Banding Catergorisation 2016

[antlat Profile]

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

[4N Profile]

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

[Working Class Rugger Profile]

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 Profile]

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.

[Neptune Profile]

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.

[carbonero Profile]

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.

[NaBUru38 Profile]

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

[RugbyLiebe Profile]

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.

[FLIDTA RISXVA Profile Website]

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

[NaBUru38 Profile]

http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... t/pg3z.jpg
http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... /pg44z.jpg
http://publications.worldrugby.org/year ... /pg99z.jpg

Oops, I hacked it.

[victorsra Profile Website]

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.

[Neptune Profile]

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.

[4N Profile]

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.