Tier 1 countries

All things Rugby
User avatar
Saint
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: South Oxfordshire

Tier 1 countries

Post by Saint »

So.....

If the point if the RWC is to try and grow the game, then at least one measure would be how many "Tier 1" countries are there.

On that basis, do Japan now count as Tier 1? But on the flip side, do Italy deserve their supposed Tier 1 status?
User avatar
croyals
Posts: 7886
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by croyals »

Japan Tier 1, definitely. Italy 1.5
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
User avatar
Saint
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Saint »

Interesting. Nit seen anyone list a pre-req definition for Tier 1 before
backrow
Posts: 21432
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by backrow »

Tier 1 needs to be ‘has won a RWC or at least reached the final’
Tier 2 is have reached a semi or won a 6N in the professional era or been in top 5 rankings ever
User avatar
Doc Rob
Posts: 5117
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Eryri

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Doc Rob »

backrow wrote:Tier 1 needs to be ‘has won a RWC or at least reached the final’
Tier 2 is have reached a semi or won a 6N in the professional era or been in top 5 rankings ever
Phew, at least we squeak into tier 2 then. I’d hate to be Tier 3 because of a referee.
User avatar
PCPhil
Posts: 2838
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: Capital of Mercia

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by PCPhil »

backrow wrote:Tier 1 needs to be ‘has won a RWC or at least reached the final’
Tier 2 is have reached a semi or won a 6N in the professional era or been in top 5 rankings ever
This is very good. Sweet smelling and seemingly innocent. I will cover myself with leaves and watch.
User avatar
croyals
Posts: 7886
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by croyals »

Doc Rob wrote:
backrow wrote:Tier 1 needs to be ‘has won a RWC or at least reached the final’
Tier 2 is have reached a semi or won a 6N in the professional era or been in top 5 rankings ever
Phew, at least we squeak into tier 2 then. I’d hate to be Tier 3 because of a referee.
Did Joubert do you out of the quarter? You should mention it sometimes.
User avatar
Doc Rob
Posts: 5117
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Eryri

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Doc Rob »

croyals wrote:
Doc Rob wrote:
backrow wrote:Tier 1 needs to be ‘has won a RWC or at least reached the final’
Tier 2 is have reached a semi or won a 6N in the professional era or been in top 5 rankings ever
Phew, at least we squeak into tier 2 then. I’d hate to be Tier 3 because of a referee.
Did Joubert do you out of the quarter? You should mention it sometimes.
Good! Clearly even the hard of thinking understand this now. My work here is done.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28936
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by eldanielfire »

nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
georgia have a pro team?
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28936
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by eldanielfire »

nardol wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
georgia have a pro team?
It just said professional presence. The international team has a professional set-up.
User avatar
fonzeee
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by fonzeee »

eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
IMO any tier classification that includes Italy but not Japan in T1 ain't worth jack.

For me it's all about results, and Japan has beaten South Africa, Ireland, and Scotland in RWCs. Unless you have a Platinum Tier composed only of title contenders, Japan deserve to be in the highest tier.
User avatar
New guy
Posts: 4538
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by New guy »

Tier 1 is a side who plays in an annual tier 1 competition (6 nations or RC). That's why Italy are tier 1 despite being shit. All 10 of those teams have extra votes on the WR council.

In terms of ability, Japan are currently better than almost half of those teams but they wont be tier 1 until they can get their foot in the door of a big boy competition.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28936
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by eldanielfire »

fonzeee wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
IMO any tier classification that includes Italy but not Japan in T1 ain't worth jack.

For me it's all about results, and Japan has beaten South Africa, Ireland, and Scotland in RWCs. Unless you have a Platinum Tier composed only of title contenders, Japan deserve to be in the highest tier.
Nether the less that's how it is. For all the excitement of Japan right now, Italy still have a superior record against Tier 1 nations, partly thanks to 6 Nations opportunities.
User avatar
FullbackAce
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by FullbackAce »

nardol wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
georgia have a pro team?
If we don't count professional domestic league then no.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11217
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by A5D5E5 »

Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
georgia have a pro team?
It just said professional presence. The international team has a professional set-up.
ok - well i intended a professional non-international set up
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Wilderbeast »

A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
Didn’t you just categorise them into good and “less so”?
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

FullbackAce wrote:
nardol wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
nardol wrote:In terms of things required for T1 status:

1. A professional domestic presence
2. A homegrown production line of players to support any professional presence and intrnational side
3. Never drop below 15th in world rankings for national team (this one is a bit subjective - could move a bit depending)
4. Budget of x million for the national union - needs to be determined


Any other things that could be factors?


It depends how Japan kick on from here for me. If they keep the performance up post WC they may be the new Argentina. Argentina took 3/4 good world cups before they were allowed dine at the T1 table.
Point 2 means Scotland is excluded as Tier 1 and Georgia is now promoted to Tier 1 status.

At the moment the only criteria is being in the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship teams. We do have Japan, Fiji and Georgia floating just below that mark as side above tier 2 and knocking on the door.
georgia have a pro team?
If we don't count professional domestic league then no.
I genuinely dont know
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
Because it determines how much finance and votes you get at the highest level of rugby. Its quite important.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11217
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by A5D5E5 »

Wilderbeast wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
Didn’t you just categorise them into good and “less so”?
No, I reflected the fact that there are rankings and results which show this. It is objective and it doesn't bestow second (or third) class status on teams or patronise them like an arbitrary label does.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11217
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by A5D5E5 »

nardol wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
Because it determines how much finance and votes you get at the highest level of rugby. Its quite important.
Really? So Scotland will now have fewer votes?
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

A5D5E5 wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
Didn’t you just categorise them into good and “less so”?
No, I reflected the fact that there are rankings and results which show this. It is objective and it doesn't bestow second (or third) class status on teams or patronise them like an arbitrary label does.
just financial allocation from world rugby and votes on the council for major decisions
User avatar
Hellraiser
Posts: 14644
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Hellraiser »

Japan have been together for over 200 hundred days, are at home, and are completely adapted to local weather conditions. Let's see if they're Tier 1 when they have to compete home and away against others on a level playing field.
johnstrac
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by johnstrac »

World rugby needs to be opened up more, 19 of the teams that qualified in 2015 were at 2019 and (I'm sure that) 11 of the 12 that are already qualified for 2023 pre qualified for 2019.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28936
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by eldanielfire »

A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
I agree. But I suppsoe when we see a "Tier 1 team" lose it often emphasises the excellence and magnitude of the victory The definitions are arbitrary but they aren't entirely pointless even if they are inconsistently defined.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28936
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by eldanielfire »

johnstrac wrote:World rugby needs to be opened up more, 19 of the teams that qualified in 2015 were at 2019 and (I'm sure that) 11 of the 12 that are already qualified for 2023 pre qualified for 2019.
I've said for a while that the World Cup needs to expand with more tier 2 competition. Spain, Brazil, Romania are all there or there abouts.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Wilderbeast »

A5D5E5 wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:Why does anyone give a toss about this elitist tier x shit. It is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

There are different teams. Some are good, some less so. Rugby would be better if there were more good teams and fewer weaker ones. It doesn't matter what you call them so why try to categorise them?
Didn’t you just categorise them into good and “less so”?
No, I reflected the fact that there are rankings and results which show this. It is objective and it doesn't bestow second (or third) class status on teams or patronise them like an arbitrary label does.
Don’t mind me, I completely agree. I was bored on the train though and wanted to be witty but didn’t really want to try very hard.
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

Hellraiser wrote:Japan have been together for over 200 hundred days, are at home, and are completely adapted to local weather conditions. Let's see if they're Tier 1 when they have to compete home and away against others on a level playing field.
agree


Argentina had to prove themselves over 2 or 3 cycles to be allowed up. To prove that they were able to replace the players they lost.


To those wanting a larger world cup. No.

The tournament is long enough and the players already play too much.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11217
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by A5D5E5 »

nardol wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:Japan have been together for over 200 hundred days, are at home, and are completely adapted to local weather conditions. Let's see if they're Tier 1 when they have to compete home and away against others on a level playing field.
agree


Argentina had to prove themselves over 2 or 3 cycles to be allowed up. To prove that they were able to replace the players they lost.


To those wanting a larger world cup. No.

The tournament is long enough and the players already play too much.
Can you give me a link to the formal allocation of teams to tiers and the criteria used to determine this please?
User avatar
FullbackAce
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by FullbackAce »

Scrape the auto qualifying. Everyone except the world cup holder/host has to play qualifiers.
User avatar
New guy
Posts: 4538
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by New guy »

FullbackAce wrote:Scrape the auto qualifying. Everyone except the world cup holder/host has to play qualifiers.
Qualifying pool A
England
Romania
Belgium
Czech Republic

Gee I wonder who's going to qualify.
User avatar
Petros
Posts: 4044
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by Petros »

FullbackAce wrote:Scrape the auto qualifying. Everyone except the world cup holder/host has to play qualifiers.
They did pretty much that after 1995 made for some crazy scores
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

A5D5E5 wrote:
nardol wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:Japan have been together for over 200 hundred days, are at home, and are completely adapted to local weather conditions. Let's see if they're Tier 1 when they have to compete home and away against others on a level playing field.
agree


Argentina had to prove themselves over 2 or 3 cycles to be allowed up. To prove that they were able to replace the players they lost.


To those wanting a larger world cup. No.

The tournament is long enough and the players already play too much.
Can you give me a link to the formal allocation of teams to tiers and the criteria used to determine this please?
Yes for 1 no for 2 - which is the point of this thread

World Council voting
Tier 1
England 3 votes
Wales 3 votes
Scotland 3 votes
Italy 3 votes
New Zealand 3 votes
Australia 3 votes
Argentina 2 votes
Regional Associations
Oceania 2 votes
South America 2 votes
North America 2 votes
Africa 2 votes
Europe 2 votes
Asia 2 votes
Other Unions
Canada 1 vote
USA 1 vote
Japan 1 vote
Georgia 1 vote
Romanian 1 vote
Total: 37 votes
User avatar
FullbackAce
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by FullbackAce »

Petros wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:Scrape the auto qualifying. Everyone except the world cup holder/host has to play qualifiers.
They did pretty much that after 1995 made for some crazy scores
and believe it or not Rugby popularity saw a massive bump around the world during those qualifiers.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11217
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by A5D5E5 »

nardol wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
nardol wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:Japan have been together for over 200 hundred days, are at home, and are completely adapted to local weather conditions. Let's see if they're Tier 1 when they have to compete home and away against others on a level playing field.
agree


Argentina had to prove themselves over 2 or 3 cycles to be allowed up. To prove that they were able to replace the players they lost.


To those wanting a larger world cup. No.

The tournament is long enough and the players already play too much.
Can you give me a link to the formal allocation of teams to tiers and the criteria used to determine this please?
Yes for 1 no for 2 - which is the point of this thread

World Council voting
Tier 1
England 3 votes
Wales 3 votes
Scotland 3 votes
Italy 3 votes
New Zealand 3 votes
Australia 3 votes
Argentina 2 votes
Regional Associations
Oceania 2 votes
South America 2 votes
North America 2 votes
Africa 2 votes
Europe 2 votes
Asia 2 votes
Other Unions
Canada 1 vote
USA 1 vote
Japan 1 vote
Georgia 1 vote
Romanian 1 vote
Total: 37 votes
Thanks. And the criteria for deciding which country goes in which box?
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 19663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by kiap »

A5D5E5 wrote:
nardol wrote:Can you give me a link to the formal allocation of teams to tiers and the criteria used to determine this please?
Yes for 1 no for 2 - which is the point of this thread

World Council voting
Tier 1
England 3 votes
Wales 3 votes
Scotland 3 votes
Italy 3 votes
New Zealand 3 votes
Australia 3 votes
Argentina 2 votes
Regional Associations
Oceania 2 votes
South America 2 votes
North America 2 votes
Africa 2 votes
Europe 2 votes
Asia 2 votes
Other Unions
Canada 1 vote
USA 1 vote
Japan 1 vote
Georgia 1 vote
Romanian 1 vote
Total: 37 votes
No link provided.

That information is hopelessly out of date
grievous
Posts: 11591
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Tahstown

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by grievous »

eldanielfire wrote:
johnstrac wrote:World rugby needs to be opened up more, 19 of the teams that qualified in 2015 were at 2019 and (I'm sure that) 11 of the 12 that are already qualified for 2023 pre qualified for 2019.
I've said for a while that the World Cup needs to expand with more tier 2 competition. Spain, Brazil, Romania are all there or there abouts.
You keep saying that but how big do you want Brazil walloped by? 100 point thrashings are gone but we still have 50-70 pointers. The tournament needs a smaller point spread when 1 plays 20 or its regressing. It’s getting there maybe 2027 but it depends what WR put to place to guide this between WCs
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19362
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tier 1 countries

Post by nardol »

A5D5E5 wrote:
nardol wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
nardol wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:Japan have been together for over 200 hundred days, are at home, and are completely adapted to local weather conditions. Let's see if they're Tier 1 when they have to compete home and away against others on a level playing field.
agree


Argentina had to prove themselves over 2 or 3 cycles to be allowed up. To prove that they were able to replace the players they lost.


To those wanting a larger world cup. No.

The tournament is long enough and the players already play too much.
Can you give me a link to the formal allocation of teams to tiers and the criteria used to determine this please?
Yes for 1 no for 2 - which is the point of this thread

World Council voting
Tier 1
England 3 votes
Wales 3 votes
Scotland 3 votes
Italy 3 votes
New Zealand 3 votes
Australia 3 votes
Argentina 2 votes
Regional Associations
Oceania 2 votes
South America 2 votes
North America 2 votes
Africa 2 votes
Europe 2 votes
Asia 2 votes
Other Unions
Canada 1 vote
USA 1 vote
Japan 1 vote
Georgia 1 vote
Romanian 1 vote
Total: 37 votes
Thanks. And the criteria for deciding which country goes in which box?
See the 'no for 2 - which is the point of this thread'

It's backroom handshakes method.


Edit to above - excludes SA, Fra and Ire as this was in relation to world cup oting and as the 3 contenders ers they didnt then get a vote.
Post Reply