Proposed Nations Championship

[waiopehu oldboy]

From today's NZHurld:

"This year's end of year tour could be the last the All Blacks play in its current form.

"French newspaper Midi Olympique reports from 2020, World Rugby wants to introduce a 'League of Nations' format involving the top 12 teams in the world.

"The idea of World Rugby vice president Agustin Pichot reportedly sees an international competition dividing into four groups of three, with three pool games followed by a semi-final and final.

"The report says the World League would be played alternately in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere each November, with the North to hold the proposed first edition in 2020.

"The groups would also be held in different countries.

"World Rugby's top brass are meeting in Sydney this week."

Oh Dear God No! Maybe every four years midway through the RWC cycle but every year is madness, it'll get too stale too quickly. I'd prefer EOYT to continue but with a requirement that SH Tier 1 sides play at least one match v a T2 side every November: AB v Georgia in Tbilisi is surely gunna do more for the game globally than NZ v SA or Straya for umpteenth time that year.

 

[zer0]

An entirely daft idea. Even every n years would make the RWC pretty pointless. It also does nothing but promote the near cricket levels of incest between the top major rugby sides. Playing the same old same old NH sides at the end of the year is getting really tedious. Like you say, I'd find it much more interesting if the SH sides/AB's dropped a match or two against the 6N sides and replaced them with visits to the likes of Georgia, Germany, Spain, Portugal etc...

EDIT: Didn't think of it when I first saw it but yeah, playing yet more matches against South Africa, Argentina and, in particular, Australia (assuming the three match Bledisloe continues) would make the tests even more monotonous.

 

[Derpus]

An entirely daft idea. Even every n years would make the RWC pretty pointless. It also does nothing but promote the near cricket levels of incest between the top major rugby sides. Playing the same old same old NH sides at the end of the year is getting really tedious. Like you say, I'd find it much more interesting if the SH sides/AB's dropped a match or two against the 6N sides and replaced them with visits to the likes of Georgia, Germany, Spain, Portugal etc.

EDIT: Didn't think of it when I first saw it but yeah, playing yet more matches against South Africa, Argentina and, in particular, Australia (assuming the three match Bledisloe continues) would make the tests even more monotonous.

Plz no.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Another thought occurs: what happens to the eight teams who don't make the SF? And the countries who don't get to host a Pool? And what happens if say Argentina drop out of the top 12 (unlikely but they're (I think) 10th right now so certainly possible)? Just an utterly ridiculous idea from (supposedly) someone who generally seems to have his head screwed on better than that. God I hope Tew stomps the life out've it when WR (World Rugby) have their Sydney chin-wag.

 

[Wilson]

A bit more detail here: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...l-to-shake-up-test-rugby-20180924-p505nj.html

It looks like a major part of the motivation is addressing the revenue sharing issues the southern sides have with the current model. I don't think this is the answer but I'm glad they're at least considering change, world rugby has hardly been a forward thinking institution in the past and the fact that they're even suggesting a major shift in the calendar like this is promising.

 

[Dan54]

I not sure of how good or not the proposed idea is, seems to have some merit in having a meaningful comp outside of WC matches and Soccer have similar idea. I certainly not as keen as you lot to just find all the negatives, and will just wait to see what is actually discussed etc, perhaps not just base it an first couple of paper write ups. Still we could always ask them to please not come up with any alternate comp ideas for discussion as it upsets us too much! You know if you were to look at in a slightly positive light ( I know I know it's G&G rugby and that's not accepted practice) and you had a secondary comp going for tier 2 nations, there is always chances for promotion relegation etc etc. I think I will just wait until I see or hear proper details before I go for or against idea! Hells teeth fellas I hope they got ideas to throw around every meeting including how to bring tier 2 teams into more contact with tier 2 teams. And I bet if they said 'hey it now compulsory for ABs and Wallabies to play say Georgia,Romania?germany/Spain etc', there would be moans as I can see posters saying who wants to get up in middle of night to watch that test!!

 

[Omar Comin']

I think you'd just want to make sure you avoid the Rugby Championship sides playing each other in this tournament, with the possible exception of a final.

But you could avoid it completely without any knock out games - just some kind of group / league to determine a top 2 and then a final. For example, you could have two pools of 6 (NH and SH or Europe and Non-Europe). Each team in Group A plays every team in Group B and vice versa. The top teams in each group play in a final. You could also have a relegation playoff, or just relegate the last team of each group.

Alternatively you could have a 16 team model - 2 European groups, 2 non-European groups. Euro Group 1 vs World Group 1, Euro Group 2 vs World Group 2. Then have semi finals with the winner of Euro Group 1 playing the winner of World Group 2 and the winner of Euro Group 2 against the winner of World Group 1.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Would rather they focus on 5 week tours of individual countries. 3 match test series, twice a year. It's international rugby after all, how about knuckling down for 5 week stretches twice a year to hone international rivalries, to really see who's the best instead of the EOYT whistle stop bollocks with matches that end up blurring into a likeness of sameness as the years go by​

​

Seems like a vaguely desperate clutch at players who are getting increasingly paid to prioritise club rugby over internationals.​

 

[Brumby Runner]

Omar, if there is promotion/relegation, then in time the makeup of the pools will change from being one North and one South.

Let's say that the South pool starts with NZ, Aus, SA, Argentina, Fiji, Samoa. Samoa would likely face relegation after the first tournament and if promotion is earned through a lower level tournament, then a country like Georgia of Spain could well win a spot in the Southern pool. Next time around Samoa could well end up being promoted to the Northern pool. See the difficulty with promotion/relegation?

 

[Omar Comin']

Omar, if there is promotion/relegation, then in time the makeup of the pools will change from being one North and one South.

Let's say that the South pool starts with NZ, Aus, SA, Argentina, Fiji, Samoa. Samoa would likely face relegation after the first tournament and if promotion is earned through a lower level tournament, then a country like Georgia of Spain could well win a spot in the Southern pool. Next time around Samoa could well end up being promoted to the Northern pool. See the difficulty with promotion/relegation?

Easy solution would be to ensure the relegated team is replaced by a team from the same hemisphere or group.

But I think it'd probably be easiest to relegate one team from each. That creates more opportunity for different teams to compete as well. So, for example Italy gets relegated and replaced by Georgia. Samoa gets relegated and replaced by Japan or Tonga. Depending on if you do the groups by hemisphere or by Europe / non-Europe. I tend to favour the latter.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Easy solution would be to ensure the relegated team is replaced by a team from the same hemisphere or group.

But I think it'd probably be easiest to relegate one team from each. That creates more opportunity for different teams to compete as well. So, for example Italy gets relegated and replaced by Georgia. Samoa gets relegated and replaced by Japan or Tonga. Depending on if you do the groups by hemisphere or by Europe / non-Europe. I tend to favour the latter.

But then there is no guarantee that the promoted side(s) are in the top 12 in the world. Two best tier 2 sides might be USA and Georgia for example. But if one misses out because Tonga has to be promoted in the South then the basis for the competition is being compromised.

 

[Omar Comin']

But then there is no guarantee that the promoted side(s) are in the top 12 in the world. Two best tier 2 sides might be USA and Georgia for example. But if one misses out because Tonga has to be promoted in the South then the basis for the competition is being compromised.

I think Europe / Non-Europe (World) instead of North / South protects against this a little bit.

But also, don't make perfect the enemy of good. You'll never get an absolutely perfect system. The world rankings is not a perfect system either. And a lot of the time the best 3 or 4 teams in the world may be all in one group, and so instead of a final between the top 2 teams in the world you'll get a final of 1 vs 5. So what. The hope is that North vs South or Europe vs World would be something people can engage with.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ok. I think we get that at the RWC. I am not convinced that a mini WC every year or two is what the rugby world needs.

Japan would probably be another example of where special dispensation needs to be put in place. Not likely to regularly contest for a top 6 spot in either hemisphere, but surely important for continued development to be a regular entity in something like the proposed LoNs.

 

[Omar Comin']

It would be a bit different to a world cup though - no or very few knockout games, no matches between 2 European teams or 2 non-European teams and matches would be held in different countries. It's actually not that different to what the November window is now - just with a bit more structure and a final at the end between the top European team and the top non-European team. Or NH vs SH. The reason I prefer Euro vs World is just that there's a more even number of rising nations if you do it like that. Most of the emerging tier 2 nations are in the northern hemisphere (unsurprisingly).

Japan are ranked 11th in the world right now - the 6th ranked NH team and the 6th ranked non-Euro team. They've been in and out of the top 12 for the last several years now and that will probably continue to be the case. That said, I'd be all for a 16 team model. Currently Samoa are ranked 16th - I think that's about as low as you go before you get to the teams that have no chance against any of the top 6 teams or so. But either way you need promotion and relegation to give these emerging nations opportunities to work their way to the top.

 

[dru]

So the LON becomes an invitational comp loosely based around the top 10-12 but with pre-selection thrown in. It's doable.

The semi/final thing though means plenty of teams not playing (Nations not earning cash).

You'd have to think through how it impacts 6 nations, RC, and the RWC.

 

[Derpus]

Would rather they focus on 5 week tours of individual countries. 3 match test series, twice a year. It's international rugby after all, how about knuckling down for 5 week stretches twice a year to hone international rivalries, to really see who's the best instead of the EOYT whistle stop bollocks with matches that end up blurring into a likeness of sameness as the years go by​

Seems like a vaguely desperate clutch at players who are getting increasingly paid to prioritise club rugby over internationals. ​

Yerp.

Easier to resuscitate the international game by removing limits on selection. If Super Rugby dies then this would be significantly easier for the Southern Hemisphere clubs as there would be nothing left to protect.

Bringing back all the squadies would suddenly triple Aussie rugby depth breathe new life into the Wallabies.

If you want some domestic stuff go watch NRC, Shute Shield, Currie Cup, Mitre 10, etc.

 

[Derpus]

It would be a bit different to a world cup though - no or very few knockout games, no matches between 2 European teams or 2 non-European teams and matches would be held in different countries. It's actually not that different to what the November window is now - just with a bit more structure and a final at the end between the top European team and the top non-European team. Or NH vs SH. The reason I prefer Euro vs World is just that there's a more even number of rising nations if you do it like that. Most of the emerging tier 2 nations are in the northern hemisphere (unsurprisingly).

To have any chance of success it would have to be purely a league, incorporate the RC and 6 nations, and also somehow have promotion/demotion. I.e. the team that finishes 12th gets dropped for the next highest ranked team.

Sounds like even more of a logistical nightmare than there is now.

 

[Lorenzo]

What about a top 6 tournament and a separate 7 through 12 tournament

that way, we could win a tournament

 

[chibimatty]

Would rather they focus on 5 week tours of individual countries. 3 match test series, twice a year. It's international rugby after all, how about knuckling down for 5 week stretches twice a year to hone international rivalries, to really see who's the best...

That's an awesome idea. Just thinking about it, maybe tests against smaller nations on the tour, prior to the three-match major series would be a good warm-up? (Even though I know some might say it devalues a test jersey to suggest this)

But whatsay as an example, if on the Wallabies EOYT they played Georgia and Romania, then a three-match series against France? And other teams could do something similar?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Looks like it's a happening thing, folks, complete with a second division & promotion/ relegation:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...championship-with-plans-for-a-second-division