So the big boys, have their ball and if it doesn't it all go their way, they are going home.
The big nations with their 6 figure salary players and multi millions in sponsorship and back up and everything else are worried about having to trot out for more games....ah but wait, it won't be more, it will be the same per team possibly less if you got to a 5 nation top tier - there will be more internationals which get noticed (i.e, established nations against the developers) rather than our 5 games in winter/spring and 4 autumn internationals. Why can't there be 4 in the new format, and then include one of the tier 2 Europeans along with some of the big boys touring. When the world cup rolls around, there will be more competitive games, more results like Georgia and Japan last weekend and the whole tournament improves, both as a spectacle and for the teams involved....
I love the game and always have, but I'm not sure I think that it's wonderful that Wales' opponents in the last opponents since the end of the last world cup and Uruguay last week consisted of 23 vs other 6N teams, 12 against NZ/OZ/SA, 2 v Arg, 2 v Japan (with a basically 2nd string on tour), and 1 each v Fiji, Samoa and Tonga....37 v the big boys, 5 v the minnows.
Now I'm not saying we should swap the current autumn fixtures for Portugal, Russia, Holland and Georgia....but could we send a under 23's, or a 'possibles' squad to tour a few of these guys? Or slide an odd autumn friendly against someone a little more local? Let's face it, there's only really one team that are truly at the top CONSISTENTLY (don't get upset OZ/SA) and All of the 6 nations teams have had a significant blip over the last few decades.
There will come a time when great players emerge from developing teams, and in the current system they get drafted in to the big boys in order to make sure the split remains. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen. I'm sure you're all lining up to shoot me down, but there are south sea islanders playing for SH teams - with the knock on effect that potential all blacks etc end up playing for the home nations etc; I can't give a specific example, but I'm sure there are Romanians/Georgians as well as many other nations and the like who ended up playing with France/Italy/home nations. It's a small point, but it all just points to the top tier looking after number one. It's Jam now, don't worry about jam later....we'll stop anyone else having any by nicking theirs.
Unless of course the big 10 want to keep a bit of separation between themselves in the game so that they are always the big boys....and if the smaller nations started coming through, the lack of regular competition to drag them up would make it doubly difficult.
The world view is to help the emerging teams in EVERY way. Could you imagine the boost these teams would get by playing big teams? TOURING there? The current situation? We'll take our big games thankyou, keep the big gate receipts, keep the TV money, keep the sponsorship, and the rest of you can work a full time job and try and compete with South Africa and France etc when the World Cup rolls round.
I'm probably on a bit of a rant now, but in for a penny, in for a pound......
I agree that the main infrastructure of the game needs sorting at all levels, but lets be honest, name the countries that truly have this going on....if you can name 7 or 8 I'd probably agree, if you name 10 you are stretching, and any more than a dozen I'd say you are dreaming. The structure of rugby isn't really right in Wales, Scotland, Italy or Argentina; and there's probably an argument to say that France, England, NZ, OZ, SA paper over the cracks with £50 notes. Everyone got it somewhere between fairly wrong and disastrous when they went pro, and now some are getting there, but in many cases there are still issues. The bottom line is that big games, and big results will boost the number of players in a country far more than anything else....how many Japanese kids asked their parents for a rugby ball in the last 7 days....I suspect far more that when a solid business plan for a league was green lighted....so give them the games, give them something to shoot for and give them time. France took 45 years for their first tournament win in the 5 nations (admittedly some years spoiled by some kerfuffle with Germany) but is there not a scenario where Italy get 2/3 world stars and plenty of solid squad members at the same time and pull one out of the bag in 2032? So who's to say that in 30 years there are as many players in Georgia as in Scotland, or more in Spain than in Ireland?
The truth of it is, the IRB wouldn't put their (or more accurately, other people's) money where their mouth is and make it happen. Here's to another 50 years of seeing the Quarter Finals of the world cup being contested by maybe 12 nations AT THE MOST. And the worst thing about it, most fans will gladly agree. Would I like to see Wales have a crack at beating the All blacks every year, hell yes. In a freaky year we win the 6N and knock off the SH teams too? I'd be in paradise....but that's the insular view. Surely it would be just as good for me to see England in the second tier tournament for a year, or to see a more regular occurrence of last week's shocks. I'd love to see the day the Aussies need to make sure they put a good squad out against Russia, because they're second string might not do the job. Isn't that more important that each individual teams success.
Gah! I've made myself all annoyed now. I should probably delete this and go back to my hole, but it's said, feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
And on top of this, Wales are probably going to lose tonight. Maybe if we'd played Romania in the warm up instead of Ireland (a-****ing- gain), 1/2p wouldn't have played and he'd be kicking tonight.....AAAARRRGGGHHH
PS...C'mon Canada - one big play at the end!
