Is it time to bring in the rugby friendly?
Roar Rookie By Rugby Man, 27 Jun 2012 Rugby Man is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- IRB, Rugby Union, Scotland rugby union, wallabies
Last gasp drama as Wallaby Mike Harris scored the winning points after the final siren against Wales (AAP Image/Joe Castro)
Related coverage
As the dust settles on the June Tests and the Wallabies head back to their respective Super XV teams most fans will be well and truly satisfied with the clean sweep over current Six Nations champions Wales.
Wales has been the dominant Northern Hemisphere side for the last twelve months.
If not for a little misfortune, they could have easily played the All Blacks in the World Cup final last year.
The result for the Wallabies is something they can be very proud about.
The Aussies won all three Tests against a determined and skilful opponent.
All three matches were played in slightly different styles, which will be most pleasing for Robbie Deans.
These results will have most fans feeling pretty confident going into the Rugby Championship later this year, but the Welsh-series clean sweep can not gloss over the Test loss to Scotland in Newcastle earlier this month.
Not a single member of the Wallaby set up will be making excuses for that loss.
Scotland simply played better on the night and deserved the win.
All this aside, questions need to be asked regarding the scheduling of the Scotland match.
Of the three SANZAR nations Wales were arguably the toughest opponent to play during the June Test window.
Yet Australia were the only side to fit a mid-week Test three days after a Super Rugby round and four days before the first Welsh test.
In principle I do not have a problem with the match against Scotland.
Weather aside, I believe it was a fantastic opportunity to take the game to a non-traditional rugby region in Newcastle.
My problem with the Scotland game is that it was given Test status. From the moment the match was squeezed into the Wallaby schedule, it was quite clear the home wouldn’t be able to produce a full-strength team.
As a rugby purist, I want to see the best 15 players take the field for every Test and do whatever it takes to win the game.
Test Match rugby is the pinnacle and it doesn’t seem right that players are earning caps in mid week games when clearly better players are resting up for bigger games.
Surely the honour of representing their country would be enough for these ‘fringe’ players?
Surely this would give them a taste of bigger things and drive them to be better?
Surely this would add to the desire to be a Test player for Australia and earn that cap, because no one is better than you?
The Scottish team will travel back home and read the press that they beat the Wallabies in a Test match, but did they beat the best we could offer.
Deep down inside, the Scotland players know they didn’t defeat the best players Australia.
They may be asking themselves ‘did I earn that cap?’
Rugby tends to be so stubborn that it refuses to copy something that works well for soccer.
But the IRB and the rugby community as a whole need to sit down and come up with something better.
As the second-tier nations close the gap, the need for more international rugby will be greater. Yet this will not be sustainable for our top players.
Rugby needs to ask itself a question: is it time to bring in the friendly?
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (12) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- IRB, Rugby Union, Scotland rugby union, wallabies
June 27th 2012 @ 1:52am
Johnno said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:52am | Report comment
-One off tests like one off soccer freindlies, are both in reality just money spinner freindlies most of the time.
-In the old days in the 80′s and mid 90′s, you could have a 1 off Bledisloe cup, but those days are gone.
-So one off tests have basically just become money spinners
-What is needed and i hope it happens after England world cup 2015 , is a move in 2016 to global rugby calendar
-So all teams fresh on the same body conditioning , like in rugby league which has global rugby league calendar aligned.
-Test tours have been surprisingly good and i hope they stay:
-What global rugby caldner I want is this
-March-Septmeber club rugby
(2 tests in march, plus june 4 week window)
-October-November (rugby world cups, test tours,british lions series, 4 week grand slaam 4 test tours of NH)
-Or England come out for a 3 test series, or Wales, or Italy or who ever)
-So base each calendar over a 4 year period playing every year )6 nations, rugby championship,)
-british lions- world cup both 1 time each over the 4 years timetable
-And a player welfare rule of no rugby matches scheduled for 8 weeks at end of season, so last day in november or say december 5 is the last weekend rugby union 15 a side matches can be played.
-And no trials can start again until mid January, and no serious club season matches until say Feb-15.
June 27th 2012 @ 1:58am
abnutta said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:58am | Report comment
If they’d wanted to, the ARU could have designated their team an Australian XV plain and simple in the same way they have designated a host of NSW matches from the 1920s as test matches. I’m sure the ARU wanted the match to carry test status for marketing reasons, anti-siphoning means it has to be on free TV and to get a good crowd in.
June 27th 2012 @ 5:02am
FraggleWrangler said | June 27th 2012 @ 5:02am | Report comment
Several years ago I wrote a proposal for a reworking of the rugby calendar, and suggested it to Mr Zavos. Part of the proposal ended up as a roar article.
Essentially I was arguing for not only a unified international schedule, but for a 4 year cycle based around the RWC. I argued that club v country was a real problem in European schedules, and the surrounding the RWC game played just before the tournament were meaningless trial matches, and the year after everyone has had enough international matches to last them for a while. Also having the same competitions every year was devalueing those competitions, particularly the tri-nations. The full proposal was 10 pages long (quiet night shifts with little to do) but in summary:
Year one – RWC year – Most internationals in a RWC year have little or no meaning as they are just trial matches for the ‘real thing’ so the number of internationals should be reduced. European Club competitions as normal. Super rugby as normal. European clubs get to retain their players for longer.
Year two – Focus on club competition, with more club games and an expanded competition combining the Heiniken Cup with the Super Rugby tournament. Few internationals played. Clubs get full use of their players and increased revenue from an extended season.
Year three – Tour year. club matches reduced (in return for increased club revenue in years one and two), and a focus on internationals, with major traditional extended international tours including the Lions.
Year four – Standard year. Tri-nations, and 6 nations
OK – so I’m a bit of a dreamer
June 27th 2012 @ 9:39am
atlas said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Scotland – ‘did I earn that cap?’
Australia’s choice not to field their #1 team.
No less valid a cap than the ones Wales dishes out at Barbarians games, three of them in recent times as as far as I know the only country to do this.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:46pm
Sircoolalot said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
I agree it’s a farce that they hand out at caps against the Barbarians yet they won’t recognise some of their past players who didn’t earn caps against test side.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:47pm
Sircoolalot said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
*i meant, who didn’t receive caps, even though they played in a test match against another test side.
June 27th 2012 @ 8:30pm
Junior said | June 27th 2012 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
There is no differentiation in an international soccer player’s stats between friendlies and non-friendlies (or competitive games). They are all totalled into one number. Friendlies only exist in soccer to differentiate them from games played at major tournaments (World Cup, Asian Cup, Euro Cup, Copa America…etc) and games played to qualify for these tournaments. The result of a friendly has no real significance other than working on player combinations. Non-friendlies are obvs much more important and therefore competitive. Qualifying for major tournaments is not guaranteed for a lot of teams. Indeed, many major nations have missed a World Cup or other major tournament over the years because they have not qualified.
By contrast, rugby is seriously played in only a smattering of countries and basically every half decent team (and many a bad team) automatically qualifies in the rugby version of the world cup. So no qualifying is required. If you wanted to strip out friendlies in rugby, only rugby world cup games would count. Under those circumstances a seasoned rugby international could theoretically have a career of eight ‘tests’ stretched across two world cups, including at least four blowout victories against the dud teams in your pool. Plus up to about 100 friendlies.
Calling them friendlies in soccer serves a purpose. This isn’t necessarily be the case for rugby.
June 27th 2012 @ 8:43pm
Rugby Man said | June 27th 2012 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Interesting feedback, however my point was simply that the games such as Samoa last year, Scotland this year or even the years when England brought a bunch of kids and were beaten by 60 points are clearly not two nations playing their best ‘test’ players. Call these games what you want but you can not deny that these matches de-value a true test match such as the recent series against Wales. The ‘A’ team concept would be an easy answer here but it seems to have lost momentum in recent times. I think it would be great for the game globally to see the likes of Russia and Georgia playing against NZ ‘A’ or Australia ‘A’.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:02pm
Junior said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
I guess the problem would be working out which games are tests are which aren’t. For instance, games against England where both teams play their best players are tests and games against England where at least one team doesn’t play their best are not. That leaves you with games of test status and games of non-test status against the same nation. Would be a bit odd. Also who decides if a nation has their best team on the park? Is it when one player pulls out, or two or three? Also, what if Australia plays its full team against Samoa, somebody allocates it a non-test and Samoa wins?
I take your point but it all seems a bit hard to me.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:41pm
Rugby Man said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
Junior, you make a good point but you are thinking too much if this concept is too hard. When tours are scheduled, at that point it should be determined if the match should receive test status or not however the games should still to be IRB sanctioned and players still have the opportunity to represent their country. The Scotland game is a prime example, the Welsh series was clearly the key matches for June and the Scottish game was a warm-up and therefore should not have received full test status. Surely both the SRU and ARU knew when scheduling that game that the Wallabies were never going to play a full strength side.
June 28th 2012 @ 10:57pm
atlas said | June 28th 2012 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
than, based on a history of never having won in over a hundred years, NZ v Ireland would not be tests?
Include Scotland, Samoa and more in that, and if 50 years was the marker, then Wales too would only face a NZ XV.
Cannot work – a test is a test and if a nation cannot front it’s best XV, then that’s their problem – case in point the ‘prime example’ of Australia v Scotland there was no requirement for Australia to rest players; they agreed to the fixture a long time ago; perhaps could have better used player depth and spread players over the two matches.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:17pm
Dave said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Agree completely Rugby Man. We have to do something to protect the credibility of test caps. It’s not a case of striping all non WC games of their test status – but simply making a sensible decision about the matches like the recent one against Scotland that are scheduled such that the 1st XVI does not play. I love the idea of the friendly.