Nations Championship?
-
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby:
@antipodean This new comp will be more or less the same each year. That will become boring even faster.
What I also don't like is that the final - due to it taking place in November - will always be played in Europe/NH. We'll never be able to watch the final live here in NZ, or even the SH.
The boring aspect is playing a team multiple times in a year. Having to wait a year to get revenge for a loss is part of what makes the Six Nations such a good competition.
If we can get the NZRU to make the Bledisloe a one off game instead of a series, that might generate more interest in Australia too.
I agree it sucks about the location of the final, but if we get 50% of the gate that will help fund our game, so I can accept that.
-
I hadn't thought about this before, and some won't find this important, but the Maori All Blacks will also have to face the consequences of this new comp. If indeed - as proposed - all tier 1 and a large group of tier 2/3 nations will be involved in this comp (2 divisions), that reduces the number of possible opponents for the MABs, unless one (or more) of those countries is willing to add another test to their schedule.
If not, the MABs will only be able to play tier 2 and 3 nations not involved in the new comp, meaning they won't play countries like Japan, USA, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga anymore, but will have to play more countries at the level of Brazil and Chile; so less competitive games.
That's unless they organise games against the Barbarians and second XV teams like the French Barbarians, England Saxons, Argentina XV etc.
-
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby:
I hadn't thought about this before, and some won't find this important, but the Maori All Blacks will also have to face the consequences of this new comp. If indeed - as proposed - all tier 1 and a large group of tier 2/3 nations will be involved in this comp (2 divisions), that reduces the number of possible opponents for the MABs, unless one (or more) of those countries is willing to add another test to their schedule.
If not, the MABs will only be able to play tier 2 and 3 nations not involved in the new comp, meaning they won't play countries like Japan, USA, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga anymore, but will have to play more countries at the level of Brazil and Chile; so less competitive games.
That's unless they organise games against the Barbarians and second XV teams like the French Barbarians, England Saxons, Argentina XV etc.
Why wouldn't some of those teams play the MAB as a warmup before competition games? I don't see any restriction against doing that, and in fact since all the competion games have so much riding on them now (especially for teams like Fiji, Japan and the US) any squad experimentation will have to be done outside of the comp.
-
@Stargazer good, they are an anachronism that should only be wheeled out on the odd occasion.
I've sort of turned on this format now, and Kirwan's post below struck a cord with me. Be nice to watch something different all the time.
And a move away from 4-year world cup cycles ups the ante on players and coaches not to just fuck around with tests matches with an eye to the future.
-
I really like this idea, it adds meaning to the June tests and the November tests. The Rugby Championship is boring and I like the idea of having to play England and Ireland every year. In fact if we win our conference it is likely we will play Ireland,Wales or England twice a year.
Whilst some say it will diminish RWC I don't think it will. That Tournament has plenty of history and is exciting enough to stand on its own. Think Athletics or most sports that have a World Championships between the Olympics, the Olympics hasn't lost its meaning. Soccer also has the Euro competition as well.
If this allows better funding to the growing nations then I am all for it. If Fiji do in fact qualify for RC in the first season they will get one hell of a financial injection.
I have no doubt the All Blacks will play at least an additional 2 tests each year, 1 vs the Wallabies in Sydney for the cash and perhaps a game vs a t2 nation prior to the first June test. In theory we could play England, Wales and Ireland in June.
-
If the 6N sell to CVC it's dead in the water tho. Although I have no idea who the 6N will play in Nov as, if sold to CVC, they won't be part of the World Rugby reciprocal tests that is current and/or some new world league. They'd have to pay us to play, which wouldn't be bad, and they might not even come down south. CVC will be a total disaster for WR.
-
can someone explain that to me please? How can the 6N sell themselves? What is the asset?
-
The current set up is SANZAAR unions have agreed to pool their games for money in RC, 6N pool their games for money. OUtside of that there is the June/Nov tests, which are have been agreed to by the individual unions and WR. Once those agreements are over, there is no Jun/Nov tests, I don't know when the agreement is signed to. The unions own their games, not WR, but have agreements with WR for someof them, and agreements with SANZAAR/6N Rugby for others.
-
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby:
If not, the MABs will only be able to play tier 2 and 3 nations not involved in the new comp, meaning they won't play countries like Japan, USA, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga anymore, but will have to play more countries at the level of Brazil and Chile; so less competitive games.
The MABs might learn to scrum playing Brazil more often.
-
Different angle:
Nations Championship a hard sell for SANZAAR
Nations Championship a hard sell for SANZAAR
The SANZAAR unions may be in complete agreement on World Rugby's Nations Championship, but trickle-down economics may be a hard sell for their constituents.
-
@Stargazer How, this looks like a better deal for SANZAAR nations every way you look at it. Article seems to be written from a European pespective
-
-
@Stargazer it’s an interesting point to consider what’s going to happen to the next level down. But I would counter that the next level down, worldwide, has been wrecking international Tests for quite a while now.
So maybe this a step to address that imbalance (clubs not releasing players, for example).
The variety of the proposed comp, and the pathway for the Tier 2 & 3 countries to improve is just a benefit, it’s hard not to support it.
If I understand the structure right, doesn’t it mean that the lower Tier countries go from a handle for tests to a regular 11 tests a year? If so, that alone is going to improve teams massively.
As for the NPC and Super Rugby, maybe we need to merge those, bring back the tribalism and consolidate our resources?
-
@Kirwan Maybe I am missing something? I can't find anything in the article that I posted about Tier 2 & 3 countries.
I read about the (financial) effect the Nations Championship may have on SR and domestic competitions in the SANZAAR countries.I'd hate the idea of merging NPC and SR. NPC for me is purely domestic and still has the tribalism. SR doesn't have the same level of tribalism, but it's a higher level of club rugby against non-NZ opposition and I like it (although some modifications would be welcome).
-
@Kirwan No way the NZRU agrees to a one-match, winner-takes-all Bledisloe. Other than losing out on the money from an additional match, there's too much risk that the Wallabies win a one-off and take home the Cup.
A 2-match series, with the opener played in Aus increases the funds, but also gives the Aussies enough of a leg-up in the opening match such that there's a better chance of the 2nd match holding interest (but at the same time putting the odds of retaining the Bledisloe in the ABs' favour).
-
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Kirwan Maybe I am missing something? I can't find anything in the article that I posted about Tier 2 & 3 countries.
I read about the (financial) effect the Nations Championship may have on SR and domestic competitions in the SANZAAR countries.I'd hate the idea of merging NPC and SR. NPC for me is purely domestic and still has the tribalism. SR doesn't have the same level of tribalism, but it's a higher level of club rugby against non-NZ opposition and I like it (although some modifications would be welcome).
The nation championship includes promotion and relegation for the other tiers. It’s an integral part of the proposed league, so it’s important to consider that aspect when discussing if it’s worth implementing.
Tier 1 countries have been guilty of only worrying about things effect them in the past.
-
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
-
@Machpants said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
Haven't they ring fenced the 6N? So Scotland would still be in it, but be in Tier 2 of the Nations Championship?
-
@Kirwan said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Machpants said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
Haven't they ring fenced the 6N? So Scotland would still be in it, but be in Tier 2 of the Nations Championship?
That wouldn't be possible as Scotland would be in Tier 2 and wouldn't play the other six nations sides in their 11 matches. If Scotland did come last out of the Six Nations sides and lost the relegation match then perhaps they shouldn't be in the top tier. Stopping the expansion and growth of the game because Scotland/Italy are scared IMO are not big enough reasons to stop it.
Scotland could in Theory still play the Calcutta Cup outside the Nations Championship to raise funds.
The flip side is what do Fiji do with all of the money they are about to get in broadcasting if they are in Tier 1. Do all Tier 1 nations get the same cut of the money?
-
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Kirwan said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Machpants said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
Haven't they ring fenced the 6N? So Scotland would still be in it, but be in Tier 2 of the Nations Championship?
That wouldn't be possible as Scotland would be in Tier 2 and wouldn't play the other six nations sides in their 11 matches. If Scotland did come last out of the Six Nations sides and lost the relegation match then perhaps they shouldn't be in the top tier. Stopping the expansion and growth of the game because Scotland/Italy are scared IMO are not big enough reasons to stop it.
The flip side is what do Fiji do with all of the money they are about to get in broadcasting if they are in Tier 1. Do all Tier 1 nations get the same cut of the money?
Thanks. They also get a shot at staying up with the playoff game. If you come last, and can't beat the top team from Tier 2 then perhaps you should go down?
