M
MOGW
Guest
do the teams in the 6 nations ever change or are they the same every year?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
M
melon
Guest
The teams in the 6 Nations are constant.
- England
- Wales
- France
- Scotland
- Ireland
- Italy
R
Ripper
Guest
The solution is to have Argies play in a North America, South America and Carribean tournament. ( N.S.C Super 12)
and allow SUPER 14 club teams with the following amount of clubs.
Fiji -- 2 club teams---- Suva City seahawks and Lautoka City stallions
Japan -- 1 club team -- Tokyo Hondas
Tonga --- 1 club team --- Nukualofa Razorbacks
Samoa -- -1 club team -- Apia Marlins
NZ ---- 3 club teams ----- Canterbury Crusaders, Auckland Blues,Otago Highlanders
SA --- 3 club teams ---- Western Province, Bulls, Cheetahs
Australia - 3 club teams --- Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs.
Fiji should have two teams because Fiji had the most points in the RWC and made the quarters.
Whichever nation besides the SANZAR accumulates the most amount of points in the RWC or reaches the highest level receives a bonus of having 2 club teams in the 4 year span of the Super 14.
End of story..... [/b]
That's just retarded.
S
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Guest
They'd unquestionany struggle in an expanded Tri Nations and it could prove counterproductive to immerse them in such a tournament too soon. However Japan is potentially a huge market and could be exploited (for want of a better term) when the Super XIV contract expires in a couple of years time.
There could be space for a couple of new franchises in the Super XIV when the TV contract expires. If a franchise was placed in Japan, the market is there to run a pro team. They'd likely be the whipping boys of the league if they entered a team made up exclusively of Japanese players but what's to stop them including players from other rugby playing nations to improve their stock? Players such as Jaco Van Der Westhuyzen, Troy Flavell and Leon MacDonald have played in the Japanese Top League already so it's not inconceivable that players of a similar or higher standard would make the move if they weren't excluded from All Black, Wallaby or Springbok selection.
If a sliding scale was put in place capping the number of foreign players, Japan could relatively quickly improve their international stock. For example, in year 1 and 2, the Japanese franchise are allowed 10 foreign players in their 22 man matchday squad. Year 3 they're allowed 8, year 4 they can have 7 and so on until after a decade or so, the team is exclusively comprised of players eligible to play for the Brave Blossoms. Inclusion into an expanded Tri Nations can be granted once Japan show improved form in the Pacific 6 Nations and their franchise begins to stand on it's own two feet. That would prime Japan for potential hosting of the World Cup in 2015 or 2019.
R
rugby_roots
Guest
I guess I was a little biased and picked teams I liked
I was just giving an example, the top 3 teams from the NPc will move on to the Super 14 competion as usual.
I was thinking about adding those teams the following year once the platform has been set.
So, yea add Chiefs & Hurricanes...Than its Super 16..
I was just giving an example...the top 3 team from the Currie Cup will move on to the Super 14 as usual.
Thats why the Fijian Coach Ilivasi Tabua was pushing the IRB to provide more funding...the IRB already funds the Fiji Rugby Unions high performance unit/youth rugby/womens and sevens with a few millions
The IRB should trickle down some of the money given to Tier 1 Nations.
Realize that the IRB can fund one Islander team at a time, they can gradually add another team once the finances are stable...its all about managing the funds and planting the profits into another islander team.
Its not going to happen over night..so Im saying one team at a time.
Japan can handle the money issue because they are the ones that pay for Fijians to play in Japan and their economy is really good.
You just dont one to drop any teams at all....well if its all about what NEWScorp want than just keep all the teams. and make it super 20.
You need to stop oppressing the lower level teams...how will they grow if you dont allow them to ...
R
Rikeka
Guest
Ok, Ì think I didn`t made myself clear.
Argentina already dominate America, by a HUGE margin, and Argentina NEVER EVER sends a good team (not even 2nd or 3rd best team).
I don`t know how many All-America Tourneys have been, but Argentina won every single one. An international tourney for American teams? Doesn`t matter if it was 100 years ago, or yesterday: Argentina won it.
Seriously, I think Argentina has already "helped" as much as it could to the rest of America. Enough with the "take one for the team" approach, I`d say...
I agree with the rest of your post, Argentina has little chances against SA/NZ/Aus...
But better chances than any other American team against Argentina? That`s a certainty.
Will the Pumas presence affect the other teams of the Tri-Nations?
Will they lose attendance? Will they lose money in their new TV contracts?
S
scuubasteve
Guest
Rugby Roots, there's no correlation between performing in the NPC to which teams are allowed into the Super14? Its the same with Currie Cup teams.
None of the SANZAR unions use the idea of Provincial teams taking part in the Super14 anymore. South Africa used to do that in the formative years of the Super12, but now run franchises like NZ.
Super14 teams are independent franchises and each includes a number of NPC or Currie Cup provinces.
Blues = Northland, North Harbour, Auckland
Chiefs = Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Counties-Manukau
Hurricanes = Wellington, Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay
Crusaders = Tasman, Canterbury
Highlanders = Southland, Otago
The Super14 franchises also include a number of 2nd Division NZ Provinces as well. (Highlanders = North Otago, Hurricanes = Wanganui etc)
What you're suggesting with top NPC and Currie Cup teams playing Super Rugby is something entirely different, and something I've already tried to push. So essentially we're trying to say the same thing here, just in different ways.
The Super 14 should be more like the NH's Heineken Cup.
Currently we have 14weeks of Super Rugby round robin + 2 weeks of finals. Thats 16weeks of Super Rugby (not including the extended offseason buildup) all at the start of the SH season.
Later in the season all SANZAR unions now have a 3rd tier domestic comps running over a number of months: Aus = ARC. NZ = NPC (read Air NZ Cup). SA = CC.
The ARC is 10 weeks in total (8weeks Round Robin+Finals)
The NPC is 13 weeks in total (10weeks RR+Finals)
The CC has 2 tiers. The 8 team Premier Division and the 6 team First Division. The Premier Div is 16 weeks in total (14weeks RR+finals).
The Pacific Islands have the Pacific Rugby Cup. This comp includes 2 teams from Samoa, 2 from Tonga, and 2 from Fiji. It runs for 6 weeks (5 weeks RR+Final).
The Japanese have the Top League. It includes 14 teams and is run identically as the Super14, 16 weeks total (14weeks of RR+Finals).
Professional club rugby in Japan has only been around for 4 years. Last year the comp expanded to 14 teams (from the previous 12) and this season it will have TMO's (television match officials) for every game. So clearly this comp is doing pretty well for itself, considering that the Magners League has only just initiated TMO's this season. The competition is sponsored by computing giant Microsoft, and each team is heavily sponsored by the massive Japanese corporate companies.
However, like most club leagues, not all teams are even with a handful of teams tending to dominate. The Toshiba Brave Lupus, NEC Green Rockets and Kobelco Steelers have been the big players in these formative few seasons, but teams like the Suntory Sungoliath appear to have been doing some intelligent recruiting from the masses of rugby talent in the Japanese University's and the future of this comp is as open as any.
But the point of all this is (and here are just a few),
1. Rugby needs to get rid of the cluttered club season.
2. Clubs should have constant players roster (not the current situation where the best players are only there sometimes)
3. Fans should only have to support one club team in a season.
4. The minnow nations need sustainable professional clubs to grow.
5. Clubs from smaller nations would grow faster if they could play big name foreign clubs.
6. Fans want a season that is unpredictable and not stale.
7. Sponsors would pay more for a more global competition.
8. If there are more professional clubs in a country then there are more professional players available for the national teams.
9. More professional contracts mean less players can be enticed away to other sports (especially important in Australia).
So, if you changed the format of the Super14 to be something a little different, I think it would be to the benefit of all involved.
Firstly, create two competitions:
A. The top level Super Rugby Cup
B: The second level Southern Rugby Shield.
Each competition would include 24 teams. Comprising 4 pools of 6.
Teams will play each other pool team both home and away.
This gives a total of 10 pooll games. These will be spaced out across the season into 5 blocks of 2 games each.
Following pool play, the top 2 teams from each pool will go through into quarter finals, semi's and a grand final.
Super Cup qualification would be as follows:
Pacific Island's = 3 teams (Top 3 Pacific Rugby Cup teams)
New Zealand = 6 teams (Top 6 Air New Zealand Cup teams)
South Africa = 6 teams (Top 6 Currie Cup Teams)
Australia = 6 teams (Top 6 Australian Rugby Cup teams)
Japan = 3 teams (Top 3 Top League Teams)
Total = 24 teams
Southern Rugby Shield qualification as follows:
Pacific Island's = 3 teams (Bottom 3 Pacific Rugby Cup teams)
New Zealand = 8 teams (Bottom 8 Air New Zealand Cup teams)
South Africa = 6 teams (Next 6 Currie Cup Teams)
Australia = 2 teams (Bottom 2 Australian Rugby Cup teams)
Japan = 5 teams (Next 5 highest Top League Teams)
Total = 24 teams
The figures (used above) for qualification is based on a mixture of:
1. The current number of teams in the respective national competitions.
2. The relative strengths of the competions.
3. The need to promote the growth of the weaker nations.
It is also likely that if this was the way pro club rugby was organised in the southern hemisphere then the ARU could justify more ARC teams. This would mean a reshuffling of the qualification system to take this factor into account for future seasons.
It is also more likely that Argentina, Canada and the USA would be able to create professional clubs on the level of these teams. The current levels of competition (and the operational funding required) for Super Club teams is too great for any truely competitive professional club teams to be created in these nations. So it is possilbe that the competition could be expanded to include teams from the America's in the future also.
This format would offer Newscorp a much larger and more prestigious product to market. Similarly this competition has far greater reach into the global sporting market (with the inclusion of Japan, and the possible inclusion of the America's). And by having more pro teams you can access more fans, as the smaller ARC, Currie Cup and NPC teams represent a greater cross-section of the nations they occupy. Super rugby neglects large areas of NZ, South Africa and Australia (along the much discussed neglect of the Pacific).
None of the SANZAR unions use the idea of Provincial teams taking part in the Super14 anymore. South Africa used to do that in the formative years of the Super12, but now run franchises like NZ.
Super14 teams are independent franchises and each includes a number of NPC or Currie Cup provinces.
Blues = Northland, North Harbour, Auckland
Chiefs = Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Counties-Manukau
Hurricanes = Wellington, Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay
Crusaders = Tasman, Canterbury
Highlanders = Southland, Otago
The Super14 franchises also include a number of 2nd Division NZ Provinces as well. (Highlanders = North Otago, Hurricanes = Wanganui etc)
What you're suggesting with top NPC and Currie Cup teams playing Super Rugby is something entirely different, and something I've already tried to push. So essentially we're trying to say the same thing here, just in different ways.
The Super 14 should be more like the NH's Heineken Cup.
Currently we have 14weeks of Super Rugby round robin + 2 weeks of finals. Thats 16weeks of Super Rugby (not including the extended offseason buildup) all at the start of the SH season.
Later in the season all SANZAR unions now have a 3rd tier domestic comps running over a number of months: Aus = ARC. NZ = NPC (read Air NZ Cup). SA = CC.
The ARC is 10 weeks in total (8weeks Round Robin+Finals)
The NPC is 13 weeks in total (10weeks RR+Finals)
The CC has 2 tiers. The 8 team Premier Division and the 6 team First Division. The Premier Div is 16 weeks in total (14weeks RR+finals).
The Pacific Islands have the Pacific Rugby Cup. This comp includes 2 teams from Samoa, 2 from Tonga, and 2 from Fiji. It runs for 6 weeks (5 weeks RR+Final).
The Japanese have the Top League. It includes 14 teams and is run identically as the Super14, 16 weeks total (14weeks of RR+Finals).
Professional club rugby in Japan has only been around for 4 years. Last year the comp expanded to 14 teams (from the previous 12) and this season it will have TMO's (television match officials) for every game. So clearly this comp is doing pretty well for itself, considering that the Magners League has only just initiated TMO's this season. The competition is sponsored by computing giant Microsoft, and each team is heavily sponsored by the massive Japanese corporate companies.
However, like most club leagues, not all teams are even with a handful of teams tending to dominate. The Toshiba Brave Lupus, NEC Green Rockets and Kobelco Steelers have been the big players in these formative few seasons, but teams like the Suntory Sungoliath appear to have been doing some intelligent recruiting from the masses of rugby talent in the Japanese University's and the future of this comp is as open as any.
But the point of all this is (and here are just a few),
1. Rugby needs to get rid of the cluttered club season.
2. Clubs should have constant players roster (not the current situation where the best players are only there sometimes)
3. Fans should only have to support one club team in a season.
4. The minnow nations need sustainable professional clubs to grow.
5. Clubs from smaller nations would grow faster if they could play big name foreign clubs.
6. Fans want a season that is unpredictable and not stale.
7. Sponsors would pay more for a more global competition.
8. If there are more professional clubs in a country then there are more professional players available for the national teams.
9. More professional contracts mean less players can be enticed away to other sports (especially important in Australia).
So, if you changed the format of the Super14 to be something a little different, I think it would be to the benefit of all involved.
Firstly, create two competitions:
A. The top level Super Rugby Cup
B: The second level Southern Rugby Shield.
Each competition would include 24 teams. Comprising 4 pools of 6.
Teams will play each other pool team both home and away.
This gives a total of 10 pooll games. These will be spaced out across the season into 5 blocks of 2 games each.
Following pool play, the top 2 teams from each pool will go through into quarter finals, semi's and a grand final.
Super Cup qualification would be as follows:
Pacific Island's = 3 teams (Top 3 Pacific Rugby Cup teams)
New Zealand = 6 teams (Top 6 Air New Zealand Cup teams)
South Africa = 6 teams (Top 6 Currie Cup Teams)
Australia = 6 teams (Top 6 Australian Rugby Cup teams)
Japan = 3 teams (Top 3 Top League Teams)
Total = 24 teams
Southern Rugby Shield qualification as follows:
Pacific Island's = 3 teams (Bottom 3 Pacific Rugby Cup teams)
New Zealand = 8 teams (Bottom 8 Air New Zealand Cup teams)
South Africa = 6 teams (Next 6 Currie Cup Teams)
Australia = 2 teams (Bottom 2 Australian Rugby Cup teams)
Japan = 5 teams (Next 5 highest Top League Teams)
Total = 24 teams
The figures (used above) for qualification is based on a mixture of:
1. The current number of teams in the respective national competitions.
2. The relative strengths of the competions.
3. The need to promote the growth of the weaker nations.
It is also likely that if this was the way pro club rugby was organised in the southern hemisphere then the ARU could justify more ARC teams. This would mean a reshuffling of the qualification system to take this factor into account for future seasons.
It is also more likely that Argentina, Canada and the USA would be able to create professional clubs on the level of these teams. The current levels of competition (and the operational funding required) for Super Club teams is too great for any truely competitive professional club teams to be created in these nations. So it is possilbe that the competition could be expanded to include teams from the America's in the future also.
This format would offer Newscorp a much larger and more prestigious product to market. Similarly this competition has far greater reach into the global sporting market (with the inclusion of Japan, and the possible inclusion of the America's). And by having more pro teams you can access more fans, as the smaller ARC, Currie Cup and NPC teams represent a greater cross-section of the nations they occupy. Super rugby neglects large areas of NZ, South Africa and Australia (along the much discussed neglect of the Pacific).
R
Rikeka
Guest
I think I forgot something: Not only Argentina has won every single tourney... I think they have won every single match.
Not sure on this one. It probably ends up being true in the last decade or something... Tourneys, not on tests: Pretty sure the canadians may have surprised us once or twice there.
Not sure on this one. It probably ends up being true in the last decade or something... Tourneys, not on tests: Pretty sure the canadians may have surprised us once or twice there.
M
Mr. Laxative
Guest
Just to clarify something. Would this completely remove the franchise teams, for example Brumbies, Reds, Tahs and Force? From what I can see here that is what you are getting at. So, on an assumption I'll say something that could add a bit.
In Australian Rugby (and certainly NZ and SA) at this point there are some very strong, long lived rivalries. What could well be interesting to see is after this "Super Rugby" competition is a national competition involving all the current Franchises. If they were to play each team once it would not lengthen the season anymore and from this we could move into an expanded "Tri-Nations". No?
What I would like to see is a Club World Championship. This could potentially take place every four years; two years after each National Teams World Cup. It could run under the same sort of schedule and provide a lot of spice, potentialy developing rivalries between clubs on opposite sides of the world. Qualification would be an interesting issue, perhaps the top teams from each competition or the top team from each country. Would certainly be something I'd watch....
....But if any of this were to happen such competition would have to get Free-to-Air coverage in Australia.
S
scuubasteve
Guest
Yeah, mate. I guess for some of us in the younger generations, who have basically grown up with Super rugby over the last 11 years it would be hard to say goodbye to these teams.
In NZ and South Africa, the Super teams are essentially bigger versions of the Provinces they once represented. It's no coincedence that the jersey colours of these teams are the same as provincial teams based in the same cities (Hurricanes =Yellow & Black etc).
Obviously the Brumbies and the Force are the exception to all this. The Reds and Tahs are both quite old and well established unions, with ACT and WA being relatively young.
So yeah, unfortunately for some, I'm suggesting cutting the Super franchises out all together. And instead, have a club season where the one team competes in 2 separate comps. Their local comp (ARC etc) and, depending on how they went in their local comp last season, playing in either the global Cup or Shield comps.
Regarding your Super franchises though, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that you could find space for a State of Origin comp, similar to League, where players would represent their province (NSW, QLD, WA, SA, VIC, ACT).
Regarding the World Club Champs. I would envision a global calendar involving only 2 international windows, 6 weeks in June and 6 weeks November.
June is for the 6 Nations and whatever equivalent is organised in the Southern Hemisphere.
November is for global cups and tours.
The November window in 2007 would be occupied by the World Cup. In 2008 it would involve tours. In 2009 it would be the Club World Cup, 2010 would be tours again, before the World Cup comes around again in 2011.
In NZ and South Africa, the Super teams are essentially bigger versions of the Provinces they once represented. It's no coincedence that the jersey colours of these teams are the same as provincial teams based in the same cities (Hurricanes =Yellow & Black etc).
Obviously the Brumbies and the Force are the exception to all this. The Reds and Tahs are both quite old and well established unions, with ACT and WA being relatively young.
So yeah, unfortunately for some, I'm suggesting cutting the Super franchises out all together. And instead, have a club season where the one team competes in 2 separate comps. Their local comp (ARC etc) and, depending on how they went in their local comp last season, playing in either the global Cup or Shield comps.
Regarding your Super franchises though, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that you could find space for a State of Origin comp, similar to League, where players would represent their province (NSW, QLD, WA, SA, VIC, ACT).
Regarding the World Club Champs. I would envision a global calendar involving only 2 international windows, 6 weeks in June and 6 weeks November.
June is for the 6 Nations and whatever equivalent is organised in the Southern Hemisphere.
November is for global cups and tours.
The November window in 2007 would be occupied by the World Cup. In 2008 it would involve tours. In 2009 it would be the Club World Cup, 2010 would be tours again, before the World Cup comes around again in 2011.
R
ragebep
Guest
I think that seeing Argentina in a big international tournament could be a great thing...
But I can't understand, why they should play the 6 Nations?
That's an European tournament, and..... that's it!
There's no geographical or cultural gustification that can say that they slhould play the 6N... they are perfect for the "4 Nations"...
Maybe the argentinian federation could prefer the 6n, because most of their players play in Europe, so problems like players' jet-lag shouldn't exist...
But I can't understand, why they should play the 6 Nations?
That's an European tournament, and..... that's it!
There's no geographical or cultural gustification that can say that they slhould play the 6N... they are perfect for the "4 Nations"...
Maybe the argentinian federation could prefer the 6n, because most of their players play in Europe, so problems like players' jet-lag shouldn't exist...
M
melon
Guest
You've just pretty much contradicted yourself. First you say theres no reason for them to be in the 6N, then you go and say most of their players play in Europe (which is correct of course). Thats a perfect reason for them to be in an expanded 6N!
However an expanded Tri Nations is the way to go!
Similar threads
