off.

I can genuinely understand the argument, but all we need to do is look at Super to see that a higher level of competition does not inherently increase a team's competitiveness. Although, I guess you could point to Fiji as a case study that says otherwise (albeit with a lot of other contributing factors, namely funding).

Have to feel for them, and hope that there are plans for more regular T1 v T2 fixtures outside of the Nations Cup, but it does seem like the right move imo.

 

[noscrumnolife]

I'm not going to deny the right of Samoan fans or players to feel angry about this. And there is certainly a challenging symbolism to a sport which has been defined by privilege for much of its existence announcing a competitive structure that on the face of it seems to limit opportunities for less well-off nations.

But equally:
1. Samoa (just using them as an example) will now play in the Pacific Nations Cup every year. It will also include a finals series and a trophy to win. That alone will give Samoan rugby more games than any year over the last two cycles (https://www.rugbypass.com/teams/samoa/fixtures-results/).
2. There is an expansion in the World Cup, increasing the likelihood of now Tier 2 nations playing knockout rugby.
3. It creates international release windows aligned across the world, increasing the likelihood of clubs in Europe releasing their players from developing nations to play for their national team.
4. The ringfencing of the top-teams in the first tier will only last for four years. Understandably for the current generation, this will frustrate them. But in the long-view, by the 2031 World Cup the international game will look considerably different to how it is now and should be far more inclusive.
5. There is a commitment in the World Rugby announcement to an increase in games between Tier 1 and Tier 2 countries (noting that they barely play each other at all as it currently stands). It would have been nice to see them make a firmer commitment to what the actually looks like however.

Is the announcement what some of these nations may have wanted? Absolutely not. But from where I sit, it seems like a massive improvement from where we've been with a commitment to a structure that they actually want in time. They will be playing far more games, more often, with more to play for and more players available.

The best evidence for this is that it was overwhelmingly voted in for (41-10 I believe) with countries like Samoa and Georgia voting for. With a margin like that, are we to believe that so many member unions voted against their best interests?

Fundamentally, this announcement to me represents a clear commitment to grow the game. And whilst it may not be as quickly and dramatically as some would like, it is one of the few decisions made by WR (World Rugby) under Bill Beaumont that makes me think we might be heading in the right track.