South American Championship...

[Big Ewis]

...yeh like, why do they even continue including Argentina FOR FOOKS SAKE ??!!
No, like srs, what the absolute fk is the deal ?!! Argentinian players all play in France n England, and then their own league, and now (but I think this might change a few things) they're part of TRC with the Aussies n kiwis n Boks...

I mean check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Rugby_Championship

They've won it every single year obviously, and they've put up triple digit scores consistently...

Like at a point (mid 2000's) they started sending like the "Argentina XV", or "Provincias Argentinas", or "Argentina Jaguars"...but they'd still give a monster pounding to the opponents. I mean like, what does it achieve that they participate ?!!
It's like South Africa all of a sudden decides "hey, wtf, let's force ourselves in that shitty African amateur championship they've got...yeh the one with Ethiopia and Sudan ! I mean, they'll have to accept or we'll just...I dunno...stop giving them water for a year."

Since 1951 !!! Argentina's been asshole-raping other tiny rugby nations about in their continent...
This is very strange to me !! :lol:

Just imagine the other nations' representatives around the table going: "uhhmm....Argentina ??..listen uhm...you've been destroying us for half a century like, literally now, and some in fact...could you maybe...opt.......o...opt out of the..."
Argentina: "NO STFU WE WANNA PLAY !!!"

 

[djwizard84]

As far as i know Argentina is represented with an "A-Local" team because they want to help the development of the region providing higher quality game to the other nations. Something the Six Nations team will never do.

 

[Big Ewis]

yeah okay :lol: props to Argentina then, they're too kind, no really !!

 

[Thingimubob]

Even though they're demolishing their opposition, they're presence in the tournament will definitely benefit the other nations. Rugby is growing in South America, you can see that in that wikipedia article, in 2005 a Division B was created and now in 2012 a Division C was started too. Get more teams involved and have them play quality opposition, then they themselves will improve.

 

[Big Ewis]

it's good when there's some form of competition despite different levels; e.g.: Samoa now in the Rugby Championship would be good, they're not underdogs anymore and they'd make it tough at times for the top3, and would progress themselves.
But this right here has been absolutely ridiculous. As seen on those highlights against Brazil, Argentina is doing ANYTHING BUT improve...if anything their level may be "devolving" ! And it's far, far too much ahead of those other teams for those to pick up on anything...

I dunno, it's just the most ridiculous thing in int'l rugby, hands down. It's like the Australia Namibia in the 2003 RWC but yearly.

 

[nickdnz]

it's good when there's some form of competition despite different levels; e.g.: Samoa now in the Rugby Championship would be good, they're not underdogs anymore and they'd make it tough at times for the top3, and would progress themselves.
But this right here has been absolutely ridiculous. As seen on those highlights against Brazil, Argentina is doing ANYTHING BUT improve...if anything their level may be "devolving" ! And it's far, far too much ahead of those other teams for those to pick up on anything...

I dunno, it's just the most ridiculous thing in int'l rugby, hands down. It's like the Australia Namibia in the 2003 RWC but yearly.

Umm, no it wouldn't be good. It would be shitty. They don't have the stadiums or the money to participate...It would be terrible for them and a huge loss of money for SANZAR. Georgia in the 6 Nations on the other hand...

Argentina being involved doesn't harm the competition. It is never their full strength team - it allows Argentinians who aren't all professionals a way to make the national team - and it raises the standard of the competition. Without Argentina in there it is South American teams playing each other with no standard to live up to or improve. Yes they're usually going to win, comfortably, but playing against the best is really the only way to become the best.

 

[Superalexmarket]

The others south american nations need int. matches at high level, the only way they got it it´s playing against a B or C Argentina's team. I know there's a big difference but it´s the only way to made grow up rugby in the continent. Maybe a good alternative would be incorporate the USA and Canada.

 

[djwizard84]

How do you think a complete region should develop without having any sort of point of comparison.
Somehow all the IRB system is upside down... why?
In Europe the top 6 are untouchable because they don't want to look down where is already proved that there's good quality-competitive rugby.
In South America Argetina even that is full into the development of the region, non-other nation is capable to increase their quality in game and quantity in local tournaments.
...And we as fans we can only "make comments" about how negative both systems are.
Me personally, i would like to see Mexico in any sort of tournament each year, I'm complete sure that if we are able to participate in this South American Championship in a period of ten years, the country could be able to develop the national league (it has already a relegation level) bringing more people to play and of course reaching a higher international level.

 

[psychic duck]

I'm not going to respond to the OP as the way it is written to be honest sounds quite idiotic and knows nothing about the situation.

Umm, no it wouldn't be good. It would be shitty. They don't have the stadiums or the money to participate...It would be terrible for them and a huge loss of money for SANZAR. Georgia in the 6 Nations on the other hand...

Argentina being involved doesn't harm the competition. It is never their full strength team - it allows Argentinians who aren't all professionals a way to make the national team - and it raises the standard of the competition. Without Argentina in there it is South American teams playing each other with no standard to live up to or improve. Yes they're usually going to win, comfortably, but playing against the best is really the only way to become the best.

You're right about stadiums and money. But I would actually really like to see this current Samoa side face Australia or New Zealand. It would be a very interesting match up. Certainly more interesting than some of the fixtures such as New Zealand vs Wales which the All Blacks have been playing repetitively every year for a number of years and have become a little stale and could do with a rest, Samoa would be a fresh opponent for New Zealand. I also think it would be great for Samoa, not terrible.

However that's on the field, off the field it isn't likely that Samoa could ever be passable enough and play a part in this tournament.

 

[Big Ewis]

Umm, no it wouldn't be good. It would be shitty. They don't have the stadiums or the money to participate...It would be terrible for them and a huge loss of money for SANZAR. Georgia in the 6 Nations on the other hand...

Argentina being involved doesn't harm the competition. It is never their full strength team - it allows Argentinians who aren't all professionals a way to make the national team - and it raises the standard of the competition. Without Argentina in there it is South American teams playing each other with no standard to live up to or improve. Yes they're usually going to win, comfortably, but playing against the best is really the only way to become the best.

yeaaaaaaah sure I know man. I didn't think of those material parameters, I just meant in essence, in terms of levels of play. They could do it (participate) and it would make sense "competitively"; as opposed to Samoa joining 10 years ago for e.g.
----------------------

Thanks for insulting me gratuitously yet again psychic duck, very cool. Just keep in mind I'm just havin fun here and "addressing" a funny yet problematic notion...be a bit lighter fella, get whtvr's in your ass out and breathe a little son ! Have fun here !!...or don't....
Oh and yes !! I know absolutely nothing about the situation, it's quite obvious !! Not exactly the issue that keeps me from sleeping at night !! Nice one Einstein.

You and some other users on here seem to have this horrible complex that you'd join such a forum to showcase your knowledge of rugby, look cool and blast others. That you'd have some reputation to protect or wtvr...
I couldn't care less you see, if I dunno about a subject it's just that I don't care enough to know lol. I love rugby but couldn't care less about wtvr reputation I have here or elsewhere...so please, keep off me ffs !

If you "don't want to address the OP" then just screw off son, just don't come in this ignorant parody of a thread.

I think it's hilarious and weird that Argentina's been joining this tournament for 60 years !! SUE ME !!! :lol:

And plus: trying to put some life into this forum a little atm...

 

[Big Ewis]

The others south american nations need int. matches at high level, the only way they got it it´s playing against a B or C Argentina's team. I know there's a big difference but it´s the only way to made grow up rugby in the continent. Maybe a good alternative would be incorporate the USA and Canada.

yeah man, but it's too great a difference. You can only get better if the opposition is at one or two levels above you. But when you've been losing by 100 points EVERY YEAR FOR 60 YEARS ?!! It's pretty simple what I'm saying.
It's just detrimental to this whole tournament. They'll never get better by facing off wtvr Argentinian side, they need to srsly get their rugby together or not play at all rather than face IMPOSSIBLE foes of 1000x the level, or at least play their crappy lower-brand of rugby but on their own...not with a team that can put 150 on them ! :lol:
It's PERFECTLY ridiculous !!!

(and yes, I dunno ***** about this affair honestly, but I don't need to. Seeing this from a superficial perspective is conclusive enough !)

 

[ZeFrenchy]

A couple of friends of mine have played that tournament, have played against Argentina, have lost by ~50 points, and sure think it was the most awesomest match they ever played and the one from which they learnt the most. Chances are, without that tournament rugby in Brazil, Chile and Uruguay would be even worse.

 

[Big Ewis]

^ well obviously, nobody's questioning that. I'm just talking about Argentina playing in it.
Well, must be cool for your friends, but it just doesn't make sense on the long run (and it's been a loooooooooong run).

I mean just look at those hghlts against Brazil I posted there on page 1. It's just...funny ??...I dunno, borderline disgusting, and certainly counter-productive for both sides of the deal. Imagine you're Argentina playing in that tournament !! Imagine you're a guy there on the team, in the locker room...completely lethargic in your mind, like, "ohhhhh....ffs, do we HAVE to do this ???..." knowing that behind him there are 60 years of triple digit victories, and the other guys are thinkin the same thing. "Guys, there's no way we can win this, you know right ?...in fact, there's no way we can make it even remotely close or interesting either..."

It's just total bullshytt.

 

[nickdnz]

I'm not going to respond to the OP as the way it is written to be honest sounds quite idiotic and knows nothing about the situation.



You're right about stadiums and money. But I would actually really like to see this current Samoa side face Australia or New Zealand. It would be a very interesting match up. Certainly more interesting than some of the fixtures such as New Zealand vs Wales which the All Blacks have been playing repetitively every year for a number of years and have become a little stale and could do with a rest, Samoa would be a fresh opponent for New Zealand. I also think it would be great for Samoa, not terrible.

However that's on the field, off the field it isn't likely that Samoa could ever be passable enough and play a part in this tournament.

I agree, and I'm certainly not against one off tests especially during the June series - even saving a regular fixture during the series where we play them once would be an enjoyable and beneficial idea (potentially even every SANZAR team plays a PI team once every June would be a good idea). Even competition wise they deserve to be there. But as I know you understand, as I do, their situations just makes it pretty untenable.

^ well obviously, nobody's questioning that. I'm just talking about Argentina playing in it.
Well, must be cool for your friends, but it just doesn't make sense on the long run (and it's been a loooooooooong run).

I mean just look at those hghlts against Brazil I posted there on page 1. It's just...funny ??...I dunno, borderline disgusting, and certainly counter-productive for both sides of the deal. Imagine you're Argentina playing in that tournament !! Imagine you're a guy there on the team, in the locker room...completely lethargic in your mind, like, "ohhhhh....ffs, do we HAVE to do this ???..." knowing that behind him there are 60 years of triple digit victories, and the other guys are thinkin the same thing. "Guys, there's no way we can win this, you know right ?...in fact, there's no way we can make it even remotely close or interesting either..."

It's just total bullshytt.

I doubt that's at all what anyone is thinking. If you're in the Argentina 'A' squad you are probably thinking 'I need to play well to get noticed by the national team - and these tournaments are the only exposure I get to international rugby' while the other teams likely feel proud to represent their country against the best on offer and I doubt they play with the mind set that they are going to get trounced. As others have said - move Argentina from the competition ad you have an event where there is no competitor at a decent level yet, and so they will only play within their standards. Growth in the game is still expanding there - so I don't see what point you are making except 'look at them poor South American teams getting stomped, shouldn't we make top competion leave them be - to their own little competition' which is somewhat condescending.

 

[Big Ewis]

there'll always be ppl calling it "condescending", which is just ridiculous in fact. I'm realistic, at very least, here.
When France sucked balls in the beginning they sucked balls. By your logic, that *fact* is "condescending" I suppose, but anyways.

Anybody a bigot enough to call that S-American tournament (besides Argentina) anything of value whatsoever is lying to themselves just to be politically correct. The level is an aberration. It's amateur at best. Those matches aren't even distributed on the internet they're so god awful. You say condescending, I say: hey Nick, you want to watch a full 80 minutes of this buddy ?!...yeh, reality check, no you definitely don't. Point made.

Until they actually take action and show determination and willingness to genuinely get better, they're always going to be tier (what ??..) 4-5 nations and won't ever get anywhere whatsoever. Things don't just magically get better because you participate yearly. They could go on another 100, 200...heck an entire millennium getting SMASHED the fk out by 100.
You see what I mean ? Actually put in the effort, or just stop playing coz it's completely useless. They don't have the resources to ? Well they don't have the resources then, but quit the BS.

Most recent tournament: 2012 results:
ARG 40- 5 URU
ARG 111 - 0 BRA
ARG 59 - 6 CHI

I'm pretty amazed at the fact that I'm the only one defending that side of the argument !!!!! :lol:


EDIT:
just remembered. When Australia annihilated Namibia during the 2003 RWC pool matches, someppl were starting to seriously show concern and question whether such "smaller" rugby nations should participate at all. When you have a team that beats the other 142-0..........I mean uhm...19 tries to nothing at all...there's most utterly absolutely obviously a huge fkn problem isn't there ?...it immediately creates the thought that 'smaller' (not condescending now) - just the matter of the fact - smaller nations ought to play on their own, maybe a RWC B grade or smt, or not participate at all and perfect their game the best they can so they can show what they've got in another 4 yrs ? OR, yeah, totally continue to participate, like nothing ever happened, and get SMASHED by SA and Wales most recently, by 80+ each, and a -222 Points For-Against/Diff.

Surely that's constructive and intelligent in every possible angle of it for a nation like Namibia. Surely.

 

[Superalexmarket]

Recently Brazil defeat Argentina in a sevens tournament, obviously was a B team of Argentina, but it was still a historical victory for Brazilian Rugby. This never would have happened if Argentina did not participate in these South American tournaments.
By the way Brazil is the South American champion of female rugby.

 

[nickdnz]

there'll always be ppl calling it "condescending", which is just ridiculous in fact. I'm realistic, at very least, here.
When France sucked balls in the beginning they sucked balls. By your logic, that *fact* is "condescending" I suppose, but anyways.

Anybody a bigot enough to call that S-American tournament (besides Argentina) anything of value whatsoever is lying to themselves just to be politically correct. The level is an aberration. It's amateur at best. Those matches aren't even distributed on the internet they're so god awful. You say condescending, I say: hey Nick, you want to watch a full 80 minutes of this buddy ?!...yeh, reality check, no you definitely don't. Point made.

Until they actually take action and show determination and willingness to genuinely get better, they're always going to be tier (what ??..) 4-5 nations and won't ever get anywhere whatsoever. Things don't just magically get better because you participate yearly. They could go on another 100, 200...heck an entire millennium getting SMASHED the fk out by 100.
You see what I mean ? Actually put in the effort, or just stop playing coz it's completely useless. They don't have the resources to ? Well they don't have the resources then, but quit the BS.

Most recent tournament: 2012 results:
ARG 40- 5 URU
ARG 111 - 0 BRA
ARG 59 - 6 CHI

I'm pretty amazed at the fact that I'm the only one defending that side of the argument !!!!! :lol:


EDIT:

just remembered. When Australia annihilated Namibia during the 2003 RWC pool matches, someppl were starting to seriously show concern and question whether such "smaller" rugby nations should participate at all. When you have a team that beats the other 142-0..........I mean uhm...19 tries to nothing at all...there's most utterly absolutely obviously a huge fkn problem isn't there ?...it immediately creates the thought that 'smaller' (not condescending now) - just the matter of the fact - smaller nations ought to play on their own, maybe a RWC B grade or smt, or not participate at all and perfect their game the best they can so they can show what they've got in another 4 yrs ? OR, yeah, totally continue to participate, like nothing ever happened, and get SMASHED by SA and Wales most recently, by 80+ each, and a -222 Points For-Against/Diff.

Surely that's constructive and intelligent in every possible angle of it for a nation like Namibia. Surely.

Sure. You're right. By the same logic Portugal, Italy, Samoa, Tonga and Japan should never be allowed to compete against top opposition - having all lost to New Zealand by 100 points over the last 18 or so years - clearly these results show those countires are incapable of development and thus should be excluded from any real competition. In fact - considering France has lost to New Zealand by over 50 points I suppose that means France shouldn't be able to compete with NZ.

In fact France has only been competitive since the 70's - NZ went 50 years without a loss to France, it took another 20 for a second win. France has lost to Tonga in the last RWC and as early as the 90's lost to Romania. Under these paramaters France should have be written off long ago. I don't understand fundementally what you are arguing. Do you want the game to grow or are you content with the small select opposition - and not grow the game any further. In terms of your 'B' grade RWC, surely the fact that the highest score was NZ's 'B' team vs Japan's 'B' team wasn't over 75 points (in 1995 we bet Japan by over 125 points) shows teams are progressing, with some team who were not even competing 20 years ago - now nearly beating Scotland. You seem to lack any kind of vision for the game - and dismiss any progress from others who are developing because you are in a position where you are content.

 

[Big Ewis]

wow, you're so far from what I meant...it would be too long to explain in detail, but you've gone completely off-road with your argumentation, it's got absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

Look...
In essence, my argument:

"a side that is just too far from another side's level; esp. that remains very very very very far even after years and decades piling up; that does not show strong, genuine signs of improvement after a certain interval of time (for wtvr reason, country has no resources, no interest in sport...etc..etc...) should obviously just stop competing against such a strong side, because it is apparently after DECADES not learning or improving significantly enough for the competition to perpetuate."

France didn't know rugby. Then they knew rugby. They started playing but sucked. Then they beat certain teams in the 5N. Then they got kicked out for a decade, the war, etc etc ....Then they actually won a tournament. Then a Grand Slam. Now they're the 5th Rugby nation world wide historically, have made the RWC Final 3 times out of 7; and since you're mentioning the AB's specifically dear Nick, they've have managed the third best int'l record against those, including some of the biggest upsets in Rugby history...just since you've brought that up buddy.

Japan: may get blasted by big nations, but can win a match at least, and scare off a few sides. That's all I'm asking for. THAT is obviously significant and sufficient reason to have a particular side participate.
Obviously a large, large, large difference with a team that ONLY GETS DESTROYED - AALL - THAA - TIME.

See the logic now ??
Nice.

 

[nickdnz]

wow, you're so far from what I meant...it would be too long to explain in detail, but you've gone completely off-road with your argumentation, it's got absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

Look...
In essence, my argument:

"a side that is just too far from another side's level; esp. that remains very very very very far even after years and decades piling up; that does not show strong, genuine signs of improvement after a certain interval of time (for wtvr reason, country has no resources, no interest in sport...etc..etc...) should obviously just stop competing against such a strong side, because it is apparently after DECADES not learning or improving significantly enough for the competition to perpetuate."

France didn't know rugby. Then they knew rugby. They started playing but sucked. Then they beat certain teams in the 5N. Then they got kicked out for a decade, the war, etc etc ....Then they actually won a tournament. Then a Grand Slam. Now they're the 5th Rugby nation world wide historically, have made the RWC Final 3 times out of 7; and since you're mentioning the AB's specifically dear Nick, they've have managed the third best int'l record against those, including some of the biggest upsets in Rugby history...just since you've brought that up buddy.

Japan: may get blasted by big nations, but can win a match at least, and scare off a few sides. That's all I'm asking for. THAT is obviously significant and sufficient reason to have a particular side participate.
Obviously a large, large, large difference with a team that ONLY GETS DESTROYED - AALL - THAA - TIME.

See the logic now ??
Nice.

First - I was using France to prove my point. France had many years of being crap before they became one of the best in the world. If everyone was as quick to rule out France as you are these other developing nations - France wouldn't be where they are today.

Secondly despite the results the game IS growing in South America. Clearly. In fact now probably more than ever. The way to entice countries to play isn't to exclude them fom top opposition is it? Chances are they are going to keep losing for another decade or so to Argentina's 'B' side - but you'll occasionally get an upset and eventually they will improve.

 

[Big Ewis]

yeh but that's the thing. In moderation. You don't just match up a tier 1 nation VS a tier 5. Competition is a very delicate thing, it needs to be carefully brought about in order to make sense.
I mean for God's sake Nick, doesn't it seem ridiculous Argentina's been crushing them by basically the same margins for the past 60 years ?!
Sure a team needs to face stronger opposition to get better, but in what capacity ? What helps a team get better ? Against how better a side ? Fine parameters to define.

It's good for parents to let their kids learn on their own and not be fed everything. But they can't just drop them on a Harlem street and drive away either.
"Too great a difference", that's the simple concept here. Merely.

Dude, Brazil still is losing 111-0, and this could go on for another 60, or hundred years in theory.