Farcical World Rugby and Rugby World Cup BS

I'm not sure if anyone on here are tired of listening to every international coach that they are preparing for the World Cup, so we shouldn't focus on the results as a fan that much. 

The boks had ample opportunities this year to put games away or get ahead. Then we see England slip against the Bargies but they haven't really performed at the level when Eddie First arrived on the scene and probably should have been dropped. 

Yet, most coaches get away with the fact that they are building towards the World Cup. We see the same with the All Blacks, Dave Rennie etc. It is great as a spectator as you never know which team would win, but then all of us on here just love the game and we can see what is wrong. 

I despise the fact that world rugby did a draw 2 years before the actual kick off of the tournament. Now we are log jammed with all the best teams in the same draw and the number 1 - 4 teams would have faced each other by the time we reach the Semis. Leaving England and Australia with an easy path and not mention Argentina. 

How many games are being used as experiments. Maybe at club level when the season is long and there are a lot of games, teams can afford to rotate and lose games. We saw this with the SA teams, started off really poor and then came from behind to win. 

At international level you simply don't get this opportunity. 

Yet, we are stuck with rigid rugby calendar. We have the 5 nations, championship, Autumn Tours, Summer tours and that is about it. I'm a big fan of tours, but only when it is a 3 match series and it is against a worthy opponent. 

So we have this silly yellow cup and as Graham Henry once said after being knocked out back in 2007. "We are the best team in the world, we just don't have that cup" The rest is history as the All Blacks won back to back World Cups and remained the most dominant team for a decade if not nearly 20 years. 

I know Augustine Pichot was campaigning for a global league. I also think that we have 4 teams in the Southern Hemisphere that are extremely strong. The only difference is that the Nothern hemisphere has gotten better but not by that much. I jus think Aus and NZ have gotten weaker and SA figured out how to allow their players to play abroad and benefit from the more professional setup up north which their players are exposed to. Not to mention that the can play way more games than in the Super Rugby and way less travel. 

Now, the test calendar only has 12 to 14 test matches a year. There are maybe 8 to 10 teams that are world class. We know that right now Ireland, France, South Africa, New Zealand, England, Australia, Scotland and Argentina are the top teams. Wales have dropped well below the pecking order and Italy is there about. 

I think that there should be an annual competition and the bulk of the games would be played for 8 weeks every year around September and October and then the 2nd or 1st should be played June and July also 8 Weeks. That gives 16 Weeks to maybe squeeze in 14 matches in total. 

I also believe that there should be a top 8 league with two teams automatically getting dropped down he pecking order. 

So in SA case under Coetzee when we dropped down to 7, we would have been relegated and would have to play against the 2nd tier. This tier could also be 8 teams. 

By the time the World Cup comes around we would know how well teams are ranked between 1 - 16. It would also allow the minnow teams to fight for a top 16 and none of this Spanish team in the World Cup that are full amateurs. 

But it would also allow the teams that are not performing that well, such as Wales or Italy to play against evenly matched teams and fight there way out. It would also stop also runs every year from putting out weak teams. 

That would mean the end of the 6 nations, but if Unions want to keep that, then they need to fold it into a way where they cold maybe add 2 weaker teams and play 2 additional test matches. 

But having 8 teams would allow for either home and test matches against each team which will be exactly 14 test matches. Or, based on the league finish, the highest rank teams will play 2 test home against 3 and 4 and then travel to the weaker ranked teams. 

Anyway, I do think a world league is possible, it just means that the championship and 6 nations might have to take a back seat, but there would be no shame. 

We have a world league in sevens, teams travel all over the world, play several tournaments. So why should we stick with the tradition when you would always see the team putting the best players on the field and end these dumb matches that hurts as fans but the coach sits with a grin on his facing making empty gestures. 

I would say, if you get relegated, you get fired, give it to the next coach to build his team out from tier 2 to tier 1. 

The 6 Nations isn't going anywhere. Its too much of a money spinner for the teams involved and its very popular with fans with no great desire to change it.

There is no way any of the 6 teams involved would risk being in a league with relegation. If they ever got relegated their finances would take a massive hit.

I think the only thing the 6 nations teams would be interested in is if the Rugby Championship copied the 6 Nation format where they only played each other once instead of twice they could merge the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship into an overall larger tournament, where the Rugby Championship teams play the 6 Nation teams during what's now the Autumn internationals period and then the winner is decided by the results of all 9 games.

But I doubt the Southern Hemisphere teams would want to reduce the Rugby Championship to just 3 games.

The solution to all globalism ailments: more globalism, always more globalism.

As Stav says, the 6 Nations is too important and popular, to go anywhere. 

We don’t need change, the SH clearly does though. 

The 6 Nations isn't going anywhere.

It is going the way of a 7 Nations to be later expanded to a 8 Nations.

Travelling down that path.

SA rugby are at death throes, they definitively need a life line or they disappear.

In 2025, SA rugby will force them in. At the same time or later, a 8 th nation will be added, probably Georgia.

There may be a relegation system that will only oddly relate to cash making nations. Only Georgia, Italy and remotely Scotland would be concerned by the relegation specter.

The odd years a cash making nation is embattled in relegation, proper whistling will save the day.

It is going the way of a 7 Nations to be later expanded to a 8 Nations.

Travelling down that path.

No its not. Every couple of years there is rumors of South African joining the 6 Nations but the Northern Hemisphere is always perplexed by this because no in the north is calling for it and they always strongly shoot down the suggestions.

The probably of making it a 7 team tournament is that you massively extend the duration of the tournament with one team not being able to be play every weekend.

As it stands now the first two games are played on back to back weekend. Then a rest week then a game the followed by a rest week and the last two games the following 2 weekends. So even if you got rid of the two rest weeks (which I doubt the teams would be in favor of) your extending the tournament from 6 weeks to 10 or 12 or more with rest weeks.

Increasing the teams to 8 would at least mean every team plays ever weekend that the tournament is played but your still massively increasing the duration of the tournament.

Then there is the issue of Georgia who for all their talk of replacing Italy, are a team Italy consistently beat and would be likely be overall of a lower standard Italy. Then there is the issue of travel with Georgia being much further away and Rome being far more appealing travel destination for a game than Tbilisi.

And for both Georgia and South Africa there is the issues of being much further making travel for supporters much more difficult and expensive.

There may be a relegation system that will only oddly relate to cash making nations. Only Georgia, Italy and remotely Scotland would be concerned by the relegation specter.

Tell that to Wales who are lower ranked than Scotland currently and lost to Italy in this years 6 Nations.

Exactly. 

Just because SA wants to join, it doesn’t mean we all want them to ! Nor does it mean they will get their way. 

World Cups are seldom won by teams that are not good leading into the World Cup. 

Becs, this is exactly my point. There are still certain traditions that we cling onto and that is the 6 nations. It works because geographically speaking it is a relatively short journey, yet, they continue to have mini cups like the Calcutta cup woven into the comp. Australia have the bledisloe cup etc. 

Then there is also the Question of the lions tour. 

Look at the top 8 teams today. There are 4 Northern hemisphere and 4 Southern Hemisphere teams. Australia can beat Ireland which is low down the pecking order. 

Having 8 weeks in the spring, a break in the middle and another 8 weeks in the Autumn means the world get to support their country and would be far more interested in how it is played. It doesn’t mean that the can’t have the 5 nations or even 4 nations to make a claim who is the best. It could be that the first half is that the northern teams play each and the southern teams play each other. Then there could be a split of north vs south. 

2 test matches in one country makes sense as this in itself is a mini tour. 

That is 14 test matches and this would mean that there are no teams sitting out. 

Ireland is the number 1 team, so they could face France at home twice, play England at home or just a simple home and away which means there would be 3 games at home and 3 games away against Nothern hemisphere team. 

You don’t lose the 5 nations. But that each team get to play teams twice. 

As for the summer hemisphere, yes. It could mean SA could play one week in Australia, NZ and then Argentina. But each team would have to travel and experience the same. 

Then this year SA played NZ twice at home and Aus twice away. 

But my point being, Ireland send a very strong team to NZ to win. Argentina played two games against NewZealand and won. 

Then for north South. It does make sense to play 4 test away and 4 test at home. 

So the first half would be 6 games and the 2nd half would be 8. 

As for player welfare. They get a break in the middle. 

The clubs can go and play their season uninterrupted. They can even start a month early so those who are not in the test squad can get match time or even better, which we see now are these A tours. 

So you can have an A and B team. The B team play on Tuesday which will keep the fringe players match fit. 

It is a tour. 

But, if you are 7 and 8 you will get relegated. 

But it is also a fair system as it would allow teams like Italy and Japan a proper season of playing the best. They might drop down. 

Then, the 4th year is the World Cup, so no league games. 

But in the spring, tours can be held, you can have a lions tour and you can still have 3 test at and 3 test away. 

We will see less test matches in the championship next year because of the World Cup but then teams arrange additional test matches.

Then we talk about money. Stadiums would be full, more broadcast revenue. There would be interest in 2nd tier. 

Money can be evenly divided, newly promoted teams can get a cash injection. 

Each union can then distribute this money to the clubs and players. 

You also have team sponsors, broadcast rights and tournament sponsors which means there is more money in the game. 

Actually, most points if not all are shared. The conclusions drawn from it massively differ.

1. People in the North oppose the inclusion of SA rugby in European structures. Absolutely correct. Hence the terms force their way in. Anyone who opposes the inclusion will have to provide another solution to prevent SA rugby from collapsing. Accepting that SA rugby are going to collapse anyway is not an option. People in the North asserting they do not want SA rugby must provide an alternative. Without it, by default, SA rugby will be included as letting them fail is out of question.
2. People in the North oppose the inclusion of SA rugby in European structures. Yet it did not prevent the inclusion of SA franchises in European competitions. The youth teams are already playing in a 7 Ns.
3. A 7 Nations would be imbalanced due to rest weeks. Another correct point that is shared. But here, instead of being considered as the cause to move to a 8 Nations (that would be balanced), it is taken as a cause not to include SA rugby. Except this does not solve SA rugby problems that is an imminent collapse.
   
4. An 8 nation would be too heavy in the current calendar. Another correct point that is shared. Yet again, the conclusion differs. Domestic leagues will have to absorb the extension by shrinking their own calendar (and probably shrinking the club numbers in EN and FR)
5. IT, GE and SC to be the only ones allowed to go down in a relegation system. That point must be explained. It has to do with commercial weight.First thing first, Both GE and IT would be the regulars to go down. In the very odd cases another nation is involved, only SC will be allowed to go down, over the other nations, as SC rugby unions weighs less economically than WA or the others.Relegation scenarios involving other nations than IT and GE will be very scarce. When they happen, if ever EN, FR, IR, SA rugby, WA are involved, they wont be allowed to go down.Only SC lacks the economical weight to be protected.
   

You are completely wrong about NZ.

NZ rugby has proved far smarter than most foreign pundits for a very long period of time.   

NZ Rugby needed a reset and they got it this year.

Hansen stayed 4 years too long and then his sidekick - Foster has hugely overstayed his welcome so NZ rugby has had 6 years of hell while we have the best coach in the world on the sidelines.

The only problem they haven't solved is - Getting rid of Foster.

Of the top tier nations - NZ have fare more improvement and potential left in them than any other nation - There is a year to go to the world cup so work it out for yourselves.

They will overcome the Foster problem.

Other nations have peaked too soon.

France are struggling with injuries and come the world cup I think you will find that will have missed the world cup bus.   

And I would not get worked up over the 7 nations.

World rugby will eventually find that window whereby the world competition will take place.

Correct, Stav. 

No-one abroad can seem to understand what the 6 Nations means to us as an entity. 

That is probably why rugby will be stuck and left behind. We have lost our principals. In my mind, it is always my country first, my franchise and then my province. I support teams from my country and I follow a few exciting teams whose players I admire and like to watch play.

Yet, in France and Europe, the clubs are taking over. 

Southern hemisphere rugby works because the school's and provinces are closely aligned.

There just need to be a big sponsor that is willing to put a Billion $ down for a season and then look how they will drop everything they cling onto. 

Aus is Fighting NZ because they can't even make a 3rd of what NZ can generate.

We are talking international rugby. There is room for clubs and franchises. 

But I would say that any country that wants to enter the top tier will need to have at least two local professional teams.

No-one abroad can seem to understand what the 6 Nations means to us as an entity.

Abroad is misplaced and irrelevant.

People's attachment to the 6Nations is irrelevant (or much less relevant)

The relevant attachment is toward SA rugby.

People attached to the 6 Nations may be attached to SA rugby as they may not be.

People with no peculiar attachment to SA rugby are no danger to the 6 Nations. They see no point in changing the 6 Nations to save SA rugby from a collapse.

On the other hand, and that is relevant, people who feel an attachment to both the 6 Nations and SA rugby are conflicted. They will have to solve a contradiction between preserving the 6 Nations and extending it to a 7 Nations in a last ditch effort to save SA rugby.

The 7 nations will be a way to conciliate the contradictory points.

There is no other point to consider that the attachment to SA rugby, whether people are ready to let it go.

People in the North who are attached to SA rugby have already conceded much to SA rugby. People who are not attached to it have managed nothing in trying to oppose the concessions.

That is the current situation.

Quickly enough, it is perceived that all those concessions are not enough to save SA rugby. More is demanded.

For people in the North who are attached to SA rugby, there is no other solution than including SA rugby in a 7 Nations.