Planet Rugby Forum

This morning's Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/spor ... -pn7l0g2hm - behind a paywall, I read it in print, so can't post here)

12 teams in two divisions of 6. Games played in November and July. Promotion and relegation. 6 teams from each 'hemisphere' - mention of Fiji and Japan supplementing the 4 RC teams. Some stuff about another competition beneath for emerging/Tier2 teams and inclusion of Germany and China in that. Not clear if there would be promotion/relegation into the top 12 or just between the top 6 and next 6.

Seems daft to me, and totally undermines the world cup if you have the best 6 playing each other every year for a trophy

Not sure what it means in terms of number of matches. The standard increasingly seems to be 4 in November and 3 in Summer - a division of 6 would have 5 matches (presumably). What happens in the other games - are they against tier 2 teams? Or less games played? Or 'extra games' against the big draws?

Current top 6 would be NZ, SA, Arg, Ire, Wal, Sco. So lets just say for arguments sake that the home nations play the 3 other teams in a rotation in November. Does that mean no summer tour - replaced by some games against each other in July?

The article is pretty vague to be fair Seneca

Seems like (NH to SH) summer tours and November internationals to be replaced with an annual competition. Beyond that, it is vague and as I suggested, doesn't make much sense to me

Makes as much sense as the Walrus's reviews of All Blacks games

The inclusion of China in an emerging / 2nd tier tournament is ludicrous, they barely scrape into the Top 10 in Asia even excluding Japan. Hong Kong are the next best Asia team after Japan, anyone who has the remotest idea of current abilities would know this since they are in the RWC repechage in November.

Georgia v China would be a slaughterhouse.

Sounds crap. The one decent thing they've done with the internationals in the past umpteen years is re-introduce proper tours, and now they want to dump them for this?

couldn't agree more - it sounds daft. Walrus reporting that it has been agreed by World Rugby at their latest meeting....

We all agree he talks a lot of shite and his reviews are little more than mildly camouflaged trolling, but he does seem to have sources at high levels in rugby administration, as he is often one of the first to report new developments...

Dobbin wrote:Sounds crap. The one decent thing they've done with the internationals in the past umpteen years is re-introduce proper tours, and now they want to dump them for this?

Surely the Unions will reject it if it's true? I can't see 7th and 8th being willing to play for a lower tier competition and potentially lose out on hosting the big sides in June/July or November. Most of the big Unions make between £50 million to £150 million and the vast majority of that is from home games. I can't see a union who has a poor year and drops to 8th want to be limited to facing countries out the top 6.

There is also other financial implications. Most of the Autumn Internationals are advertised a year in advance. You won't get as many ticket sales this way and you can't confirm the big matches to price tickets to optimise income. And that ignores the familiarity of the top 6 playing each other over and over again. One reason why the 6 Nations works is that you get a fixture once a year and a home fixture once every two years. Familiarity fatigue is one of the reasons the SH isn't able to capitalise as much as the NH.

DeDoc wrote:This morning's Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/spor ... -pn7l0g2hm - behind a paywall, I read it in print, so can't post here)

12 teams in two divisions of 6. Games played in November and July. Promotion and relegation. 6 teams from each 'hemisphere' - mention of Fiji and Japan supplementing the 4 RC teams. Some stuff about another competition beneath for emerging/Tier2 teams and inclusion of Germany and China in that. Not clear if there would be promotion/relegation into the top 12 or just between the top 6 and next 6.

Seems daft to me, and totally undermines the world cup if you have the best 6 playing each other every year for a trophy

Not sure what it means in terms of number of matches. The standard increasingly seems to be 4 in November and 3 in Summer - a division of 6 would have 5 matches (presumably). What happens in the other games - are they against tier 2 teams? Or less games played? Or 'extra games' against the big draws?

Current top 6 would be NZ, SA, Arg, Ire, Wal, Sco. So lets just say for arguments sake that the home nations play the 3 other teams in a rotation in November. Does that mean no summer tour - replaced by some games against each other in July?

Japan is in the f**king northern hemisphere

I wouldn't watch this out of principle.

What's the point of the RWC if this goes ahead?

So. Competitive rugby for 12 months of the year?

Fcuk this shit. Not satisfied with already having gone too far, they now want to go further???

Yerra let them shoot themselves up with whatever pharmacological cocktails they want; give 'em helmets and armour and put the halfbacks on 125cc scramblers while they're at it.

Load of arse.

Not good at all. The current system works because NH side are good now. Eng/SA, IRE/Oz were fantastic tours.

Denirostaxidriver wrote:
Japan is in the f**king northern hemisphere

We know, but for the purposes of diving the hemispheres up into groups, it fits easier into a group with southern hemisphere sides.

Hellraiser wrote:What's the point of the RWC if this goes ahead?

What's the point of this dead with the RWC. It's a dead idea. Dead stupid and dead in the water. A typical mark of administrators desperate to feel important and leave a legacy and have more free junkets each year.

As for the dumbness. How will they do this? Have a summer where players fly between New Zealand South Africa and Ireland for matches? That means fewer home games by any measure. Gonna tell the unions their one main method for generating cash bar TV is going to be less? 5 games as a league instead of 7 tests? Tell the Unions to scrap all the support they give to keeping players professional and in their country or devastate the grassroots support each poorer Union will provide? It's so f*cking dumb.

eldanielfire wrote:As for the dumbness. How will they do this? Have a summer where players fly between New Zealand South Africa and Ireland for matches?

The answer to the last would be no.

If you're asking how they will do this, then how do you know it's dumb?

If the plan is to stop everyone complaining about the logistically impossible global season by getting everyone to complain about this abortion of an idea instead then, bravo

I'm not a fan of this concept. Lots of screeching on this thread from NH based fans, which is always a bit amusing. Can I remind them that the NH unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming into professionalism. You guys felt that if a player had to earn money from playing Rugby then they weren't worthy of playing it. And the NH unions were also vehemently opposed to the Rugby World Cup. In fact, everything that is good about Rugby was opposed at one time or another by the NH unions. So if they're against this concept it's probably worth considering.

So Tier 1

NZ, SA, Arg, Aus, England, Ireland

Tier 2

Wales, France, Scotland, Fiji, Italy, Japan

Please don’t let anyone show to the current rankings to poor Farva

naki wrote:Please don’t let anyone show to the current rankings to poor Farva

We may be seventh, but you cant leave out the second most successful team at the world cup from tier 1.

Farva wrote:

naki wrote:Please don’t let anyone show to the current rankings to poor Farva

We may be seventh, but you cant leave out the second most successful team at the world cup from tier 1.

You’re right, I would never dream of leaving out South Africa

naki wrote:You’re right, I would never dream of leaving out South Africa

Only been in half as many finals.


However, Farva, being ranked 7th in a comp for teams ranked 7th-12th might not be too bad.

Fuck it. We might win something!

Ali's Choice wrote:I'm not a fan of this concept. Lots of screeching on this thread from NH based fans, which is always a bit amusing. Can I remind them that the NH unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming into professionalism. You guys felt that if a player had to earn money from playing Rugby then they weren't worthy of playing it. And the NH unions were also vehemently opposed to the Rugby World Cup. In fact, everything that is good about Rugby was opposed at one time or another by the NH unions. So if they're against this concept it's probably worth considering.

Every post has been negative, from both NH ans SH fans about this.

No thanks

kiap wrote:

naki wrote:You’re right, I would never dream of leaving out South Africa

Only been in half as many finals.


However, Farva, being ranked 7th in a comp for teams ranked 7th-12th might not be too bad.

Fuck it. We might win something!

So they lose when it matters far less frequently?

As I understand it it's to be played in late Autumn and Spring, which begs the question - what happens to the 6N?

I think this will actually be to the detriment of the International game, we get to see the same match-ups too frequently as it is and, as DeDoc says, it'll undermine the world cup.

naki wrote:

Farva wrote:

naki wrote:Please don’t let anyone show to the current rankings to poor Farva

We may be seventh, but you cant leave out the second most successful team at the world cup from tier 1.

You’re right, I would never dream of leaving out South Africa

You used to be the holder of all rugby knowledge. Now I just cant trust anything you say. What happened man?

eldanielfire wrote:

kiap wrote:

naki wrote:You’re right, I would never dream of leaving out South Africa

Only been in half as many finals.


However, Farva, being ranked 7th in a comp for teams ranked 7th-12th might not be too bad.

Fuck it. We might win something!

So they lose when it matters far less frequently?

They lose earlier, more frequently.

Completely devalues the world cup, six nations and rugby championship

Its a shit idea therefore it'll probably happen

Ali's Choice wrote:I'm not a fan of this concept. Lots of screeching on this thread from NH based fans, which is always a bit amusing. Can I remind them that the NH unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming into professionalism. You guys felt that if a player had to earn money from playing Rugby then they weren't worthy of playing it. And the NH unions were also vehemently opposed to the Rugby World Cup. In fact, everything that is good about Rugby was opposed at one time or another by the NH unions. So if they're against this concept it's probably worth considering.

Probably because it's not as good as the 6N.

What he actually said was:

The second flight would include the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain, United States, Russia, Tonga and Samoa, with China and Germany contending because of the attraction of their powerhouse economies.

Matches would be played in the autumn and spring, with European teams playing southern hemisphere opponents in the regular season. There would be semi-finals and a grand final. The tournament would probably take place annually for three years, leaving the fourth clear for the World Cup. There is another option in which each tournament would last for three years.

Ellafan wrote:What he actually said was:

The second flight would include the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain, United States, Russia, Tonga and Samoa, with China and Germany contending because of the attraction of their powerhouse economies.

Matches would be played in the autumn and spring, with European teams playing southern hemisphere opponents in the regular season. There would be semi-finals and a grand final. The tournament would probably take place annually for three years, leaving the fourth clear for the World Cup. There is another option in which each tournament would last for three years.

He contradicted himself later in the article by saying the tests would be in November and July. I don't think July counts as either autumn or spring in either hemisphere.
Whatever about Germany you might be somewhat competitive against the weaker teams above, China are so far off the pace (currently have Tahita and Bahamas above them and Swaziland and Ghana below them in 87th position) it is daft. Canada a notable omission in both ranking and economic terms from above.

Semi-finals and a final would suggest that it is a 5 match round robin followed by 1v4 and 2v3. I've no idea how the logistics would work on that, unless you tried to play 5 games in the November window and then the knockouts in July. That or having the knockout games in a pre-determined location in July.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck

Will it actually reduce the numbers of games played at all?

Surely the only way it's remotely practicable is with internationals playing even fewer sub-international games? Effectively running the national sides as clubs.

Take back the game from the Anglo-French sugar daddy tax write-off scheme it has become?

tabascoboy wrote:The inclusion of China in an emerging / 2nd tier tournament is ludicrous, they barely scrape into the Top 10 in Asia even excluding Japan. Hong Kong are the next best Asia team after Japan, anyone who has the remotest idea of current abilities would know this since they are in the RWC repechage in November.

Georgia v China would be a slaughterhouse.

Yes, China have a reasonable 7s side by Asian rugby standards, but in the 15’s game wouldn’t even be in the top 10 in Asia let alone capable of competing in a 2nd tier international competition. There’s no quick fix that could get them up to that standard in the short term no matter how attractive it might seem to be from a commercial perspective to get into the Chinese market.

More pointless friendlies, worst idea since the November internationals.

Ali's Choice wrote:I'm not a fan of this concept. Lots of screeching on this thread from NH based fans, which is always a bit amusing. Can I remind them that the NH unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming into professionalism. You guys felt that if a player had to earn money from playing Rugby then they weren't worthy of playing it. And the NH unions were also vehemently opposed to the Rugby World Cup. In fact, everything that is good about Rugby was opposed at one time or another by the NH unions. So if they're against this concept it's probably worth considering.

Not to mention the rather rabid opposition to a RWC.

Ali's Choice wrote:I'm not a fan of this concept. Lots of screeching on this thread from NH based fans, which is always a bit amusing. Can I remind them that the NH unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming into professionalism. You guys felt that if a player had to earn money from playing Rugby then they weren't worthy of playing it. And the NH unions were also vehemently opposed to the Rugby World Cup. In fact, everything that is good about Rugby was opposed at one time or another by the NH unions. So if they're against this concept it's probably worth considering.

Many much dumb!

Brazil wrote:Will it actually reduce the numbers of games played at all?

No.

Why do so many 'new' improvements in rugby revolve around a pool system?

Why can't we go back to big month long tours - The AB's touring England - 3 tests and 3 or 4 midweek games against club sides? Ireland touring Australia with same set up?

Most rugby folk I speak to pine for the days of proper tours.