Rugby News from unexpected places

[Wilson]

I am sure someone could write a hit piece on how Carter convinced Gordon to switch.

You could write a very factual piece about how the ultimate decision in Gordon's switch came down to Carter's thoughts and feelings, but it loses a bit of steam when you realise it's a story about only one person...

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Been a pretty decent weekend for Spanish Rugby. Their U20s put up a pretty respectable performance against Italy overnight. Going down 28-16. I think that proves they need more opportunities to match it with the bigger boys going forward.

 

[HogansHeros]

Been a pretty decent weekend for Spanish Rugby. Their U20s put up a pretty respectable performance against Italy overnight. Going down 28-16. I think that proves they need more opportunities to match it with the bigger boys going forward.

By bigger boys do you mean Georgians?

 

[Highlander35]

While I probably prefer the 12 team tournament at Under 20s from a logistics point of view, I think it's only a matter of time before 16 is inevitable from a competition and growth perspective.

Scotland, Japan, USA and Uruguay are not sufficiently worse to the point that the quality of the tournament is heavily impacted, it's just the costs and logistics of playing grounds for an extra matchday and two extra games on matchday (alongside the possibly/likely requiring additional players in each squad) holding things back.

At that point the Trophy hopefully looks to become a little more even typically.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

By bigger boys do you mean Georgians?

Lol. No, I'm talking about them being invited alongside Georgia and Portugal to the U18s and U20s series they run up north. More games against 6Ns teams. Portugal who are around the same level at the U18s played this year and put up some admirable performances as well. Spain are a little better than Portugal and wouldn't shame themselves.

 

[Wilson]

While I probably prefer the 12 team tournament at Under 20s from a logistics point of view, I think it's only a matter of time before 16 is inevitable from a competition and growth perspective.

Scotland, Japan, USA and Uruguay are not sufficiently worse to the point that the quality of the tournament is heavily impacted, it's just the costs and logistics of playing grounds for an extra matchday and two extra games on matchday (alongside the possibly/likely requiring additional players in each squad) holding things back.

At that point the Trophy hopefully looks to become a little more even typically.

I think the move to 16 needs to happen, even if only to get an even 4 pools of 4 and a more straight forward finals series.

The only problem I really see with it is getting the promotion/relegation right. The current system works ok at the top level because there are a few teams in that group who can cut it at this level so whoever comes up is not going to get wiped out. Open it up to more teams and there will likely be that mismatch every second year as a trophy team jumps up by default. For example, if you take out Scotland, Japan, USA and Uruguay from this years trophy then either Netherlands or Samoa would be the promoted team, neither look like they could cut it. Might have to introduce a promotion/relegation match or some sort of qualification games to get around this, but either of those could be difficult to schedule for the countries we're talking about being involved.

 

[Highlander35]

I think the move to 16 needs to happen, even if only to get an even 4 pools of 4 and a more straight forward finals series.

The only problem I really see with it is getting the promotion/relegation right. The current system works ok at the top level because there are a few teams in that group who can cut it at this level so whoever comes up is not going to get wiped out. Open it up to more teams and there will likely be that mismatch every second year as a trophy team jumps up by default. For example, if you take out Scotland, Japan, USA and Uruguay from this years trophy then either Netherlands or Samoa would be the promoted team, neither look like they could cut it. Might have to introduce a promotion/relegation match or some sort of qualification games to get around this, but either of those could be difficult to schedule for the countries we're talking about being involved.

There's always compromises to be made. At the moment that compromise is made for logistics and high performance reasons. I think if it's "sustainable" financially and logistically to run a 16 team comp, I think accepting that two of the teams who are involved likely to be off the pace of the others is an acceptable change of pace.

Additionally, I'm not currently sure what the selection policies are currently in place for Samoa/Tonga at U20s level since the rise of Italy, Georgia, Japan and Spain at age grade level has made things tighter in that 9-14ish group: my impression was that it was mostly a local squad selected for both this tournament and the Oceania Rugby U20s Challenge. If qualification to, or participation in the Championship was on offer would those policies change to include more of the boys who missed out on Australian/New Zealand selection?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the move to 16 needs to happen, even if only to get an even 4 pools of 4 and a more straight forward finals series.

The only problem I really see with it is getting the promotion/relegation right. The current system works ok at the top level because there are a few teams in that group who can cut it at this level so whoever comes up is not going to get wiped out. Open it up to more teams and there will likely be that mismatch every second year as a trophy team jumps up by default. For example, if you take out Scotland, Japan, USA and Uruguay from this years trophy then either Netherlands or Samoa would be the promoted team, neither look like they could cut it. Might have to introduce a promotion/relegation match or some sort of qualification games to get around this, but either of those could be difficult to schedule for the countries we're talking about being involved.

What will be interesting is what happens if Scotland fail to win the JWT. If they manage to go back up I can see them keeping it to 12 but if not who knows. They gave them the hosting rights in the aftermath of them coming 3rd last year.

Personally I would like to see it go back to 16. There will be questions around promotion/relegation but I'm not as concerned about who would assume the next spots in the Trophy. Europe has both Portugal and Belgium who are all very close in terms of quality with Spain and the Netherlands.Canada in North America and Chile in the south.

 

[Wilson]

There's always compromises to be made. At the moment that compromise is made for logistics and high performance reasons. I think if it's "sustainable" financially and logistically to run a 16 team comp, I think accepting that two of the teams who are involved likely to be off the pace of the others is an acceptable change of pace.

Additionally, I'm not currently sure what the selection policies are currently in place for Samoa/Tonga at U20s level since the rise of Italy, Georgia, Japan and Spain at age grade level has made things tighter in that 9-14ish group: my impression was that it was mostly a local squad selected for both this tournament and the Oceania Rugby U20s Challenge. If qualification to, or participation in the Championship was on offer would those policies change to include more of the boys who missed out on Australian/New Zealand selection?

Scale of mismatch is the issue - if Scotland and Japan are racking up 100ish point victories over some of these teams, what is it going to look like when they come up against the top seeds in their pools on being promoted? I'm not sure World Rugby will be too keen to see that in premier age grade competition, as opposed to the trophy were it's a little bit out of sight, out of mind.

Not sure how consistently you can rely on Tonga and Samoa getting access to higher quality talent either, might depend on whether it's a selection policy they can change or a lack of interest from those players who'd see NPC as a better setup for their development. Scale of the challenge may change their perspective a bit, but they might be more concerned with how professional the program is at this stage.

I do still think it's an important shift though getting more teams more competition at a higher level, particularly with the World Cup set to expand. It's just that the current promotion/relegation system looks like it will create unacceptable mismatches. Working out a better system there is probably the real logistical challenge, not so much the 16 tournament itself which looks very doable.

 

[Wilson]

What will be interesting is what happens if Scotland fail to win the JWT. If they manage to go back up I can see them keeping it to 12 but if not who knows. They gave them the hosting rights in the aftermath of them coming 3rd last year.

Personally I would like to see it go back to 16. There will be questions around promotion/relegation but I'm not as concerned about who would assume the next spots in the Trophy. Europe has both Portugal and Belgium who are all very close in terms of quality with Spain and the Netherlands.Canada in North America and Chile in the south.

Yeah, bringing 4 more teams up to the trophy level should be fine, particularly once you've pulled the current top 4 up a level. The remaining group look reasonable even, particularly in terms of professional environments and development systems the players are coming out of that create those mismatches.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Scale of mismatch is the issue - if Scotland and Japan are racking up 100ish point victories over some of these teams, what is it going to look like when they come up against the top seeds in their pools on being promoted? I'm not sure World Rugby will be too keen to see that in premier age grade competition, as opposed to the trophy were it's a little bit out of sight, out of mind.

Not sure how consistently you can rely on Tonga and Samoa getting access to higher quality talent either, might depend on whether it's a selection policy they can change or a lack of interest from those players who'd see NPC as a better setup for their development. Scale of the challenge may change their perspective a bit, but they might be more concerned with how professional the program is at this stage.

I do still think it's an important shift though getting more teams more competition at a higher level, particularly with the World Cup set to expand. It's just that the current promotion/relegation system looks like it will create unacceptable mismatches. Working out a better system there is probably the real logistical challenge, not so much the 16 tournament itself which looks very doable.

Mismatches will occur but I'm not sure they'll be Scotland/Hong Kong level. Scotland, Japan and potentially the US this year in the trophy wouldn't be any less competitive than Spain have proven in the JWC. It would also help in attracting and retaining many players in those nations.

 

[Highlander35]

Mismatches will occur but I'm not sure they'll be Scotland/Hong Kong level. Scotland, Japan and potentially the US this year in the trophy wouldn't be any less competitive than Spain have proven in the JWC. It would also help in attracting and retaining many players in those nations.

I don't necessarily agree with Wilson's point, but I think his concern is less for the Japans and Scotlands of the world and more for the next tier down, expanding to 16 it means that a team at the quality of Netherlands, Portugal, Samoa, Tonga, Canada, Kenya etc. will be promoted to the championship each season.

 

[Wilson]

I don't necessarily agree with Wilson's point, but I think his concern is less for the Japans and Scotlands of the world and more for the next tier down, expanding to 16 it means that a team at the quality of Netherlands, Portugal, Samoa, Tonga, Canada, Kenya etc. will be promoted to the championship each season.

Yeah, it's the auto promotion/relegation that I have an issue with. The gap between 1st and 16th isn't so different to 1st and 12th but based on the mismatches in the trophy this year I'd be worried about the gap between any of the top 4-6 and 17th/18th teams, which invariably comes up when you have auto promotion. Without a playoff match you can have a significantly weaker side come through by virtue of winning the weaker tournament.

I still think it's a solvable problem, it's just that I don't think the current system will work. The trick will be finding a way to manage that promotion relegation that guards against massive mismatches without entirely locking teams out of the championship.

 

[Mr Pilfer]

Interesting result out of Apia this afternoon. With Spain running Samoa very close with the hosts snatching it in the final minutes to record a 34-30 win. Quite the result considering Samoa beat Italy last weekend.

Spain vs Tonga this weekend as well, they would be a good chance of causing an upset there

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Spain vs Tonga this weekend as well, they would be a good chance of causing an upset there

Yeah. I think if Tonga don't treat them with respect they could be in for a shock.

 

[Omar Comin']

Yeah, it's the auto promotion/relegation that I have an issue with. The gap between 1st and 16th isn't so different to 1st and 12th but based on the mismatches in the trophy this year I'd be worried about the gap between any of the top 4-6 and 17th/18th teams, which invariably comes up when you have auto promotion. Without a playoff match you can have a significantly weaker side come through by virtue of winning the weaker tournament.

I still think it's a solvable problem, it's just that I don't think the current system will work. The trick will be finding a way to manage that promotion relegation that guards against massive mismatches without entirely locking teams out of the championship.

The next best European teams (Netherlands/Portugal) aren't so far behind for it to be too much of an issue IMO.

But an alternative could just be to have a qualification process each year for the tournament (above and beyond a one off promotion/relegation match).

 

[Wilson]

The next best European teams (Netherlands/Portugal) aren't so far behind for it to be too much of an issue IMO.

But an alternative could just be to have a qualification process each year for the tournament (above and beyond a one off promotion/relegation match).

They may not be, but Samoa are in that 5th place play off which would effectively be the qualifier and the gap is massive there based on their pool results.

Qualifying tournament is a good alternative, arguably better given its more likely to focus on the actual team playing in the tournament, not last year's 20s.

The main reason I'm focusing on that difference is I think the logistical challenge for a better promotion/relegation or qualification system is greater than a 16 team tournament. Finding the time in the schedule for age grade players each year could get complicated fast, particularly given you're generally talking about smaller and poorer unions who need to go through this process. 12 to 16 is easy, it can run over roughly the same length of time with just an 2 extra games per round. At most you need one more field and a bit more accommodation, but most tier 1 nations could easily handle that as host.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You could run the Trophy before the Championship. Expand it to 12 teams and have the 4 semifinalists qualify. But then you have the issue around time with those in the Trophy having to block out two separate windows.

Alternatively WR (World Rugby) could set up an U18/19s competition that runs with the intent of qualifying for the next years tournament.