Imagine you’re a less than top notch rugby nation such as Scotland or Wales. You can beat one of the top five teams once in a blue moon, but more often you discover yourself quivering at the prospect of defeat at the rough hands of a rugby minnow.
What can you do to avoid the preposterous fate of being defeated and eliminated from a World Cup by one of these poor, vulgar countries?
No problem. You are richer by far than these little guys. You have board members on the IRB. So you can undertake the following easy project to save the day. No one will oppose you, no one will whisper the faintest word of criticism.
1. Exclude them from major tournaments and regular international competition.
Is it really the case that Georgia or Romania are so much weaker than Scotland and Wales and do not merit inclusion in the Six Nations? Wouldn’t it speed forward the development of the game in those countries? Precisely!
They are dangerously close to becoming good teams who could knock Wales or Scotland out of the World Cup or defeat them in the Six Nations.
Deprive them of the opportunity to play regularly and they will never be in shape to amount to much and the game will never grow where they live. Thankfully, with places on the IRB board, it is possible to make certain they never see the light of high end competition.
2. Keep their playing squads weak.
It’s noticeable that the major teams voting against a player changing the country they represent are the those most threatened by the prospect of defeat on the pitch – Wales, Scotland, Ireland (don’t think because the Irish beat Australia that they are not very likely to lose to a minnow normally).
So we see a drastically weakened Samoa, which could have beaten Wales with full access to players who are dragged off by the promise of greater riches to the four corners of the rugby world – Australia, New Zealand, England, Wales. Having taken the best years away from these players, the IRB makes sure they won’t even allow these poor countries the cast-off remains.
3. Fail to expand the game.
There has been almost no improvement in the state of rugby in the minnow countries as a result of the IRB’s intervention. Samoa and Fiji look weaker than they were at the last cup, Georgia no stronger, and it should be noted that there has not been a single upset yet involving a minnow. Not one.
They may threaten through enthusiasm and unfamiliarity (to their opponents) for some time, but the result is always the same.
4. Give them impossible turnover time.
How on earth can, for example, Samoa defeat Wales three days after their previous match?
The malicioulsy planned short turnover for Tier two nations effectively removes the smallest lingering hope of a minnow qualifying from a pool and just as well: it would be at the expense of a Wales or a Scotland.
An extra week added to the world cup could easily solve this. For what it’s worth, it also makes the world cup far less interesting, as there is no point in watching the minnow play when it is certain they will lose.
One thing is clear: the IRB intentionally keeps the weak weak so as not to threaten the strong.
Samoa have been brave in spelling out the horrendous truth, the Prime Minister observing how unfair it is to intentionally rob a team of its players by denying them the right to change nation.
But it took a profoundly honest and courageous twitter post from Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu to make plain reality:
“IRB, Stop exploiting my people. Please, all we ask, is fairness. If they get a week, give us a week. Simple. Equity, justice.”
“Give Wales 3 days off, and give Samoa a week! We would kill them!!!”
The truest line, summing up in a breath the shocking manipulation of these poor countries is the first:
“Stop exploiting my people.”
These poor countries are undermined, underfunded, cleverly weakened, robbed at every stage and are then asked to make up the numbers in the World Cup so that rugby can masquerade as a global game.
It is not. A coterie of ex-players rather than a professional body form the IRB, who conspire to keep power to themselves and prevent the lesser teams from being a threat while abusing them to parade the lie that they have a genuinely widespread international sport.
So when you see Wales or Scotland in a World Cup quarter final, don’t think for a moment they played any rugby to deserve it. The victories won were off the pitch, and they were uncontested.
MR01
Guest
Johnno - my pleasure, I admit to having had some of the same stereotypes until I read Bounce. Needless to say it's a combination of factors that results in more black than white basketball players, perception by the coaches/trainers/scouts being one of them. Here's a question - if the West Indian were 'naturally' better fast bowlers, how do you explain their decline & the rise of Australian fasy bowling ? I'm not after an answer just giving you food for thought.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
A lot of the injustice and inequity in funding, access to funding/resources and scheduling would be fixed if the 5N countries(england, ireland, scotland, france and wales ) voluntarily give up their veto and make the IRB consist of ONE COUNTRY ONE VOTE . ALTERNATIVELY the second/third/fourth tier countries could opt out of the IRB, pool their money and resources and form their own body with ONE NATION ONE VOTE - a move that would in one fell swoop destroy the IRB gerry-mander on power , force change through and bring joy to the rest of the known world :-)
Johnno
Guest
MRO1 thank you for the book recommendation. I think i am going to make an effort to find this book and order it online. It may change my opinion on this issue i am very open to having my opines and beliefs changed and on many issues not just sport after looking at other informations and the point of view and some research on a subject i have changed my opine. Will check it out. But it just confuses me how more Afrian americans playing basketball in the nBA than whtie players, and same with so many dominant polynesian players in contact sports. And same with the west indians fast bowlers of 7-'8 80's and mid 90'd begin more dominant. ANd look at the georgian rugby team, it can not be denied that there scrum is stronger than people of angle saxon heritage.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
Johnno, it's fine if you were bored with the Five Nations but fans in the North certainly weren't bored. If fans in the South were bored with The Tri Nations after only 15 years, then it sounds like the format wasn't very robust in the first place.
MR01
Guest
Johnno - Can I suggest you read Bounce by Matthew Syed, you'll find out your raced based superiority assumptions are incorrect e.g African-American being faster runners..
Johnno
Guest
Sorry Rugby fan I agree to disagree with you. The 5 nations was becoming stale like the tri nations has become stale. Italy offered a new dimension freshened the conceit up, mad it more glamourous and cosmopolitan offered a new brand of rugby, excting to travel to rome, just connected europed up more, and also was good for France, as france was the only non anglo son or celitc team before Italy cam in without he mediteranean touch of glamour. And now italy , rugby is mainstream and developing very well.
Johnno
Guest
But that is the point jumpers you have answered your own question. Smoan and tongan, the peole of that genetic make up or race or cultural heritage, are form those nations. You may be born in NZ( Tana usage, SBW,Digby Ioane) for example but you are of samoan heritage and you ave the genetic make up of a snamoan. Same with Kepu,Palu, and TPN. All tongan heritage. Or a Fijian Indian. Indian genetic heritage But BORN IN fiji. ANd culturally a Fiian indian, just like a samoan born new zealander can fit into that other country, racially, language wise, religious wise, food identification wise, so playing for 2 nations is not weird or fearing to them. A NZ born man of samoan or tongan heritage it is not weird to play for the ancestors or parents birth place. It would not of felt weird for Jonah Lomu to of played for Tonga as he can identify with the country on so many levels. Or a Fijian indian to play cricket for India, the same logic. Or for a croatian Australian eg Mark Viduka to of played soccer for Croatia would not of been weird. We already had a few talented aussies of croatian heritage play soccer for Croatia, and the prim minister of croatia tried to lure a young mark Viduka to play for Croatia. So the genetic make up of polynesians being superior at contact sport the majority of the time over a white man simply can not be denied. There ar enow so many AMerican Samoans in the NFL american football and they are such a tiny island of people. Same with african-american men majority of the time being faster runners, and also more athletic. African american men dominate the NBA, not white men despite are higher white population in the USA. So genetically despite begin from the USA there genetic make up hails form Africa originally. Eg Micheal Jordan. Just as anglo saxons who live in Australia hailed forom england wales, scotland and orleand 220 plus years ago.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I'm sorry mate. There I was jumping down your throat when it was actually Johnno I was taking to task. Apologies. I think the game benefits from expansion but, in the absence of any agreement on a global season, any additional international matches will have to see some others go. Add Georgia & Romania, and England can't host as many Autumn matches without disrupting the club schedule later in the year. As it is, two extra games would probably mean extending the tournament schedule by three weeks which would make a mess of the Heineken Cup timetable. Nevertheless, any games with lower-ranked teams would have to be within the IRB international window or you will get player release problems. There's no point arranging matches if the teams can't get access to their best players. It's a balancing act between making sure the game's major money-earning events continue to maintain high interest, and finding the appropriate place for new teams to join the party. Would Southern Hemisphere teams be open to adding Georgia & Romania to their end-of-year tour schedules? I'd like to see England over in Samoa during a summer tour but maybe the money isn't there. There might be more of a role for the England second team now that the Churchill Cup is over. The Saxons now have no summer fixtures so there is potentially scope for them to find meaningful matches.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Down IRB pockets probably.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rugby fan when did I make any claim about the 5 nations? Look back and you won't find it. Yes adding those teams is for the benefit of rugby and expanding the game rather than the current nations, but if the current nations were allowed simply to keep any newcomers out then rugby would never grow. I don't think the fixtures are meaningless in the case of Georgia and Romania who with a full international schedule would now be perfectly competitive enough. Yes there is problem having more games each year, but perhaps it won't be so bad with only one or two more. Most squads have 'rest' weekends now which could be taken away. It will be a problem though. When it gets past 8, there could be two pools and semi-finals which would give the top nations in the competition the same number of games as now, or each team could miss a different nation each year. Of course there could be objection by the current nations. But that's how to be fair and expand the game...
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I'm also interested in the future of the tournament, and rugby in general. However, I assume you wouldn't argue for an expansion of the current 6 Nations because it is "becoming stale", so I remain bemused why you made that claim about the 5 Nations. Georgia and Romania need the 6 Nations but the tournament doesn't need either, just as the 5 Nations didn't need Italy. Rugby as a whole benefits from Italy's inclusion and it may also do if Georgia and Romania get space in a meaningful competition. Dublin Dave made some excellent points above, however. International competition in any sport suffers when you too many matches of no consequence. You don't automatically improve a competition by expanding it. You also have to remember that the bulk of the international calendar in the North takes place in parallel with major club competitions. Our clubs are playing now while the World Cup is on. Every extra fixture for an international player is time he isn't available for his club. In England, the RFU and the clubs agreed a 32-game limit per year for players, including release for training camps and the 'rest weekends' in the autumn and Six Nations periods. The Aviva Premiership consists of 12 clubs. That's 22 home and away games in the regular season. The playoff finalists have two more games on top. The Heineken Cup pool stages involve 6 games. The finalists have another 3 games to play. Premiership teams also play in the LV Cup against Welsh clubs which involves 4 pool matches and two more for the finalists. A top player will be at a top club hoping to feature deep into all these competitions. Simple arithmetic shows that no player could possibly turn out for all his club's fixtures and have any room for international duty. England played five 6 Nations matches in 2010 and four Autumn Internationals. That's already 9 games off a top player's quota. World Cup years are even heavier. You can't discuss adding games without figuring out what you are going to lose from some other part of the calendar.
Ben S
Roar Guru
The last 5N was a cracker - France were crap, Scotland overachieved, and Wales beat England on the final dayl.
jumpers
Guest
The comment that Samoa produces some of the best rugby players in the World is rubbish!!! Players may have heritage links and cultural ties to Samoa but were either born in NZ/or elaswher-learned all their rugby craft in NZ through the NZ coaching system!! So get it right! Samoa don't contribute anything. Samoa also received millions from the IRB to develop rugby in Samoa-apparently all this money disappeared?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rugby Fan what interests me is the future of the tournament-it seems to me that Georgia certainly and probably Romania would be competitive, certainly when facing Scotland and Italy and that it would be very significant for the development of rugby in those countries if they were allowed in the Six Nations.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
KPM, if you are now agreeing that the 5 Nations wasn't stale, but you simply meant to emphasize how good for rugby it is for Italy to have joined, you'll get no argument from me. If instead, you still maintain that the 5 Nations was struggling, and needed some kind of shot in the arm, then I still take issue with you.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rugby Fan there's another thing extra teams add which is glamour. Now of course the idea the Italian rugby team adds glamour sounds odd but look at it this way: the bigger and more international a competition, the more glamourous. If one day the Six Nations is a Ten Nations, is will be an even more massive international event.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I'm not arguing any of that. I'm taking issue with your claim that the 5 Nations was "becoming stale". That is simply not true.
Johnno
Guest
But the point is playing in other leagues to improve them plus having them in the 6 nations is a long term pstive for the sport at grassroots level. Coz if the kids on tv see there national team playing better they will want to moor likely play the sport to.
Colin N
Guest
The IRB aren't made with an endless supply of money. They already give 2/3rds of their expenditure to tier two nations. You can't just say they have to put money into this, this and this, it just doesn't work like that.
Rugby Fan
Guest
You make some excellent points which are relevant to a number of discussions on The Roar at the moment. It amazes me when I see people calling for more internationals in the calendar when all the evidence shows players are at breaking point, especially in England and France.