Rugby as a larger sport, particularly in Commonwealth and Eastern Bloc

Pre-post warning : I'm particularly talking about Union here. I thought of this, switched on the laptop, and there's the baseball thread.

What sort of (non-mutually exclusive) PODs could make rugby bigger in the the Commonwealth countries other than Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and in Eastern Europe?

I thought in the case of case of the former Empire, how that in the case of cricket the locals picked up the sport, but not rugby. What sort of thing could lead to the rugby being picked up? I'm thinking that some of the Caribbean nations (either being an ATL Pacific Islands, or being on a similar level to the Pacific Islands) and Nigeria (in the right circumstances they could become a rugby powerhouse) as the most liable ones. India too.

In the Eastern Bloc element, Romania have been big, even getting invited to join the Five Nations (but declined due to running a calendar year season). But in the USSR, what could make it popular? What about more interface between Red Army troops and the British and French, who teach them the sport? Or, instead of Stalin banning it 1949 (as claimed by the Genocide but someone put "possibly untrue" next to it), a Soviet ambassador to the UK close to Stalin is in Wales, watches a game being played by two village teams comprised mainly of minors and raves about the sport to Stalin in a cable, who then actively encourages it, latching on to the amateurism element? With this you do get the problem of South Africa, so perhaps the Soviets manage to get South Africa kicked out the IRB in the 60s? Then you get the possibility of countries under Soviet influence possibly picking the sport up (Angola, as silly as it sounds).

Under the first and second, would happen to internationals - earlier RWC? And in the second, what would happen to what is now the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations? I guess professionalism might happen a bit earlier, especially as the Soviets would be likely to operate some near-blatant shamateurism.

Just thinking aloud mainly.
 
In the Eastern Bloc - in the late XIX and early XX century Serbia(later Yugoslavia), Bulgaria and the Russian Empire adopt the French method of school physical education, instead of the Swiss. According to a friend of mine that's a rugby coach, the French method was better suited for rugby, and the Swiss for football.
 
In the Eastern Bloc - in the late XIX and early XX century Serbia(later Yugoslavia), Bulgaria and the Russian Empire adopt the French method of school physical education, instead of the Swiss. According to a friend of mine that's a rugby coach, the French method was better suited for rugby, and the Swiss for football.

That too. The question is, would the Soviet Union create a backlash against the sport?
 
As it is there are some good countries in Eastern Europe, not top tier granted, but still very good 2nd/3rd tier teams such as Georgia, Russia & Romania. In Africa under the all conquering Springbok, its Namibia by a fair margin as "Best fo the Rest" followed by countries like Nigeria, Morrocco, Kenya & Zimbabwae. Some Caribean Nations do play rugby, but not very well according to the World Rankings.

With your ATL not sure how to make it all happen yet give me a bit!

I see a earlier RWC in mid to late seventies, earlier Five Nations expansion, earlier Tri Nations/Pacific Tournament. Maybe both could be Seven or Eight Nations, with the lesser European national tournaments given more push. In Africa and the Caribean you could see similar tournaments a North America Cup (USA, Canada + the best island teams) and something similar in Africa along regional lines?

At club level something akin to Footballs Champions League across Europe for clubs, best teams from the major leagues enter automatically, everyone else has to qaulify through a entry torunament.

Russias "Rugby Explosion" of the last decade or so starts a lot earlier, so they could be considered a Lower Top Tier country by now, kind of like OTL Italy/Scotland in strength.
 
Ok had an idea on how to make the Caribean a rugby area akin to the Pacific Islands, say around the same time the West Indies Cricket Board (1880s) is formed a West Indies Rugby Board is formed. They have indivdual national sides, but also field a West Indies team similar to the British and Irish Lions.

Rhodes scholarship (1902) comes along with its entire unite the Anlgo Saxon peoples ethos and embraces rugby. As time goes by the black population of the indies begins to embarce the game as happened with Cricket in OTL as a way of getting one up on there white rulers.

Eventually rugby along with cricket gets seen as a major weapon in the road to eqaulity, kind of like Cricket in India, "We beat you at rugby so we can rule ourselves. we are equal".

Individual national teams propser as time goes on and the West Indies combined team tours of the Home countries gain much acclaim all through the 40s and 50s.

By the 60s the West Indies team and the various National sides are black dominated and symbols of Caribean National Pride. With the West Indies Tour sides knows as "The Invincibles" famous for fast and aggresive running rugby.
 
For the Commonwealth, it would help if New Zealand stopped stealing players from Fiji, Tonga etc. Definitely a Pacific Tournament to increase the frequency of international rugby.

Also, I'd suggest that the earlier introduction of a league system - the merit tables were an amazing mess. Once national leagues are established in the various nations, a European trophy can emerge in the late 50s, parallel to the European Cup in football (or even before)

Actually, just running the game in a vaguely organised way would help immensely. The RFU used to make the FA look competent!
 
Rugby suffers from 3 main draw backs when compared to football.

First it was played for the first time in around 1823, at least 900 years after football as we would know it was first played. That's an awful lot of catching up.

Secondly it only takes 2 people to have a game of football, whilst at least 10 are needed for a game of rugby. So rugby almost always needs to be organised in some way.

Lastly there is an elitist stigma with rugby in England as it is seen as a middle class sport, not one for the working class.

If these are overcome then we will need to formalise the village "football" games of the 14th century where the ball is normally carried rather than kicked. This would overcome points 1 and 3. The game could then develop along similar lines to football and cricket.
 
Rugby suffers from 3 main draw backs when compared to football.

First it was played for the first time in around 1823, at least 900 years after football as we would know it was first played. That's an awful lot of catching up.

Secondly it only takes 2 people to have a game of football, whilst at least 10 are needed for a game of rugby. So rugby almost always needs to be organised in some way.

Lastly there is an elitist stigma with rugby in England as it is seen as a middle class sport, not one for the working class.

If these are overcome then we will need to formalise the village "football" games of the 14th century where the ball is normally carried rather than kicked. This would overcome points 1 and 3. The game could then develop along similar lines to football and cricket.

The entire rugby/cricket/insert any sport that isnt Football are middle and upper class snobs games prooganda is one of major problems facing ANY team sport that isnt football in England and is mainly spread by rabid football fans and the football press.

My personel experience is that its complete and utter b*^%£$s which would not endear you to the members of lots of clubs that play other team sports. Also I disagree rugby cant be played by small numbers of people, have played in 7, 5 or 3 aside games or one on one games using tag or 50% contact rules numerous times.

Though I agree football has a long head start over rugby, if you look closely at some of the rules of the "early" games that claim to be part of footballs lineage they are more like rugby, NFL or AFL than football/soccer we know.
 
Rugby suffers from 3 main draw backs when compared to football.

First it was played for the first time in around 1823, at least 900 years after football as we would know it was first played. That's an awful lot of catching up.

. . .

If these are overcome then we will need to formalise the village "football" games of the 14th century where the ball is normally carried rather than kicked. This would overcome points 1 and 3. The game could then develop along similar lines to football and cricket.

Somewhat contradictory, no?
 
In Canada, rugby will have competition from gridiron, particularly the American and the local Canadian varieties. So there's quite a hurdle to get Canadians into rugby - particularly since, from a North American POV, rugby isn't quite as interesting as gridiron.
 
Rugby suffers from 3 main draw backs when compared to football.

First it was played for the first time in around 1823, at least 900 years after football as we would know it was first played. That's an awful lot of catching up.

Secondly it only takes 2 people to have a game of football, whilst at least 10 are needed for a game of rugby. So rugby almost always needs to be organised in some way.

Lastly there is an elitist stigma with rugby in England as it is seen as a middle class sport, not one for the working class.

If these are overcome then we will need to formalise the village "football" games of the 14th century where the ball is normally carried rather than kicked. This would overcome points 1 and 3. The game could then develop along similar lines to football and cricket.
Rugby was only played for the first time in 1823 if you believe the "Webb Ellis myth", that a schoolboy "took the ball in hand and ran with it". Both handling and kicking versions of football were played the length and breadth of Britain, from "Uppies and Downies" in Workington, to more recognisable versions of these games.

Rugby was no more invented in 1823 than soccer was in 1848 when the Cambridge Rules were first codified and handling and hacking were outlawed. Neither game was invented overnight. Handling codes were dominant in many areas until the early 20th century, even in what are today soccer areas such as Manchester, Leeds and even Liverpool. Clubs such as Leeds Utd. Stockport County and Bradford City were rugby league clubs until the early 1900s, for instance.

As regards the elitist stigma, this is only true of rugby union, and even then is not the case in the West Country and much of the East Midlands. In the north of England rugby (league) is the dominant sport in many working class communities, especially the mining and woollen towns of south Lancashire, west Cumbria and west Yorkshire.

More generally related to this thread, if people start talking world cups, competitive leagues etc. prior to the 1990s then you need wholesale change in the RFU (effectively the world governing body) and an embrace of professionalism earlier. Consider professionalism (or not) was the raison detre of the RFU and all it stood for until 1995.
 
As regards the elitist stigma, this is only true of rugby union, and even then is not the case in the West Country and much of the East Midlands. In the north of England rugby (league) is the dominant sport in many working class communities, especially the mining and woollen towns of south Lancashire, west Cumbria and west Yorkshire.

You forgot the obvious place where there isn't the "posh" label slapped over rugby - South Wales. An interesting thing would be that with the POD so that rugby becomes popular in the Caribbean. Would, with Caribbean immigration to England, it possibly lead to such teams as London Jamaican as big forces?

In Canada, rugby will have competition from gridiron, particularly the American and the local Canadian varieties. So there's quite a hurdle to get Canadians into rugby - particularly since, from a North American POV, rugby isn't quite as interesting as gridiron.

Could you define interesting? I know it isn't as suitable for American television as gridiron due to the lack of regular stoppages that can be used for ad breaks.

If certain countries were more rugby inclined that could tip the balance towards the RWC and professionalism (perhaps the IRB would add it to the regulations some caveat about mandating "the same gentlemanly standards on and off the field of play" or something as a compromise).
 
Top