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
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?
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="Prestwick" data-source="post: 105811"><p>To be frank, not true. </p><p></p><p>Firstly, the question is simple: Is the Six Nations bigger than the Tri Nations and not just "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby."</p><p></p><p>If anything, teams like Australia and New Zealand have been influenced by the pacific rim because of the players they draft from Samoa, Fiji and the like and <em>not</em> the other way round! </p><p></p><p>Japan will always be Japan. They have had links with individual southern hemisphere players like John Kirwan and a couple of Boks, but they have been more influenced by corporatism or the idea of leaving the running of the game to big multinational companies and their sports teams rather than any influence from the Super 14 or the so called big three. To be honest, that idea of running a game would strike terror into the hearts of SANZAR more than the idea of say, a free and open transfer market. </p><p></p><p>Yes, it is true that the three down there have defined the modern professional game. But that was just over ten years ago. Now it is starting to look stale, it is SANZAR that is looking conservative and stuck in its ways now, refusing to move with the times with elementary things such as the concept that you can play for a team thousands of miles away and still be committed to your nation for example. </p><p></p><p>The Six Nations though is bigger <em>because</em> it is more dynamic. Because all six Unions play each other either in club league competitions such as the Magners League or in center peice cup tournaments such as the Heinneiken cup, you do get a slow and gradual mix of differing national styles and ideas. </p><p></p><p>This is facilitated by the transfer of players from one Union to another. You may see having your players play in a different country - even if it is that of a fellow Union playing <em>in the same league</em> - as a weakness, within the Six Nations it is seen a way of revitalising stale teams and it does influence the home grown players who rise up through the ranks. </p><p></p><p>This in turn provides for a more dynamic and exciting Six Nations as players from all unions, tutored and influenced by many different national methods of playing, put on some excellent rugby. </p><p></p><p>The Six Nations is bigger because it is so willing to listen to new ideas, new ways of playing and new ways of doing things. We are not as rigid and stuck in our ways as SANZAR and the Tri Nations. </p><p></p><p>And when you look at what is on offer on the Tri Nations, you cannot honestly argue with any seriousness that three teams, playing each other three times <em>each</em> adds anything to what influence it has over world rugby. It might come as a shock to you down there but the emerging nations of Rugby are not falling over themselves to copy the Tri-Nations.</p><p></p><p>And I disagree with the notion that Wales, Scotland and Italy are crap teams. Wales ran Australia ragged and drew them last year in the Autumn internationals. Italy themselves pushed Australia hard in that same period and Scotland came within a whisker of recording their first victory against the Springboks in their Summer tour of 2006.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Prestwick, post: 105811"] To be frank, not true. Firstly, the question is simple: Is the Six Nations bigger than the Tri Nations and not just "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby." If anything, teams like Australia and New Zealand have been influenced by the pacific rim because of the players they draft from Samoa, Fiji and the like and [i]not[/i] the other way round! Japan will always be Japan. They have had links with individual southern hemisphere players like John Kirwan and a couple of Boks, but they have been more influenced by corporatism or the idea of leaving the running of the game to big multinational companies and their sports teams rather than any influence from the Super 14 or the so called big three. To be honest, that idea of running a game would strike terror into the hearts of SANZAR more than the idea of say, a free and open transfer market. Yes, it is true that the three down there have defined the modern professional game. But that was just over ten years ago. Now it is starting to look stale, it is SANZAR that is looking conservative and stuck in its ways now, refusing to move with the times with elementary things such as the concept that you can play for a team thousands of miles away and still be committed to your nation for example. The Six Nations though is bigger [i]because[/i] it is more dynamic. Because all six Unions play each other either in club league competitions such as the Magners League or in center peice cup tournaments such as the Heinneiken cup, you do get a slow and gradual mix of differing national styles and ideas. This is facilitated by the transfer of players from one Union to another. You may see having your players play in a different country - even if it is that of a fellow Union playing [i]in the same league[/i] - as a weakness, within the Six Nations it is seen a way of revitalising stale teams and it does influence the home grown players who rise up through the ranks. This in turn provides for a more dynamic and exciting Six Nations as players from all unions, tutored and influenced by many different national methods of playing, put on some excellent rugby. The Six Nations is bigger because it is so willing to listen to new ideas, new ways of playing and new ways of doing things. We are not as rigid and stuck in our ways as SANZAR and the Tri Nations. And when you look at what is on offer on the Tri Nations, you cannot honestly argue with any seriousness that three teams, playing each other three times [i]each[/i] adds anything to what influence it has over world rugby. It might come as a shock to you down there but the emerging nations of Rugby are not falling over themselves to copy the Tri-Nations. And I disagree with the notion that Wales, Scotland and Italy are crap teams. Wales ran Australia ragged and drew them last year in the Autumn internationals. Italy themselves pushed Australia hard in that same period and Scotland came within a whisker of recording their first victory against the Springboks in their Summer tour of 2006. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?
Top