World 8 Nations

[sigesige00]

There are European 6 Nations and The Rugby Championship of the Southern Hemisphere.
Abolish these 2 competitions, and introduce a new competirion -- World 8 Nations.
8 Nations play 7 games, and the bottom team are relegated, and 2nd bottom team face promotion/relegation playoff.
What do you think about my idea?

 

[Galbraith]

It sounds like a good tournament but it would recquire a complete overhaul of rugby tournament timings worldwide, and it might also de-value the World cup imo. Also is there much point seeing as the southern hemisphere teams tour the northern hemisphere annually so most of the teams play each other at least once a year.

 

[Gena_ZA]

great idea and very well possible, but they need to sort out the global season first, then it would be fair - in the current schedules either north or south will be disadvantaged as seasons start and end at different times

 

[Big Ewis]

OK...I'm starting to understand a bit (though NOT JUSTIFYING !!) some ppl's reactions on this forum now !

 

[RugbyKing]

Yes! This idea has a potentials a lot in my opinion, honestly. Why why why do the northern hemi not play games with the southern teams more often?? Especially not ones that mean ANYTHING.

So Sigesige, I like this idea eternally. It makes rubgy fresh sport again. Six nations has become stale, old, even boring - Wales are win every time now. Start a new tournament!!

 

[Thingimubob]

Yes! This idea has a potentials a lot in my opinion, honestly. Why why why do the northern hemi not play games with the southern teams more often?? Especially not ones that mean ANYTHING.

So Sigesige, I like this idea eternally. It makes rubgy fresh sport again. Six nations has become stale, old, even boring - Wales are win every time now. Start a new tournament!!

Hahaha, as much as I'd love this to be true, 2 years in a row of winning it (and only 1 being a Grandslam) doesn't mean we're going to win it everytime! If 2006 and 2010 are anything to go by, we don't historically do all that well after Lions Tours with good Welsh participation... So 2014 may be a bit rough for us!

6 Nations is awesome, great historical rivalries and you never know what upset is gonna pop up! Only thing that needs changing in it, is the possibility of smaller European Nations getting more game time against the 6 Nations - possibly by expanding it to 7 with a promotion/relegation (which is a big maybe).
A "World 8" tournament would 1) Take a lot of credibility out of the World Cup 2) Ringfence the sport into the Top 10 nations (even more than it is now), so hurting the global development of the game 3) Hurt the current established nations (especially Scotland and Italy) that could miss out on a spot in the 8 team team tournament.

In my opinion doing something like that would really hurt the international status of Rugby Union, and we'd end up in the same situation that international Rugby League is in now. Don't get me wrong, Rugby League is a fantastic, entertaining sport, but past the club game, it loses a lot of credibility when you have 3 National teams (Australia, New Zealand and England) who're so ridiculously far ahead of every other team, that without fail they will be 1, 2 and 3 in every single World Cup (with almost no chance of any upsets too!)... I'd hate for Union to end up like that!

 

[William18]

If you have this every year then the World Cup loses all meaning.

 

[nealn]

Hahaha, as much as I'd love this to be true, 2 years in a row of winning it (and only 1 being a Grandslam) doesn't mean we're going to win it everytime! If 2006 and 2010 are anything to go by, we don't historically do all that well after Lions Tours with good Welsh participation... So 2014 may be a bit rough for us!

6 Nations is awesome, great historical rivalries and you never know what upset is gonna pop up! Only thing that needs changing in it, is the possibility of smaller European Nations getting more game time against the 6 Nations - possibly by expanding it to 7 with a promotion/relegation (which is a big maybe).
A "World 8" tournament would 1) Take a lot of credibility out of the World Cup 2) Ringfence the sport into the Top 10 nations (even more than it is now), so hurting the global development of the game 3) Hurt the current established nations (especially Scotland and Italy) that could miss out on a spot in the 8 team team tournament.

In my opinion doing something like that would really hurt the international status of Rugby Union, and we'd end up in the same situation that international Rugby League is in now. Don't get me wrong, Rugby League is a fantastic, entertaining sport, but past the club game, it loses a lot of credibility when you have 3 National teams (Australia, New Zealand and England) who're so ridiculously far ahead of every other team, that without fail they will be 1, 2 and 3 in every single World Cup (with almost no chance of any upsets too!)... I'd hate for Union to end up like that!

Totally agree with that... Would really devalue the world cup and if you take away the cauldron of the Six Nations you take away a great institution of our game in Europe. It also, presumably, takes away tours to SANZAR nations by NH teams and AIs which both allow you so see your team develop over a few intense weeks of test competition. Sorting out an international calendar is a priority in my opinion but that should be an international calendar that allows for the likes of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship every year and a World Cup every four because, as far as I'm concerned, they're great tournaments with the frequency they are now.

 

[Superalexmarket]

Xcuse me... but: 6 Nations + 4 Nations (RC) is 10 Nations, no 8.
So... please, learn to count or use a calculator or something...

 

[Big Ewis]

Xcuse me... but: 6 Nations + 4 Nations (RC) is 10 Nations, no 8.
So... please, learn to count or use a calculator or something...

man, no....don't.
I think...these threads are uhmm...well....hmmmm...

 

[sigesige00]

If you have this every year then the World Cup loses all meaning.

Well, you are probably right... The reason RL does not have World Cup regularly is that there is 4 Nations every year. (Top 3 --Australia, NZ/Aotearoa, England -- don't change, but the 4th team changes)

 

[smartcooky]

If you have this every year then the World Cup loses all meaning.

Why?

► Cricket has a "Champions Trophy", and it doesn't diminish the Cricket World Cup

► Football has the "Confederations Cup" and that doesn't diminish the FIFA World Cup

► Rugby League has the Four Nations, which does not diminish the RL Word Cup

► Field Hockey has a "Champions Trophy", which does not diminish the FIH World Cup or the Olympics, their premier world competitions.

Some years ago, a couple of mates and I nutted out a "Super Seven" competition which would take place over a 12 month period, beginning immediately after the 6N Nations each year.

Here was how our proposal ended up (note at the time, the Rugby Championship didn't exist so this proposal refers to the Tri-Nations)

[TEXTAREA]SUPER SEVEN: An Annual Champions Trophy of Rugby

At the end of each Six Nations, the top seven ranked teams in the world are identified and drawn to play each other once over the following 12 months.

The idea of this competition is to formalise the current Autumn Internationals and the Southern Tours; this is to make them into meaningful matches. Very importantly, it would would require few if any extra matches over and above those already played now. Over the last few years, all of the top seven teams have come very close to playing each other at least once over the 12 month period beginning and ending at the end of the 6N.

1. Each team would play SIX matches (aim for 3 home and 3 away but sometimes will have to be 4 : 2 for some teams).

2. Six Nations and Tri-Nations matches (if applicable) would count as Super Seven matches. In the case of Tri-Nations, whichever match is required to even out the home/away situation would count as the Super Seven match.

3. In any other event that teams play each other more than once, the last calendar match within the designated period, between the two teams would count as the Super Seven match.

4. Table points will be awarded in the usual way; 4 points for a win, 2 for a draw 0 for a loss plus 1 bonus point for 4 tries and 1 bonus point for a close loss (7 or less).

5. There would be no final. Top of the table wins the Champions Trophy.

6. Matches would count for 1.5X the world ranking points, so Unions who send weakened teams to the opposite hemisphere would stand to get hammered in the rankings, and risk dropping out of the competition the following year.

7. The only promotion/relegation is via the iRB rankings.

The seven unions involved would pay their own costs (since they already do now for AI’ and STs). If the AIs and STs were to be formalised in this way, their value would be hugely greater than they are now, being part of a recognised Championship. The matches outside of Six Nations and Tri-Nations would be played in the arranged international windows, so that player availability should not be an issue, but in any case where it was, the IRB would have to enforce Regulation 9.

A similar competition could be arranged for team ranked 8 to 14 (the Minor Seven?) where ranking points would also count 1.5x their normal value.

The competition would not preclude matches between Super Seven teams and Minor Seven teams, but these would only count for normal ranking points if applicable.
[/TEXTAREA]

At the time we worked this out (2006) and just as feasibility study to prove to ourselves that such a series was possible, we attempted to create an imaginary competition using actual scheduled matches for the upcoming year, beginning 20 March 2006, two days after the end of the Six Nations.

First, a check of the IRB Rankings gave us the top seven teams.

1. New Zealand
2. South Africa
3. France
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6 England
7 Wales

Then using already scheduled matches on the actual dates they were to be played, this was how the draw worked out...

10-06-2006 : New Zealand v Ireland
11-06-2006 : Australia v England
24-06-2006 : South Africa v France
24-06-2006 : Australia v Ireland
08-07-2006 : New Zealand v Australia
15-07-2006 : Australia v South Africa
22-07-2006 : New Zealand v South Africa

04-11-2006 : Wales v Australia
05-11-2006 : England v New Zealand
11-11-2006 : Ireland v South Africa
11-11-2006 : France v New Zealand
18-11-2006 : England v South Africa
25-11-2006 : Wales v New Zealand

04-02-2007 : Wales v Ireland
11-02-2007 : Ireland v France
24-02-2007 : Ireland v England
24-02-2007 : France v Wales
11-03-2007 : England v France
17-03-2007 : Wales v England

This was 19 of the 21 matches that would have been required that year.

If Wales (instead of Scotland) had gone to South Africa in the 2006 June Tours, and France had hosted Australia instead of a second match against New Zealand in the 2006 Autumn Internationals, then all 21 matches would have been played; every team in the top seven would have played every other team over that 12 month period.

 

[William18]

Why?

► Cricket has a "Champions Trophy", and it doesn't diminish the Cricket World Cup

► Football has the "Confederations Cup" and that doesn't diminish the FIFA World Cup

► Rugby League has the Four Nations, which does not diminish the RL Word Cup

► Field Hockey has a "Champions Trophy", which does not diminish the FIH World Cup or the Olympics, their premier world competitions.

Some years ago, a couple of mates and I nutted out a "Super Seven" competition which would take place over a 12 month period, beginning immediately after the 6N Nations each year.

Here was how our proposal ended up (note at the time, the Rugby Championship didn't exist so this proposal refers to the Tri-Nations)

[TEXTAREA]SUPER SEVEN: An Annual Champions Trophy of Rugby

At the end of each Six Nations, the top seven ranked teams in the world are identified and drawn to play each other once over the following 12 months.

The idea of this competition is to formalise the current Autumn Internationals and the Southern Tours; this is to make them into meaningful matches. Very importantly, it would would require few if any extra matches over and above those already played now. Over the last few years, all of the top seven teams have come very close to playing each other at least once over the 12 month period beginning and ending at the end of the 6N.

1. Each team would play SIX matches (aim for 3 home and 3 away but sometimes will have to be 4 : 2 for some teams).

2. Six Nations and Tri-Nations matches (if applicable) would count as Super Seven matches. In the case of Tri-Nations, whichever match is required to even out the home/away situation would count as the Super Seven match.

3. In any other event that teams play each other more than once, the last calendar match within the designated period, between the two teams would count as the Super Seven match.

4. Table points will be awarded in the usual way; 4 points for a win, 2 for a draw 0 for a loss plus 1 bonus point for 4 tries and 1 bonus point for a close loss (7 or less).

5. There would be no final. Top of the table wins the Champions Trophy.

6. Matches would count for 1.5X the world ranking points, so Unions who send weakened teams to the opposite hemisphere would stand to get hammered in the rankings, and risk dropping out of the competition the following year.

7. The only promotion/relegation is via the iRB rankings.

The seven unions involved would pay their own costs (since they already do now for AI’ and STs). If the AIs and STs were to be formalised in this way, their value would be hugely greater than they are now, being part of a recognised Championship. The matches outside of Six Nations and Tri-Nations would be played in the arranged international windows, so that player availability should not be an issue, but in any case where it was, the IRB would have to enforce Regulation 9.

A similar competition could be arranged for team ranked 8 to 14 (the Minor Seven?) where ranking points would also count 1.5x their normal value.

The competition would not preclude matches between Super Seven teams and Minor Seven teams, but these would only count for normal ranking points if applicable.
[/TEXTAREA]

At the time we worked this out (2006) and just as feasibility study to prove to ourselves that such a series was possible, we attempted to create an imaginary competition using actual scheduled matches for the upcoming year, beginning 20 March 2006, two days after the end of the Six Nations.

First, a check of the IRB Rankings gave us the top seven teams.

1. New Zealand
2. South Africa
3. France
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6 England
7 Wales

Then using already scheduled matches on the actual dates they were to be played, this was how the draw worked out...

10-06-2006 : New Zealand v Ireland
11-06-2006 : Australia v England
24-06-2006 : South Africa v France
24-06-2006 : Australia v Ireland
08-07-2006 : New Zealand v Australia
15-07-2006 : Australia v South Africa
22-07-2006 : New Zealand v South Africa

04-11-2006 : Wales v Australia
05-11-2006 : England v New Zealand
11-11-2006 : Ireland v South Africa
11-11-2006 : France v New Zealand
18-11-2006 : England v South Africa
25-11-2006 : Wales v New Zealand

04-02-2007 : Wales v Ireland
11-02-2007 : Ireland v France
24-02-2007 : Ireland v England
24-02-2007 : France v Wales
11-03-2007 : England v France
17-03-2007 : Wales v England

This was 19 of the 21 matches that would have been required that year.

If Wales (instead of Scotland) had gone to South Africa in the 2006 June Tours, and France had hosted Australia instead of a second match against New Zealand in the 2006 Autumn Internationals, then all 21 matches would have been played; every team in the top seven would have played every other team over that 12 month period.

Your examples from other sports do not follow logically.

The Champions Trophy? This is not what you have suggested. The Champions Trophy occurs once every four years; your proposal is every year (except maybe World Cup years). Not comparable at all. Let us not even get on to the fact that the Champions Trophy does a far superior job of promoting cricket than the actual World Cup.

Same thing with the Confederations Cup. That is once every four years and a very minor competition.

Rugby League has 3 competitive teams so they have to be involved in a tournament together. We have a lot more flex.

Hockey is different yet again. You cannot have a Six Nations like competition for Field Hockey. Whenever there are a bunch of hockey games they are all played in one location. This is because the revenue from the tournaments do not justify flying to a different location and playing one game a week.

Anyway, you go on to describe something nothing like the aforementioned competitions.

There are many problems with your idea but I'll list just a few:

1. It is pointless. We already have a system whereby we find out the best rugby team in the world. It is called the IRB World Rankings.
2. Would become very difficult in years with a Lions Tour. What happens if one of England's tests versus a weakened Argentina was counted?
3. No fair way to determine which games should count. It makes a farce of the whole thing when a team wins the games which don't count and lose the games which do.
4. You say you want to add meaning? Since when was an All Blacks test meaningless? Do you think the English felt their win over the All Blacks lacked meaning? Do you think the English would find more meaning from that game if it was part of this Super 7?
5. It discourages games against lower ranked teams. In 2013, New Zealand would have to add games against Italy, Scotland and Wales (using top 4 from 2013 6 Nations) onto our end of year tour. This would create the farcical situation of having a 8 game end of year tour. More likely, the All Blacks would simply drop our game against Japan. Thus the minnows lose out. The extra games which need to be scheduled against top ranked sides would just lead to those teams not playing weaker teams.
6. The 'last calendar match in the designated period' clearly favors NH teams. End of year tours in the NH come later in the year.
7. It works in poorly with the new one team, three tests approach taken to the mid year rugby tests. It means SH teams will only have one game (if they are lucky) at home against a NH team but many away.
8. It diminishes value of RC and 6 Nations, having those games count for multiple tournaments.
9. Games are scheduled years in advance. France have already been announced to tour in 2018!
10. What if Samoa makes it? Have fun scheduling six games for them!

Most of all it is just unnecessary. International rugby between the top teams is great and needs little improvement. Unlike soccer every test match is important. What we need to do is grow the currently competitive teams and get them to a level where they can compete within the already excellent framework. I don't see that in your proposal. I don't think the minor Super 7 would work either. A team like Scotland will be too busy playing minnows during the end of years tours (it won't have played the PI's or Georgia during the 6 Nations so this is the only time) that it will lose huge amounts of revenue by not being able to fight in games against Australia, NZ and RSA every year.

If I was the All Blacks or Scotland (or anyone) I would simply pull out of the tournament because it unfairly disadvantages us and gives us no real benefits. To be fair you have put a lot more work into your idea than sige does and I have repsonded seriously in turn. As far as I can see, the end result in exactly the same.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If more nations begin to field teams that genuinely compete in the world (ie we see a rise of Japan, Georgia etc) then maybe you can look at fiddling about with how the internationals work. At the moment though I think it would be pointless to change it.

 

[Shaggy]

I find it an interesting argument that this type of competition would devalue the Rugby World Cup, when there's a pretty strong argument that the Rugby World Cup devalues test matches ... it's pretty clear that most/all international sides now work in a four year cycle, developing their squads to peak for the Rugby World Cup.

Playing such a tournament as the one suggested is probably over kill IMO ... I think part of the appeal of tours like the B & I Lions tours, is that they only happen every four years, and even then, it's somewhere different each time, so each SH side is effectively in a twelve year cycle.

The top NH and SH sides are effectively playing each other annually anyway, with the June and November Tours ... I really used to enjoy the Grand Slam Tours, or tours of individual countries, that the All Blacks use to under take, and I think I'd prefer that these sorts of tours were undertaken in the middle of RWC cycle, to break up the current annual tournaments to add a bit of variety/maintain interest ... I know there's the inevitable scheduling and money issues, but I just think the current three match series that the NH now under take have more meaning, than playing four of the six nations teams once every year

 

[Larksea]

I like any idea that makes test rugby more meaningful. Too much value is put on the world cup these days.

The IRB rankings are great it would be good if more was done to recognize that but I think that's been devalued because the All Blacks Dominate it.

After so many years overloaded with test matches for All Blacks vs. SA or AU it would be good to mix things up. Adding Argentina to the tri nations was great that is the most change we will see for a while. The structure is so dominated by sponsorship and TV rights it's hard to make changes and the windows for change are small.

 

[smartcooky]

I like any idea that makes test rugby more meaningful.

That was the idea.

For too many years, European Rugby Unions disrespected test rugby by sending "B" teams south. To a certain extent, the situation was forced upon them by the demands of an overly long northern domestic season, however, this was not always the case. Top players suddenly manifested mysterious injuries that needed surgery. Sometimes they were genuine injuries that they were able to carry for most of the domestic season, but which were deemed to somehow be too serious when it came to playing a few tests. Not only did this policy disrespect test rugby, it hit the cash strapped southern unions in the pocket. The ARU estimated that the FFR's decision to send what amounted to a development squad to Australia in 2008 cost them over two million AUS$ due to diminished ticket sales; who wants to see the Wallabies play France's 3rd XV. In the mean time, we in the South always sent near full strength sides north.

Our proposal was one way of trying to make those matches more meaningful without adding to an already congested schedule.

Another way might have been to have less teams qualify automatically for the RWC, and to base those that do so on their world ranking; e.g. limit automatic qualification to the top four in the world rankings, and make all other teams have to go through qualifying. This would create a real ****fight for get into one of those top four spots. In fact, the iRB did bring in rankings based qualification but it didn't go far enough - too many teams qualify (12).

A third alternative was to have only three teams qualify automatically, the winner, the runner up and the bronze medal team. This would put some acid on the 3rd place play-off match, and bring meaning to an otherwise meaningless match that no-one wants to play. All other teams would qualify via their rankings or via a number of qualifying series.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

A third alternative was to have only three teams qualify automatically, the winner, the runner up and the bronze medal team. This would put some acid on the 3rd place play-off match, and bring meaning to an otherwise meaningless match that no-one wants to play. All other teams would qualify via their rankings or via a number of qualifying series.

This match is always going to be somewhat meaningless, regardless of what it might mean for the next World Cup. No one wants to be in the third place play off, and I can't imagine being the third seed for the next WC will be that motivating when you've just missed out on winning the current one!

 

[Jaguares]

I don't like, it's like a RWC every year, then the real RWC currently lose strength and RWC is the most watched league of our sport. I'm also in favor of maintaining the historic 6 Nations tournament and the 3 nations as Argentina will belong to that tournament since 2015.


regards

 

[norcalbuff]

That was the idea.

For too many years, European Rugby Unions disrespected test rugby by sending "B" teams south. To a certain extent, the situation was forced upon them by the demands of an overly long northern domestic season, however, this was not always the case. Top players suddenly manifested mysterious injuries that needed surgery. Sometimes they were genuine injuries that they were able to carry for most of the domestic season, but which were deemed to somehow be too serious when it came to playing a few tests. Not only did this policy disrespect test rugby, it hit the cash strapped southern unions in the pocket. The ARU estimated that the FFR's decision to send what amounted to a development squad to Australia in 2008 cost them over two million AUS$ due to diminished ticket sales; who wants to see the Wallabies play France's 3rd XV. In the mean time, we in the South always sent near full strength sides north.

Our proposal was one way of trying to make those matches more meaningful without adding to an already congested schedule.

Another way might have been to have less teams qualify automatically for the RWC, and to base those that do so on their world ranking; e.g. limit automatic qualification to the top four in the world rankings, and make all other teams have to go through qualifying. This would create a real ****fight for get into one of those top four spots. In fact, the iRB did bring in rankings based qualification but it didn't go far enough - too many teams qualify (12).

A third alternative was to have only three teams qualify automatically, the winner, the runner up and the bronze medal team. This would put some acid on the 3rd place play-off match, and bring meaning to an otherwise meaningless match that no-one wants to play. All other teams would qualify via their rankings or via a number of qualifying series.

The 12 automatic qualifiers are not based on the rankings but rather coming in top 3 in your pool at the previous RWC.