What World Rugby Needs

[C A Iversen]

At the end of the day, Rugby needs something other than a world cup every four years to focus on. Everything focuses completely on it. No doubt it should be the premier ***le in world rugby and that is as it should be, but seriously another major comp should be held every four years, two years after a world cup.

It could be a knock-out comp for the top eight ranked sides. Much like in cricket. It would also make sure every team was well rehearsed in knock-out rugby. It would be prestigious in it's own right, but never as important as the world cup.

While I'm on about it something like the Ranfurly shield could be held in international rugby. If you don't know what that would mean here goes:

It would add zero extra matches to the rugby calendar, although add MUCH revenue. Whoever holds the international shield would have to defend it whenever they play another nation in their home country. If you were playing them in a series, it would be for the game of your choosing. Which adds strategy to things. Every nation would love to take it from the holder and take pride in defending it.

No history you say? Prior to '87 that's one of the things said against the World Cup by those opposed.

I mean in soccer there's even a cup for having the most cups isn't there? So if it works why not?

 

[melon]

The international shield sounds the most interesting and most likely to work.

 

[Mr. Laxative]

I certainly believe that a tournament would be useful, however options need to be looked at.

One idea could be to hold a "Champion's Trophy" in a spring tour window including all 6 Nations and Tri Nations sides, plus Argentina. Each team would play the other once over a 10 week period - with the option for a final. Every four years the tournament could alternate between hemispheres. It could be possible to include all the PI teams and then split the table into two groups in order to shorten the running period.

For example pools would be as follows:

Pool 1: Pool 2:
Australia New Zealand
Fiji England
France Samoa
Ireland Scotland
Argentina Italy
Tonga South Africa
Wales

One pool would have to include one more team than the other unless a team such as Romania were introduced.

Alternatively a tournament which could create a lot of interest would be matches between invitational teams. For example there could be a Six Nations (or European team), a Tri-Nations team (perhaps including Africans from Namibia, Zimbabwe, etc.), a PI team (with the inclusion of players from Niue, Vanuatu, Cook Islands if players are found to be of high enough standard) and an Americas team. The tournament would alternate between hemispheres every four years with each team playing the other three times.

What do you think?

 

[C A Iversen]

Thats ok too, Jacko. The point is that in other international sports there is more than one mountain to climb.

In rugby, it's the world cup. EVERY other thing is regional.

 

[Mr. Laxative]

It sounds like your humoring me... I don't post for a while and a soon as I return....

 

[C A Iversen]

Nah, not humouring you, my ideas aren't necessarily the best ones. So was acknowledging yours.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

A rugby world cup is every four years it gives you time to develope your players and to focus your sole goals on the 1 thing, and because it takes for years you get to use the words 4 MORE YEARS BOYS... 4 MORE YEARS

 

[shazbooger]

I'd go for one major tournament for the SH teams, then another similar tournament for the NH team. Maybe run it every year.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

I'd go for one major tournament for the SH teams, then another similar tournament for the NH team. Maybe run it every year. [/b]

:lol:

 

[36crazyfist]

I'd go for one major tournament for the SH teams, then another similar tournament for the NH team. Maybe run it every year.
[/b]

six nations? tri nations?

hehe...

think we should have more tournaments where nh vs sh. would make things easier, to a degree with the exception of aus and nz, where teams travel more or less within the same timelines, than going across.

 

[36crazyfist]

in honest opinion i think that the pacific islands should fall in a tournament with aus and ab, and south africa should rather fall in with europe.

the whole point is time difference. it's easier to fly from england to south africa, than it is from new zealand to south africa.

argentina is a problem, but i think they will easier slot in with nz and aus than europe. usa and canada with argentina won't provide sufficient competition. churchill cup just isn't up to standard with the rest off the competitions.

 

[Niue]

Just like things the way they are.

I feel they need to keep the number of teams involved in the World Cup at the moment, and perhaps expand it sometime to 24.

If you look at the "developing" sides, they've all made a contribution to this World Cup, and in fact, some of the better matches to watch have involved these sides playing against each other. Their standard of play, with the possible exception of Namibia (Ireland were horrible) has improved since the last World Cup - they need to be competing against the better sides to provide a yardstick for their progress, and also to learn from the likes of New Zealands, Australia, et al.

 

[BokMagic]

I wouldn`t add any more to the international calendar. But what should maybe change, is for more emphasis to be put on the rankings. By using the rankings from maybe the year the RWC is held in, in order to do the seedings. As things stand at the moment, the rankings at the end of this RWC, will determine the seedings for 2011, which is ridiculous really. And how about a trophy for being ranked no.1 at the end of any given year, like what they`ve got with the ICC in test cricket?

CA, I like your idea about a possible "Ranfurly shield" equivalent. This would certainly add some spice to proceedings. And I absolutely love the concept- in that old boxing adage, you`ve got to beat the champ, to be the champ. I think something like that, with a shield/trophy being put on display every time the "championship" is put on the line, could add a lot of spice and excitement. It`ll never replace the RWC as the obvious pinnacle, but can cause a lot of extra interest in the 4 years in-between!

 

[Andre]

To me, great competitions make small teams grow a lot... Look at Georgia, or Portugal... So, replying to what world rugby needs, i'd say "more high level international competitions"...

 

[Kokoro]

I'd go for one major tournament for the SH teams, then another similar tournament for the NH team. Maybe run it every year.
[/b]

 

[C A Iversen]

CA, I like your idea about a possible "Ranfurly shield" equivalent. This would certainly add some spice to proceedings. And I absolutely love the concept- in that old boxing adage, you`ve got to beat the champ, to be the champ. I think something like that, with a shield/trophy being put on display every time the "championship" is put on the line, could add a lot of spice and excitement. It`ll never replace the RWC as the obvious pinnacle, but can cause a lot of extra interest in the 4 years in-between!

[/b]

Cheers BokMagic. I mean I'm a fan of anything that means more to play for when SH meets NH instead of just end of year tours, but out of the two ideas up top, The International Shield really adds a lot of excitement with no extra games needed.

For example if Ireland won it and then defended it against Wales, then Italy and all of a sudden the English or Aussies came over and wanted to win it, I imagine they'd do all they can to keep it at home. It only requires the existing fixtures.

 

[shazbooger]

Ahh I dont know. I kinda take the **** on this one, but its not a new tournament, or new trophy's thats needed, its a unified Calendar. Nothing will change until this fundamental issue has been resolved.

Once the calendar is sorted out, tours may begin to mean something again.

 

[Will]

I'm quite happy with The Lions tours which take place every two years after any world cup. Admittedly they only involve one of the major Southern Hemisphere teams at any one time, but I do feel that to add any more to the international calendar would take away the prestige of the World Cup.

 

[meastro]

It seems that the major supporters of an additional world rugby competition are from the Southern Hemisphere, no doubt depressed that they will have to wait another four years to beat England and co. in a meanignful competition.

The world cup should remain the single major tournament, but I do agree that the six nations and tri-nations should change to bring in the Pacific Islands and Argentina, and to correct the time difference factor.

 

[Brodizzle]

It seems that the major supporters of an additional world rugby competition are from the Southern Hemisphere, no doubt depressed that they will have to wait another four years to beat England and co. in a meanignful competition.
[/b]

Fishing a little? Two SH + Two NH, count em..