• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Why does Australia have to play NZ first?

Guilty

Academy Player
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
115
Country Flag
Australia
Club or Nation
Waratahs
I was looking at the format of the RC earlier and it dawned upon me, that the RC tournament (and the Tri Nations before it) always follows the same format.

We all know NZ has been the best team in the world since the 2004 and so it got me thinking that surely the fact that Australia has the play the AB's first every year must be a massive disadvantage? Why not give South Africa or Argentina this honor for once?

Now I understand that there is a lot of travelling involved and that the format is optimized around minimizing unnecessary travel but that is what bye weeks are for so I think we could make this work with not a whole lot of effort.

Anyway, am I alone here or would anyone else be open to the schedule being moved around?
 
I'd like to see it randomised or at least a rotation of a few different fixtures so that it's mixed up.
 
I figure part of it has to do with the 3rd Bledisloe cup match, if we play them last it is 3 games in a row.
 
I agree, it is a disadvantage for the Wallabies. As compensation for years of unfair abuse in a row, the Wallabies should be dispensed with playing the All-Blacks in the future. Except for Bledisloe 3, which will still be called Bledisloe 3 despite there not being a 1 or 2 during the year. This is non-negotiable.
 
Why does Argentina have to play Boks first?

South Africa is the most physical of Tri Nations teams and perhaps the world, then play against them involves as much wear and injury because their game is very front (pick and go, pick and go) and they are the biggest kids.

I think the Pumas would have a better chance if they face Australia first

The fixture is the best in logistics and economic terms because closest countries play each other, and then make their tours
 
Last edited:
Why does Argentina have to play Boks first?

South Africa is the most physical of Tri Nations teams and perhaps the world, then play against them involves as much wear and injury because their game is very front (pick and go, pick and go) and they are the biggest kids.

I think the Pumas would have a better chance if they face Australia first

The fixture is the best in logistics and economic terms because closest countries play each other, and then make their tours

I wouldn't say the boks were the most physical

The ABs last weekend really beat Australia up !!
The first half without McCaw we really muscled up. In the past I have thought the home were a beast of a forward pack but that last week with the likes or Ratalick and read we really put our hands up. In addition to that we have some beast backs with crotty not a shabby defender and Fekitoa very physical. Julian savea always strong and ben smith can be stopped he is Mr Rugby
 
First game against the Springboks would the worst scenario for Australia, they have many injury problems ALL years and not have as much depth as NZ. First game against the Afrikans tough guys would increase their number of injuries to face ABs.

I wouldn't say the boks were the most physical

The ABs last weekend really beat Australia up !!
The first half without McCaw we really muscled up. In the past I have thought the home were a beast of a forward pack but that last week with the likes or Ratalick and read we really put our hands up. In addition to that we have some beast backs with crotty not a shabby defender and Fekitoa very physical. Julian savea always strong and ben smith can be stopped he is Mr Rugby

But it is not only physical, it's also the way to play. Kieran Read, Retallick, Sam Whitelock are smart players who always look for the spaces while South Africans only have a game plan: Pick and go, then the physical wear against them is greater.

South Africans are tough guys who are willing to go through a wall, if the Aussies and Kiwis have the opportunity to play running rugby, they will do.
 
Last edited:
I think South Africa are developing their running game a lot more now through their super 15 teams. They have too to be competitive. We saw the sharks try ad out muscle the crusaders and go down in that semi because they didn't have a spark because they don't usually play running rugby. I don't understand why though as they hard probably the hardest and fastest tracks to play on
 
First game against the Springboks would the worst scenario for Australia, they have many injury problems ALL years and not have as much depth as NZ. First game against the Afrikans tough guys would increase their number of injuries to face ABs./QUOTE]

Sorry but I completely disagree with this. Obviously, all SANZAR sides would like to play the Pumas first but second for Australia would definitely be South Africa by a wide margin over NZ. The Wallabies match up very well and last year not withstanding, have a superb record over the Springboks.
 
First game against the Springboks would the worst scenario for Australia, they have many injury problems ALL years and not have as much depth as NZ. First game against the Afrikans tough guys would increase their number of injuries to face ABs./QUOTE]

Sorry but I completely disagree with this. Obviously, all SANZAR sides would like to play the Pumas first but second for Australia would definitely be South Africa by a wide margin over NZ. The Wallabies match up very well and last year not withstanding, have a superb record over the Springboks.

For what reason would a team want to play Argentina First??

I personally don't care who the Springboks play first, second or third. If you think it's a form of favouritism towards a team, which I highly doubt, then how is it of a disadvantage to any team. At the start of the RC, you usually have your Strongest team available with the fewest amount of injuries. It would only be of benefit to play the strongest team in the competition first then, to get the best result possible. As the tournament draggs on, there will be injuries, and teams may become weaker and to play the strongest team then, would be a nightmare for a team hoping of winning the tournament.

Either way, it doesn't matter, as your team has to play the other 3 twice, just like them.
 
I'm a little confused as to why people think its a disadvantage to play the ABs first. In my mind the ABs tend to play their worst at the start of seasons/tours/series etc,... am I wrong? I feel like as series/tournaments go on, the ABs get better and better. Hence I would have thought teams would prefer to play them first up. A couple of recent examples would be game 1 of RC vs game 2 (dramatic improvement in ABs game from game 1 to game 2 and IMO OZ should have won game 1) & game 1 of ABs/England series vs the rest where England definitely blew a massive chance to win game 1.

Am I the only one thinking in general the ABs are at their worst in the early stages of their campaigns?
 
you should be glad, the AB's are traditionally slow out of the box in their first couple of tests. It was pretty obvious this year as well.
 
A couple of have raised the point that the All Blacks usually start slow so it may actually be an advantage to play them first. Now that may or may not be true but my thinking is this. Over the past decade, the Wallabies have often lost both opening matches in the TN/RC to NZ, sometimes winning one of the tests. They then have to turn around and play SA/ARG after being beaten which has to hurt morale and confidence. I would like to see them having a good chance of winning both owning tests and then getting a crack at NZ. The results might be different that way however I don't really know which is why I asked the question!
 
A couple of have raised the point that the All Blacks usually start slow so it may actually be an advantage to play them first. Now that may or may not be true but my thinking is this. Over the past decade, the Wallabies have often lost both opening matches in the TN/RC to NZ, sometimes winning one of the tests. They then have to turn around and play SA/ARG after being beaten which has to hurt morale and confidence. I would like to see them having a good chance of winning both owning tests and then getting a crack at NZ. The results might be different that way however I don't really know which is why I asked the question!

This is only the 3rd year of the RC. And to be quite honest, to ***** about who you play first or last is a bit pedantic. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. And a true sign of character is how you get up after a loss. To look for excuses when it's just a matter of the better team winning on the day shouldn't be the way to go about.
 
This is only the 3rd year of the RC. And to be quite honest, to ***** about who you play first or last is a bit pedantic. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. And a true sign of character is how you get up after a loss. To look for excuses when it's just a matter of the better team winning on the day shouldn't be the way to go about.

Completely unnecessary hostility Heineken.

If you reread my posts, you will see I am just asking the question to facilitate some discussion. Is that not the point of this website?

Secondly, you have just responded to another of my posts on separate topic where I have been quite harsh on the Wallaby forwards. No excuses here.

Perhaps have a think next time you make a comment. Thank you.
 
Completely unnecessary hostility Heineken.

If you reread my posts, you will see I am just asking the question to facilitate some discussion. Is that not the point of this website?

Secondly, you have just responded to another of my posts on separate topic where I have been quite harsh on the Wallaby forwards. No excuses here.

Perhaps have a think next time you make a comment. Thank you.

Was my post hostile?? Is it because I used the word pedantic??

I just think that it's a pointless topic of discussion. That's all, I didn't intend for it to be hostile...
 
This thread asks an interesting and legitimate question, I hadn't thought about before. I do think the OP has a point, although in a way he's also a whiny butt-hurt little Aussie bish...and while I'm at it, FK YOU for beating France so largely some months ago, that was just disrespectful you goddamn savages. You ought to take example on your neighbors who treated us fairly well the previous year's summer tour...
So tbf, while I do hope the Wallabies burn in Hell shortly; you fkng yellow jerks; I sympathize for them playing the AB first each and every tournament as I do see what the OP's point is and find some truth in it.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see them having a good chance of winning both owning tests and then getting a crack at NZ. The results might be different that way however I don't really know which is why I asked the question!

But you had a positive record of 7 wins in a row before the first round, and for the second round you had a record of 8 games unbeaten and even you couldn't defeat the ABs...

Completely unnecessary hostility Heineken.

Are u new to the forum? He's Heineken. Welcome to TRF :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
A couple of have raised the point that the All Blacks usually start slow so it may actually be an advantage to play them first. Now that may or may not be true but my thinking is this. Over the past decade, the Wallabies have often lost both opening matches in the TN/RC to NZ, sometimes winning one of the tests. They then have to turn around and play SA/ARG after being beaten which has to hurt morale and confidence. I would like to see them having a good chance of winning both owning tests and then getting a crack at NZ. The results might be different that way however I don't really know which is why I asked the question!

You normally lose those opening matches because we are better than you, lets be honest.

These are professional sportsman they do this for a living, a team at that level shouldn't get all butthurt because they lose a couple of games and it shouldn't knock the confidence to win the next ones.

Like people say we are traditionally slow starters so in theory we are at our most vulnerable during that opening game.
 

Latest posts

Top