Nations Championship?
-
Lesson here is WR don't appear to have listened and pushed ahead with a plan that has potential, but without player sign-off. You can't just switch consultation on and off with your key resource and expect things to go perfectly to plan. I think nearly everyone involved in rugby wants things to change - but clearly the current offering isn't going to progress.
-
@Paekakboyz Unless, as WR have stated, this was just a proposal mooted 24 hours ago, has been leaked as 'the plan' when it is just 'a possibility'. Now that might also be bollox and backtracking!
-
@barbarian borrowing from what I was hearing this morning on radio. If this deal is tied into a global broadcaster type deal (not confirmed, just conjecture on my part) say with Amazon or another web-based provider it'd drastically reduce $$ for anyone broadcasting at national level. Sky NZ are already battling lower subs after losing rights to the World Cup. If they were to lose all international rugby how much do they think they can charge for super rugby (or whatever might replace that), let alone our national comps.
I know NZR will be working hard to ensure any big jumps/changes in international $$ help support those lower levels. Also aware that's not a unique situation for NZ, but it's another factor in scheme of things. Which is a concern when listening to Nichols and the player comments that WR has started to really push fast with their plans.
-
@mariner4life said in World League Rugby:
they are not friendlies, they are tests. Also i find the way you said that pretty condescending considering for the past few years, those teams have absolutely been your peers (okay, maybe not Italy, they are fucking rubbish).
If you require some points system for the end of the year to get eyeballs, perhaps you have already lost? Is this just coming back to the biggest problem being the Wallabies are a bit rubbish?
I think plenty of scribes often refer to the June and November tests as friendlies. They serve no purpose apart from World Ranking points.
I guess the question is are you happy with the current system? If no, what do you propose as a solution?
-
@mariner4life said in World League Rugby:
they are not friendlies, they are tests. Also i find the way you said that pretty condescending considering for the past few years, those teams have absolutely been your peers (okay, maybe not Italy, they are fucking rubbish).
The problem with those teams is not the quality per se, but the randomness of it all. There's no tradition, there's no meaning. The full time whistle blows and the result is immediately forgotten.
So besides the World Cup and the Bledisloe, we lurch through these games that really don't mean much. And yes it is 'Test Rugby' but does that cut through to the wider sporting public any more?
Somewhat paradoxically it's why I'm a fan of three-test series like Ireland last year. It gives matches a meaning, a reason for people to watch beyond just the fact it's test rugby.
The World League concept may not fix that, but there is a chance it might help. A game against Italy can be seen in a broader picture - we need the points to take us to third on the ladder, and if Wales lose to Argentina we may jump to second.
-
@Machpants sounds like it is bollocks - at least if you take the player comments etc at face value. Even Tew danced around how they put forward the player concerns and emphasis on this being good for pacific unions.
From Pichot's tweets he also highlighted some stuff that he disagreed with, or further info that either hasn't made it out, or he's clouding the picture intentionally.
Who knows for sure? but my feeling is that WR has been caught on the hop, which is in itself concerning given their 'consultation' etc. Will be very interesting to see what they go to from here!
-
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby:
@mariner4life said in World League Rugby:
they are not friendlies, they are tests. Also i find the way you said that pretty condescending considering for the past few years, those teams have absolutely been your peers (okay, maybe not Italy, they are fucking rubbish).
If you require some points system for the end of the year to get eyeballs, perhaps you have already lost? Is this just coming back to the biggest problem being the Wallabies are a bit rubbish?
I think plenty of scribes often refer to the June and November tests as friendlies. They serve no purpose apart from World Ranking points.
I guess the question is are you happy with the current system? If no, what do you propose as a solution?
No i am not happy with the current system. But only because of the relative weakness of the Africans and especially the Aussies, and the disappointing lack of improvement in Argentina. If you could guarantee me 6 close, tense test matches against those teams every year i would probably take it.
Given the severe roadblocks, limitations, and constraints in place, i am not too sure what SANZAR could do any better to be honest.
As for can i see a solution? Not one that benefits NZ to be honest. I am not sure how you structure some sort of global season given the limited number of nations, the huge wealth disparity, the spread of nations, the strength of the European club game and the 6N, while simultaneously taking in to account commercial realities and player welfare.
And unlike Barbarian's take on the tests in Australia, i can see some teams looking at the end goal, and resting players for the game in NZ to target a game in Aus the week after, as it gives the best chance of 5 points and heading up the table. That's arrogant, but also a very real possibility.
If the current structures are maintained up North, i pessimistically can't see many outcomes for a global season that don't end up being a soccer-like model. And that absolutely sucks for NZ.
-
Perhaps they need to look at other professional sports and how they divide up the revenue earning of each competition. I believe the Premier League soccer is split evenly amongst the 20 clubs, I believe the NFL has something similar.
Perhaps a revenue sharing model whereby a certain percentage of the profits of each game are split 50/50. We seem to have a very lopsided system at the moment which heavily favours the unions with the biggest populations and stadiums etc.
I really have no idea however it has to be seen as a positive that they are discussing it.
-
This is an interesting read, and relevant. Saw it on sportsfreak
not finished it yet, but here is it is:
Ben Ryan: ‘If rugby were a company people would be comparing it to an Enron’
Fiji’s gold-medal winning sevens coach tells Robert Kitson he is unhappy with the direction he believes the game is moving in – from the treatment of tier-two nations to laws being overlooked by referees
Sportsfreak:
(https://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/a-solution-looking-for-a-problem/) -
@nzzp said in World League Rugby:
This is an interesting read, and relevant. Saw it on sportsfreak
not finished it yet, but here is it is:
Ben Ryan: ‘If rugby were a company people would be comparing it to an Enron’
Fiji’s gold-medal winning sevens coach tells Robert Kitson he is unhappy with the direction he believes the game is moving in – from the treatment of tier-two nations to laws being overlooked by referees
Ben Ryan. Guardian.
-
@rotated said in World League Rugby:
@Nepia said in World League Rugby:
@rotated You seem to be the only one who is looking at this positively - what are your reasons?
Even if the ABs make the semi-finals and final they will play 1 test less than their current non-RWC year schedule. >
In one of the reports they said that there would probably be a second Bledisloe test; so if that happens, the number of tests will be the same.
-
-
@raznomore Fiji is doing pretty well, I think?
-
@Stargazer I think Fiji has been one of the better administered PI unions. Perhaps due to the influence (and their success) of 7's?? Samoa has had a torrid time, as has Tonga. Really sucks how badly that has effected their players and the flow on for tapping into their full pool of talent for internationals fixtures.
-
@raznomore said in World League Rugby:
The Island Unions are corrupt to the point of already doing what the World League is proposing to do to them.
If this was to go ahead we would see more PI players heading to league. Tonga is certainly already headed that way.
This, its not like they are going to suddenly get their shit together if they become part of this.
-
At the end of the day you have to have promotion/relegation to ensure you have the top 12 nations. Having USA/Japan guaranteed does not mean they will instantly become competitive. If the US want access to broadcasting money then they need to do the hard yards and qualify for the top 12 IMO. Would having only 1 team promote/relegate be more palpable to Scotland and Italy?
World Rugby should be the ones dictating the competition and selling it to the broadcasters, not the broadcaster dictating World Rugby.
I also believe having the tier 2 world league being broadcast and promoted could only benefit those countries.
Ideally a platform like Kayo here in Aus where you simply pay $25 a month (Can be shared by 2 people) giving you access to all rugby streamed to any device is the way forward.
Also the length of the broadcast deal is ridiculous, so much can change in that time. I really believe technology will change the way we digest sport.
What they are doing with VR in the NFL is surely just the start and as that technology improves it will become a very immersive experience.
-
@chimoaus What I would like from a broadcaster (apart from NZ levels of rugby camera/ director or Aust cricket) is the ability to chose my own camera and commentary team. I appreciate the BW considerations, but it's my wish list.
-
The ironic thing in this whole scenario is how much the local media has gone into overdrive about the snub of the Pacific Islands (with the usual array of Taffs going into overdrive about poaching etc), and how little they have said about the emerging nations on their own doorstep (Georgia etc).
-
It's an amazing reach for a single Herald article, which was (like most of these things) just some possibilities reported as certainties. Does show that WR would do better if it was totally open about it's discussions, rather than doing everything behind closed doors whilst the people that really count (the public that care about rugby) are supposed to wait like children for their masters decisions.
