Since 1996 the Tri-Nations has been fiercely contested between the Southern Hemisphere’s top three rugby nations; New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. The contests are traditionally tough, close battles and are usually the hardest games each nation will play in a year.
But in recent years the competition has begun to fall away in importance. The reason for this comes in the fact that there is simply too much rugby between these three teams. They now all play each other three times a year, significantly decreasing the meaning of each result.
2011 has seen this fall in importance drop to a new low.
Teams now don’t even feel the need to field their top teams during the tournament, being prepared to sacrifice games now in the hope of winning what they see as a more coveted prize at the end of the year.
And it is this that begs the question. Is it really worth having a Tri-Nations in a World Cup year?
Every Test match is supposed to be sacred, a battle right until the bitter end against another country. A loss in a Test match is supposed to be seen as a failure and means that the opposition team is better than you.
Since the inception of the World Cup, different countries have taken different philosophies as to what the meaning of the above statement still holds. Some believe that as long as the World Cup is won then it doesn’t matter what happens in between times.
Others would never sacrifice a Test match to win the World Cup, sticking with tradition.
Regardless of what your philosophy towards this idea is, Test matches should still be held in significant regard and every Test match should still mean a great deal.
This is where the Tri-Nations fails, especially in a World Cup year. You have to look no further than Saturday night’s Australia versus South Africa game to see that.
South Africa named a weakened squad to come to Australasia for their away leg of the Tri-Nations, choosing to leave 21 players at home. While they will no doubt still give the other teams a run for their money, it’s almost foolish to expect a second-string Springbok team to beat a top Wallaby or All Black side in Australia or New Zealand.
And so it proved, as Australia dominated a weakened Springbok side in almost every facet of the game.
It is through this that we see the problem.
South Africa obviously had no problem sacrificing this Test, as well as next week’s one against New Zealand, in the hope that their stars will be freshened up for the World Cup.
Likewise, Australian coach Robbie Deans has indicated that he will be resting players throughout the Wallabies build-up to the Cup. Even the All Blacks have said they will be rotating their players throughout the tournament, with those in need of a rest getting less games than those in need of rugby.
While the All Blacks won’t go to the extreme of leaving 21 players at home, it still shows that these Tests do hold less significance to them. And this just strengthens the argument for no Tri-Nations during a World Cup year.
The All Blacks have long been recognised as a team who still want to win every Test, each meaning as much as the next, World Cup game or not.
This could be seen by the reaction to the team’s last-minute loss to Australia last year. It was seen as a big blotch on what was otherwise a perfect season. But that’s just the expectations in New Zealand.
The fact that they are prepared to not necessarily put their best foot forward in a Test match asks the question of whether the match should even be played at all.
And that’s where this year’s Tri-Nations is at.
If the teams aren’t going to play their top teams in every game, what’s the point in having it?
The games aren’t going to mean anything to those involved and contradict everything a Test match has traditionally meant.
A better idea would be to let the teams arrange their own warm-up games if they felt the need for a hit-out before the tournament. That way they would be able to play as many games as they felt were necessary to be ready, without having to rest players because of too much rugby.
This is something that needs to be seriously looked at in 2015. With each World Cup the significance becomes greater, and the more teams will sacrifice to win. The least we could do is try to preserve some of the meaning that remains in Test match rugby.
Moaman
Guest
Couldn't agree more about "less being more"; And I think your idea about a " Southern Hemisphere 5 Nations" with promotion-relegation is also interesting.Imagine Australia battling Japan for the chance to get back up with the Big Boys?!! :-)
sheek
Guest
El Gamba, I disagree. In the old days matches were held on a rotational basis, irrespective of who held the BC. You put it on the line, whether at home or away. Internationals work differently, or ought to. I also disagree with the RS format for 4N. The big problem is you end up with stronger nations playing more often, & weaker nations playing less often - this is the essence of a challenge/knockout system. A league approach - defined number of matches for all teams - is the optimum.
Johnno
Guest
I no one thing about the tri nations, if the Argies don't participate and we go back to a 3N'S I sure hope it stays at 2 matches per team not 3 . 3 is overkill and less is more love it going back to 2 matches each vers the other teams. less is more for the better I say. Id liek to see a southern Hemphispere 5 nations where a promotion and relegation system gets put into place where the bottom team gets relegated to the pacific cup or the asian 5 mations as examples. a Would be great to see a southern hemphisphere 5 nations with to start say Aus, NZ, SA, ARG, and Samoa. play each team 1once i say bring it on. samoa would be tough to beat in nz and even tougher to beat in APIA SAMOA.
Riaan
Guest
Good point. But for a lot of us, a world cup year without Tri-nations Rugby would feel empty. Especially for this new generation of Rugby fans that has gotten used to it. Even with a B-team. I still scream for The Boks
Stripes
Guest
To answer the Headline Question. No, no it should not.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen
Guest
Cheers!
El Gamba
Guest
From wikipedia: "The Ranfurly Shield, colloquially known as the Log o' Wood, is a trophy in New Zealand's domestic rugby union competition. First played for in 1904, the Ranfurly Shield is based on a challenge system, rather than a league or knockout competition as with most football trophies. The holding union must defend the Shield in challenge matches, and if a challenger defeats them, they become the new holder of the Shield." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranfurly_Shield
Blinky Bill of Bellingen
Guest
What concept is that?
DanSA
Guest
Read this article: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/former-coach-says-poor-decision-has-put-boks-behind-the-eight-ball-20110724-1hvav.html
El Gamba
Guest
Interesting last idea, it would have to be the home game of the holder of the BC that counted, you couldn't have NZ defending it in Brisbane or Australia in the Auckland game. How about an additional Ranfurley Shield type thing floating around for the quad nations. I love that concept in the NPC (ITM)
sheek
Guest
The world cup is a guaranteed 5-7 matches for all nations. For the better nations, 5 matches (reaching the quarter-finals) is virtually assured. This being the case, I agree that in world cup years, the 3N can be REDUCED, rather than SCRAPPED. Let's use the introduction of Argentina for 4N in 2012, as an example. In years 2012, 2013 & 2014, the 4N would consist of 6 matches each (each country playing the others on a home & away basis). In 2015, the 4N would be truncated to 3 matches each (each country playing the others once). Personally, I have no problem with this scenario. I do have another concern, & it is the use of contests within contests. For example, we play New Zealand for the Bledisloe Cup in EVERY test. This was never ALWAYS the case. In bygone days, the BC was decided after a 2 or 3 test series. In the professional era, to get around the anomaly of each country winning one test each year, a third test was introduced. The Wallabies playing the All Blacks THREE times EVERY year is simply OVERKILL. For practical reasons, I would have the Wallas & ABs only play each other twice a year. But only the 2nd game, at alternate venues, would have the BC up for grabs. Whatever happened in the 1st game would count towards the 4N, but not the BC.
Joseph
Guest
I don't think we should dumb the Tri Nations during WC year. Combined FTA and pay TV ratings were 745,000 viewers. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
GrecoRoman
Roar Guru
Dan. The Boks under Jake White started that approach in a RWC year back in 2007. PdV is just repeating the formula.
Brett McKay
Guest
Bushy, you would imagine that just as South Africa play Australia and New Zealand on the same trip, Australia and New Zealand would have to play South African and keep going to Argentina...
The Bush
Roar Guru
"RWC will start even earlier than this year 4th Sep instead of 9th. So if SR comp goes ahead (assuming no S Kings added) in June, then the 4 Nations have a home and away match against each other – more than this year. Either SR comp starts sooner in the year or the gap between SR final will be reduced to about a week before 4N has to start – if even that is possible allowing for travel schedules to Argentina and SA!!" Why would the tournament have to be any different? You simply play Argentina on the week when you are not playing at all at the moment. You might, at most, have to move the tournament forward one week to have a "break" week in the middle. Yeah it's a lot of travel, but them's the breaks...
ozxile
Roar Pro
Scrap the competition for what? Warm up matches against...??? The only major rugby countries in the world that have the luxury of playing lead up matches to the WC against the best and the potential dark horses are in the SH. Even if/when those matches feature a mix of A/B players the alternatives are a step or two down and probably not worth much at all. Any risk to players from a steady diet of proper competition is easily outweighed by the benefit of games that have more at stake than a domestic club match or a trumped up friendly against PNG or ??? The two tests the Wallabys have played already paid dividends. A glimpse of form from Elsom and AAC that was totally absent all S15 season to start. If we didn't have the Tri Nations we'd be subjected to endless whining from Roarers about the lack of proper competition. Sometimes things are just fine the way they are. This is one of them..
Crazy Horse
Guest
Australia has the Mandella Plate for another year!
Brett McKay
Guest
..and would probably bring an end to the June internationals, which may not necessarily be a bad thing. HC finals, then 6Ns and SR finals leading into 4Ns would be a lot of people's idea of a heavenly rugby calander. Take your point about 2015, I suspect that even in the current format SR would have to start a week or two earlier, which from memory, has happened in previous RWC years. And never mind the 'King' bit, I went temporarily 'royal' on another thread and forgot to change back..
Silent One
Guest
While the tri-nations is a very tough comp I think it may be abit 'too tough' for a RWC year which is why you see some players being rested as to keep them fresh after a long Super Rugby season and the WC just around the corner. I personally think that we should revert to an 8 nations tournament in 2015 and beyond. It would be contested between Nz, Sa, Aus, Argentina, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa & Japan, with teams split into 2 pools with 2 teams each from the quad nations (Nz & Aus/Sa & Arg) and Pacific Nations Cup (Samoa & Japan/Fiji & Tonga) in each pool (quad nations get home advatange/pools to be hosted by quad nations). With each team playing the other 3 in their pool once followed by tier 1 & 2 semi-finals and grand finals plus 3rd/4th games (to give each team 5 games or just tier 1 semis and a final). This way we play 2 games against tier 2 nations (so fringe players get an opportunity) and 3 games against tier 1 nations (to see were the front line players/top team is at).
Behind Enemy Lines
Roar Rookie
As a Wallabies supporter I'd hate to be without some lead in Tests before the RWC starts. Otherwise it would have been the Italy pool game first up with a do or die game against Ireland just to make the quarters. Teams organising their own internationals has some merit but I'd be concerned about the quality of those matches so not sure they would be any better than a shortened Tri Natons.