T
TRUE LEGND
Guest
I agree that the Puma's should join the TN but for me id really like to see the Pacific Island country's Amalgamate a team so that they can join first and foremost
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
F
feicarsinn
Guest
really they should have them both join SANZAR putting them into the 3N and giving them 2 S14 franchises apiece most likely out of Buneos Aries, suva, apia and cordoba i'd think but i may be wrong
F
fcukernaut
Guest
That right there is what everyone agrees with, and the iRB are actually working on a Global schedule so we should see that in the coming year or so.
Well no. USA played Ireland 'A' and the NZ Moari at San Francisco during the Churchill Cup. You may have a point though, there needs to be more fixtures for them. Not just at home though, they need to go on tour. They desperately need to go to the UK and Europe during that November window. As well playing during that June month as well. The iRB didn't recently give them $1million to sit on their ass and do nothing. That money should be spent on tours. You don't get better playing Churchill Cup and a few WC qualifiers against poor opposition. Canada has been playing regular test matches in Europe and recently a test match against the All Blacks, and these have invariably given the Canucks great experience. If the USA choose to not go on these tours they should be punished. Funding should be reduced and there should be a drop in world ranking should they wish not to play test level rugby. I also feel there needs to be a series of games between the USA and Canada, a sort of Bledisloe Cup.
Brilliant idea! I don't think I could find anything to disagree with.
You followed up a great idea with a horrible one. This just doesn't make any sense from a competitive stand point, a financial stand point or a developmental stand point. Firstly, the American groop misses out on playing against professional sides, like they would in the Churchill Cup. Secondly, Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga already play in the Pacific Nations Cup except there are two better teams in there with Australia 'A' and the Junior All Blacks. Thirdly, do you know how far Uraguay is from Canada? It's a 20 hour flight, which means that you can't have a home/away type tournament, you have to have it set in one place. Either North America or South America. Not having international rugby in Canada and the States defeats the whole point and sets back rugby development in both nations.
G
guardian_of_the_stone_age
Guest
I think the most critical factor in expanding the Tri-nations is the inclusion of teams like Japan, Canada, USA and the pacific islanders as well as Argentina. This cannot be achieved just at international level though, there has to a representation of the developing nations in a professional provincial competition. International success is a result of a strong provincial competition, thats why New Zealand and South Africa have such a strong depth of rugby talent.
A country like Japan has the players, the support and the financial backing for them to be a tier one rugby nation, but they lack a higher level of competition. If you look at the USA team's performance at the world cup at the moment, its pretty obvious they have the athletic ability to compete with just about anyone, but they are lack the instinctive knowledge of the the game. Against Tonga, they dominated territory and possession but they were not able to capitalise on the situation. Nothing is going to change by them playing Canada every year. All that will do is keep their rugby at a similar level to Canada's. If they are ever going to be competitive internationally, they are going to have to have regular provincial and international fixtures against the top teams.
Italy is a perfect example of what playing top quality opposition can do. If you look at the Air New Zealand Cup, Manawatu is another example of the effect of professionalism and quality competition. 2 years ago, they were losing to teams like North Otago. Last week they drew with Otago, and probably should have won. They've gone from a team which struggled to make the semi-finals in division two of the NPC to a side which has the ability to beat a super 14 franchise union in only two years.
A country like Japan has the players, the support and the financial backing for them to be a tier one rugby nation, but they lack a higher level of competition. If you look at the USA team's performance at the world cup at the moment, its pretty obvious they have the athletic ability to compete with just about anyone, but they are lack the instinctive knowledge of the the game. Against Tonga, they dominated territory and possession but they were not able to capitalise on the situation. Nothing is going to change by them playing Canada every year. All that will do is keep their rugby at a similar level to Canada's. If they are ever going to be competitive internationally, they are going to have to have regular provincial and international fixtures against the top teams.
Italy is a perfect example of what playing top quality opposition can do. If you look at the Air New Zealand Cup, Manawatu is another example of the effect of professionalism and quality competition. 2 years ago, they were losing to teams like North Otago. Last week they drew with Otago, and probably should have won. They've gone from a team which struggled to make the semi-finals in division two of the NPC to a side which has the ability to beat a super 14 franchise union in only two years.
S
scuubasteve
Guest
Fully agree wiith the Domestic Pro League comments mate.
You can't have pro national teams without a pro league to back it up.
Italy's strength in the 6N has alot to do with the Club teams that alot of their players are a part of.
Thats the main reason that the Pumas are so good. Their players are playing Top14, GP and Magners League. And most of Italy's top players are also part of these leagues, rather than the Italian Super10.
I think the Argentinian Rugby Union dragging its heels on moving from an amateur domestic league to a pro one has alot to do with why the IRB and SANZAR hasn't 'let them in' so to speak.
Domestic rugby is just as important as International rugby for creating great players.
In the short term, the Tier 2 nations would have to concentrate their playing stocks to get enough quality to compete in the Super14 etc.
Argentina could only realistically put together 1 or 2 teams that could compete with the likes of the Hurricanes or Waratahs etc.
But its all one big chicken and egg scenario. You need money to attract the good players, and you need good players to attract the money.
If Argentina were to create 2 or 3 new professional franchises, how likely would it really be that the likes of Juan Martin Hernandez or Felipe Contemponi would forgo the massive paycheques they receive in europe to help out the motherland?
If a handful of the bigname players were to sign for Argentinian teams then they might have a decent chance of competing.
You can't have pro national teams without a pro league to back it up.
Italy's strength in the 6N has alot to do with the Club teams that alot of their players are a part of.
Thats the main reason that the Pumas are so good. Their players are playing Top14, GP and Magners League. And most of Italy's top players are also part of these leagues, rather than the Italian Super10.
I think the Argentinian Rugby Union dragging its heels on moving from an amateur domestic league to a pro one has alot to do with why the IRB and SANZAR hasn't 'let them in' so to speak.
Domestic rugby is just as important as International rugby for creating great players.
In the short term, the Tier 2 nations would have to concentrate their playing stocks to get enough quality to compete in the Super14 etc.
Argentina could only realistically put together 1 or 2 teams that could compete with the likes of the Hurricanes or Waratahs etc.
But its all one big chicken and egg scenario. You need money to attract the good players, and you need good players to attract the money.
If Argentina were to create 2 or 3 new professional franchises, how likely would it really be that the likes of Juan Martin Hernandez or Felipe Contemponi would forgo the massive paycheques they receive in europe to help out the motherland?
If a handful of the bigname players were to sign for Argentinian teams then they might have a decent chance of competing.
C
Caledfwlch
Guest
I don't understand your arguement there. About the distances part.
You should just draft a letter and send it in to the IRB
S
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Guest
Thanks for replying. Just to bring you up on one point, the Churchill Cup was played in England this year. I fully agree with the rest of what you said.
I think you slightly misunderstood my post. In no way do I advocate removing fixtures against the likes of Australia A and the Junior All Blacks from the calender. I think those games and games against tier 1 nations have there place but not in an annual tournament. As is presently the case with the Pacific 5 Nations, 2nd or 3rd string sides are winning the tournament. I don't see much benefit for the likes of the Pacific Islands or Japan if they are routinely whipped in competition by non full international teams.
Removing the Junior All Blacks, Maori, Australia A and 6 Nations A teams from the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations would offer tier 2 nations a realistic chance to win silverware every season as well as giving six full internationals per year to each team. I'd like to see each tier 2 nation play 10 international fixtures pr season so the balance could be made up by playing the sides removed from the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nationsm, other international sides or a reinvigorated Barbarians program.
I agree that the distance between North and South America is a problem but what's the alternative? Argentina are too strong for both Chile and Uruguay and the Pumas deserve a harder schedule than their neighbours. A solution could be that the North American sides travel south of the equator for both their fixtures which they play on consecutive weekends. The following week is a rest week for the North Americans with Chile and Uruguay playing it out. Week 4 sees the return fixture between Chile and Uruguay. Week 5 is a rest week for the South Americans as Canada and USA battle it out. After that the South Americans travel north to face USA and Canada on consecutive weekends. The final weekend sees USA v Canada. Sorry if that's muddled. This is it in simpler form:
Week 1: Chile v USA, Uruguay v Canada
Week 2: Chile v Canada, Uruguay v USA
Week 3: Chile v Uruguay
Week 4: Uruguay v Chile
Week 5: Canada v USA
Week 6: Canada v Chile, USA v Uruguay
Week 7: Canada v Uruguay, USA v Chile
Week 8: USA v Canada
Week 9: Rest
Week 10 & 11: Championship games
That allows for ample time to recover from flights and keeps the international squads in camp for a sustained period. The result is a more cohesive international setup for each team. It's not ideal but it's better than the current situation.
H
Hamster
Guest
Not the six nations but definetly the tri nations (The proper one) because they deserve to be one of the comps. With South Africa possibly moving to Europe, Argentina could take there spot.
S
stevemagoo
Guest
Sorry - Just pointing out that if Arg they were to get involved in the tri-nations to make it a 4N, there shouldn't be so much press on the fact that the travelling distances would be too much.
As you can see, The distances for all the current 3N teams are actually shorter to ARG than to SA
Just saw that a good few people were bringing it up is all.
F
fcukernaut
Guest
Yes, the Churchill Cup was played in England this year, but much to the dismay of Canadian rugby fans. The whole point of the tournament was not only for the National sides to get better but also for fans to come through the turnstiles and actually see some decent rugby action. In Toronto they only bring in about 5000 maybe 10000 if they're lucky. But once they move out west to Edmonton for the final they half fill Commonwealth Stadium, which seats 60,000. 25-30,000 is a pretty good turn out.
How can you not see the benefit of those test matches? They expose amatueur or semi-pro teams to a full fledged proffessional outfit. That in and of itself is great exposure and provides great experience. The more you play against proffessional sides, the more you'll understand the the proffessional game and the more adept you'll be at playing it. Amateur sides will not test you on attack or on defence like a pro team will. And I realize that under your suggestion you'll have test matches against tier 1 sides, but if you start calculating the costs it just doesn't work out.
I already feel confident that in a few years Canada will be able to take out the Churchill Cup. They already compete strongly and if they could get a full strength side out every time then they could be even better. If these sides really do need that carrot, that championship that is attainable, then do what I said and make a nice big trophy to be competed for between the USA and Canada much like the Bledisloe Cup. It should be competed for outside of the Churchill Cup competition.
I also feel that larger Unions should "adopt" a side. Much like how France has been taking care of Romania and Georgia. It doesn't even have to be a huge effort, it just has to be some gesture. Like when Canada went on tour to New Zealand in June, the All Blacks opened up their video rooms and training facilities to them. Now if you expand on that, say when a team is on tour how about letting your coaches help them out a bit. Why not have Mike Cron help the Canadian scrum?
Another thing that desperately needs to be done but will never happen is the ticket sales need to be split with the touring side. The All Blacks have been *****ing for years that when they go to Europe the team sells out an 80,000 seat venue and they don't see a penny. But you can see how that money on ticket sales could be instrumental in helping a lower nation. Just think if the US played a test match in Cardiff and 60,000 people show up paying an average of 25 pounds a ticket, you'd be looking at over US$1.5million. Now of course there is taxes and other deductables, but even still they're coming home with a boatload of change in their pockets. Even 10% of the ticket sales would make a huge difference.
The alternative is exaclty what is happening right now, at least for North America. Not only are the expenses far cheaper and the competition better but the games are televised live across Canada on a basic cable channel that everyone gets (not sure about the US). Right now Setanta is f***ing over the casual fan, so basically free games are great. You can't get new fans if they don't see your game. Having games in Uraguay and Chile would stop those games from being broadcasted live, and probably force them off the air, defeating the purpose.
The Pumas clearly should not be playing against Uraguay and Chile on a regular basis but maybe Argentina 'A' should be. Argentina 'A' already plays in the Nations Cup over in Europe. Not a problem though, just replace Argentina 'A' with France 'A' in the Nations Cup and you're good to go. The only other European nation left without having an 'A' side is Wales. Given their connection to Argentina they would be perferct for this proposed competition. All you have to do is give it a name and you have a decent tournament for Uraguay and Chile.
As nice as that sounds, it just isn't feasable. Not only are there financial problems I've already outlined but you also realize these teams aren't professional outfits. These guys are amateur players who play for passion and pride. Too bad passion and pride don't pay the bills. These players have jobs to maintain or classes to attend and it is out of the question for them to miss 10 or 11 weeks of work or school to simply play in effectively a meaningless competition. Believe me, I'd love to have the national sides together for 12 weeks but it isn't realistic.
S
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Guest
I understand what you're saying and agree with it in part. The problem is that the general, non-rugby supporting public don't particularly want to see the Maori put 70 points on a full US national team or Australia A beat Japan by 50 points. If you're trying to tap into a new market, I feel it's important to reorganise the fixtures so that national team v 2nd/3rd string sides are removed from competition and instead take part in the form of tour games or friendlies (for want of a better term). A genuine international tournament between full international sides would garner a higher profile than the current setup.
You argue that tests against tier 1 countries will be financially disasterous but I fail to see that logic. How will it cost any more for Ireland to send a full strength side over to Canada than an A setup to the Churchill Cup in North America? As it stands the Churchill Cup is funded largely by the RFU, although I am open to correction, so it's far from a financially viable tournament. You say elsewhere that in Edmonton for finals day that crowds of 25,000-30,000 are the norm for in essense four non full international teams and two average sides (Canada and USA). I'm in very little doubt that such a figure could at least be matched by playing a tier 1 international side on consecutive weekends. Those games would be easier to sell to TV, the Canadian public and would garner more interest in Ireland than a mickey mouse tournament which is presently in place.
Perhaps what I say is fanciful but the All Blacks CEO has publically intimated that he wants to tap into new markets by playing games abroad in places such as the USA, Canada and Japan
I don't see that as any more than a cosmetic change. On the one hand you say that Canada/USA need to be exposed to higher levels of competition yet on the other you argue that playing each other an extra time is going to help out. I'm open to correction in this instance also but don't USA and Canada already play each other twice per year? In my opinion a 3rd fixture on the annual calender won't entice extra interest in the sport -- look at the monotonous nature of the Tri Nations due to an extra round being added.
I fully agree with this. The richer Unions such as the FFR, RFU, ARU and NZRU should be implored to give assistance on top of iRB aid to developing nations. Less wealthy Unions like the SARU, WRU, SRU, IRFU and FIR should open up their facilities to weaker nations when they tour. Most are doing their bit but more can definitely be done.
Ideally, yes, I'd support this. Realistically it's a non runner. The Welsh and Scottish Unions are crippled with debt. The ARU's reserves are dwindling (although they still have massive reserves). The IRFU are only now being to show an annual profit. I'd hazard a guess that the FIR are also working off a tight budget. Rather than looking for a portion of gate receipts, emerging nations should look to increase their own revenue streams with iRB assistance. It is possible. Take Georgia who were able to get around 50,000 through the turnstiles for a fixture with Russia a few years ago or Argentina where 25,000 turned up two weeks running to see a 2nd string Pumas side take on a 2nd string Irish lineup a few months back. Emerging nations should focus on marketing their product better (like the USA getting 8,000 through the gates when they faced Irish provincial side Munster).
How? South America has roughtly the same timezones as North America - the largest difference is (I think) four hours from the west coast of Canada to Uruguay. Timing wouldn't be an issue. The North American sides would still have three home games each thus not diminishing their existing exposure. Rather the extra fixtures would enhance exposure for the Eagles and Canucks.
As things stand, you are 100% correct. This proposal is idealistic rather than immediately attainable. Having said that, in the not too distant future (I'm talking 3-5 years) it is possible to implement.
My idea is predicated on the idea that the proposed South American club competition involving one Chilean, one Uruguayan and six Argentinian sides gets off the ground. That would bring semi-professional rugby to these countries. I'm also working off the proposal that the NA4 is to be increased in 2008 to a 6 team tournament and in 2009 or 2010 an 8 team tournament which has been mooted by the organisers of that tournament (from a long sice deleted article on NArugby.com). Pro, or at least semi-pro rugby in the America's would make this idea absolutely possible to achieve.
The 2 1/2 months together was more an illutration than a written in stone indication of how it should be done. The tournament could easily be split into two parts at different times of the year.
In no way, shape or form am I saying what I've outlined is the best possible solution (how could it be when I was still thinking it up as I wrote the previous two posts) but it is far better than the status quo.
F
fcukernaut
Guest
Well in the case of the Moari there is history and pride that goes with the jersey. They are a big draw, everyone loves to see the Black jersey. I think it was a very good idea to rename New Zealand 'A' the Junior All Blacks, great idea to bank on the prestige of the name.
You also have to realise that the non-rugby supporting public either A) don't know the game is on, B) don't know what rugby is, or C) just don't care. The US is a huge mess. There isn't even rugby in the high schools for the most part and when it is it isn't really even legitimate, as in not school sponsored. So we'll ignore the lack of growth from the youth system which of course means a lack of the young demographic of 18-25. There's little to no money for advertising and it is very difficult to get the game on TV in a capacity that everyone can see it at little to no cost. If you want your product to take off you have to get it on ESPN. That's a mighty big ask. To do that you'll have to pay for the production cost yourselves and give rights out for free, more likely though you'll have to pay them to put it on TV; sort of like a paid programming, only instead of selling vaccuum cleaners you're selling rugby. If you manage to sell them this you're not going to get even sunday afternoon coverage; you're getting a 3am Wednesday night deal where they would have been playing poker. The best you could possibly hope for is a couple of highlight packages on on SportsCenter. Big cost for little gain.
I kind of got a little lost in thought there, but my point is this: there's no such thing as a fringe rugby fan in the US, you either are a fan or you're completely oblivious to the sport. For the near future (5-7 years) you can't be concerned about the amount bums in the seats, you have to be concerned at the rate of improvement from the national team. Realistically, you're not going to get tier 1 nations playing tier 2 nations in a regular competition, there just isn't the money in it. So you have to do the next best thing: send a group of professional players to play against the semi-pro American side. Like it or not, USA playing the Moari will make the Americans better. When you see improvement from the amatuer players, you'll see them become professionals. Justin Mensah-Coker(Canadian) had a huge Churchill Cup and instantly got a deal to play in France. That is what you really what you hope to accomplish in the short term. Improve the play of these sides, then try to bring in fans. You have to have the product before you can sell it. Americans only accept the best. If you don't have it, they don't want it.
To be honest, it's been a couple of days and I'm not sure what my arguement for that was lol. However, I've given it a bit of thought and I've looked at logistics. These sides need a regular competition, not just one off friendlies or tours. And I highly doubt that these tier 1 nations are going to commit to another full fledged competition. As well the Churchill Cup currently falls in the same time that teams tour to the Southern Hemisphere. If Ireland choose to go to Canada instead of NZ then you can bet your bottom dollar NZ will return the favour of the snub. Then again you could schedule a fixture so Ireland would play a test match on the way down. But I still think there needs to be annual competition. If somehow you can have a tournament where you get full strength sides and have additional fixtures than that is good.
No, it may not be but it is required for development of these nations.
I have serious doubt that you could reach that number because, in part those numbers are because of certain ex-pats that fill the stadium and because when you buy a ticket you get access to 3 games. 15,000 would be a reasonable expectation. That is not a bad figure either. There is also a limited amount of growth for rugby in Edmonton, so if you wanted national growth, you need to get into Toronto. The only problem is you get a maximum of 7000 out for a game in Toronto. Hell you get more supporters out in Butthole, Newfoundland than you do in Toronto. Huge shame. If you had a test match in British Columbia you'd be able to get a sizeable crowd and there is a very good rugby hotbed in BC.
They will sell exactly the same in Canada. There would be no descernable difference. You would have a point about selling it on TV in Ireland though. That might help offset any costs in the Churchill Cup. I'm still adament that you need that regular competition, and current set up is better than playing Uraguay and Chile as it pertains to Canada and the USA. The added test matches would be great though.
He's saying that because the All Blacks would sell anywhere, but especially so in Japan. It's because NZRU wants a cut of the test matches they play in when they play November tests. They can get more money by playing a one off against Australia in Japan then they can by going to Europe. He also sees the vast marketing and huge stadia in the US and I think that would appeal to him as well.
That's exactly what it is: a cosmetic change. Canada and the USA have had history and it's time these one off test matches start to really mean something. Sure right now it might not mean anything significant now but in 10/15 years it could be seen as a much anticipated fixture. I'm just saying there needs to be official hardware. The Bledisloe Cup didn't mean jack all until Australia continueally competed, and now they are the most anticipated fixtures of the year in NZ and Australia. They don't always play twice a year and even if they do, they can still have a two game series.
It's got nothing to do with time zones as it does with production costs. These stations are not going to air rugby if it loses them money. The reason they can air the Churchill Cup is because they play in a motropolis with production equiptment readily avaiable. When in Toronto, all you have to do is bring the production truck from up the road. There are already major tennis tournaments(most attended outside of majors), CFL and Major League Baseball and a variety of other things. Same thing in Edomton you have production trucks available because that stuff is already there. You can't garuntee anything production wise when there in South America. More than likely it would be produced by a South American company and the Canadian broadcaster would buy the rights to the picture. I'm just not sure if they'd acutally send a commentating crew for the live broadcast so it would be something chopped up after the fact.
M
mirlos
Guest
First of all: Im not sure if my English is good enough to illustrate what Im thinking. But, anyway, here I go!
I honestly dont think any Tournament by invitation would help developing the sport. That made sense when only 10 teams or so were able to play in a really professional level, but that´s not the case anymore. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont know about any other sport that have this kind of tournaments every year as the only important competition against nations.
What if, for instance, Argentina plays a mini tournament against Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to see which team would play on the 4N on 2008 against SA, Australia and NZ? The team that finishes last on that 4N would have to compete, on 2009, against the other 3 teams that hadnt qualify in 2008. And so on. The same could happen in the 6N with Georgia, Rumania, Canada and EEUU trying to qualify for it every year. That kind of competition is what really helps, IMO, not one where you are invited to, even if you lost every single game by 100 points the previous year.
I know, tradition is important and it would be a tragedy if, for intance (and Im using the IRB rankings looking for an example, no animosity whatsoever with any country) Scotland doesnt qualify for the 6N one year, and Canada does. But this would help some nations to have an actual idea of where they really are situated on the rugby map, and nasty suprises wont appear at the worst possible moment (in a RWC!) by the hands of "smaller" nations like Georgia, Argentina or Tonga.
Hope I managed to be clear enough to be understand. Would love hearing what you think.
I honestly dont think any Tournament by invitation would help developing the sport. That made sense when only 10 teams or so were able to play in a really professional level, but that´s not the case anymore. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont know about any other sport that have this kind of tournaments every year as the only important competition against nations.
What if, for instance, Argentina plays a mini tournament against Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to see which team would play on the 4N on 2008 against SA, Australia and NZ? The team that finishes last on that 4N would have to compete, on 2009, against the other 3 teams that hadnt qualify in 2008. And so on. The same could happen in the 6N with Georgia, Rumania, Canada and EEUU trying to qualify for it every year. That kind of competition is what really helps, IMO, not one where you are invited to, even if you lost every single game by 100 points the previous year.
I know, tradition is important and it would be a tragedy if, for intance (and Im using the IRB rankings looking for an example, no animosity whatsoever with any country) Scotland doesnt qualify for the 6N one year, and Canada does. But this would help some nations to have an actual idea of where they really are situated on the rugby map, and nasty suprises wont appear at the worst possible moment (in a RWC!) by the hands of "smaller" nations like Georgia, Argentina or Tonga.
Hope I managed to be clear enough to be understand. Would love hearing what you think.
C
Caledfwlch
Guest
First of all: Im not sure if my English is good enough to illustrate what Im thinking. But, anyway, here I go!
I honestly dont think any Tournament by invitation would help developing the sport. That made sense when only 10 teams or so were able to play in a really professional level, but that´s not the case anymore. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont know about any other sport that have this kind of tournaments every year as the only important competition against nations.
What if, for instance, Argentina plays a mini tournament against Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to see which team would play on the 4N on 2008 against SA, Australia and NZ? The team that finishes last on that 4N would have to compete, on 2009, against the other 3 teams that hadnt qualify in 2008. And so on. The same could happen in the 6N with Georgia, Rumania, Canada and EEUU trying to qualify for it every year. That kind of competition is what really helps, IMO, not one where you are invited to, even if you lost every single game by 100 points the previous year.
I know, tradition is important and it would be a tragedy if, for intance (and Im using the IRB rankings looking for an example, no animosity whatsoever with any country) Scotland doesnt qualify for the 6N one year, and Canada does. But this would help some nations to have an actual idea of where they really are situated on the rugby map, and nasty suprises wont appear at the worst possible moment (in a RWC!) by the hands of "smaller" nations like Georgia, Argentina or Tonga.
Hope I managed to be clear enough to be understand. Would love hearing what you think.
Not a bad idea. Might cause a bit of a logistics headache though. And not to mention that saga about the Southern Spears who were supposedly supposed to take over the weakest South African S14 team.
F
Frostie
Guest
Argentina have been overlooked for far too long now. They definitely need to be involved in one of the major tournaments although actually achieving it could be a logistical nightmare!
F
feicarsinn
Guest
good idea but i'd have a relegation playoff between last place and 1st in the second tier over 2 legs instead of direct qualificationFirst of all: Im not sure if my English is good enough to illustrate what Im thinking. But, anyway, here I go!
I honestly dont think any Tournament by invitation would help developing the sport. That made sense when only 10 teams or so were able to play in a really professional level, but that´s not the case anymore. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont know about any other sport that have this kind of tournaments every year as the only important competition against nations.
What if, for instance, Argentina plays a mini tournament against Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to see which team would play on the 4N on 2008 against SA, Australia and NZ? The team that finishes last on that 4N would have to compete, on 2009, against the other 3 teams that hadnt qualify in 2008. And so on. The same could happen in the 6N with Georgia, Rumania, Canada and EEUU trying to qualify for it every year. That kind of competition is what really helps, IMO, not one where you are invited to, even if you lost every single game by 100 points the previous year.
I know, tradition is important and it would be a tragedy if, for intance (and Im using the IRB rankings looking for an example, no animosity whatsoever with any country) Scotland doesnt qualify for the 6N one year, and Canada does. But this would help some nations to have an actual idea of where they really are situated on the rugby map, and nasty suprises wont appear at the worst possible moment (in a RWC!) by the hands of "smaller" nations like Georgia, Argentina or Tonga.
Hope I managed to be clear enough to be understand. Would love hearing what you think.
[/b]
M
mirlos
Guest
good idea but i'd have a relegation playoff between last place and 1st in the second tier over 2 legs instead of direct qualification
[/quote]
I honestly have no idea of how to organize that. But what Im pretty sure about is that Invitational Tournaments are an anachronism.
[/quote]
I honestly have no idea of how to organize that. But what Im pretty sure about is that Invitational Tournaments are an anachronism.
F
feicarsinn
Guest
it wouldnt be difficult ok say we take this years 6N table:
France
Ireland
England
Italy
Wales
-----------
Scotland
now as finishing last scotland would have to play the winner of the euro nations cup (romania last time) over two legs (home and away) to decide who plays in the 08' six nations. as with the wc qualifiers it would be decided on points difference like the uruguay portugal games
oh yeah and it could be in place of these teams' summer tours (i know difficult to arrange in advance but there you go)
France
Ireland
England
Italy
Wales
-----------
Scotland
now as finishing last scotland would have to play the winner of the euro nations cup (romania last time) over two legs (home and away) to decide who plays in the 08' six nations. as with the wc qualifiers it would be decided on points difference like the uruguay portugal games
oh yeah and it could be in place of these teams' summer tours (i know difficult to arrange in advance but there you go)
S
scuubasteve
Guest
The promotion relegation playoff is nice thought, but I've never seen it work properly unfortunately. The losing top level team would have played far harder opposition than the winning lower level team, and will nearly always win because of this. Direct promotion/relegation is alot more fair in promoting lower teams upwards.
But more importantly, there's is no way that the 6 nations or 3 nations teams would ever allow themselves to give away their lucrative competitions for a promotion/relegation based setup. And they're the stake holders for these tournaments, not the IRB. So I don't see this happening unfortunately.
The only way to force your way in is to offer the 6N/3N teams something new and lucrative. Currently Argentina is the only team that could manage to do this at the moment.
But more importantly, there's is no way that the 6 nations or 3 nations teams would ever allow themselves to give away their lucrative competitions for a promotion/relegation based setup. And they're the stake holders for these tournaments, not the IRB. So I don't see this happening unfortunately.
The only way to force your way in is to offer the 6N/3N teams something new and lucrative. Currently Argentina is the only team that could manage to do this at the moment.
E
Eternam
Guest
I dont like the american team tournament. i belive Argentina needs competion up to its level
Similar threads
- Poll
