Rugby Championship hosted on a rotational basis?
Roar Guru By biltongbek, 22 Aug 2012 biltongbek is a Roar Guru & Live Blogger
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Rugby Championship, Rugby Union, wallabies
Related coverage
Many have been looking forward to the start of the newly formed Rugby Championship. It will be contested by New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.
The Rugby Championship will be the showpiece of the southern hemisphere calendar on an annual basis, because of the addition of Argentina it promises more variety, a bigger audience and hopefully an increase in revenue.
One of the most important factors for the tournament is how coaches will manage their players against injury and travel fatigue.
Considering that some Super Rugby players will only have two weeks for rest and recuperation and the coaches a mere two weeks for preparation before the start of the toughest tournament on their calendar, it will be vital to consider management of players, rotation policies, intelligent use of impact players and protection of their match winners.
What SANZAR has done very well (surprise) is to provide each team a bye week after every two match mini tour, enabling teams to recover and reassess their playing stock.
However is there a case for hosting the Rugby Championship in one country every year, rotating in a four year cycle from one to the other?
Consider this. If the tournament is hosted in one country, travel fatigue is grossly reduced, acclimatisation no longer becomes an issue, teams can settle into an environment and therefor benefit from better preparation and better resting periods.
The Rugby Championship will provide each country the opportunity to host a flagship tournament every four years, after all an opportunity to host any high profile tournament doesn’t come around all that often.
It will provide fans from across four countries the opportunity to follow their teams and experience new cultures, new stadiums and have new adventures.
The British and Irish Lions provide such an environment for supporters from the UK to tour with their team every four years, the Lions have a loyal following and touring with the Lions have become somewhat of an institution with the UK public.
Granted it will be a costly affair to join these tours on an annual basis, but New Zealand and Australia are only a short flight from each other, South African and Argentinian Supporters will most likely have to plan these tours more carefully.
The other benefit is of course the two bye weeks can fall away and therefore allow the tournament to start two weeks later.
The benefit of that is immeasurable, Super Rugby players will have additional time to rest and recover, international coaches will have more time to prepare and overall it should provide a better quality tournament.
Just a thought. What do you think, Roarers?
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 (13) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Rugby Championship, Rugby Union, wallabies
August 22nd 2012 @ 2:58am
Johnno said | August 22nd 2012 @ 2:58am | Report comment
-Biltong bek it is just a thought but this is where i don’t think it would work:
-Monopoly over gate reciepts. It means only 1 country every 4 years will get gate takings. Very tough on stadiums in each of those countries to make money.
-Less quality internationals each year going a round the country, will mean a reduction in brand awareness and interest in terse match rugby. Not ice i say test match rugby not all rugby. super rugby will still be big, but coutnries like to see there national team 3 or 4 times a year travel round the country.
-Yes they have the june test window but the boards of these coutnries need more revenue and brand awareness, for merchandise and pay tv subscriptions, i fear fans will tune out.
-Most 4 year cycle torunmants should just be for World cups and continent cups, not hemphisphers cups, or region cups.
-I know Japan hosts the pacific nations cup( Japan,Fiji,Samoa,Tonga) but that is coz the other countries don’t have the infrastructure to host sports events.
-Sounds good in theory but in reality it wont’ work. Also the other fact of seeling out stadiums and tv ratings.
-Will get a lot of empty seats at stadiums for non home matches . Most fans love there sport but outside of world cups and continent cups will only actually go to watch the game at the stadium if it is the home team. Neutrals not enough of them.
-Cricket in australia did it for years with world series cricket. And to be honest it was a failure in many ways. The matches not involving australia were rarely getting good crowds, and back then you could get away with it coz stadium matienance was cheaper, and crick tin australia used to have control of the tv market in summer, now maintenance is more expensive, and cricket competes in summer with soccer now in OZ for tv ratings.
-So no it sounds good in theory but in practice it will lose money as a product the RC tournament if it was run like this.
August 22nd 2012 @ 8:44am
Football United said | August 22nd 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
I think a rotational tournament has always been needed, at least to break the monotony of 4 nations, 4 nations, 4 nations, 4 nations, world cup every year. But don’t leave it as the 4 nations, make a meaningful continental tournament out of it. Use it as an opportunity to give the minnow nations that aren’t represented in the RC or the 6N competitive games against the big boys. Get Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, Canada involved and get their fans travelling to these big tournaments.
It could also give the smaller nations like USA and Canada an opportunity to host a potentially major tournament when they would be unlikely to host a RWC.
You could have top 2 going on to a semi and then final with the lower ones playing out for another trophy.
Group A
New Zealand
South Africa
Samoa
Fiji
USA
Group B
Australia
Argentina
Tonga
Japan
Canada
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:30am
sheek said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Biltongbek,
It’s something that has also crossed my mind – we refer to it here as the ‘carnival’ system – whereby one city/region, or in this case, one country, hosts the Rugby Championship on a rotational basis.
But after considering it, I then dismissed the idea. I think what SANZAR has come up with at present, is actually the best format possible. South Africa/Argentina & Australia/New Zealand are viewed as two sub-groups, & there are also two full bye weekends for teams & players to rest & recover.
I don’t think the other 3 countries would appreciate being cooped in one country for 6 weeks, which in effect is what would happen. And do the players want to play 6 matches on successive weekends against quality opposition?
Your idea has merit, & is worth a consideration, but I believe SANZAR have come up with the best format possible.
August 22nd 2012 @ 11:51am
redsnut said | August 22nd 2012 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Then again there is the time zone thing to interfere with the tv audience
August 22nd 2012 @ 2:53pm
garth said | August 22nd 2012 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
How about a Southern Hemisphere Cup, similar to football’s Euro tournament,played between World Cups & rotated between the 4 RC nations?
August 22nd 2012 @ 5:06pm
Rob9 said | August 22nd 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
I agree with Garth and FU above. I’d like to see TRC run every even year. In World Cup years, cancel all major regional tournaments. Last year’s Tri Nations was a farce and a huge smudge on the credibility of what’s meant to be one of the toughest regional tournaments in the world. Also when the heavy weights come up against each other during the knockout stages of the RWC it shouldn’t be for the third or fourth time of the season. There should be a 5 week block a month out from the RWC scheduled for ‘friendlies’ to allow squads to make their final preparations and provide fans with one final appetiser before the curtain comes down on another four years of international rugby.
In the non-world cup odd years, I’d like to see the TRC and 6 Nations replaced with hemisphere cups. These should be held in one country like the RWC is. In the south we could have 2 groups of 4 with the top 2 advancing to a semi before the final. As well as the TRC powerhouses it would bring in the Pacific Island nations. The changes to the Tri Nations have again left behind some of the great rugby nations that are really only at our backdoor. We need to bring in these nations in from the shadows more often than every four years. All three have shown their potential during the last 4 year block between 07 and 11 by taking a number of big scalps. Let’s involve them more often. The final spot could come down to a qualifier and end up being a country like Namibia, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile etc.
Using a 4 pools of 4 structure (like the Euro’s in soccer) in the Northern Hemisphere would bring the sleeping giants of Japan, The US, Canada and Russia into meaningful competition more often. ENC regulars like Romania, Georgia, Spain and Portugal would also get the chance to test themselves in another large tournament of some significance. The final 2 spots could end up going to countries like Germany, Belgium, Morocco, Korea etc. depending on qualifying.
So in regards to this article, I don’t think a rotation system of the TRC is the way to go due to the simple fact that a game like SA vs Argentina played twice in New Zealand wouldn’t generate much interest. Leave the structure of TRC as it is (home and away) except play it in even years only. Then create a knockout style tournament to run in between the RWC that has the added benefit of bringing those outside the top tier into another meaningful competition in the 4 year cycle.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:14pm
biltongbek said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
SOme great ideas there ROB9
August 28th 2012 @ 9:41pm
superba said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
yes but how do you accommodate the seasonal diifeerences between NH and SH . Play at the end of SH winter is advantage to SH teams . Play at end of NH winter is an advantage to NH teams . Similar problems for SA teams considering playing in European rugby tournaments.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:21pm
Pot Hale said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
Why is it that as soon as a format gets decided for a SH competition, people want to start changing it almost immediately?
Less is more.
The current format for the 4N is equitable and spaced sensibly. Having all matches back-to-back would only hasten more injuries onto the growing hospital list.
If people/fans want variety, then I’d opt for less matches, and look at the format used in the 6N, where home and away alternates each year. However, that would probably cut back on anticipated revenues too much.
I’m not sure if a Grand Slam has ever been achieved by any of the teams competing in the 3N, but I think it would be worth setting as a realistic target for the competition. With the increase to 4 teams, the notion of a Wooden Spoon place becomes a real possibility. Equally, winning the 4N by winning every game would be a real standout achievement for any team.
The Slam on the EOYT against Great Britian and Ireland does not have any particular value or cachet – for either side. There’s no connected desire or collective will between Eng, Wal, Sco and Irl teams to prevent it – they’re just regarded as individual matches with no particular cup or prize to be won.
A 4N Grand Slam would be a more real prospect and target whereby one team defeats all the others competing in the same competition.
August 22nd 2012 @ 11:10pm
Matt said | August 22nd 2012 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
A 4N grand slam would indeed be something to celebrate. Considering the rankings of the 4 sides involved and the fact that you HAVE to play each team at their home makes it nearly impossible.
I’d also like to have seen the Tri-Nations trophy staying up for grabs (for the best performing side from the old Tri-Nations each season) instead of it being locked away in the ARU’s cabinet because they happened to win it last. If anything New Zealand would deserve to be the keepers of an obselete trophy given their unmatchable success with it. I believe the Triple-Crown trophy is still alive for the ‘Home-Nations’ despite the tournament having expanded to 5 and then 6 sides?
August 23rd 2012 @ 12:32am
Pot Hale said | August 23rd 2012 @ 12:32am | Report comment
Since I wrote the above comment, I went and checked the records for the 3N. It has been achieved five times. 4 by NZ and once by SA.
The first three occurred in the opening years of the comp in the mid-nineties – when each team only played four games. And again by NZ in 2003 with four games.
Their victory in 2010 stands out as the best Grand Slam. 6 rounds of games, 6 wins with the highest points scored of all winners since 1996.
They could surpass that this year with the new format and a third opponent to play.
August 23rd 2012 @ 12:34am
Matt said | August 23rd 2012 @ 12:34am | Report comment
I don’t think this (comendable, because I like the new thinking) concept would work as it wouldn’t generate enough money to go around? I don’t believe hosting a tournament in one nation would provide more than 4 x the current revenues of the current system in each nation. SANZAR relies on test match revenue (in terms of attendances and live primetime TV viewing) and therefore depriving the other nations of this would significantly dent their income.
Reverting to a WC, 4N, Hemisphere Champs, 4N cycle would also require scrapping the tradition of the Lions, which I don’t think would be wise given the money they generate. Scrapping the 4N in a World Cup year would also lose too much income.
Essentially test match rugby in the Southern Hemisphere is almost at full efficiency. The only ways to make more profit is to reduce costs (which this idea aims to do) or increase revenue. NZ are rumoured to be looking at jersey sponsors to do this and the NZRU has constantly bemoaned the fact they don’t get to cash in on their brand when they play to big crowds when touring Europe.
One potential option is to add in further teams to the 4 Nations who will bring with them commercial revenues. The biggest revenue earner is of course TV audiences and sponsorship. If a nation like Japan can be nurtured and brought up to a competitive level then they offer a large market for potential sponsors as well as a huge TV market. They are also perfectly situated for TV viewing times. The issue is that they can’t compete on the field to represent a worthy opponent. This should be the aim for SANZAR at test level, how to get Japan up to speed to then tap into that large market.
Otherwise, the real aim for SANZAR should be how can they extract more money from their domestic competitions. Again this could look towards Japan, where there are well funded company teams who could transition into very competitive full time pro clubs. Collectively these clubs are capable of generating a large domestic rugby watching market, with an appetite for foreign talent and a platform for elevating the performance of the Japanese national team.
Essentially SANZAR needs to trade their rugby playing intellectual property, which is world leading, and their brand strengths (Super Rugby, the famous Super Rugby teams like the Crusaders and Brumbies). They might also have to trade the anti-competitive rights to their players (where you can only represent your national team if based at home domestically), allowing the SBW’s etc to be based in Japan full-time and still be able to play for the AB’s.
In exchange the Japanese would invest considerable funds in creating and fostering a massive new rugby market for SANZAR at a domestic level, then followed by an expansion option at test match level.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:50pm
superba said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
Tooooooooo much rugby . Too many injuries . Just look at them . The days when SA toured NZ for 6-8 weeks , playing Wed and Sat , captured the imagination of a nation and helped build teams progressively . The new boys played Wed and the experienced A team played on Sat . Now there is soooo much rugby between Aus-NZ-SA it is , for me, getting a bit ho-hum . If not boring.I know there is no going back and times have changed but those tours were just wonderful.Far more wonderful than what we have now.