Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Banding Catergorisation 2016

Posts: 147
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby antlat » Mon, 01 May 2017, 10:03

Just found this information in the 2016 Year in Review article

High Performance Tier One
1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. England
4. France
5. Ireland
6. Italy
7. New Zealand
8. Scotland
9. South Africa
10. Wales

High Performance Tier Two
1. Canada
2. Fiji
3. Georgia
4. Japan
5. Namibia
6. Romania
7. Samoa
8. Tonga
9. Uruguay
10. United States America

Performance 1
1. Chile
2. Portugal
3. Russia
4. Spain

Performance 2
1. Belgium
2. Germany
3. Hong Kong
4. Kenya
5. South Korea
6. Papua New Guinea
7. Tunisia
8. Zimbabwe

Development 1
15 Unions

Development 2
28 Unions

Development 3
28 Unions

Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby 4N » Mon, 01 May 2017, 10:31

How are Brazil not in a higher band? Especially when Chile are Performance 1.

Posts: 850
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby Working Class Rugger » Mon, 01 May 2017, 10:51

Same could be said for Germany and maybe Belgium considering they both play in the REC as opposed to Portugal in the 2nd division.

Posts: 1658
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby YamahaKiwi » Mon, 01 May 2017, 11:02

I'm guessing that as this was done for 2016 (and probably applied to the status as of the start of the year) a similar report in this year's WR yearbook may show a change in the level of some countries. You'd certainly think Brazil would be included and Portugal probably now in Performance 2 rather than performance one, swapping with Germany and possibly Belgium. Chile's place could be from the Rugby Sud America Championship placings rather than the ARC results.

Posts: 458
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby Neptune » Mon, 01 May 2017, 12:54

I don't understand how Kenya are in performance 2 below Chile, yet we can beat them any day in any format. Kenya should be at per with Namibia.

Posts: 153
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby carbonero » Mon, 01 May 2017, 19:46

The only change from last year’s report is Germany going from “Development 1” to “Performance 2”. There has to be some sort of long term result criteria that both Germany and Brazil are not meeting at the moment. That will probably change in the coming years. Nonetheless, it doesn’t affect funding. Both receive more subsidies than some of the nations in the upper echelons.

2016 report: http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... 016/en/1-1
2015 report: http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... 015/en/1-1

You can also compare playing numbers. These are the registered players from South America:

Argentina--- 105.151--- +7,36%
Brazil------- 16.659--- +85,10%
Chile-------- 11.977--- +3,86%
Colombia---- 5.715--- +42,88%
Paraguay---- 4.860--- +201,30%
Peru--------- 10.564--- -17,47%
Uruguay----- 8.916--- +15,18%
Venezuela--- 1.725--- +37,34%

The total player count that World Rugby provides in the report is bonkers. For example, Venezuela shows an increase of 466,47%, so it is clearly marred by “Get into rugby” programs. However, the registered player increase is encouraging for the region.

User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 02 May 2017, 01:34

Performance bands are not just about performance, but about union development.

Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 02 May 2017, 07:58

Neptune wrote:I don't understand how Kenya are in performance 2 below Chile, yet we can beat them any day in any format. Kenya should be at per with Namibia.


First you can't be on par with Namibia as you haven't qualified for the last world cup. This is necessary to be qualified as a High Performance Union.

I do agree that Chile is quite puzzling why they are in Performance 1. Also interesting to know would be why there is actually a Performance1 & 2 and not one altogether. Also: if it doesn't directly affect the funding, what is it actually good for?

I recall reading about a World Rugby delegation visiting Germany to have a look at training facilities and the concept of our national team to qualifiy for the RWC and the W7S. Read in Germany, but says a lot: http://www.totalrugby.de/content/view/8472/33/

Apparently they were especially impressed by the development of the training infrastructure. So this could be an important criteria.
Another guess not related to the visit: Germany beating a Rugby World Cup participant in 2016 with Uruguay could also be a criteria.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

User avatar
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Tue, 02 May 2017, 08:41

:!: WHY THOSE publications ARE not DOWN-loadable :?:

http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... 016/en/1-1

http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... 015/en/1-1

:!: WHO WILL print OUT them in color AND make money INSTEAD OF wr :?:

User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 02 May 2017, 17:14


Posts: 2262
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby victorsra » Fri, 05 May 2017, 18:15

It is nonsense that Brazil is BELOW PNG and Tunisia. It can't be serious.

Performance bands are not just about performance, but about union development.


The Brazilian Rugby Union has more money than all these Performance 2 countries. It is clearly a ridiculous mistake.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 458
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby Neptune » Sat, 06 May 2017, 06:40

victorsra wrote:It is nonsense that Brazil is BELOW PNG and Tunisia. It can't be serious.

Performance bands are not just about performance, but about union development.


The Brazilian Rugby Union has more money than all these Performance 2 countries. It is clearly a ridiculous mistake.


My guess is these information is not updated. The figures stated are not in tandem with what is happening on the ground.

Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016

Postby 4N » Sat, 06 May 2017, 12:44

Neptune wrote:
victorsra wrote:It is nonsense that Brazil is BELOW PNG and Tunisia. It can't be serious.

Performance bands are not just about performance, but about union development.


The Brazilian Rugby Union has more money than all these Performance 2 countries. It is clearly a ridiculous mistake.


My guess is these information is not updated. The figures stated are not in tandem with what is happening on the ground.


Not updated? The PNG union has never done anything to earn a place above Brazil. Not now, not 5 years ago, not ever.

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jservuk, Simbas91, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests