Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?

[Gulli]

I guess it is difficult to tell which has more influence without experiencing both tournaments from a neutral point of view, people are pretty generally going to say that the tournament that their nation is in, is more influential than the other, because all the passion that you have for your country means that the tournament you are in will influence you much more than a tournament that your country isn't in.

I realise I didn't word that very well, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say

 

[Dumbo]

Agree.

How's this though, in Australia the rights to all English rugby games have been bought out by a pub chain.
Seriously, we see no game where England is playing unless they are playing Australia.
Therefore... in Australia, England has no 'influence'.

 

[Rugby_Cymru]

Also the 6 Nations has Wales as a member... for christ sake it's been a long time since Wales influenced world rugby, or Italy, or Scotland for that matter.
[/b]

And there's me thinking people were envious of our style of play in '05.
I know it's all fallen through now, but I'm adamant it was influential back then.

Oh well, ignorance is bliss, eh?

 

[Gulli]

Agree.

How's this though, in Australia the rights to all English rugby games have been bought out by a pub chain.
Seriously, we see no game where England is playing unless they are playing Australia.
Therefore... in Australia, England has no 'influence'.
[/b]

I don't know about sky tv viewers, but on free to view tv over here, the only time we get to see southern hemisphere teams play is when they play us in the autumn internationals

 

[shazbooger]

Two totally different questions being answered.

1) Which tournament is bigger in world rugby. Sorry but it has to be the 6 nations. If only because the Tri-Nations has become a little stagnant. Its getting boring watching the same teams compete week in week out, even the fans down there are starting to get a little bored of it. Add Argentina to the mix and it could refresh the whole tournament, but for now, the Six Nations is a better tournament, in terms of attendances, atmosphere and occasion. I'm not saying its **** in the SH, I'm just saying its better in the NH (for now).

So to answer your question. The Six Nations is the bigger tournament. More players involved, more teams involved, bigger crowds attending the games, better stadiums (I can finally say that now we played in Croker) and a shed lot more drama week in week out.

2) Which has more influence? The SH teams have, no doubting that. But if your going to ask that question, surely you need to look at the influence of Rugby League and the Professionalism on the game first. Both of these were embraced in the SH long before we got our shite together up here so you've had a huge headstart on the rest of us. Because of this, you guys have dominated world rugby through the early professional era and so you have been more influential.

However, the game continues to develop but its no longer a clearly SH development (Look at how the roll of the centre has changed). The NH teams are starting to exert their own influence over the game.

Oh yeah, one final point. NZ Rugby is the biggest brand in World Rugby, no other team comes anywhere close to it.

 

[eoino]

Oh yeah, one final point. NZ Rugby is the biggest brand in World Rugby, no other team comes anywhere close to it.
[/b]

Brand... Canterbury of New Zealand made this possible mainly because they are a NZ based company and have very little compitition in the Rugby world thus making it very easy to market its brand and make it well established amongst the Rugby Community since 1901. This dosnt mean anything in contrast to the state of influence New Zealand Rugby or SH rugby has on the world.

In a sphere of influence, both sides domminate on different aspects on different levels of rugby. Its hard just to clarify exactly who is more influentual because their are 100s of different aspects to take into account. The main rugby countries in the world domminate, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, and the UK (England Scotland and Wales) other countries such as France only have intrested populations in the southern regions, very few supporters lie in the Northern parts of France. In Italy, Rugby is very small and in Argentina, Soccer dominates completly.

But since 1995, Rugby is becomming more and more popular in the world and is changing drasticly, we dont know what it will be like in 20 years time. Every world cup, 20 new National teams compete for places, showing that the sphere of influence is widening and that its not just the NH and SH influencing these nations.

 

[shtove]

6N is a much better competition than the Tri. And the money is bigger. The sight of half-empty stadiums down under last summer was a warning. Can't they get Ryanair to fly the fans around the Pacific on the cheap?

But the SH has rescued rugby. The revolution began with the 1982 Wallabies when NHers were pretending that a 6-3 scoreline was all the fans needed, and the ABs kicked on from there. Since then the ABs' only real contribution has been the new Haka choreography.

Respect to Australia, because they fired imagination amongst the sheepskin-coat brigade, and played it hard and smart. Pity they lost the imagination in 1999.

Ireland will conquer all and draw the poor huddled masses out of Wembley and ... other famous soccer stadiums ... toward their destiny of oval balls and cauliflower ears. But Italy will win RWC 2011 - because the ABs won't.

 

[Prestwick]

But Italy will win RWC 2011 - because the ABs won't.
[/b]

Amen, Pierre Berbitzier for teh win! :bana:

Also, I do not agree that what the SH embraced was professionalism. What they did come up with was an interesting and ingenious mix of capitalism and amateur command & control from the center with the emphasis firmly placed on the National side.

Like it or not, true professionalism is what you see currently in the English Premier League in fagball, where the decisions firmly lie with independent, privately owned clubs who's number one objective is to turn over a profit for their shareholders by getting their team to the best possible position for the investment put in.

Professionalism means that your sport has now been privatised and is now a private business, a going concern that can be traded on the stock markets and can be bought and sold.

What you see in the SH is not professionalism in my eyes.

 

[DonBilly]

<div class='quotemain'>
But Italy will win RWC 2011 - because the ABs won't.
[/b]

Amen, Pierre Berbitzier for teh win! :bana:

Also, I do not agree that what the SH embraced was professionalism. What they did come up with was an interesting and ingenious mix of capitalism and amateur command & control from the center with the emphasis firmly placed on the National side.

Like it or not, true professionalism is what you see currently in the English Premier League in fagball, where the decisions firmly lie with independent, privately owned clubs who's number one objective is to turn over a profit for their shareholders by getting their team to the best possible position for the investment put in.

Professionalism means that your sport has now been privatised and is now a private business, a going concern that can be traded on the stock markets and can be bought and sold.

What you see in the SH is not professionalism in my eyes.
[/b][/quote]


In principle professionalism means that you get paid for practicing a sport in which you excell. The fact that this is a private club or not, whether you are independent or not, that's a different story. To be professional is different from the economical organization of your sport although it is linked.

 

[shiznit]

its completely objective isnt it..

to me.... the 6 nations is boring as batshit...

who the hell wants to watch Italy play Scotland?? sure its competitive but there really isnt any stars is there.

the fact that your stadiums completely fill out when the all blacks go up north shows who is the biggest draw card in world rugby.

your average italian joe will more than likely know all black players then azzuri players.

as for professinalism.. look what your private buisnesses have done to the european club championship.

i bet you guys are wishing now that you followed our lead and contracted your players centrally to the union first.

no club V country bullshit in our hemisphere...

 

[melon]

its completely objective isnt it..

to me.... the 6 nations is boring as batshit...

who the hell wants to watch Italy play Scotland?? sure its competitive but there really isnt any stars is there.

the fact that your stadiums completely fill out when the all blacks go up north shows who is the biggest draw card in world rugby.

your average italian joe will more than likely know all black players then azzuri players.

as for professinalism.. look what your private buisnesses have done to the european club championship.

i bet you guys are wishing now that you followed our lead and contracted your players centrally to the union first.

no club V country bullshit in our hemisphere... [/b]

Ahhhh Southern Hemisphere triumphs again :bana:

 

[Gulli]

its completely objective isnt it..

to me.... the 6 nations is boring as batshit...

who the hell wants to watch Italy play Scotland?? sure its competitive but there really isnt any stars is there.

the fact that your stadiums completely fill out when the all blacks go up north shows who is the biggest draw card in world rugby.

your average italian joe will more than likely know all black players then azzuri players.

as for professinalism.. look what your private buisnesses have done to the european club championship.

i bet you guys are wishing now that you followed our lead and contracted your players centrally to the union first.

no club V country bullshit in our hemisphere...
[/b]

so why can't you fill out your stadiums for the tri nations? ever think our stadiums are packed out because we actually want to watch our international teams?

 

[QKXV]

I guess it is difficult to tell which has more influence without experiencing both tournaments from a neutral point of view, people are pretty generally going to say that the tournament that their nation is in, is more influential than the other, because all the passion that you have for your country means that the tournament you are in will influence you much more than a tournament that your country isn't in.

I realise I didn't word that very well, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say
[/b]

Your statement above is very true, the way the tournaments are shaped to individuals in their respective countries by the availability of matches on telly, and off course the media hype that goes with it dictates how big a tournament is, not to mention which tournament your side plays in. I suppose it's like the whole quantum thing where reality exists simply because it is being observed. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a patriot, and I love my country, I'm proud to be antipodean but in my opinion 6N beats 3N.

To me having lived in te UK for 5 years now, 6N are by far the better, although I watched every match of the extended tri nations, which I nonetheless enjoyed. From my own personal experience, the reason I feel this way is because the first 6N I watched was from a hospital bed with a spinal fracture, morphined up to the eyeballs and I could swear the camera angles were different to the ones they use in Tri nations, which has the effect of making it look like you're watching classic matches, then again, it might've been the drugs.

I suppose, along with this goes the fact that most Tri Nations matches are watched at home because the SA pubs are too far from me and most english pubs round here couldn't care less about 3N. THe 6N in contrast can be viewed in pubs with lots of friends adding to the atmosphere. The history, the drama, everything is better.

When I lived in SA I didn't get to see the 6N, I watched 3N matches from home, live or at someone's home with lots of friends making a braai(BBQ) because it's less of a pub culture. If you asked me this question way back then I would no doubt have told you that the 3N were king between the two comps. Especially in 98.

Which I take as proof to Gulli's comment that it's defenitely got a lot to do with perception.

I can't understand why anyone would think the 6N are as boring as batshit, unless they've never actually watched a match and mainly watch rugby to lovingly gaze into Morltock's eyes or perhaps they just watch the game to perv over the 'stars' thighs and **** like that.

 

[Prestwick]

its completely objective isnt it..

to me.... the 6 nations is boring as batshit...[/b]

As opposed to playing the same team multiple times in front of half empty stadia? Hmmm, yes, you definitely have the edge on us there! Whatever will we do?! Why, our unpredictable matches, wide and diverse teams, sold out crowds and lovely cities are no match for the empty, stale and repetitive and arrogant Tri Nations!

who the hell wants to watch Italy play Scotland?? sure its competitive but there really isnt any stars is there.[/b]

Er, yes, quite. By the way, this was the Italy which almost beat Australia last year. Please, get some eyes and some common sense and use a wonderful thing called "satellite tv" and "the internet" to see the excellent talent Italy has.

the fact that your stadiums completely fill out when the all blacks go up north shows who is the biggest draw card in world rugby.[/b]

A silly statement as the stadiums up north completely fill out anyway whatever the team!

your average italian joe will more than likely know all black players then azzuri players.[/b]

Another pig ignorant statement, actually the average Italian Joe would actually know most of the Azzuri, especially considering they've had their mugs all over the Italian press and television for the last four months. Don't be so confident that everyone on the planet knows who the All Blacks are. Say "All Blacks" in America and you'd be beaten up for being a "racist retard" for example.

And also, want to know you can be even more condescending, ignorant and offensive to the Italians (especially those from Milan) Shiznoir? Simply place the back of your hand under your chin and make a brushing motion, brushing outwards away from your face as if you are brushing something off from under your chin with the back of your hand. Meanwhile, shout "MIANO! MIANO!" at the top of your lungs. This is a merging of "milan" and "ass" as if to say "Milan my ass!"

as for professinalism.. look what your private buisnesses have done to the european club championship.[/b]

And look what your Communist internationale has done to your system. When the even bigger boys like America come on the world rugby scene (and trust me, they are coming), they'll be even more commercialised than the English.

And who will have a rats arse chance of being able to compete with such goliaths? Why those who bothered to move with the times and modernise and improve! that is!

i bet you guys are wishing now that you followed our lead and contracted your players centrally to the union first.

no club V country bullshit in our hemisphere...[/b]

To be honest, I'd rather have a vibrant and independent rugby scene here than have some wacky, North Korean inspired command economy central contracting NZRFU rubbish. At least Rugby_is_a_Religion is honest! He flies his North Korean flag with PRIDE! And so should you too!

On the contary, I'm wishing that you'd be quiet and let the more knowledgeable southerners like GayGuy and SANZAR have their say.

Good day to you sir! :bana:

 

[shtove]

to me.... the 6 nations is boring as batshit...

no club V country bullshit in our hemisphere...
[/b]

6N is variable quality, but it's a real competition. Tri-N will have an increasing problem drawing crowds.

Well, none in NZ. The money men behind Super 14 teams in SA weren't too happy about the lack of AB players halfway through the tournament. Don't forget - they're in same timezone for European TV audiences, which is kind of attractive for an expanded HEC and 6N.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Prestwick+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prestwick)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Shiznit

i bet you guys are wishing now that you followed our lead and contracted your players centrally to the union first.

no club V country bullshit in our hemisphere...

To be honest, I'd rather have a vibrant and independent rugby scene here than have some wacky, North Korean inspired command economy central contracting NZRFU rubbish. At least Rugby_is_a_Religion is honest! He flies his North Korean flag with PRIDE! And so should you too!

On the contary, I'm wishing that you'd be quiet and let the more knowledgeable southerners like GayGuy and SANZAR have their say.

Good day to you sir! :bana:
[/b]

So you'd also rather see England get wasted 78-0 by Australia and 64-10 by an All Black side who would go on to lose the next 5 tests because of your perfect system of relying on washed up Southern Have-Beens and Have-Not (Like Regan King, can't get an Super 14 contract, goes to Wales and all of a sudden he's apparently the greatest New Zealand centre of all time) imports and clubs who can hold the National Team to hostage?

 

[Prestwick]

Oh my, what a short memory you have.

Do not forget, it was an England fed by vibrant and independent clubs in the GP and agreed with the RFU (albeit with serious doubts) through the long form agreement that not only ran rings around New Zealand and Australia, beating them here in England and at away in the Southern Hemisphere and that won the World Cup. The system we use now is exactly the same as the system we had when we beat the world.

I'm not claiming that it is perfect, I am just saying that it is better in my opinion than the system of dictatorship from a board of old farts at the RFUs of SA, Australia and NZ.

The system is not "awash" with foreign players, there are still loads of English and British talent flowing through the clubs, so no collapse in the English playing stock there then.

The clubs are not holding the RFU hostage. Actually, what you are seeing is the clubs and the RFU just having a big argument. The RFU aren't losing anything, they're quite happy to invite your basic village rugby sides from Bay of Plenty to play in the HEC. Meanwhile the people actually losing out are the Clubs and the fans because its the Clubs doing the boycott. In the end, its actually a load of people having a loud argument and going around in circles but then again, thats what is so great about our set up.

Now work with me here, rather than sitting around with your finger up your arses, humming happily and generally gathering dust, we're challenging things, we're having a big huge argument over the future of how the English game will be run and suggesting new things which the private clubs and the RFU can live with and as a result eventually (and I bloody hope so, it has to eventually) the system we have will mature.

Can you really say that the Super 14 teams or their Unions are being that dynamic and having such a passionate goddamn argument about the game that they're into? I seriously doubt that.

All I see are a bunch of old men in suits from the 1970s and 80s trying to hold back the tide and praying that no other nations who have a bigger GNP than them get in on the game of rugby and pump more money than SANZAR combined into their teams.

Seriously guys, change is coming, and if you're not careful, you're going to be left behind.

 

[Ripper]

Oh my, what a short memory you have.

Do not forget, it was an England fed by vibrant and independent clubs in the GP and agreed with the RFU (albeit with serious doubts) through the long form agreement that not only ran rings around New Zealand and Australia, beating them here in England and at away in the Southern Hemisphere and that won the World Cup. The system we use now is exactly the same as the system we had when we beat the world.

I'm not claiming that it is perfect, I am just saying that it is better in my opinion than the system of dictatorship from a board of old farts at the RFUs of SA, Australia and NZ.

The system is not "awash" with foreign players, there are still loads of English and British talent flowing through the clubs, so no collapse in the English playing stock there then.

The clubs are not holding the RFU hostage. Actually, what you are seeing is the clubs and the RFU just having a big argument. The RFU aren't losing anything, they're quite happy to invite your basic village rugby sides from Bay of Plenty to play in the HEC. Meanwhile the people actually losing out are the Clubs and the fans because its the Clubs doing the boycott. In the end, its actually a load of people having a loud argument and going around in circles but then again, thats what is so great about our set up.

Now work with me here, rather than sitting around with your finger up your arses, humming happily and generally gathering dust, we're challenging things, we're having a big huge argument over the future of how the English game will be run and suggesting new things which the private clubs and the RFU can live with and as a result eventually (and I bloody hope so, it has to eventually) the system we have will mature.

Can you really say that the Super 14 teams or their Unions are being that dynamic and having such a passionate goddamn argument about the game that they're into? I seriously doubt that.

All I see are a bunch of old men in suits from the 1970s and 80s trying to hold back the tide and praying that no other nations who have a bigger GNP than them get in on the game of rugby and pump more money than SANZAR combined into their teams.

Seriously guys, change is coming, and if you're not careful, you're going to be left behind.
[/b]

:lol2tn: Yep, nothing is better for the game than having the Clubs and the National Union at war with one another - just ask Rugby League - the Super League War did wonders for the game, it only set the code back by around what - 10 years?

In other words, it is wrong for the NZRFU to try and protect their main revenue outside of the Adidas Sponsorships the local competitions by making sure that the best players turn out for NZ Teams, rather than European Teams? You still haven't told us where the NZRFU is going to make up for the loss of revenue that will occur when all the best players are in Europe and the local competitions are dead... but wait, some mythical cashcow is going to make it all better and pump squillions of dollars into the code - Rupert Murdoch is just small fry.

My favourite part of the post is when you said "the only people who lose out are the fans"...

 

[Dumbo]

Seriously guys, change is coming, and if you're not careful, you're going to be left behind.
[/b]

Is that right? time will tell.
What a joke.

 

[shiznit]

Oh my, what a short memory you have.

Do not forget, it was an England fed by vibrant and independent clubs in the GP and agreed with the RFU (albeit with serious doubts) through the long form agreement that not only ran rings around New Zealand and Australia, beating them here in England and at away in the Southern Hemisphere and that won the World Cup. The system we use now is exactly the same as the system we had when we beat the world.

I'm not claiming that it is perfect, I am just saying that it is better in my opinion than the system of dictatorship from a board of old farts at the RFUs of SA, Australia and NZ.

The system is not "awash" with foreign players, there are still loads of English and British talent flowing through the clubs, so no collapse in the English playing stock there then.
[/b]

:lol2tn:

are you deadset serious??

you base the sucsess of your domestic system on the fact that England were a very good football side for about 2-3 years.

and the RWC is supposed to some how prove that??

your club system had nothing to do with winning that RWC!!
you had a very good squad that was led by a brilliant captain. and you also had a very good coach who set that team dynamic over 6-7 years.

if your club system was the reason for that sucsess why is it that after your squad went through the enivitable rebuilding phase where they lost both captain and coach england became the laughing stock of world rugby...

FFS...the Pumas beat you chumps at your so called 'HQ'. so does mean that argentina's amateur competition better then englands professional one??

in my opinion the sign of a good domestic competition is if you look at the length of domination by the national team...

you guys all sqawrk about how you ran rings around us... YOU BEAT US TWICE BY LESS THAN 5 POINTS!!

lets compare the two nations shall we...

NZ V ENG..
NZ have won 22 (75.86%)
ENG have won 6 (20.69%)
Games drawn 1 (3.45%) -and the bloody english walked around the ground doing a victory lap :toss:

or perhaps we could use your logic of RWC's:

NZ have never finnished any worse then 4th in a World Cup. name another side that has done that...

then we can look at RWC winners:

you have our system.. which you called the 'system of dictatorship from a board of old farts at the RFUs of SA, Australia and NZ'... 4 out of 5 world champions

then you have your system.. 1 out of 5 world champions

yeah... the northern system is much better than ours... :toss: