Argentina: A giant in isolation

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!!

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. :-)

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 !

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.

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.

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....

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.

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 .

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.

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....

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.

I keep hearing that union is a global game. If that is the case then Argentina should play in a south american competition.

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...

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!

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.

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.