While we are all debating changes to every aspect of the game of rugby, I’d like to float a couple of hare-brained concepts that I think would add an extra dimension to the rugby calendar.
1. The Pacific Nations Cup should be played as a travelling roadshow of triple headers.
This would require Australia A to participate once again, obviously, but if it were to be played in Australia with its large stadium and multi-cultural population, they could surely sell out ANZ stadium in Sydney or Suncorp in Brisbane and maybe even the MCG in Melbourne (they supposedly love their sport down there).
You would have supporters from every nation turning up creating a massive festival of rugby for one ticket price.
It would ease the burden of running costs, such as stadium hire by sharing between six instead of the usual two.
You’d also get a lot more non-hardcore Aussie and Kiwi fans coming along who wouldn’t normally turn out for the junior All Black’s or Australia A as they would be attracted by the smorgasbord of quality rugby and flair on offer.
The atmosphere would be great. Most people who’d paid to see one team would stick around to see the other games, and once you’re there, you can just pick a side and cheer for them.
2. Create a 10 nations championship.
This is inspired by my EA sports rugby dream competition that I play on the computer, but basically it’s an event where the top 10 teams in the world compete, playing each other once.
Ideally I would place this every eight years and alternate with the World Cup, which would mean we’d get less World Cups but the concept actually generates a comparable number of matches (45 for 10N – 48 for RWC). And what’s more, it increases the average quality of each match.
The makeup of the top 10 nations, particularly who makes the cut, would be a bit of a puzzle to solve. But, for example, you could have the four World Cup semi-finalists as automatic entry.
The next placed competitors in the 6 Nations and Tri-Nations also get automatic entry then the remaining four places by a qualification system.
The qualification eligibility could be based on World Cup results giving the second tier teams actual purpose in doing comparatively well at the world cup beyond pride.
It could be used vice-versa, with the top 6 finishers being given automatic entry into the World Cup and top 4 being given rights to not be in the same pool as each other, thereby ensuring ongoing challenge for likely low/mid table finishers.
Given the distances, the best way would most likely to hold the event in a single country for 9 weeks. It would be like a more complex 6 Nations with permutations, combinations and calculations abounding right up to the last match to see where everyone finishes.
3. The British Lions series has lost some shine, due to its regularity and exposure, not to mention that they’ve lost their last three stretching back to Australia in 2001.
Series such as these should be billed as the best against the best and so I propose that two years after every World Cup (or 10 nations championship) the Hemisphere that didn’t contain the winning nation shall send a combined team to play a series against the world champions.
The northern hemisphere would obviously send the British Lions and the southern hemisphere could alternate between a Pacific team (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga, Western Samoa and Japan) and an Atlantic Team (South Africa and Argentina).
Selection would be even more sought-after due to the increased rarity of selection opportunities.
It would also stop the embarrassing situation in 2005 where the Lions containing numerous English current world champions were smashed by semi finalist New Zealand.
You’ll always be playing the best against the best, and so a loss does no huge damage to either side or the concept as a whole (unlike the 2005 Lions) and even an embarrassing loss wouldn’t be happening every four years (necessarily).
So that’s my wish list for rugby.
I think it would give everyone a good time watching through the years and we should definitely do it. A bit more spice, variety and quality rugby for everyone.
brad
Guest
less tests and more club rugby. club rugby would be something different every year. Toulouse vs the Sharks, Brumbie vs Leicster. There are so many ex wallabies, boks and islanders in the team to give it a global feel plus test rugby can keep its premium status. IF we see the All Blacks every weekend they WILL lose their appeal.
soapit
Guest
they wont ever develop to that without a PNC that makes decent money. that and they need to play top class opposition more than once evry four year (different discussion perhaps)
rugbyfuture
Roar Guru
Rugby World cup already covers it i reckon. and the PI teams need to develop independantly so they can start to go at it for the top 5.
soapit
Guest
might have to agree to disagree with you there WRC in that i think it WOULD be more attractive to broadcasters for the reasons i said above. it would be a bit (or a lot) of a risk and would take time to build but i can't see why it wouldnt be better from a dollar perspective in the long run. again it would be a hell of a risk and can't see it actually happening, but being a risk doesnt necessarily mean it couldnt work better than the current set up. there might be practical issues with why it wouldnt work but on paper it looks attractive. sheek - 1. don't follow you there, i think the triple header minimises costs and maximises attendance so would give it its biggest chance of generating cash. i dont know why the ARU would fund it, should be aiming to pay for itself somehow. 2. interesting, maybe a reason RWC is a success is because of it being different to round robin (which is quite similar to the existing situation of euro tours etc.) 3. i dig the lions too sheek but like them more when they give teams a good going over like brisbane 01 or at least a good run like the other 2 games of 01. just trying to get a SH equivalent without jamming too many more games in the calender and like i said, unless the NH wins the wc its not an issue.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Soapit That's the thing. The RWC has been a huge commercial success in terms of broadcasting. So much so that the predicted profit to be made out of the 2015 edition in the UK is around the $1 billion AUD mark. Even next year's edition is proving to be profitable with new record commercial sales and travel packages. The facts are that the RWC is popular with broadcaster's. Having yet another multi-national Championship wouldn't really be that attractive.
sheek
Guest
Soapit, 1. The Pacific Nations Cup simply doesn't attract money. In fact, there is no money in the Pacific Islands, fullstop. Sad but true. The ARU has little money left over after it pays its bills for Wallabies & super franchises. In any case, I don't think a traveling PNC is practical. But I'm happy to be proven wrong on this..... 2. Cricket has implemented a structure where every test nation plays each other in one two test series every 4 years (home & away). It might have been noble but impractical. Ditto rugby. You have the NH 6N, & soon you'll have the SH 4N, plus the world cup every 4 years. There's also inbound & outbound tours in which say the Wallabies pretty well play the other leading 9 nations over a 4 year cycle. 3. I'm surprised to hear the Lions have lost their shine. They play a massive traditional role that goes beyond their win/loss record. A Lions tour is the only remaining link we have with the old-style traditional tours. I hope they continue for another 100 years!
soapit
Guest
WCR - yeah i agree that it pretty unlikely they reduce the number of world cups as it fieels a bit left field but like i said its only 3 games smaller and the majority of games would be good quality and competitive instead of lots of world cup pool games of which maybe 2 usually 1, sometimes none is good quality and competitve. so is it really smaller? i actually think that broadcasters & sponsors would get more out of a 10/12N and would then pay more. much less dud games, much more high profile games as each nation would be guaranteed games against all the big countries. the world cup due to its structure cant guarantee this. so if money talks....... and you could call it the world nations cup or some bullsh*t like that so it would still attract attention fom outsiders.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Soapit Maybe my sentiment came across a little harsh. But the 10 or 12 Nations on an 8 year cycle just won't happen. The RWC is far to important and successful. What your proposing is effective a smaller version of it.
soapit
Guest
i think a few details are being lost. WCR - i'm proposing alternating the 10 nations with the world cup on a 4 yearly cycle (RWC followed by 10N 4 years later then RWC 4 years after that and so on) so it wouldnt crowd the calnder any more. after writing maybe a twelve nations may be better if theres enough good teams there but it would drag the tournament out. true tah - agree that aus a wouldnt fill anz stadium which is why i'm proposing triple headers. i think that aus a vs Jun ab + W samoa vs tonga + japan vs fiji would be a pretty enticing bill and you would have a reasonable chance of getting near capacity of anz (who knows really but i would think of going along whereas i would never seriously consider giving up a friday /sat night for any of those three individually). i hadnt thought of usa and canada, that could be pretty good, kick out aus a and J ab's. it's better to have all '1st grade' teams. i guess the start of the lions bit wasnt too poilically worded, i think them getting beaten so often does damage the ideas a bit credibility and i'm fairly sure i recall some journo's making comments about the concepts viability. anyway i'm mopre focused on how good it would be having the world champs play a combined side every four years. if the SH teams keep winning the RWC then it's a non issue in the end. just thinking outside the square a bit
Sam
Guest
Since when did the Lions tours lose their appeal? I must say I don't think we need any new competitions, just global calender so that all Test players are actually available when their teams play (not the case at the moment)! I think the Pacific Nations Cup and Churchill Cups are doing their job, but at the moment the Six Nations and Tri-Nations clash with the opposite hemisphere's domestic season, and that is more of a problem. Find a magical way to fix that (and the fact that club matches are still being played during IRB test 'windows') and you'll be onto something - and a very popular person as well!
True Tah
Guest
Soapit Australia A would not go anywhere near filling ANZ Stadium. I would have thought its the perfect comp to play at Campbelltown, Parramatta, Penrith or Leichardt ovals, close to large Islander populations. Would scrap the whole 10 nations idea. It would diminish the meaning of the World Cup and what makes you think the Europeans are going to give up a comp with over 100 years of heritage for this. Bring Argentina into the Tri Nations.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Soapit I'd prefer to see the Pacific Nations Cup maintained. Considering both Aus 'A' and the Jr AB's have pulled out the opportunity to introduce both the USA and Canada have become present. Both of these Nations need more Rugby especially leading into NZ in 2011.This would fall into line with the re-structure of the European Nations Cup. The ENC was formally played over 2 seasons. From the next edition it will be an annual series. That way we would have all 12 of the 'performance' Unions playing a minimum of 10 tests a year. Mate, sorry but your 10 Nations idea has no real merit. We already have a World Cup every four years, the Tri-Nations which from 2012 will grow to Four and the 6 Nations played annually. Having yet another Championship would be overkill. What Rugby shold do is attempt to organise a global season. That way all its various Competitions are aligned. Opening a viable international window.