'Tier 1' - How does a country make the step up?

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Being a tier 1 nation allows you to pay more. It allows you to play the other tier 1 teams more often, especially outside of WCs. It allows you to be more attractive to players with dual (or more) eligibility. It allows you to keep the rest in their place.

Being a tier 1 nation allows you to pay more. does it though? i would have assumed payments were just what the national bodies could afford. I doubt there is an upper limit.

It allows you to play the other tier 1 teams more often, especially outside of WCs. Again, does it? I would have thought these non-WC games just depended on how organised and promoted them. Nothing stopping these nations organising games, and a Tier 1 ranking probably wouldnt make them do more

It allows you to be more attractive to players with dual (or more) eligibility. No it doesnt, the payments do that. Short of parity in match-payments, being Tier 2 would HELP these nations as players can go to a Tier 2 nation if they arent selected for the Aussies/NZ/Brits. Putting them into Tier 1 means players either put this team first or cut their ties.

It allows you to keep the rest in their place. The tiers is a practical structure, any connotations attached are pretty minor and would stem more from general performance than a given ranking. If Tonga stay on form and knock over the Aussies, staying in Tier 2 would do nothing to their image; would would still be the giant slayers.

 

[Disinterested third party]

It's a complete farce which means nothing. As NZs last 2 results show.

Mascord rightly said it was the first tier 2 country to beat a tier 1 country IN A RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD CUP.

Since then, other morons have just parroted it without the RLWC reference.

Italy beat England before the 2013 RLWC. France has beaten all of the tier 1 countries in internationals.

It's not even factually correct without being limited by reference to the RLWC.

 

[deluded pom?]

Being a tier 1 nation allows you to pay more. does it though? i would have assumed payments were just what the national bodies could afford. I doubt there is an upper limit.

It allows you to play the other tier 1 teams more often, especially outside of WCs. Again, does it? I would have thought these non-WC games just depended on how organised and promoted them. Nothing stopping these nations organising games, and a Tier 1 ranking probably wouldnt make them do more

It allows you to be more attractive to players with dual (or more) eligibility. No it doesnt, the payments do that. Short of parity in match-payments, being Tier 2 would HELP these nations as players can go to a Tier 2 nation if they arent selected for the Aussies/NZ/Brits. Putting them into Tier 1 means players either put this team first or cut their ties.

It allows you to keep the rest in their place. The tiers is a practical structure, any connotations attached are pretty minor and would stem more from general performance than a given ranking. If Tonga stay on form and knock over the Aussies, staying in Tier 2 would do nothing to their image; would would still be the giant slayers.

I look forward to Australia agreeing to play a tier 2 nation outside of a tournament. The fact is Australia won't entertain anyone that isn't England/GB or New Zealand. That means those three tend to only play amongst themselves thus generating more money for themselves too meaning they can pay the players more and that sometimes turns dual players' heads.

 

[Sydney Knight]

France beat them all before there was tiers

It's a complete farce which means nothing. As NZs last 2 results show.

Mascord rightly said it was the first tier 2 country to beat a tier 1 country IN A RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD CUP.

Since then, other morons have just parroted it without the RLWC reference.

Italy beat England before the 2013 RLWC. France has beaten all of the tier 1 countries in internationals.

It's not even factually correct without being limited by reference to the RLWC.

 

[parraeel]

I look forward to Australia agreeing to play a tier 2 nation outside of a tournament. The fact is Australia won't entertain anyone that isn't England/GB or New Zealand. That means those three tend to only play amongst themselves thus generating more money for themselves too meaning they can pay the players more and that sometimes turns dual players' heads.

So Australia playing PNG prior to the four nations does not count


Who Australia plays has nothing to do with bias. As there is only a limited period each season they can play internationals they play relevant games . Nrl clubs will not allow players to miss a large chunk of offseason to play Mickey Mouse internationals.

The way forward for the tier 2 nations to excel is from international series such as world nines, expansion of their teams tier 1countries , like the Wolfpack with super league , PNG in qcup

I personally have been a advocate of stand alone rep weekend covering the state of origin period

Figure out which day to have SOS. Fri/sat/sun and the other 2 days have 1 /2 rep games each , ie Fiji , nz, Tonga, Samoa, png can play some internationals during this period ,
we could even include games involving lower tier rep games such as NSW & QLD country (featuring players playing in actual country comps) , combined WA & vic team league , qcup and ncup rep team (players not on nrl contracts ) .

 

[deluded pom?]

So Australia playing PNG prior to the four nations does not count


Who Australia plays has nothing to do with bias. As there is only a limited period each season they can play internationals they play relevant games . Nrl clubs will not allow players to miss a large chunk of offseason to play Mickey Mouse internationals.

The way forward for the tier 2 nations to excel is from international series such as world nines, expansion of their teams tier 1countries , like the Wolfpack with super league , PNG in qcup

I personally have been a advocate of stand alone rep weekend covering the state of origin period

Figure out which day to have SOS. Fri/sat/sun and the other 2 days have 1 /2 rep games each , ie Fiji , nz, Tonga, Samoa, png can play some internationals during this period ,
we could even include games involving lower tier rep games such as NSW & QLD country (featuring players playing in actual country comps) , combined WA & vic team league , qcup and ncup rep team (players not on nrl contracts ) .

No it doesn't count. It wasn't Australia. You know that as much as I do. Plenty of that PM XIII wouldn't get anywhere near a Kangaroos shirt. As I said I look forward to Australia playing a quote "Mickey Mouse international " against a team that isn't England/GB or New Zealand. You and I both know it isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[Front-Rower]

Come on, even Kenya once made a Cricket World Cup semi final

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I look forward to Australia agreeing to play a tier 2 nation outside of a tournament. The fact is Australia won't entertain anyone that isn't England/GB or New Zealand. That means those three tend to only play amongst themselves thus generating more money for themselves too meaning they can pay the players more and that sometimes turns dual players' heads.

I get what you are saying and England and NZ have similar numbers against teir 2 nations. This just means that moving forward the RLIF need to organise meaningful tournaments where the teir 2 nations can mix with the teir 1 nations more regularly. If left up to the individual nations Australia will choose NZ or England because they are the most profitable test matches.

 

[Disinterested third party]

France beat them all before there was tiers

That's partly why it means bugger all

 

[deluded pom?]

I get what you are saying and England and NZ have similar numbers against teir 2 nations. This just means that moving forward the RLIF need to organise meaningful tournaments where the teir 2 nations can mix with the teir 1 nations more regularly. If left up to the individual nations Australia will choose NZ or England because they are the most profitable test matches.

I agree but I could see Australia giving it a miss because there's nothing in it for them. What's happened to the Confederation Cup? It's been binned for tours between tier 1 nations.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I agree but I could see Australia giving it a miss because there's nothing in it for them. What's happened to the Confederation Cup? It's been binned for tours between tier 1 nations.

Confederations Cup was delayed until 2023 so will begin in the next world cup cycle. This cylce will have the 9's World Cup (2019) and tours. But it looks like the RLEF is organising a Euro Six Nations to be contested annually (featuring England Knights) and the Pacific Tests will continue annually (hopefully evolving into a Pacific Cup)

 

[deluded pom?]

Confederations Cup was delayed until 2023 so will begin in the next world cup cycle. This cylce will have the 9's World Cup (2019) and tours. But it looks like the RLEF is organising a Euro Six Nations to be contested annually (featuring England Knights) and the Pacific Tests will continue annually (hopefully evolving into a Pacific Cup)

The six nations isn't confirmed yet and neither is the England Knights participation in it. The head of the RLI wants a full England team or nothing saying that if it's not the full side then he won't get SL teams to release their Irish qualified players as it's not a full international. I agree with him.

 

[adamkungl]

Being a tier 1 nation allows you to pay more. It allows you to play the other tier 1 teams more often, especially outside of WCs. It allows you to be more attractive to players with dual (or more) eligibility. It allows you to keep the rest in their place.

Tier 1 doesn't "allow" you to do anything. Whether you label them or not, the big 3 have only regularly played each other because they're the only ones that anyone expected to draw a crowd or offer a competitive game (not saying this is right but it's what it is).
Until now.