• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

North vs. South the ultimate Test!

I've got an idea. Why don't we send a letter to the IRB with a format where once every four years the best teams in the world play a tournament which takes about a month. Several groups in the groupstage and to follow up a knock-out stage.

The winner of the tournament gets a nice golden trophy. I think we can call it the Rugby World Cup!!!

What do you think guys? Good idea?
 
I know! Lets scrap International rugby and only have the World Cup every 4 years, with a World League throughout the entire year inbetween world cups. 'a'la soccer'. He He...
 
This thread has been uber-silly. I'm going to give my two cents and then leave forever:

If two teams were drawn from the NH and the SH the southern team would probably win. We can all accept that. The idea is very gimmicky and would not be a true representation of the standards of rugby in either area.

The teams would have zero fans. I wouldn't be interested in cheering a NH team and I doubt many Aussies would cheer for lots of Kiwis. The only reason the Lions have fans is because it is a very, very old tradition and the nations involved have huge cultural ties.

The British Lions format should not be tampered with at all. It's an amazing tradition and to alter it would cheapen the entire idea.

There is no time in the current calendar for more games, even one. A good French player, for example, will play a full top 14 season (we'll say 24 games to factor in days he's unavailable), a 6 nations campaign, about 8 Heineken Cup games as well as autumn and summer tests. That's a helluva lot of rugby. I'm sceptical as to whether there is room for the reintroduction of traditional tours, let alone room these kind of silly NH vs SH matches.
 
Hang on, in fairness I would watch a SH v NH game, and it's not like it's a new idea on this forum. Hell, it could even be interesting. But as mentioned, there are practical issues with the idea such as time of the year the game is played, financial issues, player well-being etc. As a hypothetical prospect, it would be alright. What it would do, which I am not a fan of, is create a "We're better than you" type attitude to whoever won.

It's this issue which annoys me the most. This forum has had so many "dick swinging contests" as it has been labled numerous times, that it gets tiresome. There are members that are new that have come with very much a we're better than you attitude that is unneeded.
the southern hemisphere would obliterate the notherners... seriously if you think otherwise,.. hang yourself this instant
Now these kind of comments, while obviously a wind up, make a lot of memers angry. There is pride in your team and competition and then there is boastful arrogance. I mean "if you think otherwise...hang yourself"? How would this lead to a healthy argument or even a bit of banter. It would seem that there is a slight difference between a constructive post, and suggestion of suicide, even if it is supposed to just be humourous. This match would give one hemisphare bragging rights that would cheapen the game. It happens already with some members, imagine if their opinions we further justified, what kind of idiots would be unleashed.
 
I LOLed at Dizzy's comment in fairness. Far better than anything SavageLez has said.

EDIT: I know I said I'd leave, but seriously, I thought it was hilarious!
 
I LOLed at Dizzy's comment in fairness. Far better than anything SavageLez has said.

EDIT: I know I said I'd leave, but seriously, I thought it was hilarious!

Well in fairness, SavageLes has come out with some brilliant stuff, he's just misunderstood because his South African accent gets mixed up with his fake Scottish accent.
 
I had such fun reading through this thread!:lol:

I think that the following idea is really simple...Once Argentina joins the Tri-Nations to make it the 4 Nations, the winner of the 4 Nations should play the winner of the 6 Nations at the end of the year and both sides should put their best possible players on the field.The game should be played the SH one year and in the NH the next year.

If this however can't be done, get over it and move on!:cool:
 
I can see your point but the last couple of years the SH rugby is really booming, producing world class players. If you have a look at the winners of the WRC and then have a closer look at the guys playing in any competition on the NH I reckon it's fairly easy to say who might win it.
Good suggestion thou
 
I had such fun reading through this thread!:lol:

I think that the following idea is really simple...Once Argentina joins the Tri-Nations to make it the 4 Nations, the winner of the 4 Nations should play the winner of the 6 Nations at the end of the year and both sides should put their best possible players on the field.The game should be played the SH one year and in the NH the next year.

If this however can't be done, get over it and move on!:cool:

Finally, Bloody good suggestion!
 
You will find that suggestion was posted earlier on :rolleyes:

Indeed, not only that, somone posted a list of games where the winner of the Tri-Nations played the 6 Nations champs in the same year...
 
Indeed, not only that, somone posted a list of games where the winner of the Tri-Nations played the 6 Nations champs in the same year...

Can safely say that member was smartcooky!
 
You dumb *******, its been said earlier we all know that, no need to rub it in ffs!

However better players do not always equal a great team. As a SH how do you feel all the nations would gel together given a months prep?

please state your grounds on calling me a dumb *******?..
Just because it has been said earlier doesn't mean you need to insult me. Insult the thread starter, knowing very well that the SH would destroy the NH he shouldn't have made this thread. I wasn't rubbing it in, I was stating my opinion.

But let me return the favor and calling you a dumb ******* because if all the nations joined together with all the best players, it would pretty much be a SH world xv with like 1 or 2 NH players. So they would gel together as well as they usually would.

A months prep is long enough to gel together, being professionals they know what they are doing and they do it well. They play for different teams every single year and if all the best players became one team, it would only make the "gelling" easier to do.

And who taught you that better players dont equal a great team??.. Over your entire life span how did you think National teams were decided?...

Let me tell you, the best players from each club are chosen for the national team, which means best players together = a better team.

That is why our national teams are better than our club teams..
 
Last edited:
You know what TRF can never get enough of?

Hemisphere wide cock swinging contests! The information exchanges is always new and interesting when they occur...
 
I'm sceptical as to whether there is room for the reintroduction of traditional tours

Im not.

I see no reason why, for example, if England were to come to New Zealand for two tests and Australia for a test, that they cannot have their non-test players playing midweek games. They did this year with two midweek games against barbarians sides in Australia then a Wednesday game against the Maoris.

England usually brings a squad of about 40 players, of which about 15 don't get a game. Why not give them a run mid-week. The only thing is, I would like to see something more imaginative than scratch BaaBaas sides... to see them play teams that are a bit more "real" such as Super 14 or NPC sides.
 
Top