Talking Tiers

[adamkungl]

Currently the tiers are defined as:

1: Australia, New Zealand, England

2: RLIF Full member nations

3: All others eligible to play in RLIF ratified tests

--

Could this ever change? Will Tonga become a tier 1 nation?

Yes... and no.

There are 2 important questions:

First, you have to ask why Tier 1 nations are defined as they are. Simply being the best isn't really an answer that holds to any criteria (why 3? why not 2 or 6?). There might not be a criteria strictly defined now, but there should and eventually will be.
We can apply a criteria which Australia, New Zealand, and England all fulfill and no other nations do.
1. Has a fully professional club competition or club team(s).
2. Are ALWAYS capable of filling a national team with players that are fully professional/first grade.
(maybe) 3. Are capable of funding a national team for regular matches and tours.

The second question - is simply being tier 1 an advantage?
Many argue that tier 1 nations get special treatment and advantages.. but that is not the case.
Under the new rules Tier 1 nations have *more* restrictions on dual-eligibility. Any Pacific nation that moves from 2 to 1 would have more difficulty keeping players due to no longer being able to 'share' with Aus and NZ.
The opportunities and advantages of tier 1 nations (more games, money) are earned from within their national bodies, not handed to them by the RLIF due to some mythical tier status.

--

So, back to Tonga... are they, or should they become a tier 1 nation???
The answer is NO.
They currently have a good squad but that is not enough to put them on the same level as the T1s, EVEN IF they manage to beat them (well, NZ) again.
They fail on all 3 above criteria currently,
they will almost certainly never have fully professional club team,
and the size of their population and economy makes it difficult (but not impossible) for them to fund matches and tours without NRL assistance.
Becoming a tier 1 nation would make their ability to recruit players far more difficult, with the vast majority of them born and raised in NZ and Aus, and they would be forced to drop back pretty shortly.

The other 3 major Pacific nations are similar... with the exception of PNG.
1. Could MAYBE raise the local competition to a decent standard and there's always discussion about the viability of an NRL side.
2. It wouldn't surprise me if their national team at least was fully first grade/professional within the next decade.
3. If the above 2 happened they could get some strong financial support.
Due to little eligibility-overlap with the current big 3 or any other nations, they would be at no disadvantage from jumping up a tier.

France is the obvious nation with the most potential.
1. Have likely the 3rd strongest national league, though it is below Australian and English 2nd divisions in standard. A financial boost could raise this to professional levels. If Toulouse get promoted to SL they will have 2 first grade club sides.
2. Again, if Toulouse get promoted, their ability to consistently field a fully-pro national team is improved. This is their current weakness.
3. Off the back of 1 and 2 they could fuel their financial growth and return to touring.

 

[siv]

I would argue that NZ is a Tier 2 nation

Otherwise France PNG and few others might be considered Tier 1

 

[Dakink]

I would argue that NZ is a Tier 2 nation

Otherwise France PNG and few others might be considered Tier 1

Would disagree as NZ are more capable of replacing loses of quality players both in short and long term.

France - providing Toulouse go up - should be the next most capable of growing structures to tier 1 standards.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

New Zealand have a large pool of players to choose from (roughly the size of Queensland's) but where does their domestic league standard sit? On par with France's? I'm thinking it is:

NRL
SL
NSW / QLD Cup
RFL Championship
France Ligue 1 / RFL League 1 / Auckland RL Comp

The NZRL struggle financially and would struggle to pay players a decent match fee without NRL assistance.

The thing in their favour is that they are a good drawing team in England, Australia and at home in NZ, they have depth and quality in their player pool which means they are more than competitive at their best. In reality it is:

Teir 1: Australia & England
Teir 1.5: New Zealand
Teir 2: Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji & France

PNG, Fiji and France are making good moves to join NZ at 1.5 level:

France: Toulouse probably joining Catalans in SL for two pro teams creating a deeper player pool over time with greater quality, increases potential for a big French TV deal and other commercial sponsorships in France.

PNG: Hunters will increase the player pool of home-grown PNG players in the NRL, the game is well backed by the Govt and corporates in PNG, just need to raise the quality of the domestic league which the hunters will also help with.

Fiji: Need to get the NSW Cup team over the line and it should produce similar benefits as the hunters have for PNG. Fiji RL seem to have good support and sponsorship within Fiji also.

 

[roughyedspud]

There's no changing of tiers...the terminology is purely historical...

The only nation not a 1st tier nation that has legitimate claims to be one is France...cos they have had a proper domestic set up for nigh on 70 years on top of the test side too...

 

[adamkungl]

Saw an article in SMH discussing whether Tonga should be tier 1.
Cant be arsed finding now as I'm at the airport.
Nige quoted as saying he finds the system a bit offensive and colonial.

Two points of interest..
1. Repeat after me:
Being tier 1 is not an advantage.
Being tier 1 is not an advantage.
BEING TIER 1 IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE.
The continued push for Tonga to be 'promoted' is nonsense, and would see them immediately fall back to minnow level. They are entirely dependant on Aus and NZ for player development.

2. Nigel's opinions might see another rule change around eligibility if he gets his way. Whatever your opinions on the new rules it's hard to see yet another change as beneficial. The game needs stability.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Saw an article in SMH discussing whether Tonga should be tier 1.
Cant be arsed finding now as I'm at the airport.
Nige quoted as saying he finds the system a bit offensive and colonial.

Two points of interest..
1. Repeat after me:
Being tier 1 is not an advantage.
Being tier 1 is not an advantage.
BEING TIER 1 IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE.
The continued push for Tonga to be 'promoted' is nonsense, and would see them immediately fall back to minnow level. They are entirely dependant on Aus and NZ for player development.

2. Nigel's opinions might see another rule change around eligibility if he gets his way. Whatever your opinions on the new rules it's hard to see yet another change as beneficial. The game needs stability.

It is concerning and staggering that senior figures in our game can't come to terms such simple concepts and say things like Nige has come out with in this article.

 

[siv]

Problem you get is how define a Tier 1 nation

Professional League - puts Australia and England clearly there

But after that you struggle to classify the next Tier of nations eg NZ PNG and France properly

 

[hutch]

The talk of Tonga being tier 1 is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, they are a legitimate international test team and a damn good one currently, but they almost completely rely on heritage players, have zero finances and rugby league is still quite small on the island itself. There still has never been a rugby league junior from Tonga (or Samoa) make it to nrl level. Being tier 1 has nothing to do with ability.

 

[jim_57]

I agree that tier 1 shouldn't be based just on on-field ability. Domestic strength, ability to host games and development of players should come in to it as well.

For France it probably wouldn't make much difference being tier 1 or 2, they rely on 95% homegrown players and the odd residency or heritage based player.

PNG, Fiji & Wales are the next closest off the field but would risk losing heritage players who wouldn't want to give up their shot at Aus/NZ/England, don't know if they'd see this as an advantage whatsoever when Ireland, Samoa, Italy etc start beating them regularly still using heritage players.

I'd say we'd want to be damn sure before promoting anyone, especially as it really only applies to eligibility.

Best bets are a France or PNG team able to draw on 20/30+ professionals born in those countries with a small core of committed heritage/residency players. Able to compete regularly with Aus, NZ & England. Able to host profitable internationals. All of those must be firmly in place before it would be worth elevating either to tier 1.

 

[langpark]

The talk of Tonga being tier 1 is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, they are a legitimate international test team and a damn good one currently, but they almost completely rely on heritage players, have zero finances and rugby league is still quite small on the island itself. There still has never been a rugby league junior from Tonga (or Samoa) make it to nrl level. Being tier 1 has nothing to do with ability.

I understand and agree with the point you are making, but Solomone Kata was born in Tonga and moved to NZ when he was 17. Have you seen him in interviews? He speaks broken English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomone_Kata

 

[langpark]

I think there are 3 main criteria:

1) Standard of national team
2) Amount of professional / semi pro teams
3) Registered playing numbers.

Now, none of us know the exact figures, but I would say Aus, NZ and England together account for about 90% of the world's registered players. Take away PNG and France, and it would be closer to 99%. So #3 is one of the most important criteria in my eyes, and shows the true depth of the sport in that country.

 

[deluded pom?]

I understand and agree with the point you are making, but Solomone Kata was born in Tonga and moved to NZ when he was 17. Have you seen him in interviews? He speaks broken English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomone_Kata

But Kata wasn't a rugby league junior. He went to NZ on a rugby union scholarship.

 

[langpark]

But Kata wasn't a rugby league junior. He went to NZ on a rugby union scholarship.

Do you know for a fact he never played RL as a kid? I don't, I'm just asking. It's quite likely that he played both. I was more trying to point out that he is a genuine Tongan, and I think the only one in the current team.

 

[siv]

Was there ever a criteria when PNG was given test status ?

Or did coincide with independance

 

[langpark]

Was there ever a criteria when PNG was given test status ?

Or did coincide with independance

I believe most criteria came in after WC 2000, where you had a 'Lebanon' team playing, even though a RL ball had never been kicked on Lebanese soil at the time. Some great strides have been made since then, but I can't help we are sliding back a bit in the last few years, and turning a blind eye to some blatant shortcomings, the likes of Scotland, Malta, Italy and some of the Pacific island nations.

 

[hutch]

Do you know for a fact he never played RL as a kid? I don't, I'm just asking. It's quite likely that he played both. I was more trying to point out that he is a genuine Tongan, and I think the only one in the current team.

Pretty sure he hadnt. Konrad hurrell had never played rugby league until the warriors signed him after he watched the Toyota cup on tv. Tonga (and Samoa) have never produced a rugby league junior to the nrl that I can find.

 

[Springs09]

Problem you get is how define a Tier 1 nation

Professional League - puts Australia and England clearly there

But after that you struggle to classify the next Tier of nations eg NZ PNG and France properly

It's about producing professional players. Tonga don't produce any, they rely on both heritage and Tongan-born players coming through Australia and NZ systems. At any time their best eligible players could be playing for NZ or Australia and it's very possible that in 5 years their team will only be as strong as they were before Taumalolo and co. switched.

Australia, NZ and England all produce professional players to the degree that they aren't going to have a team full of reserve grade players any time soon. France and PNG produce some professional players, but they aren't at the stage where they can consistently have a full team of professionals.

 

[LeagueXIII]

This is true, however if the game was structured correctly and had strong leadership we should have all tier 1 and 2 nations with under 20 and senior teams or under 19 and 21 teams. Players could play for these junior teams and go on to play senior tests. Then we would have a strong sense these players come from these nations, none of the BS of swapping, it's plain stupid.

 

[Springs09]

This is true, however if the game was structured correctly and had strong leadership we should have all tier 1 and 2 nations with under 20 and senior teams or under 19 and 21 teams. Players could play for these junior teams and go on to play senior tests. Then we would have a strong sense these players come from these nations, none of the BS of swapping, it's plain stupid.

Rubbish. The only time there isn't a 'strong sense' that these players come from their nations is when we have players playing under the residency rules, and some of the one grandparent rule. How many of the Tongan team do you think aren't Tongan?

I don't why everyone can plainly see that people can be more than one nationality nowadays, but when it comes to rugby league apparently you can only have affiliation with one nation and that's it?