Argentina, where now?
Discussion
So, Argentina have finished third in the RWC. Clearly they are deserving of a place in a big tournament, but where?
Tri-Nations
Not enough flights from Argentina to SA / AUS / NZ
The Tri nations don't want them
Their players don't play in the Southern Hemisphere
So, is it time to expand the six nations and move away from the tournament being on a 'geogrpahical' (i.e. European) basis? Most of the argenitne players play in Europe, so it would seem practical. But, would it work? It would make the tournament VERY big, which could be a problem. However i think it would be beneficial to the NH sides.
Is there perhaps an argument to create a second tier six nations for teams like Romania etc.
It's a difficult one. What are your views?
Tri-Nations
Not enough flights from Argentina to SA / AUS / NZ
The Tri nations don't want them
Their players don't play in the Southern Hemisphere
So, is it time to expand the six nations and move away from the tournament being on a 'geogrpahical' (i.e. European) basis? Most of the argenitne players play in Europe, so it would seem practical. But, would it work? It would make the tournament VERY big, which could be a problem. However i think it would be beneficial to the NH sides.
Is there perhaps an argument to create a second tier six nations for teams like Romania etc.
It's a difficult one. What are your views?
I absolutely agree that Argentina should be allowed into either the Tri-Nations or Six Nations tournament.
As most of the Argentines are based in Europe a two-tier Six Nations would probably be the most sensible solution.
However, if you look at the Argentinian side that has performed so well over the past 2/3 years it is worth noting that they peaked for this World Cup, probably showing the first signs of what was to come with the match against the Lions.
Many of the players in the RWC Team will now retire from International Rugby.
I am certainly not sure what strength/depth they have within their squad and it may well be that they initially appear to take a backward step.
This said, they do deserve the opportunity to play regularly in competition against the best ranked international Teams.
As most of the Argentines are based in Europe a two-tier Six Nations would probably be the most sensible solution.
However, if you look at the Argentinian side that has performed so well over the past 2/3 years it is worth noting that they peaked for this World Cup, probably showing the first signs of what was to come with the match against the Lions.
Many of the players in the RWC Team will now retire from International Rugby.
I am certainly not sure what strength/depth they have within their squad and it may well be that they initially appear to take a backward step.
This said, they do deserve the opportunity to play regularly in competition against the best ranked international Teams.
All comments from Nick Mallet, who i agree with totally. Wish he was the Eng coach
On The World Cup
I think you have to ask whether it is a good thing that South Africa can get to a final of a competition without having played three of the top four sides, France, Australia and New Zealand. I'd take the top 12 countries, divide them into two pools of six, let them compete against each other and then play the quarter-finals across the pools. I'd also have a similar set-up for the less-powerful countries. Portugal and Namibia shouldn't be playing against New Zealand and France, quite frankly. You also need to seed teams according to how they perform in the year of the competition. You can't go back to previous World Cups. That's ridiculous.
On World Rugby
If we want to get this right we need a global season. No rugby in December, January and February. Give every player on the planet those three months off to recover and then you can almost do whatever you like. You could have the Tri-Nations and the Super 14 running at the same time as the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations. You could then include Argentina in the Tri Nations or 6 Nations
On The World Cup
I think you have to ask whether it is a good thing that South Africa can get to a final of a competition without having played three of the top four sides, France, Australia and New Zealand. I'd take the top 12 countries, divide them into two pools of six, let them compete against each other and then play the quarter-finals across the pools. I'd also have a similar set-up for the less-powerful countries. Portugal and Namibia shouldn't be playing against New Zealand and France, quite frankly. You also need to seed teams according to how they perform in the year of the competition. You can't go back to previous World Cups. That's ridiculous.
On World Rugby
If we want to get this right we need a global season. No rugby in December, January and February. Give every player on the planet those three months off to recover and then you can almost do whatever you like. You could have the Tri-Nations and the Super 14 running at the same time as the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations. You could then include Argentina in the Tri Nations or 6 Nations
johnnywb said:
Not enough flights from Argentina to SA / AUS / NZ
A fairly week excuse though, it could be planned around the flights and in any case it may even tempt the airlines to put on more flights to cope with spectator demand.LanChile have daily flights to Auckland & Sydney, Aerolineas Argentinas has 2-3 a week. Air NZ are looking at flights there once they get their 787s too.
Given that it would be for something like 6-9 games a year - 1/2 of those at home I can't see it being a massive problem.
stimmers said:
All comments from Nick Mallet, who i agree with totally. Wish he was the Eng coach
On The World Cup
I think you have to ask whether it is a good thing that South Africa can get to a final of a competition without having played three of the top four sides, France, Australia and New Zealand. I'd take the top 12 countries, divide them into two pools of six, let them compete against each other and then play the quarter-finals across the pools. I'd also have a similar set-up for the less-powerful countries. Portugal and Namibia shouldn't be playing against New Zealand and France, quite frankly. You also need to seed teams according to how they perform in the year of the competition. You can't go back to previous World Cups. That's ridiculous.
On World Rugby
If we want to get this right we need a global season. No rugby in December, January and February. Give every player on the planet those three months off to recover and then you can almost do whatever you like. You could have the Tri-Nations and the Super 14 running at the same time as the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations. You could then include Argentina in the Tri Nations or 6 Nations
Good points well made.On The World Cup
I think you have to ask whether it is a good thing that South Africa can get to a final of a competition without having played three of the top four sides, France, Australia and New Zealand. I'd take the top 12 countries, divide them into two pools of six, let them compete against each other and then play the quarter-finals across the pools. I'd also have a similar set-up for the less-powerful countries. Portugal and Namibia shouldn't be playing against New Zealand and France, quite frankly. You also need to seed teams according to how they perform in the year of the competition. You can't go back to previous World Cups. That's ridiculous.
On World Rugby
If we want to get this right we need a global season. No rugby in December, January and February. Give every player on the planet those three months off to recover and then you can almost do whatever you like. You could have the Tri-Nations and the Super 14 running at the same time as the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations. You could then include Argentina in the Tri Nations or 6 Nations
Did you ever read Martin Johnson's ideas for the domestic game? Split the country in two, North and South. Teams in the north play each other twice and play teams in the south once. This leaves you with a Northern winner and a southern winner and would give a you a proper premiership final.
I imagine part of the problem of expanding the six nations is going to be the time it takes players away from their clubs. Clubs already complain the season is too long, so trying to expand the season wouldn't seem ideal.
Proposal for a World Test Match Challenge Trophy
Professionalism and the growth of the Rugby World Cup have undoubtedly lifted rugby union to a new level in terms of entertainment and skill. However, modern international rugby is lacking in some areas. A World Test Match Challenge Trophy might assist in bringing back some of what has been lost in the professional era.
Problems with modern test rugby
The Rugby World Cup is, and should remain, the game's principal showpiece,. However, an attitude is growing in both the media and some national unions that the World Cup is the be-all and end-all of test rugby. Test matches between World Cups, especially those outside of the Six Nations and Tri-Nations, are no longer regarded as important tests that must be won at all cost. Rather they are being treated as “friendlies” providing an opportunity for development or rotation of players even at the cost of victory. Whilst there is a need for test teams to blood new players and avoid overusing existing players, this should not be an excuse to devalue the game or deprive fans of full-strength test matches. Too often in the lead?up to the current World Cup, and even during it, rugby supporters have paid their hard-earned cash to see a test match only to be fobbed off with a match involving what amounts to one or two national “B” teams masquerading as a full international test.
This attitude also leads to a skewing of the IRB's otherwise excellent ranking system. It can now be seen from the World Cup playoffs that the apparent gulf between the Southern Hemisphere and the North was not as wide as it appeared from the rankings. Unfortunately, with the decline of full tours, the only time one sees a full-strength Northern Hemisphere team play a test against a full-strength Southern team seems to be in a World Cup, so there is no way to directly gauge their relative strengths.
Another issue in modern rugby is the gulf between the top nations and the rest. There has been progress in this area, with regional championships like the European Nations Cup, Nations Cup and Pacific Nations Cup paying some dividends in the relative success of the minor nations in this year's World Cup. However, there is little realistic prospect in the foreseeable future of, say, a Pacific nation winning the World Cup which is currently the only trophy for all nations may compete. The prospect of a serious trophy available for a one-off match would increase interest from fans and media in matches where an upset would not just be embarrassing (but perhaps tolerable in the name of "development"
but would result in the loss of an important international trophy.
Required characteristics of a solution
An additional prize open to all nations would assist in remedying these problems by giving the unions, players, fans and media a reason to take non-World Cup matches seriously. This increased interest would also increase income for the competing unions. Any such prize would need the following characteristics:
All nations must be able to compete.
It must be independent of the World Cup and the existing regional championships.
It must be realistically winnable by non-tier one nations even when playing against tier-one nations. This means it must be winnable in a one-off test rather than a series, round-robin or knock-out type competition. In anything other than a one-off match there is too little chance of a minor nation beating a tier one team.
It must not require any additional tests to be scheduled. Given the current overcrowding of the rugby calendar, any additional, new tournament would either be a non-starter or only attract under-strength teams from major nations. The required solution needs to be overlayed onto the current competitions and tours.
The solution
There is an example, albeit it at domestic level, of a competition that provides a serious, highly-desirable trophy for one-off matches, for which all relevant teams may compete and that does not require any additional matches to be scheduled. This is the Ranfurly Shield, which, as you no doubt know, is a challenge trophy played for between New Zealand provincial Unions. Any team that defeats the holder in an official challenge is declared the new holder (similar to a world boxing title). The two teams may be from the same or different provincial divisions. The challenge match may be either an Air New Zealand Cup match or a pre-season fixture. The trophy can change hands several times in a season. In New Zealand, the Ranfurly Shield is viewed by fans as the pre-eminent domestic prize above the Air New Zealand Cup (and its predecessor National Provincial Championship).
A similar trophy, the World Test Match Challenge Trophy, ought to be instituted for international test matches under the following conditions:
·The Trophy, named after a suitable individual or place (perhaps Raeburn, after the location of the first ever international in 1871 between Scotland and England?) will be first put at stake in the first match played by the new World Cup holders, South Africa. (South Africa are scheduled to play Wales on 24 November 2007) and the winner declared the Holder.
·The trophy is subsequently to be put at stake in any test match (home or away) between the Holder and any another nation, known as the Challenger. (Composite teams such as the British and Irish Lions and the Pacific Islanders will not be eligible to challenge). The winner would either remain or become the Holder. A draw would result in the Holder retaining the title.
It can immediately be seen that such a trophy would be likely to change hands several times between World Cups. It would take only one upset result for a non-Tier One nation to win it at which point other minor nations may well be able to successfully challenge.
Enclosed for your interest is a sequential list of hypothetical holders and a list of records that would exist had this type of trophy been put at stake in the very first test match between England and Scotland in 1871 and at every subsequent test match played by the putative Holders throughout time. As you can see, no less than eleven nations would have managed to hold this trophy including Argentina, Romania and Samoa. Italy, on the other hand would never have won it. In the professional era up to 2006, the title would have changed hands nearly four times a year on average. In 2007 there have been no less than eleven successful challenges. Since 1996, each of the Tri Nations teams have held the title, as have each of the Home Nations, France and Samoa. Many more teams have had the opportunity to challenge, albeit unsuccessfully.
The nature of the competition and the ability to recognise hypothetical past winners would give this competition a ready-made history and records. It would also be easy to identify an appropriate first holder. It also noteworthy that almost invariably the title would be at stake throughout the play-off stages of a World Cup and would be held by the World Cup winner, at least until its next match. This provides yet another benefit in that a team that holds the World Cup but performs poorly (such as England between 2003 and 2007) would not retain monopoly rights to the only trophy open to all national teams. The IRB rankings may have provided some solace to non-England fans over the past few years but nothing beats silverware in the cupboard!
This competition would provide concrete recognition to truly great teams (such as the All Blacks of 1987 to 1990 who, hypothetically, would have held the trophy through a record 18 test matches) and would reward one off upsets (such as Samoa in 1999). Every single rugby fan with whom this idea has been discussed agrees that it would be a popular and successful idea.
In practical terms, this would be a simple competition to institute. There would be no need for extra matches to be scheduled, or other such organisation. All that would be needed is the provision of a suitable trophy plus a little promotion and marketing to the public and to the national unions. Such a trophy would be enthusiastically embraced by a rugby public that is becoming jaded with the four-year World Cup cycle and repetitive Six and Tri Nations.
Professionalism and the growth of the Rugby World Cup have undoubtedly lifted rugby union to a new level in terms of entertainment and skill. However, modern international rugby is lacking in some areas. A World Test Match Challenge Trophy might assist in bringing back some of what has been lost in the professional era.
Problems with modern test rugby
The Rugby World Cup is, and should remain, the game's principal showpiece,. However, an attitude is growing in both the media and some national unions that the World Cup is the be-all and end-all of test rugby. Test matches between World Cups, especially those outside of the Six Nations and Tri-Nations, are no longer regarded as important tests that must be won at all cost. Rather they are being treated as “friendlies” providing an opportunity for development or rotation of players even at the cost of victory. Whilst there is a need for test teams to blood new players and avoid overusing existing players, this should not be an excuse to devalue the game or deprive fans of full-strength test matches. Too often in the lead?up to the current World Cup, and even during it, rugby supporters have paid their hard-earned cash to see a test match only to be fobbed off with a match involving what amounts to one or two national “B” teams masquerading as a full international test.
This attitude also leads to a skewing of the IRB's otherwise excellent ranking system. It can now be seen from the World Cup playoffs that the apparent gulf between the Southern Hemisphere and the North was not as wide as it appeared from the rankings. Unfortunately, with the decline of full tours, the only time one sees a full-strength Northern Hemisphere team play a test against a full-strength Southern team seems to be in a World Cup, so there is no way to directly gauge their relative strengths.
Another issue in modern rugby is the gulf between the top nations and the rest. There has been progress in this area, with regional championships like the European Nations Cup, Nations Cup and Pacific Nations Cup paying some dividends in the relative success of the minor nations in this year's World Cup. However, there is little realistic prospect in the foreseeable future of, say, a Pacific nation winning the World Cup which is currently the only trophy for all nations may compete. The prospect of a serious trophy available for a one-off match would increase interest from fans and media in matches where an upset would not just be embarrassing (but perhaps tolerable in the name of "development"
but would result in the loss of an important international trophy.Required characteristics of a solution
An additional prize open to all nations would assist in remedying these problems by giving the unions, players, fans and media a reason to take non-World Cup matches seriously. This increased interest would also increase income for the competing unions. Any such prize would need the following characteristics:
All nations must be able to compete.
It must be independent of the World Cup and the existing regional championships.
It must be realistically winnable by non-tier one nations even when playing against tier-one nations. This means it must be winnable in a one-off test rather than a series, round-robin or knock-out type competition. In anything other than a one-off match there is too little chance of a minor nation beating a tier one team.
It must not require any additional tests to be scheduled. Given the current overcrowding of the rugby calendar, any additional, new tournament would either be a non-starter or only attract under-strength teams from major nations. The required solution needs to be overlayed onto the current competitions and tours.
The solution
There is an example, albeit it at domestic level, of a competition that provides a serious, highly-desirable trophy for one-off matches, for which all relevant teams may compete and that does not require any additional matches to be scheduled. This is the Ranfurly Shield, which, as you no doubt know, is a challenge trophy played for between New Zealand provincial Unions. Any team that defeats the holder in an official challenge is declared the new holder (similar to a world boxing title). The two teams may be from the same or different provincial divisions. The challenge match may be either an Air New Zealand Cup match or a pre-season fixture. The trophy can change hands several times in a season. In New Zealand, the Ranfurly Shield is viewed by fans as the pre-eminent domestic prize above the Air New Zealand Cup (and its predecessor National Provincial Championship).
A similar trophy, the World Test Match Challenge Trophy, ought to be instituted for international test matches under the following conditions:
·The Trophy, named after a suitable individual or place (perhaps Raeburn, after the location of the first ever international in 1871 between Scotland and England?) will be first put at stake in the first match played by the new World Cup holders, South Africa. (South Africa are scheduled to play Wales on 24 November 2007) and the winner declared the Holder.
·The trophy is subsequently to be put at stake in any test match (home or away) between the Holder and any another nation, known as the Challenger. (Composite teams such as the British and Irish Lions and the Pacific Islanders will not be eligible to challenge). The winner would either remain or become the Holder. A draw would result in the Holder retaining the title.
It can immediately be seen that such a trophy would be likely to change hands several times between World Cups. It would take only one upset result for a non-Tier One nation to win it at which point other minor nations may well be able to successfully challenge.
Enclosed for your interest is a sequential list of hypothetical holders and a list of records that would exist had this type of trophy been put at stake in the very first test match between England and Scotland in 1871 and at every subsequent test match played by the putative Holders throughout time. As you can see, no less than eleven nations would have managed to hold this trophy including Argentina, Romania and Samoa. Italy, on the other hand would never have won it. In the professional era up to 2006, the title would have changed hands nearly four times a year on average. In 2007 there have been no less than eleven successful challenges. Since 1996, each of the Tri Nations teams have held the title, as have each of the Home Nations, France and Samoa. Many more teams have had the opportunity to challenge, albeit unsuccessfully.
The nature of the competition and the ability to recognise hypothetical past winners would give this competition a ready-made history and records. It would also be easy to identify an appropriate first holder. It also noteworthy that almost invariably the title would be at stake throughout the play-off stages of a World Cup and would be held by the World Cup winner, at least until its next match. This provides yet another benefit in that a team that holds the World Cup but performs poorly (such as England between 2003 and 2007) would not retain monopoly rights to the only trophy open to all national teams. The IRB rankings may have provided some solace to non-England fans over the past few years but nothing beats silverware in the cupboard!
This competition would provide concrete recognition to truly great teams (such as the All Blacks of 1987 to 1990 who, hypothetically, would have held the trophy through a record 18 test matches) and would reward one off upsets (such as Samoa in 1999). Every single rugby fan with whom this idea has been discussed agrees that it would be a popular and successful idea.
In practical terms, this would be a simple competition to institute. There would be no need for extra matches to be scheduled, or other such organisation. All that would be needed is the provision of a suitable trophy plus a little promotion and marketing to the public and to the national unions. Such a trophy would be enthusiastically embraced by a rugby public that is becoming jaded with the four-year World Cup cycle and repetitive Six and Tri Nations.
Jinx said:
stimmers said:
Proposal for a World Test Match Challenge Trophy...
I quite like that - also the idea of having Argentina based in Spain for an extension to the six nations (Portugal might complain though) . stimmers said:
ewenm said:
stimmers said:
Proposal for a World Test Match Challenge Trophy
...
Sounds good to me. Where have you lifted that from?...
stimmers said:
ewenm said:
stimmers said:
Proposal for a World Test Match Challenge Trophy
...
Sounds good to me. Where have you lifted that from?...
I like Mallet's views but am not so keen on MJ's as they sound like something of a backward step.
How about:
Synchronise seasons across the world and shift start/end dates a bit to make it reasonable for all (or as many as possible). The aim would be to more or less split the year into four quarters.
Have around 50% - 60% of the domestic season and then break for international season - tri/quad nations or 7 nations (I would imagine the former would be better). At the end have a North v South champions match (or could have play off - 1st N vs 2cnd South & vice versa for GF places)
Play remainder of domestic season and then have club grand finals at end of the 'rugby year'. Could then have some form of World Club Challenge post domestic conclusions.
Final qtr of year is rest &
time.There's a few elements of League in there (that's more my thing than Union) but IMHO it would help union address some of the issues it has. Stopping the bickering might help as well.
The only problem I can see with Stimmers' excellent presentation is that it would significantly devalue the WRC. NZ already believe they are the World Champions, as they've beaten everyone else regularly, and in truth the trophy would NOT change hands regularly. The Kiwi are adept at winning one-off games with monotonous regularity, and on current form, the trophy would do the rounds of the tri-Nations team, with occasional wins from France and England. The minor nations still wouldn't get a look in. The IRB would like it as a money-spinner, but it would only serve to widen the financial and skill levels between the sharks and the minnows of world rugby.
Argentina, from a logistical and financial point of view, should play in the Six nations, which should be expanded to include Holland, Portugal, Romania, Georgia, and any other European nation who can put out decent teams. That should provide some recognition for their efforts. The European Nations Cup would be along the line of the Champions league in football, but the prize for winning the lower league is to compete for a full 6N type trophy with the other big boys. Wooden Spoon team is "relegated" for a year, but gets a parachute payment to promote development of the game back home. The same could happen for the smaller African nations, and the Pacific islands plus Japan, with the winners having a pop at an expanded "Southern Hemisphere Cup".
Argentina, from a logistical and financial point of view, should play in the Six nations, which should be expanded to include Holland, Portugal, Romania, Georgia, and any other European nation who can put out decent teams. That should provide some recognition for their efforts. The European Nations Cup would be along the line of the Champions league in football, but the prize for winning the lower league is to compete for a full 6N type trophy with the other big boys. Wooden Spoon team is "relegated" for a year, but gets a parachute payment to promote development of the game back home. The same could happen for the smaller African nations, and the Pacific islands plus Japan, with the winners having a pop at an expanded "Southern Hemisphere Cup".
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff