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="Dumbo" data-source="post: 105829"><p>First of all good reply pretwick, always good to see anyone put forth their ideas clearly.</p><p>Secondly sorry for the quote thing as I havn't got my head around how to do it yet.</p><p></p><p>In answer to what you put forth...</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, looking at what getofmeland wrote in his second comment the question is "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby"</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, other way around, Australia and NZ has influenced the Pacific rim, mainly by introducing and encouraging the game in the Islands, players from the Islands when in NZ or Aus are influenced by the coaching staff for the club or team they play for.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats true.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes and No, they have rugby and they have corporations - they are two different things, corporations sponsor players, games and competitions and rugby's a game that's based around players, games and comps. Back to the original question... "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby"... I guess how I'm interpreting this is that the teams that make up the comps perform the influencing, where as I guess your saying it's the comp itself? If so then there's sort of no middle ground cause we are talking about different things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The last part is partly true, SANZARS only recent move was to increase the number of games. There is a reason behind keeping your players who will go on to play for their country to develop together, familiarity is a positive thing in this game... combinations over the years have done Tri Nations countries well.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Um... NZ - Tri Nations, Super 14, Air New Zealand Cup, smaller leagues, SA similar (it's only Australia in this scenario that seem to not have it together) and Australia has a fair amount of players that where either born in NZ, or have played a fair bit of rugby of there. So, so what? that doesn’t make the Northern comp bigger or 'dynamic'.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>We still have a lot of players moving around, and yup Southern Hemisphere countries do have a draft. We are pretty happy though to have our players at home for the better parts of their careers, the players themselves are choosing not to go for lucrative offshore contracts till their careers are on the decline - more often than not because of the quality of the competition in the SH countries (in NZ not many that go over get the nod to play in the national squad again, why? the coaches are in NZ, the resources are in NZ).</p><p></p><p></p><p>And this is different to the Tri Nations? </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Ummm??? hold on what the hell do you think coaches do? SANZAR officials don't tell players how to play, seriously they don't. New ideas, new ways of playing? I'd be looking further down south to find that. To us Northern Hemisphere rugby always looks stale. Then again at times so can Australia, South Africa and the odd one NZ can to. But for mine, 'stale' belongs to the coaches in the NH.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's fair, but again we are possibly not talking about the same point (the way the question was put forth is a bit confusing) and I might have the wrong end of the stick. I guess my point is the Tri Nations is made up of NZ, Aus and SA... emerging nations may not be looking to start a tri nations but they are definitely influenced by the players that play the comp more than any other. Players like Carter and McKaw are the two most influential players in the world today and they play in what comp?. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you point out where I used the word 'crap'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dumbo, post: 105829"] First of all good reply pretwick, always good to see anyone put forth their ideas clearly. Secondly sorry for the quote thing as I havn't got my head around how to do it yet. In answer to what you put forth... No, looking at what getofmeland wrote in his second comment the question is "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby" No, other way around, Australia and NZ has influenced the Pacific rim, mainly by introducing and encouraging the game in the Islands, players from the Islands when in NZ or Aus are influenced by the coaching staff for the club or team they play for. Thats true. Yes and No, they have rugby and they have corporations - they are two different things, corporations sponsor players, games and competitions and rugby's a game that's based around players, games and comps. Back to the original question... "Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations in regards to influence to World Rugby"... I guess how I'm interpreting this is that the teams that make up the comps perform the influencing, where as I guess your saying it's the comp itself? If so then there's sort of no middle ground cause we are talking about different things. The last part is partly true, SANZARS only recent move was to increase the number of games. There is a reason behind keeping your players who will go on to play for their country to develop together, familiarity is a positive thing in this game... combinations over the years have done Tri Nations countries well. Um... NZ - Tri Nations, Super 14, Air New Zealand Cup, smaller leagues, SA similar (it's only Australia in this scenario that seem to not have it together) and Australia has a fair amount of players that where either born in NZ, or have played a fair bit of rugby of there. So, so what? that doesn’t make the Northern comp bigger or 'dynamic'. We still have a lot of players moving around, and yup Southern Hemisphere countries do have a draft. We are pretty happy though to have our players at home for the better parts of their careers, the players themselves are choosing not to go for lucrative offshore contracts till their careers are on the decline - more often than not because of the quality of the competition in the SH countries (in NZ not many that go over get the nod to play in the national squad again, why? the coaches are in NZ, the resources are in NZ). And this is different to the Tri Nations? Ummm??? hold on what the hell do you think coaches do? SANZAR officials don't tell players how to play, seriously they don't. New ideas, new ways of playing? I'd be looking further down south to find that. To us Northern Hemisphere rugby always looks stale. Then again at times so can Australia, South Africa and the odd one NZ can to. But for mine, 'stale' belongs to the coaches in the NH. That's fair, but again we are possibly not talking about the same point (the way the question was put forth is a bit confusing) and I might have the wrong end of the stick. I guess my point is the Tri Nations is made up of NZ, Aus and SA... emerging nations may not be looking to start a tri nations but they are definitely influenced by the players that play the comp more than any other. Players like Carter and McKaw are the two most influential players in the world today and they play in what comp?. Can you point out where I used the word 'crap'. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?
Top