New Zealand retains the Raeburn Shield! What is the Raeburn Shield, you ask? The Raeburn Shield has a hypothetical lineage stretching back to the very first game of international rugby union.
The first game ever was Scotland Vs England at Raeburn Place, Scotland (hence the name) in 1871 and the winner took the shield, this has continued to be won and lost untll today and is similar to New Zealand’s Ranfurly Shield (except it is always on the line home or away)
According to the raeburnshield.com website:
“International test rugby would be improved by the introduction of a new trophy, one which all serious rugby nations would have a realistic chance of winning, by introducing a Challenge trophy to be put up by the holder, or Defender, in every match it plays (in the same manner as a world boxing title, or New Zealand’s Ranfurly Shield). The winner would either remain or become the holder. A draw would result in the Defender retaining the title. (Composite teams such as the British and Irish Lions and the Pacific Islanders would not be eligible to challenge).”
The Rugby World Cup is the game’s show-piece but it should not be regarded as the be-all and end-all of test rugby.
Test matches between World Cups, especially those outside of the Six Nations and Tri-Nations, ought to be regarded as important matches where winning is the main aim, rather than as “friendlies”. It now seems that outside of the World Cup, one virtually never sees a full-strength Northern Hemisphere team play a test against a full-strength Southern team.
This is not good for the game.
Another issue in modern rugby is the gulf between the top nations and the rest.
The prospect of a serious trophy available for a one-off match would increase interest from fans and media in matches where an upset would not just be embarrassing (but perhaps tolerable in the name of “development”) but would result in the loss of an important international trophy.
An additional prize open to all nations would assist in remedying the above problems by giving the unions, players, fans and media a reason to take non-World Cup matches seriously. A Challenge Trophy of the type proposed would fit the bill as follows:
* All nations could compete.
* It would be independent of the World Cup and the existing regional championships.
* Because a one-off upset would be sufficient to lift the trophy, it would be realistically winnable by non-top tier nations even when playing against elite nation series.
* It doesn’t require any additional Tests to be scheduled.
* The trophy would be likely to change hands several times in a season, making it relevant far more often than the World Cup, and meaning that virtually any future match has the potential to be a Trophy match.
* It would take only one upset result for a minor rugby nation to win the Trophy at which point other minor nations may well be able to successfully challenge.
* The nature of the competition and the ability to recognise hypothetical past winners gives this Trophy an existing history and records.
In practical terms, this would be a simple competition to institute.
There would be no need for extra matches to be scheduled, or other such organisation. All that would be needed is the provision of a suitable trophy plus a little promotion and marketing to the public and to the national unions.
Davesofthunder
Guest
The Aussies hold it now having won it off NZ in Hong Kong. To answer the above suggestions around who the holder would be There is a full history of holders going right back the first ever game in 1871!! It also tends to unite with the World cup every four years as someone always brings it into the tournament and they will lose it to whoever goes through until the final is also a raeburn match. History matches here http://www.raeburnshield.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=40 It is complimentary to the world cup rather than competing against it. England get a shot this weekend at taking it off the Aussies which should be interesting!
PastHisBest
Roar Guru
Could do, but I'm not sure the IRB would allow any relected glow from the WWE cup to fall on the Raeburn. How about no 1 ranked team at the end of 2011? I know this is likely to be the world cup winner anyway but it means it's abstracted from the tourney.
Katipo
Guest
How about the winner of the 2011 rugby world cup starts accepting challenges and defending the shield the following season?
PastHisBest
Roar Guru
Great idea! Just imagine that a team like the AB's - depending on test schedules and results - may not even get a crack at winning it for years, even decades. Imagine the euphoria once it was claimed and then the desperation to try and hold on to it. There's something in this...
Katipo
Guest
I agree. An international challenge shield is a great idea. It doesn't cost anything and adds meaning; SANZAR would never allow it!
jeremy
Guest
I 100% back this concept, it would ensure that there's always something to play for even in things like the Tri-Nations this year. Imagine if the ABs currently held the shield, lost it to the Boks this weekend, who in turn lose it to the Wallabies, who are now playing the ABs to defend their silverware in Sydney rather than a potential dead rubber as it currently is. The Wallabies win the Sydney match, and go on tour with a young squad. Scotland gets up and beats them, then plays Wales, who beat them, then Wales plays Argentina who have a blinder and grab the shield. Brilliant. No touring dead rubbers, and as has been mentioned above the Shield will easily make the rounds through the world. Let's say from 1st Jan 08 the Boks had it. Throughout the tri-nations it would've switched hands about 3 times. Then it would've gone touring through the NH, providing every home nation with the chance of stealing some silverware on their home ground. Awesome. Great suggestion.
Matt
Guest
It's a great idea, but you can't build prestige for a shield by pretending that historical matches have any affect on it. You can't go back in time and repeat history with the Shield in existance. You could create it now and then present it to whoever the current deserving holder is and go from there of course. But the prestige doesn't exist because of history, it'd have to form it's own history. I wonder if the Queen reads the Roar, as she'd be a smashing candidate to present/donate the trophy to give it an important feel and to also maintain the link of the sport to it's English heritage, in a perfectly regal way...
Lorry
Guest
Personally, I think the gap between the top teams (let's say ABs, SA, Wallabies, France, England and Ireland) and the rest has never been closer! Think about it: -Argentina will enter the tri-nations in 2012, in the great city of B.A. I think they may be able to defeat even the mighty AB's -Samoa, Tonga and Fiji: at least one or two of these three regularly challenge the top teams at the WC, when all their players are available. Professionalism has been good for these teams in that all their best play o/s at a high standard --Scotland beat Australia last year -Wales are good at times
abnutta
Roar Guru
The unpredictability of the scheduling can compensate for the upset factor somewhat. Yes it would be a fantastic unforgettable upset if Ireland or Scotland were to win the shield from New Zealand seeing as neither has ever beaten them. However I put to you a scenario whereby the All Blacks lose to the Wallabies (arguably, not entirely outside the realms of possibility) and then lose to England as they did this year, it would not be surprising for the shield to end up in the hands of either Ireland, Wales or Scotland within a few months... consequently the All Blacks or Springboks have a shield challenge on the obligatory end of year tour. Game on. Btw I don't want to introduce the trophy to increase importance on non world cup internationals, that would just be one of the many happy by products of it's institution. My main reason for supporting the concept is to have a global trophy that more than four countries could realistically have an opportunity to win, a trophy that rewards a teams ability to win every game it plays and conversely punish a team for even temporary drops in form and formally recognise the great teams of the past (especially pre-RWC era).
CizzyRascal
Roar Guru
Yeah, but those games are remembered already. You want to introduce this Shield to help increase the attention on Tests outside World Cup year, yet you're already relying on fantastic upsets in rugby to make the Shield a success. Do you see where I'm going?
abnutta
Roar Guru
The Ranfurly Shield didn't gain the lustre it still enjoys to this day until Hawkes Bay won it in 1922, more than 20 years after it was established. A lot of that stemmed from the financial disincentives that were incumbent upon the defending union, which would not apply in the international version. The great stories of shield history have almost always been the upset wins by the smaller unions (South Canterbury, Marlborough, Manawatu etc) which just goes to show that the Fiji's, Tonga's and Romania's of this world could have a shot at a top international prize. The same sadly can not be said of the RWC. Part of the idea of this shield is that it already had an established historical heritage, back to 1871 in fact. Based on the records of test rugby and under the premise that it had been competed for both home and away, Argentina, Samoa and Romania have all held the shield at one time or another along with all the Five Nations and Tri Nations countries. If however only home matches were counted then the Tri Nations and Five Nations teams would be joined by Tonga, Fiji and Italy as holders of the shield. Many iconic test matches would help to imbue the shield with a sense of history: 1905 Wales v All Blacks in Cardiff where Bob Deans did/did not score. 1973 Tonga upsets Australia in Brisbane. 2000 All Blacks v Wallabies in Wellington where John Eales kicks last second penalty. 2008 Springboks beat All Blacks for first time ever at Carisbrook with Ricky Januarie's late chip and regather try.
CizzyRascal
Roar Guru
You keep comparing it to the Ranfurly Shield, but that has garnered importance over a long long history. It is one of the old traditions of NZ rugby, a reminder of amateur rugby. If you want to introduce this Raeburn Shield, it is going to take a long long time for it to take up that importance, if it ever even does.
soapit
Guest
well the proofs in the pudding. certainly worth a go as it would cost nothing to get it going.
hog
Guest
not a bad idea could gives tests more of a meaning especially when gate prices are so expensive to give the game some importance as opposed to meaningless friendlies surely could not hurt
abnutta
Roar Guru
On the evidence of the history of the Ranfurly Shield, the answer is an unequivocal... YES. Street parades, civic receptions and the biggest match attendance in 5 years were just some of the results of Southland winning the shield for the first time in nearly 60 years. Southland had beaten Canterbury many times prior to that win last year but that particular round robin game of the NPC just happened to be for the shield.
soapit
Guest
but what would the shield represent. would a team get more excited winning the shield then they would by just beating that particular team anyway?
zhenry
Guest
No, but you do see full strength (best available) within each hemisphere something which soccer does not have. If you are a Wallaby go for RWCs but it is too early to access as yet.
abnutta
Roar Guru
I think the historic connection is one of it's most appealing features. As far as implementation goes, I don't see many problems at all. The Ranfurly Shield was simply presented to the Union by the Governor General at the time "awarded to the team with the best provincial record" circa 1901/02. All of the many and complicated stipulations that the Ranfurly Shield has about the share of gate receipts, eligibility etc. wouldn't apply in this case. People/organisations/unions present all manner of trophies all the time (Gordon Hunter Memorial Trophy, Freedom Cup, Lansdowne Cup etc) to be played for in one match or another.
sheek
Guest
I find the concept & historical connection attractive. But as to its practical implementation, I'll need to think on this more.
abnutta
Roar Guru
I'm not "totally" in favour of the concept as laid out by the good folks at raeburnshield.com. I believe it should only be defended at home as the Ranfurly shield is. The old touring system also had it's problems in that a third test could be rendered meaningless after a team wins the first two. With the shield at stake there would be extra motivation to complete a clean sweep or risk losing the shield. I can also assure you that when either Australia or New Zealand are in the position of being out of contention for the 3N, there is still plenty of desire to win/retain the Bledisloe Cup. Can you seriously assert that with 6N hopes gone, the Calcutta Cup has any less meaning for Engalnd or Scotland? That motivation could likely be transferred to all games with the shield at stake, be it Scotland v Italy, Italy v Wales etc.