Aussie Player Exodus

[Quick Hands]

Would you mind if I posted your idea over on Munsterfans.com quick hands?

Please do.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't have a particular view on when rugby should be played in the NH, but our Super comp starts in the height of Summer with temperatures often in the high 30s and sometimes over 40 to accommodate the mid year test window in June and the EOYT to suit the NH seasons. I would be safe saying that very few games in the NH would be played in those temperatures if they moved their seasons somewhat. IMO any move that would allow the start of Super rugby to be delayed by about a month and push the mid-year test window back to July would be a positive for the game here.

 

[Omar Comin']

In your opinion it is a better game in decent weather on a firm pitch. There are many, many rugby supporters in the NH who can see a great deal of beauty in a 3-0 win on a cabbage patch, in a hurricane, with the backs requiring treatment for hypothermia.

And most of them would still prefer to watch games where they can see where the ball is. You'll never attract people who didn't grow up playing the sport with the sort of matches you talk about.

The sooner power is removed from the types that see the 6 Nations as a nice distraction between shooting and fishing seasons, the sooner rugby can become a truly global sport.

 

[mxyzptlk]

GAA in Ireland. France going on shut down for the whole of the summer and Cricket in England, 20/20 and test matches, drawing many of the same crowd as rugby would be three sound enough reasons.

I like GAA, but that's one sport in that isn't played anywhere else, and in one country of 6 million people, vs ten times that many people in Great Britain and another ten times that many in France. On balance, Ireland wouldn't be deciding rugby's fate in warmer months. (And if you listen to Joe Brolly, GAA needs to shorten up its schedule anyway.) I already responded to the cricket complaint, and I doubt French fans wouldn't tune in to rugby because they were on vacation.

 

[the plastic paddy]

And most of them would still prefer to watch games where they can see where the ball is. You'll never attract people who didn't grow up playing the sport with the sort of matches you talk about.

The sooner power is removed from the types that see the 6 Nations as a nice distraction between shooting and fishing seasons, the sooner rugby can become a truly global sport.

Whilst I agree with you on a certain level, the last thing anyone needs is more power for the NH clubs and a global season would fit their agenda considerably more than the Unions' North and South of the equator. Stopping rugby union in December and January is not going to happen, mainly because it is not the NH's problem that needs solving. NH rugby, France especially, is awash with too much money than is healthy for the game world wide but the French and, to a lesser extent, English, Irish and Welsh don't need to cut their noses off to spite their faces. The Scots don't need to worry for a couple of years since they took BT's pieces of silver and stabbed all the unions in the back over the Heineken cup.

 

[the plastic paddy]

I like GAA, but that's one sport in that isn't played anywhere else, and in one country of 6 million people, vs ten times that many people in Great Britain and another ten times that many in France. On balance, Ireland wouldn't be deciding rugby's fate in warmer months. (And if you listen to Joe Brolly, GAA needs to shorten up its schedule anyway.) I already responded to the cricket complaint, and I doubt French fans wouldn't tune in to rugby because they were on vacation.

But why do the NH need to change? As was posted above change is easiest to achieve when people want it to happen. If you did a poll of rugby supporters in the NH, how many do you think would want to see an end to rugby in December and January?

 

[Quick Hands]

Anyone who thinks that the French will interupt les grandes vacances during July and August for rugby is delusional.

 

[Omar Comin']

Anyone who thinks that the French will interupt les grandes vacances during July and August for rugby is delusional.

They already start the Top 14 in August (to strong attendances I might add). And as I've said before, you could have the European national teams tour the Southern Hemisphere in July and thus have a break in the European domestic leagues during that month.

 

[Highlander35]

Whilst I agree with you on a certain level, the last thing anyone needs is more power for the NH clubs and a global season would fit their agenda considerably more than the Unions' North and South of the equator. Stopping rugby union in December and January is not going to happen, mainly because it is not the NH's problem that needs solving. NH rugby, France especially, is awash with too much money than is healthy for the game world wide but the French and, to a lesser extent, English, Irish and Welsh don't need to cut their noses off to spite their faces. The Scots don't need to worry for a couple of years since they took BT's pieces of silver and stabbed all the unions in the back over the Heineken cup.

 

[mxyzptlk]

But why do the NH need to change? As was posted above change is easiest to achieve when people want it to happen. If you did a poll of rugby supporters in the NH, how many do you think would want to see an end to rugby in December and January?

Why do I need to repeat the reasons I gave above? There are players who think a unified schedule would benefit them, and NH players who think playing in warmer months would produce a better product. The player's union appeal I mentioned is a kind of poll for that, so there are some people who want it. We don't know what NH fans would do because as far as I know there has been no poll -- so to suggest fans won't go for it because they want to sit in sleet in January is just blowing smoke. Remember when that game France-Ireland game in Paris had to be cancelled ten minutes before kickoff because the pitch was too frozen? Yeah, that was great for the Six Nations and their fans.

I don't know if summer is the answer, but warmer weather could help. However I am swayed by the argument for a more unified NH/SH schedule.

 

[Wilson]

Just to add to the evidence of northern support for the shift here's Chris Foy in the daily mail:

Fixture congestion is arguably the biggest threat to the sport, as it has such a wide-ranging impact. Player welfare is in danger as never before due to the excessive demands placed on those at the elite level, especially in Europe.

Measures to improve concussion awareness and treatment are to be applauded, but the toll of serious injuries keeps rising. Bodies are breaking under the strain. Clubs and countries want their pound of flesh, but the regular absence of star players reduces the quality of the game.

Too many Tests are being played to prop up unions’ finances and as well as causing injuries, it dilutes interest. Less can be more. This column continues to advocate a global season based on summer rugby in the northern hemisphere. One day, maybe...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...-needs-right-2015-home-World-Cup-horizon.html

His reasons are similar to those listed in the guardian so it does seem like we might just be coming to a turning point in this debate.

 

[Quick Hands]

Trust me, England and France will never agree to play their season from February to November. If there's a dead horse being flogged, that's the one.

 

[Omar Comin']

QH, 40 years ago many people would have said the same thing about a world cup and professionalism! Things can change, even if some need to be dragged kicking and screaming.

Just to get this back on topic, while I think an aligned season would be the best thing for the global game, from an Australian player retention perspective it's probably a good thing it doesn't happen. A February to November season and a restructure of their calendar would allow European rugby to grow even faster IMO.

The solution to reversing the growing exodus is successful expansion of SANZAR competitions into Asia and the Americas. If Super Rugby, and in time the Rugby Championship, gain a reasonable level of popularity in Asia and the Americas then we won't have to worry about European rugby. In 10-15 years there'd be European rugby forums with a thread titled "European player exodus" bemoaning the fact that the cream of the crop of European rugby are being recruited by Super Rugby sides.

 

[Quick Hands]

You may well be right, but I still believe that in the short to medium term a minimal change could prove to everyone's benefit. I suspect after that radical change won't be required.

As I see it the advantages of changing the test windows from June and November to September and October are:

All professional rugby players get a 2 month rest period (NH in June/July and SH in Nov/Dec)
European clubs have their players ready at the start of the season and not exhausted after coming to Aus/NZ/SAF etc in June at the end of a 9 month season.
Super rugby doesn't have to stop for a month while inbound tours are on
Sept/Oct tests in each hemisphere almost take the form of a home and away series with the interest added from the continuity it brings
European clubs get the players back earlier from international duty adding to their continuity
The 6 Pacific Nations Cup countries have a Sept/Oct window to run a full tournament thus growing rugby in those countries
Greater harmony between all rugby seasons without the dramatic effect of summer rugby

Basically everyone has to give a little, but everyone gets something back.

 

[the plastic paddy]

Just to add to the evidence of northern support for the shift here's Chris Foy in the daily mail:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...-needs-right-2015-home-World-Cup-horizon.html

His reasons are similar to those listed in the guardian so it does seem like we might just be coming to a turning point in this debate.

Two of the biggest propagandists for the English clubs calling for a reduction in international rugby to benefit the English clubs is a very long way from the rugby supporting public in the NH wanting to see rugby close down in December and January and the six nations played in October or God knows when.

 

[Omar Comin']

QH, I'm not against a big international window like that, but see the big barrier being European club rugby. They'd have to change their schedule for it to work.

Otherwise any European based player involved in the Rugby Championship would be unavailable for their club team for 3 months or so. And all their other international players unavailable for the best part of 2 months straight.

The pressure on tier 2 players to make themselves unavailable for international duty would be even stronger than it is now.

 

[the plastic paddy]

QH, I'm not against a big international window like that, but see the big barrier being European club rugby. They'd have to change their schedule for it to work.

Otherwise any European based player involved in the Rugby Championship would be unavailable for their club team for 3 months or so. And all their other international players unavailable for the best part of 2 months straight.

The pressure on tier 2 players to make themselves unavailable for international duty would be even stronger than it is now.

But the NH clubs would have two solid blocks with which to work rather than three as happens with the November internationals. However, the NH clubs won't be happy with anything other than the emasculation of the international game for their benefit which is why it was such a disaster they won the battle over the Heineken cup and are now in charge of the NH club game. Already they are emboldened as can be seen by their puppets in the press pushing for a 'compromise' that suits them very well and compromises the international game.

 

[Omar Comin']

But the NH clubs would have two solid blocks with which to work rather than three as happens with the November internationals. However, the NH clubs won't be happy with anything other than the emasculation of the international game for their benefit which is why it was such a disaster they won the battle over the Heineken cup and are now in charge of the NH club game. Already they are emboldened as can be seen by their puppets in the press pushing for a 'compromise' that suits them very well and compromises the international game.

The international game compliments the club game and any club boss would know this. It's like a free promotional vehicle for them. What you want is a calendar that gives both their place without one harming the other.

International rugby is the jewel in the crown. But sometimes less can be more. The unions seem determined to milk it dry with a lot of series that no one cares about and one off matches with nothing on the line.

In Europe you could argue that the international game is being harmed by the club game. And a shorter European club season would certainly solve a few problems. But in the southern hemisphere I often feel like it's the other way round. The absolute focus on the Wallabies has held Australian rugby back to some extent IMO. Australia is a massive country and the Wallabies can only play once per week in one place at a time. And they're not always going to perform well. This focus on the national team limits rugby's reach compared to other codes and results in very fluctuating levels of popularity.

 

[the plastic paddy]

Trust me, England and France will never agree to play their season from February to November. If there's a dead horse being flogged, that's the one.

I think the dead horse is a reference to me bringing up Scotland's back stabbing of all the other unions for a bribe from their masters in England. Flower of Scotland will have a very artificial feel in the upcoming six nations, it would probably be more realistic if the Murrayfield crowd just sang God save the Queen from now on.

 

[the plastic paddy]

The international game compliments the club game and any club boss would know this. It's like a free promotional vehicle for them. What you want is a calendar that gives both their place without one harming the other.

International rugby is the jewel in the crown. But sometimes less can be more. The unions seem determined to milk it dry with a lot of series that no one cares about and one off matches with nothing on the line.

In Europe you could argue that the international game is being harmed by the club game. And a shorter European club season would certainly solve a few problems. But in the southern hemisphere I often feel like it's the other way round. The absolute focus on the Wallabies has held Australian rugby back to some extent IMO. Australia is a massive country and the Wallabies can only play once per week in one place at a time. And they're not always going to perform well. This focus on the national team limits rugby's reach compared to other codes and results in very fluctuating levels of popularity.

The likes of Boudjellal, Lonzeretti, Craig and the charm school that own Saracens do not believe that the International game compliments the club game. They are quite openly hostile to the international game.

Now, maybe you are right about the balance in Australia, but why should the NH compromise their season to sort out the SH's problem? And I say that as someone who thinks it is important that all the unions work together for the good of the game (and marginalize the scum bags who the Scots put in charge of the NH club game).

The problem is, whether we like it or not, and I don't particularly like it myself, the RFU are far and away the most powerful union and if they don't want something to happen it won't happen. The English establishment, who buffoon Twickers on match days with their pink trousers and car boot picnics, are still some of the RFU's biggest stakeholders, because of the debenture system, and if they don't want something the RFU won't do it.