By Boris Johnson -
July 19th 2009 @ 5:56am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Argentina: A giant in isolation
The Tri Nations are upon us again. The three Southern Hemisphere giants are about to go head-to-head in their annual competition for supremacy, south of the equator. With this renewed rivalry we must once again bring up the age old question: What do we do about Argentina?
Argentina deserve to be a part of one the the major annual competitions. Of this there is no doubt. The Five Nations brought in Italy in 2000 to make it 6 nations and the Tri Nations should do the same with Argentina. There are still questions concerning Italy and whether they deserve to be there, but there is no question over Argentina. They have steadily improved at every World Cup, beating France twice for third place in 2007 and are currently ranked sixth in the world by the IRB, and recently as high as third.
There is little reason for Argentina not to be included in one of the major annual tournaments and the Tri Nations is the obvious fit. The main issue for any competition is the distance. This years Tri Nations starts this week and lasts ten weekends. The tournament could be expanded to four teams if either of the following two solutions were adopted.
Solution 1: The tournament is based in one country and it rotated every year. Each team could play each other twice. The host country would get a huge influx of money every four years from television rights, ticket sales and from traveling fans.
Solution 2: The tournament is based in two countries, one at a time. Each team will play each other once then switch to the other country and play each other again. There could be a three to four week gap between moves to give players a rest and time to acclimatise.
The SANZAR members should realise that developing solid international competition is the only way to maintain long-term interest in the game of rugby at home. Developing a stable and competitive Argentina will maintain interest in international test matches and bring in revenue, which New Zealand and Australia sorely need.
They are playing a match in Tokyo this autumn for that very reason. But excursions such as this are only short-term money makers. The big returns come from big investments and expanding the Tri Nations to include Argentina is not only important to the development of the global game, but could save the SANZAR unions from obscurity.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
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...
(16)
Knives Out said | July 19th 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
Solution 3: Argentina are given a Super franchise which could include the majority of their best players. This would mean that the 3N could continue to travel.
Viscount Crouchback said | July 19th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
I disagree. Rugger does not need Argentina. They are a ghastly team to watch: negative, one-dimensional and frightfully immoral. These feverish calls for the established powers to go to their aid are simply silly. We heard similar piffle about Italy in the late 90s, and the Europeans made the terrible decision to invite them to join the 5N. They have been a blight on the tournament ever since. SANZAR ought to heed the lesson.
sheek said | July 19th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I’m in a rascally mood – do nothing.
The IRB isn’t interested in spreading the game, & SANZAR are in the process of dumbing down their own version of rugby (lotto).
And listening to my mates on The Roar – it’s all too hard, so do nothing.
Viscount,
Chuffed to have you back, old boy!
Katipo said | July 19th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Argentina should have been included in the 3N the last time the sanzar broadcast agreement was negotiated. At the time Nthe broadcasters said they were disappointed that sanzar didn’t include them. They will never get a start in a sanzar comp. Forget it.
So solution 3 then – don’t hang your hat on the 3N tournament its boring anyway – Argentina could tour a sanzar country during 3N time playing mid week matches and a couple of tests when the 3N teams have byes? I’d certainly roll up to the SFS to watch them play the ‘tahs/wallabies if they were here over the next couple of weeks. (I’m sure Robbie would be happy for a game before they go to Africa).
Solution 4: Argentina could start an American continental 4 nations with USA, Canada and Uruguay. Develop their own competitions and work on pulling the lower tier nations up to their high level. Eventually they will have the regular top level competition they desire. Might take 10-20 years but just move on and get on with it…
Steffy said | July 19th 2009 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
I keep hearing that union is a global game. If that is the case then Argentina should play in a south american competition.
Greg Russell said | July 19th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
There are two obvious problems with the “all games in one country” proposal (I therefore cannot call it a “solution”):
1. Who’s going to watch the games not involving the host team? Imagine Argentina vs South Africa in a tournament hosted in Australia. Maybe a few thousand expat Japies would turn up, but that’s about it. And there would be less than zero local media interest in such a match.
2. The countries want constant revenue streams, not once-every-four-year bonanzas.
Aside from all this, there’s a massive “chicken and egg” problem with Argentina: all their best players are contracted to European clubs and therefore are unavailable for a proposed 4N tournament. Of course maybe they would be based in Argentina if they could earn a good income from a 4N tournament, but no-one is going to admit Argentina until it can actually be guaranteed that their best players would be available.
This is the pragmatic basis for Sheek’s rascally “do nothing”.
As for KO’s “Solution 3″, I don’t believe a S14 franchise would be able to offer contracts big enough. I mean, even in Australia a basic S14 contract is about $120k pa, which is pittance compared with what Argentina’s players earn in France and England. Why would they come home for that?
Viscount C is tremendously politically incorrect, but there is a truth to what he writes.
Nick said | July 19th 2009 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
Steffy,
Argentina does play in a South American competition, it is just not up to scratch, so they field an ‘A’ team most years and still win by 80. Rugby union might be played on every island on earth, but it is only played to any real standard in less than 10.
Why does everything in Rugby Union have to be so complex? Here’s a simple way to run our game (in the South). Super 16, give South Africa the team they want to. Play March to August, with round-robin and a few extra ‘derby’ games. Make the competition open to any players, allowing Argentines to play here. Drop the Tri-Nations back to just home and away, with Argentina in it (Quad-Nations), running in September and October before the November northern tours. Play it over seven weeks, (a bye week in between). Sure flights to Argentina and South Africa in a should period is arduous but get over it.
We don’t need ‘conferences’, we don’t need to play the All Blacks four times a year, and having a closed house doesn’t provide us with the best game….
Knives Out said | July 19th 2009 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Mr.Russell,
I’d be willing to wager that the majority of Argentine big guns would take a pay cut in order to progress the Argentine cause. I also think that a lot of the big guns would prefer to play in the Super tournament simply because of the conditions. A mixture of stars and younger players from the domestic elite set-up would be more than competitive.
Viscount,
Your tongue in cheek argument over simplifies a complex matter. Professionalism has hurt Italian rugby badly and at the best of times progress is a slow process. It took France 30 years to win a 5N from their initiation and professional rugby hasn’t exactly progressed in a predictable patten since 1995. Italian rugby was strong during the 1990s and desreved to be included in a new tournament. You may well suggest that the Italians have been a ‘blight’ but that is nonsensical. They will beat their given handicap 70% of the time and that they haven’t consistently finished last blasts your comment out of the water. They have been a far stronger team than Scotland and had the 6N a bonus point system then Italy would have had much more successful seasons.
Argentina may play a tedious game, but then so does SA and nobody moans about that. Further, Argentina have the ability to play different games if they so choose. Their insistence upon mauling and kicking has been brought about by necessity more than anything due to short team sessions and the like. Anybody who is a fan of the Top 14 knows that Argentina has some quality backs.
Nelson said | July 19th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
I dont think the travel impediment is the major issue. Buenos Ares is a closer flight to auckland than capetown or joburg is, and closer from capteown than aus/nz is. it would basically involve doing a lap of the globe and the timezone adjustment may be worse than the actual travel.
the issue is player availiability and this is going to become more of an issue as more springboks head to europe.
anyway assuming players were available with careful schedling it could be done and would freshen up the tournament and eliminate the bye weekends.
for example this past weekend argentina could have played south africa in south africa
week 2 australia could fly on from NZ to arg so we would have Arg v Aus in BA and SA v NZ v Bloem
week 3 Arg v NZ in BA and SA v AUS in Capteown
rest week
week 5 Arg v Sa in BA, Aus v NZ in Syd
week 6 NZ v SA in wellington , Aus v Arg in Melbourne
week 7 NZ v Arg in cristchurch, Aus v Sa in Brisbane
Not perfect – Aus start with three away games and the Boks with three home games but the draw would obviously alternate over the cycle.. 3rd & 4th rounds of the Bledisloe could still be scheduled .
Brian said | July 20th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Surely you could just have teams play each other home and away so the travel is exactly the same for everyone
Week 1 – Arg v NZ, SA v Aus
Week 2 – NZ v Arg, Aus v SA
Week 3 – Rest
Week 4 – Aus v NZ, Arg v SA
Week 5 – NZ v Aus, SA v Arg
Week 6 – Rest
Week 7 – NZ v SA, Arg v Aus
Week 8 – SA v NZ, Aus v Arg
All done in 8 week & not one team disadvantaged by the travel. Further with 4 teams you could even give this competition a Final hosted by the top team rather than another Bledisloe game in Hong Kong.
I am not a huge fan of Argentina’s tactics but I feel they give Rugby WC a great non-anglo perspective, as do the French or the Pakis in the cricket.
AndyS said | July 20th 2009 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
The domestically based Argentina side competed in the Churchill Cup and couldn’t beat the Irish or English A teams. There is no way they will be helped by going up against the 3N teams.
If Argentina deserve to be exposed to top flight rugby, it has to be when their top international players are available. Given that all but one of their RWC squad were based in Europe, I would have thought it self evident that the competition they should be involved in is the 6N/EC. But I suppose if the IRB wish to step in and mandate that the clubs must release players for the August to October window that the 3N will be played in from 2010, with appropriate penalties if they fail to do so….
Working Class Rugger said | July 20th 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
AndyS
Yes, the Jaguars did lose to both Ireland A and the Saxons. But both loses were close. And the Jaguars didn’t play their best until the Plate Final. Both Ire A and the Saxons were full of long term professional whilst most of the Jaguars squad had only been professional for about 6 months. They are closing the gap.
Steffy
As was said above. Argentina regularly compete with Chile, Uruguay and Brazil in the CONSUR Cup. But as was mentioned above they easily account for each team. It would be of no benefit to them to play in that competition as the are an internationally competitive nation. Trying to sound clever by making comments like “I keep hearing that union is a global game. If that is the case then Argentina should play in a south american competition” are a little silly as Rugby League cannot boast any international tournaments on the continent.
sheek said | July 20th 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
I have thought about the carnival concept previously. That is, play the 4N in alternate countries – year 1, Argentina; year 2, South Africa; year 3, Australia; year 4 New Zealand.
But as pointed out by others, that’s not really satisfactory. Anyway, I think Argentina’s place in the 3/4N is just one of many problems facing the IRB (although in truth it’s a SANZAR issue).
Perhaps the IRB should ask themselves exactly what they want their game to be? To put Argentina in the 3/4N, & change international structures around requires a lot of financial investment.
The IRB are certainly holding countries wishing to host the world cup to extortion, so you think they should have enough revenue to play with. Unless of course, they’re spending it on their own remuneration.
Anyway, I’m weary of the topic. Argentina ought to be in the 4N, & heaven & earth ought to be moved/rearranged, in order to accommodate them. But maybe the powers that be aren’t that interested.
Rowdy said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:12pm | Report comment
As someone above said, they play in Europe anyway, so bring them into the 6N, based in Spain.
The Boks as well, while we’re about it !
Knives Out said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
They play in Europe because European clubs play their wages, Rusty. The French clubs would not release the Argentines to play. That’s why they are so popular, the nation has some great players, and they are able to play during the 6N block.
The Boks are welcome into the 6N, but they’d have to bring their A game. Some of the recent play just wouldn’t cut the mustard.
Bay35Pablo said | July 22nd 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Boris,
“There is little reason for Argentina not to be included”
1. Travel.
2. Availability of players, who mostly play in Europe.
Solution 1 doesn’t work for various reasons, one of which is the TV coverage. ABs v Boks in Buenos Aires at 2am won’t rate its socks off in Australia, and TV is where the cash comes from.
It would be great to bring them in, but the fact Argentina has only recently started moving to professionalism at home is a big issue. They are 15 years behind SANZAR in that regard, but will catch up fast. The other Americas nations are even further behind, including the US.
The first step would be to drop the current 3N back to home and away to fit them in, and that will be difficult enough.
Involving them is a 5-10 year project, just for the lead in, to deal with the various issues, and needing agreement of several unions that couldn’t even agree on top 6 finals for the S14 at one stage!!