T1 vs. T2 Test Matches – Winners and losers of the last years change

[CocoPampas]

For years have been a recurrent statement that T2 countries need more schedules against T1 in order to get the opportunity to grow. Currently we can find this idea behind the claim for a 6N expansion, in order to include Georgia and Romania. But we have also heard it from the Pacific Nations, and in a less extent from US and Canada.
During the last world’s cup cycle an important change has begun. Using the international windows, several T1 vs. T2 schedules were added. Increasing from 15 full Test matches (between 2008 and 2010) up to 35 Tests (during 2012-2014).
However, some T2 Nations seems to be left aside, and some T1 Nations seems to be carrying the most part of the effort.

Talking about T2 Nations, Samoa (7), Fiji (5) and Canada (3) were the only ones that had got T1 opponents in the years before 2011 RWC. With Samoa and Fiji increasing the amount of matches in the next period (to 10 and 7 respectively), while Canada got the same amount. Others winners with this change were Tonga (5 matches), Japan (5), US (4). And although they may need more, they were much more fortunate than Georgia (2) and Romania (0).
It’s interesting for me that, although the better opportunities the Pacific Islands got, any of them had a successful world cup. And on the other hand, Georgia was able to get the classification for the next world cup.

Regarding the T1 Nations, we can find big differences in the involvement in these matches.
In one end we can find Italy and Scotland with 8 and 7 matches, including 2 tours involving 2 or more T2 rivals. Just below them, we can find Wales (5 matches) and Ireland (4), with 1 tour. Then appear the others 6N teams Frances (3) and England (2) usually receiving 1 T2 nation during the autumn internationals.
A completely different scene it showed with the SH T1 Nations. With New Zealand leading with 2 matches (3 if we include the world cup year), followed by Argentina and South Africa (with only 1 each), and finishing with Australia not playing any Test Match against T2 countries.
I find this a bit shocking, when it is usual to find a lot of SH people complaining about the home nations conservative approach, and claiming for more opportunities for Georgia and Romania.
Also, it seems to me that the current problems for Georgia and Romania (to get better schedule) is directly related with the lack of involvement from the SH T1 nations.

As a new step in the proper direction, WR should demand all T1 nations to play at least 3 games against T2 countries between world cups.

 

[welshglory]

Yes that would be a great step forward, it is a necessity if anything.

However with the talks of a global season mainly factoring in the professional T1 European and Southern Hemisphere seasons i wonder if they will even consider the t2 nations.

 

[TRF_heineken]

For years have been a recurrent statement that T2 countries need more schedules against T1 in order to get the opportunity to grow. Currently we can find this idea behind the claim for a 6N expansion, in order to include Georgia and Romania. But we have also heard it from the Pacific Nations, and in a less extent from US and Canada.
During the last world's cup cycle an important change has begun. Using the international windows, several T1 vs. T2 schedules were added. Increasing from 15 full Test matches (between 2008 and 2010) up to 35 Tests (during 2012-2014).
However, some T2 Nations seems to be left aside, and some T1 Nations seems to be carrying the most part of the effort.

Talking about T2 Nations, Samoa (7), Fiji (5) and Canada (3) were the only ones that had got T1 opponents in the years before 2011 RWC. With Samoa and Fiji increasing the amount of matches in the next period (to 10 and 7 respectively), while Canada got the same amount. Others winners with this change were Tonga (5 matches), Japan (5), US (4). And although they may need more, they were much more fortunate than Georgia (2) and Romania (0).
It's interesting for me that, although the better opportunities the Pacific Islands got, any of them had a successful world cup. And on the other hand, Georgia was able to get the classification for the next world cup.

Regarding the T1 Nations, we can find big differences in the involvement in these matches.
In one end we can find Italy and Scotland with 8 and 7 matches, including 2 tours involving 2 or more T2 rivals. Just below them, we can find Wales (5 matches) and Ireland (4), with 1 tour. Then appear the others 6N teams Frances (3) and England (2) usually receiving 1 T2 nation during the autumn internationals.
A completely different scene it showed with the SH T1 Nations. With New Zealand leading with 2 matches (3 if we include the world cup year), followed by Argentina and South Africa (with only 1 each), and finishing with Australia not playing any Test Match against T2 countries.
I find this a bit shocking, when it is usual to find a lot of SH people complaining about the home nations conservative approach, and claiming for more opportunities for Georgia and Romania.
Also, it seems to me that the current problems for Georgia and Romania (to get better schedule) is directly related with the lack of involvement from the SH T1 nations.

As a new step in the proper direction, WR should demand all T1 nations to play at least 3 games against T2 countries between world cups.

Isn't it a bit unfair of you to blame the SH T1 teams during a world cup year when tests are being limited??

Anyways, apart from the pacific islands, there isn't many SH T2 teams left, so how do you suppose teams like Australia and South Africa assist with more games against lower tiered teams?

For Argentina it would be easy, as they along with the USA and Canada can have some sort of tri-nations Americas series, you could even add Uruguay to the mix.

But for South Africa, the only lower tiered team closeby is Namibia, and we are doing everything in our power to assist them.

The biggest issue is IMO distance. and here the European teams should be blamed more than the SH teams, as the distance is so much less than with the countries in the SH.

in 2014, South Africa held a tournament with Samoa and Italy in June before the RC and it worked rather well. But the problem is to fit the matches in the already gruesome schedule. it's basically just June and November that is available to the test teams to play other nations, and to keep things lucrative, the higher tiered teams will be preferred ahead of lower tiered teams.

Without the global season, I can only see 2 other ways of going about to get lower tiered teams to play the bigger nations and it is:
1. During the June and November tests, add another match before or after the series where they play 1 or 2 lower tiered teams.
2. Have the higher tiered teams organize a tournament for their 2nd international team like the Emerging Springboks/Maori's to play some sort of curtain raiser before the Rugby Championship games.

 

[saulan]

Isn't it a bit unfair of you to blame the SH T1 teams during a world cup year when tests are being limited??

I don't see him saying that. South Africa played one match against a tier two team between 2011 and 2015 WCs. That's quite poor. At least one a year for three years in between a World Cup is the least that can be done.

I would support adding a match or two to the EOYT. The All Blacks did a good job doing that and playing the USA. I wouldn't mind watching the Boks play Romania and Georgia before they play a mix of six nations teams (3 of them. Makes a five match tour.)

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't see him saying that. South Africa played one match against a tier two team between 2011 and 2015 WCs. That's quite poor. At least one a year for three years in between a World Cup is the least that can be done.

I would support adding a match or two to the EOYT. The All Blacks did a good job doing that and playing the USA. I wouldn't mind watching the Boks play Romania and Georgia before they play a mix of six nations teams (3 of them. Makes a five match tour.)

Fair enough, but as I said, if we use South Africa as an example, then distance is unfortunately our biggest enemy. Apart Namibia, our closest opponents for tier 2 teams would be the european teams, but it's my understanding though that the High Performance teams (tier 1 teams) should first try to accomodate the nations closest to them or who they have some form of affiliation with.

While SA doesn't play many tier 2 teams, there is no denying the assistance they provide to up and coming nations. South Africa is the main contributor towards development of rugby in Africa, and teams like Namibia, Kenya and Zimbabwe has reaped the rewards of SA's involvement.

So there is some mitigating arguments to be added to this discussion, and why certain Tier 1 teams might play less games against tier 2 teams.

 

[CocoPampas]

Yes that would be a great step forward, it is a necessity if anything.

However with the talks of a global season mainly factoring in the professional T1 European and Southern Hemisphere seasons i wonder if they will even consider the t2 nations.

As far as I know, the global season will start in 2020 in the best case. Therefore, I think that something should be done before that.

By the way, I don't think that a global season will fix the problem about T1 nations playing against T2. It will include some kind of International Window to allow the tours, and as it is happening today this will be the moment for T1 countries to face some T2s.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Scotland have done well from the changes, although prob one of the few tier 2 teams to be in a proper international tournament.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Scotland have done well from the changes, although prob one of the few tier 2 teams to be in a proper international tournament.

Technically, Scotland isn't a tier 2 team, as they form part of the 6 nations, just like Italy...

 

[CocoPampas]

Fair enough, but as I said, if we use South Africa as an example, then distance is unfortunately our biggest enemy. Apart Namibia, our closest opponents for tier 2 teams would be the european teams, but it's my understanding though that the High Performance teams (tier 1 teams) should first try to accomodate the nations closest to them or who they have some form of affiliation with.

While SA doesn't play many tier 2 teams, there is no denying the assistance they provide to up and coming nations. South Africa is the main contributor towards development of rugby in Africa, and teams like Namibia, Kenya and Zimbabwe has reaped the rewards of SA's involvement.

So there is some mitigating arguments to be added to this discussion, and why certain Tier 1 teams might play less games against tier 2 teams.

As @saulan (thanks for the clarification) said, I'm not proposing any additional test on RWC years. I think that all this should be implemented between RWCs.
Yes, there are some mitigation factors. That's why I'm suggesting only 3 matches while some T1 unions (Italy and Scotland) played more than 7 matches against T2 countries between the last 2 RWCs.

However, I don't think that distance is one of them. If you check who is playing whom, you will see that almost nobody is playing against the T2 countries they have near. The usual approach is to play T2 nations during a tour. And for SH T1 nations, there are plenty of opportunities: stop in US, Canada, Japan or PIs in their way to Europe; or visit Georgia or Romania when they are there.

I understand that SA has more limited options than the others SH nations. However, they still have the European T2 countries options, and the 2014 tournament was a great alternative.

The problem here is that, as you said, there isn't too much room for additional games. Therefore, the T1 have to reduce the number of T1 vs. T1 matches in order to increase the vs. T2 ones.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Technically, Scotland isn't a tier 2 team, as they form part of the 6 nations, just like Italy...

It was banter

 

[argie]

WR must define who are T1 and who are T2, because there have been some changes since the last RWC. I'm thinking to expand the T1 nations, and the T2 too.

Or which are the requeriments to be a T1 and T2.

 

[CocoPampas]

WR must define who are T1 and who are T2, because there have been some changes since the last RWC. I'm thinking to expand the T1 nations, and the T2 too.

Or which are the requeriments to be a T1 and T2.

I agreed with you that WR should define which are the requirements to be considered T1 or T2. And also review this status periodically (every 2/4 years maybe?).
However, I don't think any new T1 o T2 country should be consider by now.

 

[argie]

Uruguay is pushing now to be considered T2.

 

[CocoPampas]

Uruguay is pushing now to be considered T2.

I really don't know what WR consider to be a T2. But, IMO the different tiers should group teams with a similar level.
Therefore, I think that Uruguay don't have the required level to be T2. Moreover, I don't think even Namibia is a T2 nation.
This doesn't mean that Uruguay isn't doing an excellent developing work.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I agreed with you that WR should define which are the requirements to be considered T1 or T2. And also review this status periodically (every 2/4 years maybe?).
However, I don't think any new T1 o T2 country should be consider by now.

This article gives some good insight on the tiers and why it's no longer being used:
http://tier2rugby.blogspot.co.za/2014/05/who-is-officially-tier-2-nation.html

 

[CocoPampas]

This article gives some good insight on the tiers and why it's no longer being used:
http://tier2rugby.blogspot.co.za/2014/05/who-is-officially-tier-2-nation.html

Thanks for the info.
It's clear that the WR is still using the tier classification, even though they stated they were getting rid of it in 2008.
Also it seems that the T2 unions are now defined as all the RWC participants that aren't T1 unions. And are probably redefined in every RWC.

Now, going back to my original proposal, if they are interested in the worldwide developing of the game, England (2), New Zealand (2), and particularly South Africa (1), Argentina (1) and Australia (0) should play at least 3 matches against T2 Nations between world cups.
All the other T1 Nations are already doing it.
These additional matches against T2 will probably give more opportunities to Georgia and Romania, which are the currently forgotten T2 countries.