Connolly wants Islanders in Super 14

[Burgs]

Connolly wants Islanders in Super 14

September 24, 2007

RIVAL World Cup coaches John Connolly and Ilie Tabua have both called for island entertainers Fiji, Samoa and Tonga to be rushed into the Super 14 competition.

Connolly and Tabua stressed the urgency needed in aiding development in the Pacific after Fiji showed good signs but was ultimately outclassed by Australia 55-12 in Montpellier.

Like neighbours Samoa and Tonga, the Fijians' set-pieces let them down dreadfully to expose a lack of combination and coaching resources.

Wallabies coach Connolly felt the three island nations had built a compelling case for admission to an expanded Super 14 through their World Cup form.

Tonga has been the biggest surprise, almost upsetting South Africa (30-25) in Lens, and can achieve a maiden quarter-final with a win over England in Paris on Friday.

Samoa kept the struggling English to 26-22 with 12 minutes left before the defending champions pulled away to win 44-22.

"The island countries are good," Connolly said. "The IRB (International Rugby Board) have got some real issues in what to do with the island countries.

"It can't stay the way it is.

"They need resources, they probably need to play in the Super 14. They need to move on.

"The Super 14 is the first step. It's sitting there. Argentina is sitting there for a Tri-Nations (berth).

"Those things have to be done sooner rather than later.

"(Otherwise) in four years time we'll be having the same discussion."

Fiji mentor Tabua, coached by Connolly at Queensland in the early 1990s, said Super 14 entry and more Tests against Tri-Nations sides Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were crucial.

"The island nations need to be in that competition so we can develop more of our players," Tabua said.

"Two-thirds of our (30-man squad are based overseas). We need to develop more by having a team in the Super 14.

"Australia, NZ and South Africa need to have more games with the Pacific Islands rather than meet them every four years at a World Cup.

"It's only then we can gauge our development moving forward."

AAP

[prop53]

put them all in the tri nations treat them with respect they will improve in leaps and bounds

[hopep]

No Prop53
I don't think the Pacific nations are ready for the 3N as seperate nations.
But, surprisingly, no-one on this forum has commented on the fact that the 3 PI nations have improved out of sight - largely (I suggest) as a result of the pacific nations comp, supported by IRB.
Yes they are improving, perhaps a combined PI team would cut the mustard, but 3 separate nations - NO I can't see them being competetive or having the financial support needed.

Not yet anyway.

[The EnForcer]

NO I can't see them being competetive or having the financial support needed.

Not yet anyway.

Same was said of Itally when they first entered the 6N and now look at them. I don't believe a combined PI team would be a workable solution.

[hopep]

No, we were right for the first few years Italy was not competitive - they were the comps easy beats every time. But, they had a large internal competition that was profesional, with quality foriegners injecting nouse and interest. That is why, eventually, they became competitive.

The Key difference with Italy is that it has a large economy and can financially support a team in its own rights. I serioiusly doubt that any single nation from Fiji, Tonga or Samoa will draw enough sponsorship dollars to fund a full round of games in SANZAR?

All the PI nations players go elsewhere to get a gurnsey - the opposite to Italy.

The last time Tonga was competitive against Australia was back in 1973 ( they won 16-11). The 3 SH nations have excelled as the PI countries have diminished over 20 years. Not because of talent, or population - sport (pro) only thrives in large, expanding economies. Its an economic arguement, not a meritricious one, that will keep PI countries out of 3N.

Again, YES - they need to get into regular comps, YES - they have great talent, YES - they have improved. But, I don't see them as viable international ($$$) squads YET.
Let the Pacific Nations Cup continue to do what it has done so far, in 1 year, brought them up to a consolidated top 20 level. Now the need some more test matches and in a few years, YES they'll be regularaly competitive.
BUT ONLY, and a big only, when they have sufficient internal financial ability to compete.

Without internal self-supporting finances they will be a basket case, held in check by simply drip feeding money to them. Just enough to be competitive, not enough to beat the hand that feeds them. No team wants to be a 'charity' inclusion.

[Burgs]

The trouble is though, until there is a line in the sand drawn, the top performers in the PNC will continue to be drawn away from the Islands to Europe and continue to be unavailable due to Club commitments which comes back to the financial argument.
Both with Argentina and the Pacific Islands, the only way there will be any reasonable improvement from the current situation is for their Rep players to be able to live in their home nation and earn a respectable living as a professional player.
Until that occurs we are kidding ourselves that the lure of European Club money is going to diminish.

[hopep]

Thats my point Burgs, I can't see any PI nation ever having an economy strong enough to support an internal, professional competition.
Argentina, I think, has enough of an economy to support some form of pro-rugby. They are much more likely to make it, but the cost/income will have to be subsidised for a number of seasons in something like the 3N or S14.
The other teams would have to agree to some financial, and travel, support for a set period.
I can see it happening - just not next year. And, if we don't include Los Pumas in the next 2-3 years, the impetus from this RWC will be lost. Its a tough call either way. As I said elsewhere, with a shorter flying time to Europe, that may be their best option - something in the Magners or Heiniken comps rather than 6N ?

[jargan83]

Argentina has to be involved somewhere though, the only top 10 team in thw world (as far as i know) that doesnt have regular competion.

[shasta]

Perhaps the answer to the PI viability lies with a suggestion that has been put before. Base a team At Bluetongue Stadium in Gosford.

I'm not so sure that the Pacific Nations Cup is the sole factor in this improvement. Many of their players were unavailable for PN Cup. They are playing in pro set-ups elsewhere and their fitness and skill levels are where they have improved most. Perhaps it is an "upside" to the player drain towards Japan and Europe. Similar could probably be said for the Georgians,Romanians etc.

[hopep]

I agree Shasta, there has been a great benefit in Rugby going profesional for those player "exporting" nations. But only a player "importing" or developing nation will have the infrastructure for national, and ultimately international, games.
A PI team at Gosford would be a de-facto Australian team. All the funding and support would have to be in australia - then there is no trickle down effect for the PI's.

[shasta]

A PI team at Gosford would be a de-facto Australian team. All the funding and support would have to be in australia - then there is no trickle down effect for the PI's.

Well I suppose, but I can't really see an easy way to base a PI team in the islands, initially anyway.

A Gosford base would at least enable more island players to get to S14 level without having to commit to Oz or NZ or going to Europe. We may see the future Rockokos, Lome Fa'ataus, Radiki Samos etc playing in a PI S14 team and playing for their home country in RWC 2011.

[Flat-top]

No, we were right for the first few years Italy was not competitive - they were the comps easy beats every time. But, they had a large internal competition that was profesional, with quality foriegners injecting nouse and interest. That is why, eventually, they became competitive..

Where did you read that hopep, Italy have a very poor internal league, they essentially have three top sides that struggle to retain quality players and cannot compete against the other European clubs in the Heiniken Cup season after season.

The Key difference with Italy is that it has a large economy and can financially support a team in its own rights. I serioiusly doubt that any single nation from Fiji, Tonga or Samoa will draw enough sponsorship dollars to fund a full round of games in SANZAR?..

Again I think you are wide of the mark, Italy has a poor economy in comparison to its neighbours and Rugby is very much a minor sport that does not receive funding anywhere close to the other 6N countries...it is all the more remarkable how successful they have become in such a short time, down to the fact they were included in the comp even before they were competitive.

All the PI nations players go elsewhere to get a gurnsey - the opposite to Italy.

That is nonesense. In the 30 man squad Italy took to the WCup at least 16 play either in France or in England, the remainder as I say are based round only three professional teams...this isn't so much different to the 2/3rds Knuckles refers to for the PI's. The difference is that Italy are able to recall these "exports" when they need them as the distance isn't great between France & Italy, the very reason the PI's need a S14 team to retain their "exports" closer to home rather than the other side of the world. Either that or the S14 have to allow a quota of PI's players in each squad.

The last time Tonga was competitive against Australia was back in 1973 ( they won 16-11). The 3 SH nations have excelled as the PI countries have diminished over 20 years. Not because of talent, or population - sport (pro) only thrives in large, expanding economies. Its an economic arguement, not a meritricious one, that will keep PI countries out of 3N..

The Argentinian economy can barely be rated above some African nations, the country has for years gone through civil unrest because of the poverty and the military dictatorships thrive in this climate. All this and yet the Pumas somehow manage to thrive, just imagine how successful both the Pumas and the PIs could be if the rest of the rugby world became more inclusive...so what if they are the "comp beats" for a few years, they have to join at some point to continue improvement.


I agree that Europe may have to be the breeding ground for the Pumas as it is unlikely their government will every support the sport sufficiently at home to warrant home based team but similarly it is the Southern Hemisphere that must provide the opportunities for the PI's and maybe in time for some developing Asian nations. there is never a good time to introduce a new team to any league as they will always run the risk of being uncompetitive for a period of time but in WA if nowhere else you must agree that it is the right thing to do.

Didn't always agree with Knuckles while he was at Bath but I am 100% behind him on this point.

[Burgs]

The very act of introducing Super Rugby would allow outside investors/sponsors to look to Island Rugby as part of a bigger package rather than the limited commercial market of each individual Island Nation.

A couple of points I made from last year:
As a stepping stone Argentina could base in the centrally located Perth for some or all of the "Tri Nations" (Southern Oceans or whatever...).
Although Tonga have proved competitive in France, they do not have the depth of Fiji and Samoa. They may be better off having a team based out of each of Suva and Apia with a bias towards their own, but an ability to recruit from Tonga and the other Rugby playing Pacific Islands (Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea etc)
Let's not forget just how much these Nations are already punching above their weight, these are the TOTAL population figures for the three Nations we are discussing!

Fiji- 918,675
Samoa- 214,265
Tonga- 116,921

Total- 1,249,861

WA- 2,050,900
Perth- 1,507,900
Canberra- 374,766

[The EnForcer]

Let's not forget just how much these Nations are already punching above their weight, these are the TOTAL population figures for the three Nations we are discussing!

Fiji- 918,675
Samoa- 214,265
Tonga- 116,921

Total- 1,249,861

WA- 2,050,900
Perth- 1,507,900
Canberra- 374,766

Not forgetting that the comparison of populations xcan be furthr broken down by taking into account what the primary sport is in each location.

Flat-top is pretty much on the money with regards to Italy and the development of their rugby.

To prevent teams from entering competitions because you don't think they will be competitive, which is debatable in itself, is the same as saying we should only have the top 12 teams in the world in the world cup…….Very elitist if you ask me and not progressive.

[hopep]

Very happy to acknowledge that all the PI nations are fighting above their weight. There on field ability, and the merit of competing against SANZAR nations is not at point. I simply doubt the ongoing financial viability of it.

If SANZAR looked at it seriously and found sufficient sponsorship for a long enough period, then bring them in. I, for one, don't see them raising sufficient money over a long period to sustain a regular team.

As for the Argentina and Italy economies, they are Large - not the same as stable. Both have much stronger basis that will support a professional rugby culture. Italy's economy is large than Australia's, Argentinas is larger than NZ's. So, YES - both Italy & possibly Argetina have an economic sustainability that is not present in Pacific Nations.

GDP for countries in Millions US $
Italy - 1,852,585
Argentina - 212,702
Fiji - 2,977
Tonga - 224
Samoa - 365

On a purely finanicial basis - I doubt any, or even a combined, pacific nation team would have enough support. They are likely to be struggling to mount a World Cup campaign every 4 years.