Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
A new tournament: "the 4N"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="snoopy snoopy dog dog" data-source="post: 144480"><p>There's been some good discussion so far. Clearly Argentina are the side who most deserve entry to one of the big two annual tournaments but I think more should be done for all emerging nations to ensure rugby becomes a true global game rather than the current setup.</p><p></p><p>Ideally, a global calender would be the first step in achieving this. At present, some players from smaller nations are concentrating on their club careers at the expense of the international game because, well, European clubs pay their wages. If there was a global calender and a couple of proper international windows, Tonga's (for example) international fixtures wouldn't clash with, say, Toulouse's domestic obligations and there would be a far smaller club v country debate.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, that idea is fanciful. Being more realistic, a massive problem the weaker nations (the non 6 Nations and Tri Nations teams) and Argentina face is a lack of regular high level competition. Competitions like the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations are a help but they don't fully address the problem. For example, the USA's only fixture at home this year was against Munster. While the attendence was relatively high (around 8000) paid in, one home game isn't enough to cultivate an audience for rugby.</p><p></p><p>My proposals would be as follows:</p><p><strong>1. Keep the World Cup at 20 teams and create a 2nd tier tournament.</strong></p><p><strong></strong>The current situation where each side is guaranteed four games is ideal. Sure, there will be mismatches (like Australia against Japan) but some of the weaker nations like USA, Georgia, Namibia, Romania and Canada who've put in relatively strong performances would be affected by reducing the size of the competion. I fail to see how totally denying Portugal the chance to play New Zealand, Scotland and Italy is benficial in the long term. Are regular fixtures against the Czech Republic and Moldova going to spur them to greater heights? The situation whereby the European Challenge Cup can't even gain a sponsor when run in conjuction with the Heineken Cup is an example that TV will have zero appetite for a lesser competition</p><p></p><p>Instead of reducing the tournament to 16 nations, I'd create a 2nd tier tournament two years out from a World Cup (ie 2009, 2013, 2017 etc). Teams who finish fourth and fifth in their World Cup group gain automatic entry to the new tournament. They are joined by another eight qualifier nations. This tournament would allow weaker countries the chance to compete regularly with nations on a similar level to themselves. It would also offer them a realistic chance of gaining silverware. The four semi finalists gain entry to the World Cup with qualifiers in the subsequent year determining the final four entries to the main event. The tournament wouldn't draw much revenue on it's own so perhaps it should be linked to the main World Cup when handing out television rights and sponsorship deals.</p><p></p><p><strong>2.Abandon the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations in favour of new competitions</strong></p><p>This might seem like a poor idea but it could work if properly implemented. </p><p></p><p>I'd propose an eight team tournament of Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga in one pool with Canada, USA, Uruguay and Chile in the other pool. Teams play the other sides in their pool twice. The two pool winners face off in a two legged playoff to decide the overall winner. While not ideal, it guarantees regular international action for the participating countries. iRB funding for the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations could be diverted towards the new competition.</p><p></p><p><strong>3.What to do with emerging European nations</strong></p><p><strong></strong>I think a status quo of sorts should remain with regards the 6 Nations and European Nations Cup, or 6 Nations B. No other European nation other than the 6 Nations is strong enough to compete regularly on a higher level. </p><p></p><p>My proposal would be to increase the European Nations Cup into a Europe and North Africa competition. Georgia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, and Spain should be joined by Tunisia and Morocco. The bottom side is relegated each year to a lower competition and replaced by the top finishing 6 Nations C side. Teams compete on a home or away basis. The top three nations in each tournament (held at the same time as the 6 Nations) are guaranteed one home and two away fixtures against 6 Nations countries the following year. This gives them something to aspire to and helps broaden the rugby playing landscape throughout Europe. Some 6 Nations revenue as well as iRB assistence is used to fund this development.</p><p></p><p><strong>4.The Argentina problem</strong></p><p><strong></strong>I wish I had an answer for what to do here but I don't. As has been stated, Ideally an Americas Competition would be set up but the Pumas are far superior to the rest. Geographical problems exist between Argentina and 6 Nations entry while a different rugby playing season is the main hurdle when it comes to entry to the Tri Nations. The short term solution may be to boost the number of international fixtures which the Pumas play in. Guarantee five home and five away internationals per year with at least three home fixtures against tier 1 nations.</p><p></p><p>Longer term, the UAR should look to implement the once mooted iRB sponsored South American club competition between six Argentinian, one Chilean and one Uruguayan province with the season running along the lines of the Sanzar nations. If the UAR show a willingness to abandon their totally amateur ethos in favour of a more professional one, then offer them entry to the Tri Nations at the earliest possible date. Argentina has the potential to become a World Cup winning superpower but that won't happen until their union gets its own house in order.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The biggest problem facing the lesser nations is the lack of regular gametime. The above proposals go a long way towards fixing that - certainly more so than a reduced World Cup.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="snoopy snoopy dog dog, post: 144480"] There's been some good discussion so far. Clearly Argentina are the side who most deserve entry to one of the big two annual tournaments but I think more should be done for all emerging nations to ensure rugby becomes a true global game rather than the current setup. Ideally, a global calender would be the first step in achieving this. At present, some players from smaller nations are concentrating on their club careers at the expense of the international game because, well, European clubs pay their wages. If there was a global calender and a couple of proper international windows, Tonga's (for example) international fixtures wouldn't clash with, say, Toulouse's domestic obligations and there would be a far smaller club v country debate. Unfortunately, that idea is fanciful. Being more realistic, a massive problem the weaker nations (the non 6 Nations and Tri Nations teams) and Argentina face is a lack of regular high level competition. Competitions like the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations are a help but they don't fully address the problem. For example, the USA's only fixture at home this year was against Munster. While the attendence was relatively high (around 8000) paid in, one home game isn't enough to cultivate an audience for rugby. My proposals would be as follows: [b]1. Keep the World Cup at 20 teams and create a 2nd tier tournament. [/b]The current situation where each side is guaranteed four games is ideal. Sure, there will be mismatches (like Australia against Japan) but some of the weaker nations like USA, Georgia, Namibia, Romania and Canada who've put in relatively strong performances would be affected by reducing the size of the competion. I fail to see how totally denying Portugal the chance to play New Zealand, Scotland and Italy is benficial in the long term. Are regular fixtures against the Czech Republic and Moldova going to spur them to greater heights? The situation whereby the European Challenge Cup can't even gain a sponsor when run in conjuction with the Heineken Cup is an example that TV will have zero appetite for a lesser competition Instead of reducing the tournament to 16 nations, I'd create a 2nd tier tournament two years out from a World Cup (ie 2009, 2013, 2017 etc). Teams who finish fourth and fifth in their World Cup group gain automatic entry to the new tournament. They are joined by another eight qualifier nations. This tournament would allow weaker countries the chance to compete regularly with nations on a similar level to themselves. It would also offer them a realistic chance of gaining silverware. The four semi finalists gain entry to the World Cup with qualifiers in the subsequent year determining the final four entries to the main event. The tournament wouldn't draw much revenue on it's own so perhaps it should be linked to the main World Cup when handing out television rights and sponsorship deals. [b]2.Abandon the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations in favour of new competitions[/b] This might seem like a poor idea but it could work if properly implemented. I'd propose an eight team tournament of Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga in one pool with Canada, USA, Uruguay and Chile in the other pool. Teams play the other sides in their pool twice. The two pool winners face off in a two legged playoff to decide the overall winner. While not ideal, it guarantees regular international action for the participating countries. iRB funding for the Churchill Cup and Pacific 5 Nations could be diverted towards the new competition. [b]3.What to do with emerging European nations [/b]I think a status quo of sorts should remain with regards the 6 Nations and European Nations Cup, or 6 Nations B. No other European nation other than the 6 Nations is strong enough to compete regularly on a higher level. My proposal would be to increase the European Nations Cup into a Europe and North Africa competition. Georgia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, and Spain should be joined by Tunisia and Morocco. The bottom side is relegated each year to a lower competition and replaced by the top finishing 6 Nations C side. Teams compete on a home or away basis. The top three nations in each tournament (held at the same time as the 6 Nations) are guaranteed one home and two away fixtures against 6 Nations countries the following year. This gives them something to aspire to and helps broaden the rugby playing landscape throughout Europe. Some 6 Nations revenue as well as iRB assistence is used to fund this development. [b]4.The Argentina problem [/b]I wish I had an answer for what to do here but I don't. As has been stated, Ideally an Americas Competition would be set up but the Pumas are far superior to the rest. Geographical problems exist between Argentina and 6 Nations entry while a different rugby playing season is the main hurdle when it comes to entry to the Tri Nations. The short term solution may be to boost the number of international fixtures which the Pumas play in. Guarantee five home and five away internationals per year with at least three home fixtures against tier 1 nations. Longer term, the UAR should look to implement the once mooted iRB sponsored South American club competition between six Argentinian, one Chilean and one Uruguayan province with the season running along the lines of the Sanzar nations. If the UAR show a willingness to abandon their totally amateur ethos in favour of a more professional one, then offer them entry to the Tri Nations at the earliest possible date. Argentina has the potential to become a World Cup winning superpower but that won't happen until their union gets its own house in order. The biggest problem facing the lesser nations is the lack of regular gametime. The above proposals go a long way towards fixing that - certainly more so than a reduced World Cup. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
A new tournament: "the 4N"
Top