Rugby News from unexpected places

[WorkingClassRugger]

Chile have won the 1st of their two games series against Korea 30-12.

 

[Omar Comin']

I would like to see the WC kept at 20 but a Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere Cup played with a large number of teams (maybe 16?) - similar to the European Cup, Asian Cup, etc. in Soccer.

Reasons why:

• It's a new media product with would attract dollars into the game.
• It would develop and expose nations/athletes that don't play WCs and don't get tests against the big boys.
• It would develop the nations that just sneak into the WC, giving them crucial exposure to T1 nations in ways they don't often get.
• Everyone gets a good experience in managing athletes through a tourney workload, a difficult skill when you consider the preseason, the taper, the management of minutes throughout the tourney, etc.
• We could park the tourney in secondary rugby markets, growing the game's footprint.

Where would this sit?

Perhaps in the November/December test window we're playing now in the year before the Lions, meaning the calendar would revolve around the Hemisphere Cups in Year 1 of a Cycle, the Lions in Year 2, Development of the WC squad in Year 3, and the World Cup in Year 4. It's a good system.

I've never liked the Southern and Northern Hemisphere split for inter-continental tournament ideas like this. I think time zones are the most relevant factor, thus longitude is more important than latitude.

To me a 3 way split would work better - Africa plus Europe, Americas, Asia-Pacific. As it may make sense to have 2 such tournaments you'd just add the Americas to either of the other 2 (for rugby it'd probably be more even to add the Americas to the Asia-Pacific). 16 teams in an Africa/Europe tournament and 16 teams in an Asia-Pacific and Americas tournament would be about ideal.

 

[Beer Baron]

I've never liked the Southern and Northern Hemisphere split for inter-continental tournament ideas like this. I think time zones are the most relevant factor, thus longitude is more important than latitude.

To me a 3 way split would work better - Africa plus Europe, Americas, Asia-Pacific. As it may make sense to have 2 such tournaments you'd just add the Americas to either of the other 2 (for rugby it'd probably be more even to add the Americas to the Asia-Pacific). 16 teams in an Africa/Europe tournament and 16 teams in an Asia-Pacific and Americas tournament would be about ideal.

what intrigue is added though? south would be a glorified tri nations in terms of potential winner same with the north and adding to the 6 nations. a longitudinal split only improves the six nations with adding the saffers in. as much as the tier 2 and tier 3 nations are merging.. there is still too big a gap imo to warrant another cup. that doesnt meant i dont fully support tier 1 playing tier 2 and 3 as much as possible, but as part of tours. i.e. aus shadow squad versus Romania or Georgia more regularly.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

what intrigue is added though? south would be a glorified tri nations in terms of potential winner same with the north and adding to the 6 nations. a longitudinal split only improves the six nations with adding the saffers in. as much as the tier 2 and tier 3 nations are merging.. there is still too big a gap imo to warrant another cup. that doesnt meant i dont fully support tier 1 playing tier 2 and 3 as much as possible, but as part of tours. i.e. aus shadow squad versus Romania or Georgia more regularly.

I guess the intrigue is in the knockout phases, which today we only get in the world cup.

And I think it'd take time to be more competitive but this is happening slowly but surely and the more opportunity tier 2 and 3 teams have of competing with better teams the quicker they'll improve. Especially if it's in genuine tournaments.

 

[Omar Comin']

Also, re the likes of Australia's shadow squad playing Romania or Georgia - I'd like to see this too, but I'm not sure if there's much appetite for it from the tier 2 countries. As they're not test matches they don't count for ranking points, and they tend not to be able to get top players released from European clubs. We see this in the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup etc.

 

[Beer Baron]

Also, re the likes of Australia's shadow squad playing Romania or Georgia - I'd like to see this too, but I'm not sure if there's much appetite for it from the tier 2 countries. As they're not test matches they don't count for ranking points, and they tend not to be able to get top players released from European clubs. We see this in the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup etc.

sorry, i meant the actual wallabies, but using most of the fulltime bench warmers e.g. frisby etc

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

I've never liked the Southern and Northern Hemisphere split for inter-continental tournament ideas like this. I think time zones are the most relevant factor, thus longitude is more important than latitude.

To me a 3 way split would work better - Africa plus Europe, Americas, Asia-Pacific. As it may make sense to have 2 such tournaments you'd just add the Americas to either of the other 2 (for rugby it'd probably be more even to add the Americas to the Asia-Pacific). 16 teams in an Africa/Europe tournament and 16 teams in an Asia-Pacific and Americas tournament would be about ideal.

Hemispheres are how the rugby world runs, so I don't think in a tournament time zones would be a huge factor, they aren't for the WC.

But yes, an Africa/Europe and Asia-Pacific/Americas tournament would work. I'm not set on the specifics, just the concept.

Many have said this would be a glorified Rugby Championship, and maybe it would be, but it would add value for the reasons previously stated, which are:

• It's a new media product with would attract dollars into the game.
• It would develop and expose nations/athletes that don't play WCs and don't get tests against the big boys.
• It would develop the nations that just sneak into the WC, giving them crucial exposure to T1 nations in ways they don't often get.
• Everyone gets a good experience in managing athletes through a tourney workload, a difficult skill when you consider the preseason, the taper, the management of minutes throughout the tourney, etc.
• We could park the tourney in secondary rugby markets, growing the game's footprint.

 

[Omar Comin']

Hemispheres are how the rugby world runs, so I don't think in a tournament time zones would be a huge factor, they aren't for the WC.

I think it's changing. See Japan being added to Super Rugby. Pro Rugby in the US is also playing a season much more in line with our season.

The main issue is that outside of world cups it's not really ideal to have games played in the middle of the night for any of the fans in the participating countries.

But yes I like the concept of major knockout tournaments between world cups and have for a long time.

 

[amirite]

In the way that the WC is exception one, I think this could be exception two.

I think it's changing. See Japan being added to Super Rugby.
That is the only exception I believe, and they're pretty close to the equator.

Pro Rugby in the US is also playing a season much more in line with our season.
Yes, but North America (both Canada and the US) are looking realistically at a Pro 12 team and not a Super Rugby team.

The main issue is that outside of world cups it's not really ideal to have games played in the middle of the night for any of the fans in the participating countries.
Agreed, but as I've said above if the WC is the exception why couldn't this be.

But yes I like the concept of major knockout tournaments between world cups and have for a long time.

Basically, I think what you've said is sensible I just don't agree.

 

[mst]

^^^^^^Canada is looking at both Super Rugby and Pro12 after not reach agreement with PRO Rugby in the US. If you read the reasons behind Canada's decision the Pro12 could be even more complex. There are reports that the Pro12 idea is one way traffic atm.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/pro-rugby-elusive-canada-1.3845019

 

[Omar Comin']

In the way that the WC is exception one, I think this could be exception two.

Basically, I think what you've said is sensible I just don't agree.

Fair enough, but there are other reasons too. If it's north / south then it's very heavily skewed towards the north in terms of competitive teams and the size of the markets involved - and thus the commercial potential. A southern hemisphere tournament would be a very poor cousin. This would not be good from an Australian rugby perspective - it'd be better if we were able to compete with the likes of Japan and the US - and maybe one day China. Asia makes sense in particular as so much of it is in close time zones.

I don't think it's in the best interests of the US or Canada to be linking up with the Pro 12 and the European season. Maybe if they were to get offered places in an expanded 6(8) Nations. But the North American winter is not conducive to good rugby in the main markets on the East coast, and it'd also mean clashing with the NFL. The North Americans have been interested in Super Rugby for ages btw, Nigel Melville - the former CEO of USA Rugby has said they were interested in joining around the time the Rebels got added, but SANZAR obviously decided to go with Melbourne. I wouldn't be surprised if one day the new Pro Rugby links up in some way with Super Rugby. If Pro Rugby fails another possibility is that the newly formed Americas 6 Nations evolves into an Americas Super Rugby conference.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Fair enough, but there are other reasons too. If it's north / south then it's very heavily skewed towards the north in terms of competitive teams and the size of the markets involved - and thus the commercial potential. A southern hemisphere tournament would be a very poor cousin. This would not be good from an Australian rugby perspective - it'd be better if we were able to compete with the likes of Japan and the US - and maybe one day China. Asia makes sense in particular as so much of it is in close time zones.

I don't think it's in the best interests of the US or Canada to be linking up with the Pro 12 and the European season. Maybe if they were to get offered places in an expanded 6(8) Nations. But the North American winter is not conducive to good rugby in the main markets on the East coast, and it'd also mean clashing with the NFL. The North Americans have been interested in Super Rugby for ages btw, Nigel Melville - the former CEO of USA Rugby has said they were interested in joining around the time the Rebels got added, but SANZAR obviously decided to go with Melbourne. I wouldn't be surprised if one day the new Pro Rugby links up in some way with Super Rugby. If Pro Rugby fails another possibility is that the newly formed Americas 6 Nations evolves into an Americas Super Rugby conference.

I'd say PRO Rugby see Super Rugby as a more natural fit than they do any European league as its owner is currently in SA to begin talks with the SARU regarding some kind of partnership or ownership agreement of the Kings.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not from an unexpectedly place really but still very interesting. Back when I first alluded to a Fijian squad entrring the NRC I also mentioned that it was suggested it was the first phase of a larger push toward a franchise in Super Rugby. Well, a few more details have emerged. The group is being spearheaded by none other than Olympic Gold Medal winning coach Ben Ryan.

According to the article the proposal backed but 4 trans-nationals involves a financial guarantee of £20m (around $33m) and plans for a new 20,000 seat stadium.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ionary-20million-plan-to-stop-talent-drain-f/

 

[Dan54]

Not from an unexpectedly place really but still very interesting. Back when I first alluded to a Fijian squad entrring the NRC I also mentioned that it was suggested it was the first phase of a larger push toward a franchise in Super Rugby. Well, a few more details have emerged. The group is being spearheaded by none other than Olympic Gold Medal winning coach Ben Ryan.

According to the article the proposal backed but 4 trans-nationals involves a financial guarantee of £20m (around $33m) and plans for a new 20,000 seat stadium.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ionary-20million-plan-to-stop-talent-drain-f/

Geez I would love that to happen!!!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Geez I would love that to happen!!!

So would I. Think either a solely Fijian or a Fijian based PI team would be a fantastic edition to Super Rugby and would be competitive from pretty much day one. Would also allow for more balance to return to the competition. Which is what I think hurt Super Rugby this season.

Revert back to 3 conferences of 6/7 with the Sunwolves falling into ours and this prospective Fijian squad into the NZ. Ideally SA would cull a squad but as that's unlikely they can have 7 or of Argentina can manage it two of 4.

Each conference plays two derby rounds against in conference oppostion for 10 games and three from the other conferences for 16 games. In the case of SA if they were able to manage 8 then they'd do the same initial for 6 games and then play each team from the other SA conference for 10 games before playing three from the other conferences for 16.

 

[Lindommer]

Immediate course of action for SANZAAR to reform Super Rugby:

• cull Sunwolves
• cull Southern Kings
• add second South American team (I'd like to see a combined Argentinean/Uruguayan team based in Montevideo)
• add PI team based in new stadium in Fiji
• revert to three conferences and REDUCE TRAVEL

 

[Omar Comin']

Brilliant news!! If they really do have that level of investment behind it you'd have to think it will happen.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Was at the Uruguay/Germany game last night.. good crowd, good atmosphere and in a proper stadium too . Huge result for Germany with the 15s now starting to catch up to the success of the 7s with them continuing on from the good form shown against Spain and Portugal earlier this year. Be interesting to see how they go in the ENC this time around. If they can at least compete with the likes of Georgia and Romania (like they did when they played them at home) then that will be seen as a success.

Yes Germany on the up and up. How many do you think crowd wise at the game? As I have read Europe rugby which oversees rugby European championship Germany involved in commissioned consultancy to look at marketing and commercial opportunities for rugby Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yes Germany on the up and up. How many do you think crowd wise at the game? As I have read Europe rugby which oversees rugby European championship Germany involved in commissioned consultancy to look at marketing and commercial opportunities for rugby Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Around 3,500 from what I've seen on other forums.

 

[amirite]

I think a Fijian Super Team would struggle to fund itself, given their NRC team is IRB backed.

That being said, with relatively small cost of living in Fiji, players wouldn't need to be paid a lot and they'd have to hire a younger 'up-and-coming' coach. It could be executed on for a small price.

The team would have to accept (much like their 7s) that they'd be a feeder for European sides and let players leave with a smile and a handshake. No big deal as long as they're capped before they go.