Talk:Canada national rugby union team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rugby union (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Sport (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
 

Not sure I'd call this B-class, it is not nearly as complete or referenced as South Africa national rugby union team which rates as B-class. This to me feels more like start-class.GordyB 11:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The United States national rugby union team is rated as start-class and I can't see any significant difference between the two articles.GordyB 11:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Gordy that was my fault. Start is very much what it should be rated as. In case anyone wants to know how to get it up to B, the article would more references, info on colours/jersey and a deeper history in my opnion. Cheers. Cvene64 07:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"somewhat of a rugby stronghold"[edit]

I removed the line that said that BC, NS and NL were "somewhat of a rugby stronghold" due to their climates. Clearly, the line had originally been written with regard to BC, because they play year-round. Obviously, no other province has a mild enough climate to play year-round. Thus, it was not relevant for any other province. Someone put in a reference to indicate that Newfoundland's climate is milder than average, too. That's true, but not relevant, because it's still too cold and nasty to play rugby year-round. Then, someone who clearly likes Nova Scotia rugby kept adding in Nova Scotia to the list - Nova Scotia is about 5th or 6th after BC, Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan in terms of rugby right now. I was trying to figure out how to make that work, but then I realized that really, that sentence was irrelevant. It might belong in an article about rugby in Canada in general, but did not belong in an article about the national team itself. AshleyMorton 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the reference in as it was in one of the sources used to write the article. The Rugby union in Canada did not exist at the time. Feel free to move the comment across.GordyB 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not using the terms "cold and nasty" without quoting a source as they are purely subjective terms and not suitable for Wikipedia. I live in Florida and find the weather in BC "cold and nasty". 152.1.111.242 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First, this is a talk page, so unsubstantiated opinion and glorious hyperbole are at least *more* welcome than on the actual article itself. Second, I live in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the only place in the province where rugby is played, and do, in fact, believe that the climate is cold and nasty...

...But the real point is that I did not say, in isolation, that the weather was cold and nasty. I said that it was "too cold and nasty to play rugby year-round". That, I would suggest, is indisputable fact. The rugby season in all other provinces runs from spring through summer to fall, while in BC it runs from fall through winter to spring (and those who wish continue to play through summer). Thus, the climate in BC *does* affect it's ability to play year-round. In fact, nothing I said contradicts your analysis of the BC climate - even if it is "cold and nasty", it's not *too* cold and nasty *to play rugby in February* ...which is all I meant to say. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough. AshleyMorton 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

British Lions[edit]

I have latered the line regarding th 1966 match with the British Lions - it isn't classed as a Test match but a non-cap ritish Lions XV match. Blogdroed 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Admission at the Six Nations[edit]

There were never any proposals for Canada to join the Five Nations / Six Nations Championship ? They already beaten five of the Six Nations countries, except England, and in fact already reached the quarter-finals of the Rugby World Cup.81.193.221.140 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that they did propose joining the Six Nations? I can't see it in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I meant the opposite. If they were never invited by the members of Six Nations to join them. In the article about Romania national rugby union team they mention rumours that Romania might have been invited in the past.213.13.246.64 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking? Do you mean we should add something to this article saying that they weren't invited to join the five/six nations. As for the Romania article - the claim isn't sourced, and suggests it was a rumour rather than a formal proposal. I have not seen a source propose that Canada join the Six Nations, the closest I have seen is a proposal that they play the major European sides in the Autumn Friendly internationals on a more regular basis. That could be added to the article, I suppose. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was just curious to know. As you know Italy joined Six Nations in 2000 and Argentina is believed to be joining Tri Nations in 2012. My point is that Canada is not yet a part of any of the main one tier international tournaments but it´s also true that for all purposes it´s still a second tier team.85.240.18.42 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Right cool, I see what you mean now. From what I gather there are currently no intentions for Canada to join any tier one competitions. For the moment the Churchill Cup and the World Cup are the best they can aspire to. Arguably some kind of a Cup of the Americas, with Canada, Uraquay, Argentina and the US could be established - but obviously if Argentina join the tri-nations it would sink the possibility. Canada could arguablly support a team in the Tri-Nations (admittedly they would probably struggle in the initial years, similar to Italy in the 6 nations) but it would give a massive boost to the sport in the country. I doubt it will happen soon, although the Tri-Nations have supposedly considered expanding in the distant future which could potentially involve Canada, Argentina and Japan.
To sum up to the best of my knowledge they have never made an attempt, formal or informal, to join one of the major tournaments. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. We also can't forget that the admission of Argentina to the Tri Nations widely debated in that article and expected to be happening probably in 2012 is due to the fact that they are a first tier nation and reached the 3rd place in the last Rugby World Cup. Argentina tried to join Six Nations but were rejected for being a Southern Hemisphere country. The same probably would happen to Canada in Tri Nations, not only for being from the Northern Hemisphere but also a second tier team, and until now no second tier team was admited at the Six Nations and the Tri Nations tournaments, also because none of them reached yet the first four places in the World Cup finals. Another possibility for a Cup of Americas, if Argentina did join the Tri Nations, could be the admission of Chile instead.Mistico (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Italy joined the 5N before the tier one, tier two business was invented and have never got anywhere near the semi-finals of the WC. This is an invented criteria.GordyB (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Grounds[edit]

MustafaSheibani just added BMO Field as the grounds, saying "that is what is primarily for home games." However, I disagree with that assessment. Of the upcoming five home games (Those five being the three from the Pacific Nations Cup, one from the Irish tour, and one world cup qualifier vs the US, only one of them (the game against Ireland) is being hosted at BMO Field.

In the past few years, there's been two in Kingston (Richardson Memorial), a few in Ottawa, a few in Edmonton, and a bunch in BC. I don't think there's any one stadium we could call Team Canada's "home grounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talkcontribs) 12:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wins against Tier 1 nations[edit]

Would Italy circa 1983 or Argentina circa 1990 really be considered "Tier 1"? Should those count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talkcontribs) 17:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's use IRB stats.[edit]

Think there is constant editing/tweeking of the stats columns, due to minor disputes between scrum.com's stats and the IRB's. I'm inclined to trust the IRB and I beleive Rugby Canada does as well. Scrum barely even covers Tier Two rugby, Have noticed this in a twekaing of Pritchard's points by a conversion, which is due to a dispute between scrum and the IRB's stats from the Barbados test in 2006 for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleguyTRF (talkcontribs) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)