Banding Catergorisation 2016
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Banding Catergorisation 2016
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
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
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
How are Brazil not in a higher band? Especially when Chile are Performance 1.
- Working Class Rugger
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
- National Flag:
Australia
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
Same could be said for Germany and maybe Belgium considering they both play in the REC as opposed to Portugal in the 2nd division.
- YamahaKiwi
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
- National Flag:
New Zealand
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
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.
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
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.
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
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.
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.
- NaBUru38
-
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
- Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
- National Flag:
Uruguay
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
Performance bands are not just about performance, but about union development.
- RugbyLiebe
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
- National Flag:
Germany
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
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.
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.
- FLIDTA RISXVA
-
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
- Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016


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


- NaBUru38
-
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
- Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
- National Flag:
Uruguay
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
It is nonsense that Brazil is BELOW PNG and Tunisia. It can't be serious.
The Brazilian Rugby Union has more money than all these Performance 2 countries. It is clearly a ridiculous mistake.
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
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
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.
Re: Banding Catergorisation 2016
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.
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Used2BwithIt and 12 guests