Will Argentina be a quick study?

[psychic duck]

On the other hand, looking at the glass half full, they get back a better quality of player for their experience at international level. The Rugby Championship is a level far above that of any domestic competition, Top 14/Premiership included. They are competing against the three top sides in the world.



Not as harsh as you think, and your timing is a bit out anyway.

The deal they had going with the English and French clubs this year was that Argentina's Rugby Championship squad members were not allowed to play the June internationals. This is just the same as what England and France used to do unofficially; sending second and third string teams South during the June tours while resting their top players. In this case, Argentina has a formal agreement with the Top 14 and Premiership clubs to rest their top players during June, and then assemble their squad in early in July in advance of the RC.

If this continues, it could be good for Argentina Rugby; having the top guys playing the Rugby Championship, and the tier of players below getting test level experience during the June tours.

Wrong. It just means that Argentina's matches in June will be rubbish and watered down and there will be more results like the 49-10 walloping from France. If they are to play watered down reserve sides, then they should play Tier 2 sides like Canada or USA (who they stupidly never play despite the geographical time zone closeness).

The strangest thing is, is that they make that agreement with the clubs so the first choice players don't play too much, and then play the first choice side in two warm up matches against Stade Francais meaning the players play just as much anyway.

Also the agreement is far too rigid, meaning that a first choice player who has been injured most of the club season and needs some matches to get up to fitness, can't play as they mustn't play in June to be available in the 4 Nations. Also a player who the club rarely ever plays and would benefit from game time also can't play.

Ah didn't realise they had that agreement, makes sense, a lot easier on the players.

Sent from my GT-S5360 using Tapatalk 2

No it's not really that much easier on the players. They still play the same amount of the matches as if they did play in June, playing against Stade instead.

 

[smartcooky]

Wrong. It just means that Argentina's matches in June will be rubbish and watered down and there will be more results like the 49-10 walloping from France.

.... or results like their 23-20 win over France the week before, or the 37-22 win over Italy the week before that!

 

[psychic duck]

.... or results like their 23-20 win over France the week before, or the 37-22 win over Italy the week before that!

That win over France was just a fluke that just papered over the issue, that wouldn't be repeated every year and there will be more results like the thumping they received in the last match. The 49-10 result showed what the issue is, and that those "internationals" were a joke. Nobody wants to see "internationals" between two of the top 8 sides of the world when one is a reserve side and the other is missing players from the Top 14 final.

They play England, Ireland and France again over the next June tours, and that fluke over France (Argentina barely did anything good that match, just France gifted points) will not be repeated.

They should play Tier 2 teams like Canada or USA if they are to play their reserves.

 

[William18]

On the other hand, looking at the glass half full, they get back a better quality of player for their experience at international level. The Rugby Championship is a level far above that of any domestic competition, Top 14/Premiership included. They are competing against the three top sides in the world.



Not as harsh as you think, and your timing is a bit out anyway.

The deal they had going with the English and French clubs this year was that Argentina's Rugby Championship squad members were not allowed to play the June internationals. This is just the same as what England and France used to do unofficially; sending second and third string teams South during the June tours while resting their top players. In this case, Argentina has a formal agreement with the Top 14 and Premiership clubs to rest their top players during June, and then assemble their squad in early in July in advance of the RC.

If this continues, it could be good for Argentina Rugby; having the top guys playing the Rugby Championship, and the tier of players below getting test level experience during the June tours.

I think that is absolute rubbish. How will the players build combinations or get experience playing together? The players need games against countries like Ireland to build the combinations. You can't just get some guys together and chuck them in against the All Blacks. I'll tell you this - as long as Argentina has the majority of their players in the Northern Hemisphere any progress will be incredibly difficult to make.

 

[smartcooky]

Nobody wants to see "internationals" between two of the top 8 sides of the world when one is a reserve side and the other is missing players from the Top 14 final.

Well, we suffered this from about the late 1990s onward, when shoddy NH outfits came down south and got stuffed by the SANZAR Countries, with scorelines like 76-0 (Australia v England), 69-20 (New Zealand v Scotland) and 96-13 (South Africa v Wales) and 54-7 (New Zealand v France)

The sky didn't fall and the sun still rose the next morning.

A year later, the French stuffed us in the RWC and four years after that England won the bloody thing.

As for the Argies, well, it is what it is. Its the best they can do at this time.

 

[nickdnz]

Yes, I would love to see Samoa, and others, play with the 'big boys'. I never understood why it wasn't so (esp. since Samoa seems like a natural fit into what was Tri-Nations). And then I read this:

Thanks for explaining this. As someone new to the rugby discussion (though not new to the sport), I've never really had any education about the politics of the game. And I must say that I agree with what you're saying. If rugby is going to survive in this extremely competitive world of sports, they need to strengthen more teams, get more countries involved in top play. I'm hearing more and more how American (gridiron) football is starting to gain a foothold overseas, and that, coupled with football's (soccer) overwhelming worldwide popularity, could pull more fans (or prospective fans) away from the sport. When you make something too elite it will suffer, especially in this economy and with so many different sports now crowding the field.

das

1. American Football will never become especially big world wide. It's expanding much slower than rugby. Doesn't even have a genuine world event where the best play. It's the best example of an eliete sport, with only one nation really investing in it.

2. It's well and good saying things to the effect of 'buisnessmen should let smaller nations play in the four nations', but money is the way the world works. If SANZAR added Samoa they would lose a lot of money. Samoa has no stadium over 15,000 seats and has a population of less than 200,000. It's already their national sport. Simply put there is no reason to allow them to join. If you mess around with it, existing nations start to become poorer. Those fine profit margins are what allow us to keep most of our players, but we still lose a lot to Japan and Europe.

Anyway, sadly the way the current international rugby system works, it is all about money. This is something I wish would change, so teams could earn their chance to play in the 6 Nations or 4 Nations each year, rather than it being a closed private members club for the rich.

In football any European nation no matter how rich they are can earn the chance to play in Euro 2016, but in rugby that chance is denied and is decided by businessmen in suits.

Would be fantastic, except in the Euro 2016 -
1. Football is the national sport of essentially every country, the only exception I can think of is Wales.
2. Every nation competing for qualification has good football stadiums to compete in, and the tournament is hosted in one country, so infastructure isn't an issue.
3. The travel is one continent, about a 4-5 hour plane ride away from anywhere.
4. UEFA Euro 2016 has a massive television auidence, so with less costs and more profit, it's easy to pretend to be egalitarian.

 

[psychic duck]

Well, we suffered this from about the late 1990s onward, when shoddy NH outfits came down south and got stuffed by the SANZAR Countries, with scorelines like 76-0 (Australia v England), 69-20 (New Zealand v Scotland) and 96-13 (South Africa v Wales) and 54-7 (New Zealand v France)

The sky didn't fall and the sun still rose the next morning.

A year later, the French stuffed us in the RWC and four years after that England won the bloody thing.

As for the Argies, well, it is what it is. Its the best they can do at this time.

I don't see what your point your trying to make here. Teams playing with weakened personnel was not good then and it is still not good now, and makes the matches less good.

If SANZAR added Samoa they would lose a lot of money. Samoa has no stadium over 15,000 seats and has a population of less than 200,000. It's already their national sport. Simply put there is no reason to allow them to join. If you mess around with it, existing nations start to become poorer. Those fine profit margins are what allow us to keep most of our players, but we still lose a lot to Japan and Europe

The winner of the PNC should get an annual match against the bottom of the 4 Nations, and if Samoa were to win then there is reason to allow them to join.

So that could be a potential reason if it were to happen. Otherwise there could be reasons to allow not to be included, where infrastructure could be one, or a fee paid to join could be another, but if it is make clear what the standards are, don't just ignore Samoa.

Would be fantastic, except in the Euro 2016 -
1. Football is the national sport of essentially every country, the only exception I can think of is Wales.
2. Every nation competing for qualification has good football stadiums to compete in, and the tournament is hosted in one country, so infastructure isn't an issue.
3. The travel is one continent, about a 4-5 hour plane ride away from anywhere.
4. UEFA Euro 2016 has a massive television auidence, so with less costs and more profit, it's easy to pretend to be egalitarian.

None of this justifies why a nation like Georgia shouldn't be given a chance to qualify for the 6 Nations.

By the way, I am not saying that there should be a qualifying system the same as football. But the nations below the 6 Nations must have some criteria to qualify, even if it is something very hard like win the ENC 10 times in a row.

1. Rugby is reasonably popular in Georgia.
2. Georgia has a 60,000 stadium, which the national team has used (along with two smaller ones for lesser matches) and sold out before (making Georgia's international matches the highest attended of any nation outside Tier 1).

Your statement regarding "Every nation competing for qualification has good football stadiums to compete in" is also debatable as well, remember nations like San Marino compete in qualification.

3. Answered yourself.

Likewise all the other European nations (Spain, Portugal, Russia, Romania) if they were to win the ENC (which realistically only Romania would have a chance of doing) and defeat Italy in a playoff for example, then what reason is there to deny a system that rewards nations improving and give them a chance to qualify for the level above.

In the ENC, there are several divisions with relegation/promotion, but not in the 6 Nations, so Georgia who has dominated the ENC for the past 6 years (just 3 losses in that period despite being denied the best players for half the matches) are stuck at the top with nowhere to go, and no better Tier 1 nations wanting to play them.

 

[big ginger 8]

I think that is absolute rubbish. How will the players build combinations or get experience playing together? The players need games against countries like Ireland to build the combinations. You can't just get some guys together and chuck them in against the All Blacks. I'll tell you this - as long as Argentina has the majority of their players in the Northern Hemisphere any progress will be incredibly difficult to make.

We're playing them in November...

1. Football is the national sport of essentially every country, the only exception I can think of is Wales.

I'll add Ireland to that soccer is the third most popular sport.

 

[Feicarsinn]

No, football is definitely the most popular sport in Ireland. Saying otherwise is just inaccurate.

 

[big ginger 8]

No, football is definitely the most popular sport in Ireland. Saying otherwise is just inaccurate.

Not in playing numbers it's not.

Also the All-Ireland is the most watched Irish sporting event.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Not in playing numbers it's not.

Also the All-Ireland is the most watched Irish sporting event.

Playing numbers are incredibly deceptive. Do the football numbers take into account the odd 60 teams in the UCD super league? Or the thousands of people who play 5 a side once a week? Or even just lads kicking a ball around in school? You can bet that they don't. The GAA works differently, with everyone who plays being registered with a club. Soccer doesn't work that way. The number of players registered with the FAI would make up a relatively small percentage of the total figure of people playing.

 

[LittleGuy]

It's hard to rate popularity just from a broad stroke, soccer is actually by far the most played sport in Canada, but as a spectator sport is way down the list, so I'd have to rank it 3rd or even 4th here.

Edit: I'd always heard it was third in Ireland as well from everyone I'd talked to.

Edit Edit: There are a couple of other countries in Europe where Association football isn't top dog, Finland and Latvia it's Ice Hockey in winter with Pesäpallo and Basketball in the summer respectively and Lithuania it's Basketball.

 

[smartcooky]

Playing numbers are incredibly deceptive. Do the football numbers take into account the odd 60 teams in the UCD super league? Or the thousands of people who play 5 a side once a week? Or even just lads kicking a ball around in school? You can bet that they don't. The GAA works differently, with everyone who plays being registered with a club. Soccer doesn't work that way. The number of players registered with the FAI would make up a relatively small percentage of the total figure of people playing.

That seems like comparing apples and oranges. I don't think you can include people playing five-a-side or kicking a ball around in the street as being part of the playing numbers. How do you know if the kids kicking around in the street or schoolyard are GAA or Soccer. Also you could include touch players in rugby and kids playing school-yard Force-Back (they use a rugby ball).

In order to compare the sports on a participation basis, you need to have measurable statistics of players playing in bona fide leagues . These are not always easy to find and are even more difficult to compare unless the source gives you the basis for them.

One way is the number of registered clubs. GAA is way ahead on this count.....

GAA - 2300+
Soccer - 654
Rugby - 224

Sport popularity by attendance is another measure, and in Ireland GAA has this won hands down

GAA - 57 % (Football 34% - Hurling 23%
Soccer - 16%
Rugby - 8%
Golf - 3%
Other - 16%

Sources:
http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Research/Social_Economic_Value_2005_/Social_Economic_Value.pdf
http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/
http://www.localclubsireland.com/football.html

 

[Superalexmarket]

And Wales too...

 

[nickdnz]

I don't see what your point your trying to make here. Teams playing with weakened personnel was not good then and it is still not good now, and makes the matches less good.

The winner of the PNC should get an annual match against the bottom of the 4 Nations, and if Samoa were to win then there is reason to allow them to join.

So that could be a potential reason if it were to happen. Otherwise there could be reasons to allow not to be included, where infrastructure could be one, or a fee paid to join could be another, but if it is make clear what the standards are, don't just ignore Samoa.

None of this justifies why a nation like Georgia shouldn't be given a chance to qualify for the 6 Nations.

By the way, I am not saying that there should be a qualifying system the same as football. But the nations below the 6 Nations must have some criteria to qualify, even if it is something very hard like win the ENC 10 times in a row.

1. Rugby is reasonably popular in Georgia.
2. Georgia has a 60,000 stadium, which the national team has used (along with two smaller ones for lesser matches) and sold out before (making Georgia's international matches the highest attended of any nation outside Tier 1).

Your statement regarding "Every nation competing for qualification has good football stadiums to compete in" is also debatable as well, remember nations like San Marino compete in qualification.

3. Answered yourself.

Likewise all the other European nations (Spain, Portugal, Russia, Romania) if they were to win the ENC (which realistically only Romania would have a chance of doing) and defeat Italy in a playoff for example, then what reason is there to deny a system that rewards nations improving and give them a chance to qualify for the level above.

In the ENC, there are several divisions with relegation/promotion, but not in the 6 Nations, so Georgia who has dominated the ENC for the past 6 years (just 3 losses in that period despite being denied the best players for half the matches) are stuck at the top with nowhere to go, and no better Tier 1 nations wanting to play them.

Great reply.

And to be honest, Georgia should be given an oppertunity to join the 6 Nations (I've said this for a while now). They have the infastructure (60,000 stadium you mentioned) and the population (4.5 million) to be a viable market to expand to. Same can be said for Portugal, Spain, Romania and Russia. A 7th spot playoff for the 6 Nations could actually be both good for expanding the game and as a long term investment.

Sadly this isn't the case for Samoa. On merit their team should play in a competition, but their market is too small for the Rugby Championship to benefit from their inclusion financially. Samoa couldn't host games without losing money for SANZAR (15,000 seat stadium is just too small), their population which is already rugby mad is too small to boost television figures and ratings and thier Union is too poor. If Japan or USA became bigger rugby nations, I'm sure SANZAR would consider their inclusion as a worthy investment.

It's easy to make this sound like 'greedy buisnessmen denying oppertunities to small countries', but ensuring their own Unions survival has to be their main priority and rugby isn't big enough commercially for their to be too many charitable decisions.

 

[psychic duck]

Sadly this isn't the case for Samoa. On merit their team should play in a competition, but their market is too small for the Rugby Championship to benefit from their inclusion financially. Samoa couldn't host games without losing money for SANZAR (15,000 seat stadium is just too small), their population which is already rugby mad is too small to boost television figures and ratings and thier Union is too poor. If Japan or USA became bigger rugby nations, I'm sure SANZAR would consider their inclusion as a worthy investment.

It's easy to make this sound like 'greedy buisnessmen denying oppertunities to small countries', but ensuring their own Unions survival has to be their main priority and rugby isn't big enough commercially for their to be too many charitable decisions.

I see your point. To be fair, Samoa and Fiji hosted Scotland in June, and neither nations facilities and TV coverage of the match was particularly impressive (in fact the TV coverage was awful).

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The Pacific nations could host games in NZ, they might not sell out initially but with the constant competition etc. I'm sure the quality would improve and I can easily see them bringing in full houses.

 

[admartian]

The Pacific nations could host games in NZ, they might not sell out initially but with the constant competition etc. I'm sure the quality would improve and I can easily see them bringing in full houses.

Not a bad idea. They could probably do some Australasian tour of the games and possibly around the Pacific rim.

 

[Feicarsinn]

That seems like comparing apples and oranges. I don't think you can include people playing five-a-side or kicking a ball around in the street as being part of the playing numbers. How do you know if the kids kicking around in the street or schoolyard are GAA or Soccer. Also you could include touch players in rugby and kids playing school-yard Force-Back (they use a rugby ball).

In order to compare the sports on a participation basis, you need to have measurable statistics of players playing in bona fide leagues . These are not always easy to find and are even more difficult to compare unless the source gives you the basis for them.

One way is the number of registered clubs. GAA is way ahead on this count.....

GAA - 2300+
Soccer - 654
Rugby - 224

Sport popularity by attendance is another measure, and in Ireland GAA has this won hands down

GAA - 57 % (Football 34% - Hurling 23%
Soccer - 16%
Rugby - 8%
Golf - 3%
Other - 16%

Sources:
http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Research/Social_Economic_Value_2005_/Social_Economic_Value.pdf
http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/
http://www.localclubsireland.com/football.html

No, it isn't comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about the popularity of sports. I don't think that registered players or clubs is an accurate measurement of a sport's popularity.

Now I'm not having a go, but you do show your ignorance of Irish sporting background with this argument. I'm a member of the GAA. There will be GAA clubs in practically every village in Ireland. I'm not disputing this fact. But, the GAA is a very regimental organisation if that makes any sense. As in, everyone who is a GAA fan plays through the association. There aren't really any street leagues, or 5 a side teams or astro leagues. Everyone who plays, even at a social level, will be registered with a club and down as a player with the association.

The numbers playing soccer however are very much harder to obtain. As I've said earlier, the numbers quoted for both registered players and clubs are not representative of the playing population, let alone the huge passive following that exists. This is essentially because the FAI and its sanctioned competitions are by no means the only way to play social or even semi-competitive football in Ireland, unlike the IRFU and in particular the GAA. I was a member of a team in the UCD Super League last year for example, which boasted nearly 60 soccer teams, none of whom would have been registered with the FAI. You could play indoor football once a week with your mates (which I also did) or be part of one of the many non-FAI sanctioned astro leagues that run across the country. I'll stress again, this does not happen with the GAA. Social teams are still fully registered with the association so every single player who is playing on a team of any level in the country is on their books. Football is far less systematic. Indeed most of the people I know who play football play with social teams as opposed to ones registered in FAI leagues (Anecdotal evidence, but evidence nonetheless.)

Of course, you can say that my argument lacks the statistics to back it up, but that is the very essence of it. It is that very lack of statistics and their unobtainability from a Football point of view which makes the ones the GAA give out about them being the biggest sport in the country very debatable.

If you want to talk facts and figures, Ireland's first European Championship match against Croatia was the most viewed programme on Irish TV since 1994 during(yep, you guessed it) the World Cup.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0619/breaking57.html

I'm also still less than impressed by the GAA for calling itself the most popular sporting association in Ireland. Well of course you are, you have two bloody sports! That certainly muddles things up quite a bit.


Anyway, I'm quite enjoying this debate, but should you want to continue it it'd probably be best for me to move these posts to a new thread.

 

[Feicarsinn]

The Pacific nations could host games in NZ, they might not sell out initially but with the constant competition etc. I'm sure the quality would improve and I can easily see them bringing in full houses.

I don't mean to be harsh here, but there is little point if any in putting the PI teams into an expanded Rugby Championship. The fact of the matter is that their populations are just too small to see them become very much better than they already are. Don't get me wrong, Fiji are quite weak at the moment and Tonga aren't great shakes, but even at their best I don't think they'd ever really be to seriously compete with the big three. Samoa have a good team at the moment, but the best they can hope for is the odd scalp and in all probability they wont have a team as strong as the one they had over the past 3 years for some time going on their performances at the JWC's.

Argentina is a different matter though. There's so much room for growth there, both in terms of playing numbers and financial prospects. There's a real chance that in 20 years they could be regularly beating the big three, whereas I don't think that can ever be the case with the Pacific Island teams.