Time for a rugby revolution?
Post categories: Rugby
| 11:33 UK time, Friday, 17 November 2006
Inevitably the rugby headlines this week have been dominated by the fallout of .
Equally inevitably that has overshadowed the measure of Argentina's achievement in pulling off their .
The current Argentina squad are fired, as their eloquent captain and scrum half, says, by a strong sense that they are the outsiders of world rugby.
The victory over England was only the latest in a string of good results against the world's top sides. They've beaten France and Wales on the last four occasions they've met and last summer only lost 25-19 to the All Blacks in Buenos Aires.
Last Saturday former Ireland captain Keith Wood said on our programme from Dublin that playing against Argentina had provided some of the hardest physical challenges of his career.
In short they are a rough, tough and skilful bunch of rugby troubadours that no one wants to play.
The game is still amateur in Argentina so its country's top players are scattered around Europe earning their living - and the national side can't find a tournament to develop their potential in either hemisphere.
The Pumas have applied to join the Tri-Nations down under and recently the - potentially from a base in the rugby-hot area of northern Spain - but no one it seems wants them.
, but wherever they go the Argentinians lack a vital ingredient if they want the welcome mats rolled out - money.
A lack of TV money to throw in the pot has stifled their ambitions. Put simply why should three wealthy, money generating rugby nations such as New Zealand, Australia and South Africa want to share their earnings with a fourth poorer relation?
Turkeys are still not voting for Christmas - and without intervention and financial support they probably never will.
Revolution is what is needed - and let's not forget that Argentina's most famous son was a serious rugby player in his youth before asthma took its toll.
It has happened in other sports. Golf's 'European' tour now takes in events in four continents.
If rugby's leaders truly believe in making the sport global now is the time for action. Is the Seven Nations played over seven weeks with each side only having one weekend free such a mad idea?
Italy, the last team to enter the , ran the Australians close (18-25) last Saturday and continue to show the benefits that have come with year-on-year involvement at the highest level.
Their opponents this Saturday, Argentina, will arrive in Rome with a certain envy in their hearts. Can they make their point for a second week running? Don't bet against it.
**Thanks for your reactions to my first venture onto the blog last week. I appreciate the vehemence of the comments about match coverage in particular.
I don't want to raise it again this week but would reiterate that we do take the issue very seriously and as you have shown it is the key element of coverage in any sport.
Hope nobody will need to scream at the TV this weekend when we have live coverage of Scotland v Pacific Islanders (Sat, KO 2.35pm) and Ireland v Australia (Sunday KO 4pm).
Before that in Sunday Grandstand from 2.50 we will have highlights of England v South Africa and don't forget those highlights are also available on ´óÏó´«Ã½3 on Saturday at 7pm.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment
I think the problem with Argentina joining the 6N or 3N is not just money, but a lack of a domestic league. The IRB wants the game to expand worldwide, but to do so you need a strong league supporting your international side - and despite having a strong National side Argentina don't have the league.
Argentina couldn't join the 3N because they couldn't compete in the super-14, because their national compettition is amateur. There's no advantage for Europe to add the Argentinians to their compettition, because an Argentinian national side - based in Spain - will not promote the development of the national compettition (Argentinian or Spanish).
For all that we would love Argentina to play in one of the big compettitions, the first thing they need to do is have their national compettition turn professional, then they only can be considered.
If International Rugby is to continue to develop it needs the likes of Argentina to be provided with regular competitive opposition.
It would be very difficult for them to get involved in the Tri-Nations, since many of their best players are based in the Northern Hemisphere,and the Tri-Nations calendar clashes with a part of the Northern rugby season.
Inviting them into the Six Nations is one solution, but needs to be carefully considered. It isn't just Argentina whose development is at stake - the likes of Spain, Romania, Uruguay and the Pacific Island Nations also need regular competition, and it might well be worth setting up a two-divisional structure for the Six Nations if those countries are interested in becoming involved (with 2 divisions of six and one up, one down).
This won't happen overnight though. International Rugby bosses will need time to develop a coherent strategy that benefits all the participating nations.
Argentina should definitely join either the Six or Tri Nations - the problem is I'm not sure which it should be?
Carl,
You say...
"Turkeys are still not voting for Christmas - and without IRB intervention and financial support probably never will."
Surely the IRB should be spending it's time looking after rugby matters and not bribing poultry into supporting religious festivals?
Thought the coverage from Ireland last week was excellent by the way, keep it up.
I think Argentina joining the six nations to make seven would be a great idea. Rugby has to look at broadening its apeal and to bring in a team from South America would do this.
They have consistently shown over the last couple of seaons they are a match for the european sides and think they would do better than italy and possibly match others who are not at their best. Regular top class competition would also help their game and as many of their players play in europe anyway, why not. There is interest in rugby in spain, and from a spectator point of view, it would be a great away day.
We need to bring in more competition and making a 7 nations would do this
I definitely believe Argentina should be included in either the Six Nations or Tri Nations. Since most of their players are based in Europe it would make sense for it to be in the Six Nations tournament.
I guess the issue would be what would Argentina's home ground be?
Argentina should play in the tri nations with NZ and the rest, they are a southern hemphisphere side and why should we in the north be stretched to 7 weeks of rugby, taking plyers away from their clubs for even longer when as mentioned the trio nations is there natrual home, the irb should front up and make the decision if they want to expand rugby globally!!
Extending the 6 nations to 7 would put even more pressure on the players by increasing the number of games they play. Logistics would also be a problem for players and supporters.
What about an Americas tournament, Argentina, USA, Canada etc, this seems far more workable to me. It would give the once great Canadian team a platform as well as encouraging other teams in that region to get involved in high level rugby, something we all want.
If rugby union is to maintain its increased profile and popularity, thereby contributing to the continuation of an improving economic climate within the sport, there must be a loosening of the stranglehold of a small handful of nations on the ability to win the World Cup. Argentina do well with little money and Fiji and Samoa do well with mass emigration of talent to their antipodean neighbours. Unfortunately they are unlikely to be able to challenge for major honours without much needed investment. There is self interest for all the major nations, as people will soon get bored of the same few teams dominating world rugby, and walk with their wallets. (though the all blacks may worry that the pool of talent from the pacific islands would be less accessible?!)
On the point of Spain joining the 6 nations, i have always thought the 6 nations should be extended into 2 or 3 divisions, with say divisions of 5, england, wales, france, scotland, ireland in divsion 1, italy, spain, romania and 2 others in div 2. with a 2 up and 2 down basis.
This will ultimately give spain,romania more competitive matches - plus if they finish in top 2 - a better class of opposition on a regular basis
plus nations like georgia, portugal, russia etc will also gain good experience, which will hopefully help future world cups.
All the premier rugby nations have a responsibility to help smaller rugby nations. I think the northern hemisphere sides have done a good job of this playing the likes of Romania and Canada in the autumn internationals.
But I don't think the southern hemisphere does enough - both Argentina and the Pacific Islands should be in the tri-nations. And in fact we actually have the likes of New Zealand and Australia stealing players from the Pacific Islands for their own national sides!
I think with the tri-nations sides it's about money - and they wont get as much tv money playing the likes of Argentina - but that's wrong, rugby shouldn't be about money! They should be helping the smaller rugby nations like the northern hemisphere has done with Italy! And look at Italy now!!!
A two tier Six Nations with relagation and promotion would be a disaster, just like the Guiness Premiership. It would end rugby as a beautiful game because every team would want to play negatively and defensively instead of running rugby. It might suit England but the other five nations are more about expression than attrition. I like the idea of a Super 5. Argentina, Canada, USA, Pacific Islands and Japan.
Every year you could hold a mini-World Cup; the best of the 6N, Tri-nations and the Super 5 could play each other like a Champions League. That would be great entertainment and develop those nations.
As a Kiwi I would love to have the Pumas play in the Tri-Nations but it just isn't practical with the way it is set up. How can you structure a tournament where teams play home and away in South America, Africa, Australian and NZ. The journey to South Africa and theirs to NZ and Aussie is already a hard enough disadvantage to get over let alone travelling to Argentina. Bring in los Pumas and have the tournament based in one country every four years.
I would really really love to see Argentina develop into the team everyone knows they can be, because as it is, the same old rugby elite will always be there, and eventually it will get pretty boring (think of how everyone is already complaining that the All Blacks are pretty much a certainty for next years World Cup?).
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the bigger nations dont care, and the IRB hasnt done very much. As has been pointed out, money rules, and Argentina just dont have enough. But I think that this is a case where the IRB just need to make the initial investment, and provide more financial support to Argentina (AND other developing nations) because once the game grows it will be able to sustain itself. Without it, the game won't grow/be popular enough to attract the crowds and marketing and tv that will then be able to keep it going.
Argentina are a far better Rugby side than many people give them credit for and they deserve more opportunities to express themselves. However, which tournament they join (if any) is difficult to decide, in the 7N's they would not have a home ground nor are they a northern hemisphere side, (my geography lessons from years gone by suggest the existing teams are!) In the 3N's Argentina are a southern hemisphere side, yet they would create an issue with travelling, the physical demands this would bring over a short period of time and quite possibly the limited marketing opportunities available. Until we live in a more Utopian society where each person, country, rugby nation etc etc is given a fair chance... I'm afraid merchandising money and TV rights will continue to speak volumes. Unfortunately.
I think the comments regarding a two/three tier six nations or European rughy tournement is the option the IRB should be looking at.
My only contentious issue would be to invite both Canada and USA to play in the lower divisons.
With regards to this clashing with tours etc. My answer is simply, stop them! A genuine competition will be much more beneficial to these developing teams than being battered by the big guns year on year.
Another option is to allow them to place Churchill cup rugby?
There's not enough room in the English Rugby calendar as it is. Argentina joining the 6 Nations would only make things worse.
Not sensible, pretty soon there will be an annual World Cup. You see the flaw with this; they would be welcome in the Tri Nations, but all their players (most) play in Europe during the Southern Hemisphere winter. It's a tough one, maybe more Argentinian's should try for contracts in NZ/ Aus /SA.
What about the recently proposed Tri-Nations tournament and Super 12 league between Argentina, USA and Canada?
USA Rugby CEO Kevin Roberts told The Times' Stephen Jones about this a month ago. This is an excellent proposal for rugby in the Americas. It might keep some players at home, but even in the event that international players from these nations have pro Euro contracts, the international rugby calendar for Canada, USA and Argentina is the same (despite the hemisphere differences) and does not conflict with the season in Europe.
Memo to Britain: USA and Canada are in the Americas. The Americas is a much more "natural home" and fit for Argentina. These countries have the same time zones, making it ripe for TV potential, and you eliminate the jet-lag time-zone differences.
Sure, you'll get some snobs with their noses in the air insisting that Canada and USA are beneath Argentina.
But in fact the IRB rankings do not bear this out. Canada and USA are closer to Argentina in IRB ranking points than Argentina is to NZ. If Argentina -- or Pollyanna Brits -- believe Canada and USA are beneath Argentina, then this is surely the pot calling the kettle black.
And if an Americas 3N does succeed and the sport grows and develops in the Americas, then maybe Uruguay will want to join their "natural partners" and form a 4N in the same way Argentina wants to barge in and become a member of a 4N ten-thousand miles away.
Yes, Uruguay is a minnow now. But they are only 15 IRB ranking points beneath their neighbour Argentina, which is the same 15 point differential that Argentina is beneath NZ on the IRB rankings. (And Uruguay isn't eight time zones removed.)
The IRB and/or Super14 bigwigs should form 2 franchises in South America, and foot the bill to have the best Argentinians return to play in those teams. At the same time the Argentine RU should speak with the US & Canada to get their domestic programs involved in the new annual North American 4 competition that has been introduced to improve the US & Canadian domestic rugby.
Although Argentina are the best of the non-6N and 3N sides at the moment, I think we should remember there are other improving teams (Fiji/Samoa/Pacific Islands; Canada; USA; Romania; Japan...). Perhaps the best long-term solution, in terms of spreading a love of rugby and improving standards of play around the world, would be a two-tier annual competition for Europe (with one up, one down, rather than two - then getting the least points will be even more ignominous than at present, which I believe would increase competition) AND a separate competition for the burgeoning sides around the Pacific and in South America (including Canada, Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, Japan, etc). Of course, this can only come with sufficient local support and sponsorship; but a blueprint for making rugby more truly a world game would be wonderful and timely, as it IS the same few teams which have dominated the sport for many years now.
Argentina should play in the tri nation to become but i also think maybe a pacfic island side should take part and play just a one match league like the 6 nation. and travel is not a big problem as they will the same number of home/away games as now. expanding rugby to other countries will lead to more money. and shorten the number of games i would actually get rid of the henkin cup and have a american style playoff at the end of the year. but i am thinking out of the box.
I think purely on a sporting view, the 6 nations would benefit greatly from having another team in it. The fact that Argentina are a very competitive team, with some real quality is a bonus.
It would be nice to think that the world of rugby would help invest to develop a Rugby infrastructure in Argentina. But I don't know what problems this may cause elsewhere in the world of rugby.
I think Argentina in the 6Ns is the way to go but why based in Spain? Surely the way to develope rugby in Argentina and get that professional structure is to have them playing at home in Buenos Aires? TRavel isn't so difficult and with having 7 teams in the competition, you'd have one team havingh a week off. That team flies to Argentina to aclimatise...letg's face it, Australia and NZ aren't exactly close to SA are they!?
They have to put the cart in front of the horse with Argentina. Give the national side a bigger role in world rugby in the hope it helps the game develop more back home.
A two tier system in europe would not work for a number of reasons
1. It would create a neagtive pattern of defensive play - look at the difference between rugby in the super 14 and Magners versus the GP. In the GP teams are too concerned with not bieng relegated to play entertaining rugby.
2. I doubt if the richer 6N teams would allow it to happen can you imagine if England had the wooden spoon would the RFU be happy about them being relegated?
3. Most years it would be a yoyo between Italy and Rumania - hardly developing either nation.
4. Money
To think it will occur is just madness - Rugby isn't football - it is better than that but it will never replace it as a mulitinational sport and even football doesn't have a two tier league - in europe it has the european championship - perhaps that model would work - 4 pools of 4 teams each say -position decided by merit. But then none of the current non English teams would want to miss the chance of beating England.
I think Argentina should be allowed to join the 6Ns, they play with flair and passion. One of my favourite things about the 6Ns is that we all have so much history together that it makes for exciting and passionate games; Argentina can only add to this mix. The more the merrier. Let's sign them up for the 7Ns before we lose them to 3Ns.
Whether Argentina were to join the Six Nations or the Tri Nations, it would be impractical and would cost a lot of money, and in the professional game, that's what matters most.
Though I like the idea of the team being based in Argentina, I believe the best alternative is direct action by the iRB:
A clause should be made that all 9 teams of the two main tournaments should be obliged to play Argentina three times (at least once in Argentina) over the course of four years.
This means, that while Argentina does not have the advantage of a tournament, it does mean that they will be playing about 7 games a year against credible and professional opposition.
At least it's a step in the right direction.
Any annual competition should be done on a regional basis. Then each region should take responsibility for developing the national game. Like many other people, I think a 2-tier system would really be the best for true competition. Imagine England playing in the 2 tier group!? It would certainly force beneficial changes!
It's a bit poor to have the now sixth ranked team in the world being excluded from regular, competitive international competition.
If Argentina are willing to make the sacrifice of playing home internationals in a foreign land, then surely something can be done by the NH to meet them halfway?
Alternatively, with Canada putting 26 points past Wales, maybe rugby in general in the Americas is of a higher quality than some of us think. Is an Americas tournament (US, Can, Arg, Uruguay?) viable followed by(as someone above says) having the winner of the 6N, 3N & Americas meet in a rugby league style Tri-Nations?
There are lots of options out there and just about all of them sound better than continuing to deny a hugely talented Argentine team the oxygen of regular competitive international rugby.
Although I do feel that the Pumas need help, I doubt it would be best to join the 6 nations.
The tournament has gone from 5 to 6 in the attempt to help out Italian Rugby. If we do the same with the Pumas, aren't we just adding to an already saturated Rugby calender?
If anywhere, the Southern Hemisphere side should enter the Tri Nations to build up there Rugby Time, or a Tri Nations between USA, Canada & Argentina.
I dont think it will help if Argentina join the 6 nations, the tri nations should stop being stubborn and allow Argentina to join. It makes more sense to have a Northern Hemisphere competition and a Southern Hemisphere one. The 6 nations has only expanded to 6 recently and 7 would be a bit excessive.
An americas tournament probably wouldnt work great as the positions would almost always be: 1. Argentina, 2. Canada, 3. USA, 4. Uruguay.
Maybe the Pacific Islands could also join the tri-nations or alternatively the likes of Argentina, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga could create their own tournament.
Although the idea of a 2 tier 6n is great in theory, in pratice it would be a disaster. For example such is the way with 6n rugby currently, that england could concievably be the wooden spooners. Take engand out of the 6n, and you will get whoever replaces them recieving hidings. Rugby is not Soccer. GIven the structure of the game itself, its just plain dangerous. And there is no point in an americas league for the same reason, the gap is too large, argentina would make a mockery of canada curently. The point about the league is an interesting one. I bieleve the next step in Argentina's revolution is one professional franchise based in beunos aires when the super 14 expands next. A argentinian team, and a pacific islander team, or a melbourne based team would add to the competition.
i think they should start up a tri nations between argentina, canada abd the USA. in the tri nations they would be blown away and in the six nations the calander would go way over the top.
Gareth, soccer does have a two-tier system admittedly without upy-downy nonsense - Champs league and Uefa Cup.
4n in America, 6/7n in Europe and 5N in Asia Pacific is the best way forward - so each grouping is going to have a whipping boy for a few years, but we've got to develop these national sides to grow the game.
Argentina deserves to join the Six Nations. The perfomance on the field is a true statement. What other proof is necessary?
Totally agree with the previous posts about starting an Americas 3/4N competition...this should be supplemented by a club competition, however 12 teams may be 2 too many, remember the super 14 was originally super 10.
So as the countries improve and support is confirmed there can be additional "franchises" added.
Taking this a point further the restructure of the northern hemisphere season is long overdue - something along the lines of a 32 team European Cup (magners league + GP + French and Italian).
OK it would mean the GP clubs being stripped down but it would create a more attacking style of rugby, something that will get bums on seats, and that will please the money men!
As a former amateur of the argentine rugby union, I find it heartening to see the general consensus on the need to figure a way to include developing rugby nations into scheduled international tournaments.
The challenge is where does each nation fit and how do you go about the economic and logistic implications. I shall focus on Argentina as it is what I'm more knowledgeable about:
Location:
Bear in mind that Argentina is geographically very isolated from ALL other developed rugby nations. Do not limit yourselves to consider North vs. South, consider Occident vs. Orient. Argentina is just as far away from London as it is from Auckland.
Also consider that at no time was the 6N defined as a NH tournamet or the 3N as a SH tournament. The fact is that these tournaments are based on geographic proximity.
As most of Argentina's professional players are in the EU, it would make most sense to join the 6N tournament. Likewise, I would imagine that pacific teams such as W.Samoa and Fiji would most likely join the 3N due to the geographic proximity and the amount of players playing in the NZ/Aussie tournaments.
Econimics / logistics:
We are very proud of the amateur status of our rugby league. We play with friends from childhood and defend the colours of our club ... a club we love. We play the game because we love it.
Be aware that our rugby league is very healthy from a size standpoint. The game grows in popularity (we have more registered players than other great rugby nations like Ireland). What does need to be professionalized (big internal issue currently in the UAR) is the Pumas. For the Pumas to grow, we need to develop the economics and the international exposure.
Joining the 6N would provide the much needed international exposure the Pumas need on a regular basis. I also believe they would contribute to enrich that fabulous tournament.
Playing out of northern Spain would present several benefits:
i. Logistically it would be an easy and relatively inexpensive way of expanding.
ii. Expanding the game: while the Pumas would benefit from the tournament experience, you would also help develop rugby in Spain.
Rugby in Spain is more developed in the north (close to France) and Spain would be a naturally supportive environment for the Pumas, given the strong cultural and historic links between Argentina and Spain.
This is crazy. Argentina have no claim to a 6N place. It's a European tournament which is built around 20000 Welsh fans flocking to Edinburgh for the weekend. Geographically, it doesn't make sense. This is such a knee jerk reaction. Argentina have been beating good teams at home for decades and have only beaten a poor England. Why didn't people call for this when they beat Ireland a few years ago? (yes I know 1 or 2 did but not as many as now).
Argentina deserve their place (and have done for a few years) in a southern hemisphere tournament where teams (if not supporters) travel thousands of miles for games. I don't want to do that journey every 2 years, it's enough of a hell hole to visit once (joke).
In my opinion, rugby has a big problem which can only be solved by making every team compete on a level playing field. Allign the southern and northern seasons. Move our calander to the summer (better weather for better rugby) and players don't have to be flogged at the end of a long hard season to tour Australia or NZ or South Africa.
Pipe dreams about numerous and well coordinated international leagues between don't provide a practicle solution when it's needed - now!
The issue is: Argentina need to be in a competition with the other top rugby playing nations. (Canada the USA and Uruguay are not top rugby playing nations.)
This means them playing in either the 6N or 3N and the 3N won't have them. This leaves one solution.
Yes, it sounds sensible that Argentinian should be admitted to the 3N (along with the Pacific Islands) and they should have a Super 14 team or two, but it's not happening so lets have them in the 6N even if it is only on a temporary basis.
Those that say there's not enough room in the rugby calendar should remember that this is particularly an English problem and that Argentina's rugby development shouldn't suffer as a result.
In Europe we should have an 8 Nations with Georgia and Romania promoted. Each year the bottom team must playoff with the top team in 6 Nations B (FIRA european nations cup) you could possibly include Canada and USA in 6 Nations B?
We should scrap the Guinness prem, Magners league, French top 14, Italian Super 10 and just have 1 European league with 14 english, 14 French, 4 Welsh, 3 Italian, 4 Irish, 3 Scottish and 1 Franchise each from Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and 2 from Russia (Russia already has a professional league).
Split the teams into 3 conferences of 16 with each team playing each other once and play-offs at the end of the season. This means less club games but more intensity. It helps develop the game in mainland Europe and leaves more time for test match rugby (there are far too many pointless club games at the moment).
In the southern hemisphere they should stop being selfish and put Argentina, Pacific Islanders and Japan into the Tri-Nations and in the Super 14, give Argentina 2 franchises and Japan 1 (based in Tokyo) as well as Tonga, Fiji and Samoa (as they are) this would also stop NZ, Aus from stealing the pacific islands players and allow Argentina players to come home.
Carl,
Could you explain why Keith Wood was the only member of your team to wear a tie for tonight's international from Dublin? Is it ´óÏó´«Ã½ policy to let presenters and pundits choose whether to wear one or not? Or did John, Jeremey and Jonathan get theirs confiscated at the airport?
Can I suggest that the issue is more than regular games for the tier two nations, its also about making the best coaches available and ensuring talented players are not lost from the international game.
The IRB needs to establish an elite technical coaching panel to get out to some of these tier two countries and work with the senior players and coaches. Imagine where Canada, the US, Japan could be in fifteen years if the right coaches were available.
Second, there needs to be a change in terms of player eligibilty requirements. While there are sound reasons to stop the top nations poaching talented players from the Pacific Islands and elsewhere, the rules should not stop a player from going from a top team such as the All Blacks and playing for the land of their birth after some stand down period. The reality is that rugby is now a professional game, young players will make an economic decision - play for the country where the financial return is greatest or play for my home country? I'm sure Owen Hargreaves thought about playing football for Canada for about half a second before deciding to play for England. A Samoan team that was able to include discarded All Blacks at next years World Cup would be an interesting proposition.
Why not make two 5 nations competitions with promotion and relegation?
Keep the 6 nations that are currently in and add Georgia, Romania, Portugal and Argentina (who can play in Spain). In time (when things are stable) this can also be opened up to promotion and relegation to allow the likes of Germany, Spain, Russia and the Czech Republic a chance.
Interesting point raised and brings into focus the larger issue of the development of International rugby.
Rugby needs teams like Argentina to be sucessful and they should be playing in the Tri Nations and if the IRB has to fund it then fund it.
The credibility of the World Cup will be built on depth and not the current situation where it only gets interesting at QF stage.
It great to see the Pacific Islands team playing and guys getting time out in the middle but you have to ask what has happened to the likes of Fiji, Somoa and Tonga and why they aren't stronger. We of course no the answer to this being the small matter of money or lack there of. The ball is firmly in the court of the IRB to deliver on there responsibilities in developing a global game!
Its all well and good saying saying the SH should take care of Argentina and admit them to the 3N. The big issue as I understand it is that the Tri Nations is not played in a recognised international window for the NH clubs. Therefore players playing for european clubs would not be released.
Argentina should be admitted into the tri-nations since they are a Southern hemisphere team. Having 7 countries in the 6 Nations would mean too many games. Top European players are already being stretched to the limit with overplaying, and adding a very tough physical game against Argentina would be just too much.
The 6 Nations should introduce a second division, but the winner of the second division should not be promoted automatically - instead they should get into a playoff against the bottom team in the main competition. Automatic promotion/regulation would not be a good idea as it would tend to lower the overall standard - currently all of the 6 Nations are considerably better than the rest.
In all the discussions about "6N Div2", it's been assumed that promotion/relegation will be an integral part of it - why?
A couple of commenters have remarked about the gulf between the 'Big 6' and the rest of Europe (how long has it taken Italy to become half-way compeditive?), so why have promotion/relegation - at least for now.
The IRB should grasp the European Rugby 'nettle' and create a European Championships featuring all the nations outside the 6N (right down to Malta); it could either be set up as a League based on IRB Rankings, or as Conferences with the nations split between them (again based on rankings) with a 'super 7' or how ever many Groups there are for the winners.
Once it's been running for, say, 5 years, then you could look at including the bottom 6N nation in the 'super xx' as a form of play-off.
But that would involve the IRB caring about the little rugby nations worldwide......
Mark Randall,
what you describes sounds very similar to the European Nations Cup, which already exists (check out the FIRA website).
Malta are by no means the worst team involved.
#22 Too Tall said:
"The issue is: Argentina need to be in a competition with the other top rugby playing nations. (Canada the USA and Uruguay are not top rugby playing nations.)"
That is probably true. But it is also equally true that the last time Argentina played Canada, in 2005, Canada prevailed. O-kay, so the excuse was Argentina didn't have it's best players--stop! Because Canada has precisely the same problem every time they play.
Tri-Nations of the Americas, as proposed by USA Rugby, is the simplest and most sensible win-win-win solution. And it comes with a league attached. There are no conflicts with the international and club calendar in Europe. These national teams play their tests at the same time of year (northern summer/southern winter). A professional league in the Americas would keep more players employed at home and grow the sport in front of a home fan base. It all helps build rivalries and develop the sport.
Canada has beaten good sides in the past. Many of those, like wins over Wales and France were 10-15 years ago (did I mention that Canada beat Argentina last year?) -- Canada was in the wilderness but they weren't playing violins about the Six Nations. It's time the Americas came together.
As somebody earlier pointed out, the IRB rankings have statistical values for all teams and Canada and USA are closer to Argentina than Argentina is to New Zealand. Canada will beat Argentina before Argentina beats NZ. They proved it last year. Naturally Argentina is the strongest team in the Americas, but as others have said they are not so awesome that they can turn their back on their neighbors. If they ever want to build rugby at home and host a RWC, they need to throw their lot with their natural partners running along the N-S longitude where games are played at same time of day, during a time of year when the best players have no professional conflicts and no "2nd-string" excuses. Thank you.
international leagues do work producing better players and more exciting rugby as shown by magners league and the super 14
Reason Argentina doesn't have a pro-rugby competition because they have a tv deal. They are in the same place NZ was b4 the news ltd deal in 1995.
Once they join a pro-international competetion they will have the funds to have a semi-pro - pro competition.