By Nick (KIA)
September 26th 2008 @ 6:13am
Loading ...World Series of rugby – the IRB strikes back
Richie McCaw is quoted in the New Zealand Herald, supporting a new concept (well, new to me at least) for a World Series of Rugby.
The story is based on one reported in the UK’s Daily Mail. This concept is being mooted by the IRB as a counter measure to the progressively meaningless nature of international rugby matches played outside of the Six and Tri- Nations competitions.
The new competition would be run every two years and between World Cups. The teams to be involved are those you might expect from a IRB initiative – New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England, Wales, France, Ireland, Scotland, Italy and Argentina.
The structure is to be decided, but it may be a round robin competition with each side playing the other over the course of the year. Tri and Six Nation matches would contribute points to this competition. A final series would be played, most likely in the northern hemisphere for a stack of cash.
Off the top of my head there are a number of positives to this initiative. Assuming the participating nations buy into it (and they are likely to given the amount of cash likely to be on offer), it should improve the quality of inter hemisphere internationals, leading to improved advertising and TV revenues, increase funding to the global game and be a boost to the bottom line for nations producing talented players.
Thinking on the other side of the ledger, this is likely to reduce the number of opportunities for other nations to get games against the anointed 10. And what of our Pacific Island neighbours – surely they should and could be accommodated?
Seems like great fodder for a Roar discussion in these scant rugby times – hack away!
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(8)
Benjamin said | September 26th 2008 @ 6:53am | Report comment
I think that it would be more sensible to actually reduce the amount of international games as opposed to whoring the concept even further. Have tours during alternate years and that way allow players a proper summer recovery period.
Nick (KIA) said | September 26th 2008 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I suspect there is a demand for more high end rugby product rather than less. Compare number of games other professional codes play. This is especially the case in the southern hemisphere.
This issue will pit IRB and national unions vs powerful NH clubs. Currently it’s my bias that the clubs are earning too much of the $$$, which is skewing the competitiveness of international sides. This is acting in a number of ways – NZ losing top quality players to clubs in north with big cheque books, NH sides development affected by influx of overseas pros, Argentina can’t get a start in regular international competitions, crappy midyear tours south, etc. This affects the quality of the international product and reduces it’s relative appeal.
In the end I think it comes down to the IRB needing to fight back against the tide – they’re losing the battle for the high ground. The IRB need to increase revenue/attractiveness of their product (internationals) if they are going to maintain control. Compare the situation in cricket with fluffy competitions now holding sway. Internationals remain the pinnacle in the rugby world, but this will not continue unless the balance is redressed. Currently, we’re looking at a downward spiral if change doesn’t come.
sheek said | September 26th 2008 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Obviously, this is revenue driven, & the concept must be respected.
On the flip side, while it helps the top 10 rugby nations get stronger, it doesn’t do anything for lower tiered nations. Okay, have the top 10, & from the revenue gleaned from that, have a 16 team mid-World Cup comp for teams ranked 11-26.
Play this tournament in 2009, 2013, 2017, etc. Use a World Cup style format of 4 pools x 4 teams, with top 2 progressing to quarters, semis & final.
This would provide competition for those nations under World Cup like conditions. I would be surprised if it didn’t help those countries ranked 11-26.
Let’s look at who might compete – Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, USA, Canada, Uruguay, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Georgia, Russia, Netherlands, Czech Rep, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Namibia, China, Korea. That’s 20 teams already.
sheek said | September 26th 2008 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Personally, I see the FIFA model as the future of Rugby. Apart from the suggestions in the previous post, it’s obvious we need to adopt continent-like conferences.
We have the northern hemisphere 6 Nations, 1st & 2nd divisions (also 3rd, I think) & the southern hemisphere 3 Nations, to which Argentina ought to be added. Then there’s the Pacific rim comp involving Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, NZ B & Australia B. USA & Canada ought to be added to that.
You could consider an Asia top 4 of Japan, Korea, China & one other. Also, an African conference of 6-8 nations, minus South Africa, or perhaps involving an SA B team.
Then of course, there’s my mid-World Cups mini-WC style tournament format. Regrettably, traditional tours, with the probable exception of the Lions, might be a thing of the past. the calender is simply becoming too cluttered.
Matt said | September 26th 2008 @ 10:09am | Report comment
This concept shouldn’t increase the number of tests in the calendar, just make those current games which are not part of the 6N or 3N more important. This year the AB’s have already played the Boks and Wallabies. They have also already played the Irish and English and the Samoans. Then they will play Scotland, Wales, England (again) and Ireland (again).
All of these games would usually include the best possilbe players except the NH tours south (due to NH Club releases and the Samoan game (due to European club releases, through poor SH planning).
All this World Series would do is to make a couple of game more meaningful, plus add a whole lot more money and a new cup. Is this really the best way to get around the cluttered NH season?
What really should be done is to ensure there are strictly defined international windows whereby all International players are free from club duty at least 10 days prior to match day. Players still want to paly for their country and fans still want to watch International Rugby above domestic games, but the overlap of NH Club vs Country is the real issue.
And I don’t think this addresses the problem at all. The poorest nations (who would benefit the most from the prize money) Scotland, Argentina and Italy will still struggle to have proper access to their NH stars, just as Scotland are complaining about at the moment.
On the contrary, wealthy nations like England, who can afford to buy access to their players, will be the ones with the best shot at making the final and earning the cash that goes with it.
Something just doesn’t seem right about that?!
ROBBO said | September 26th 2008 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
On the case of an international Window does anybody have any suggestions how would work?
Seems unlikely the Nth hemisphere Clubs are going to accept wholesale changes so should we be looking outside the square.
Can Sth Hem teams move their spring tours to May/June to give a 6-week block where all nations players would be available – would give Euro comps 3-extra weeks in Nov to continue their season BUT would cut into Super Rugby.
I don’t know – any suggestions?
mtngry said | September 26th 2008 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
I like the idea because I want more rugby, I would even go as far to suggest a set of World Series Divisions.
Div 1 for teams 1-10, Div 2 for teams 11 to 20 and so on.
as for how the Int.Window would work? no idea.
ohtani's jacket said | September 29th 2008 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Considering we’ll never see a return to traditional tours, I suppose it might break up the four year slog, but I don’t think it’s something the rugby public are screaming out for. If they organise it properly it could be good, but if they’re following the Euro model I can’t see it succeeding. It would be a WC without the minnows, which may hurt the prestige of the Cup. If the Cup is even prestigious anymore.