France-Ireland postponed! It's time for a global rugby season

This is an old article I know but an important issue none the less. I for onee vote for a globally integrated season between the NH and SH countries based on Bruce Craigs idea. I know people don't want to let go of tradition, but I see this as the only way to grow the sport and let it reach it's potential. IMHO it has gotten to the point where the June and November test matches mean nothing and the tier 1 countires are only spending 4 years getting ready for the world cup. However, I feel the main challenge to all of this is player welfare. Players need rest and can't physically play rugby 52 weeks a year. Unfortunately this means the club as well as countries as going to have to shoulder the burdeon to make sure the international players get there rest. Bigger squads could be one piece of the puzzle. Look at Saracens they have such a big team that players always being rest during the season because they have someone else who coulc step in to fill their shoes. At the moment the IRB requires every player get 10 weeks rest, so it will be tough but I am confident that the clubs and countries can come up with something that address the player welfare issue within the context of a globally integrated season.

Mate, as i said in my previous comment, the concept of "the best possible squad' is subjective anyway. You would pick 30 guys, i would pick 30 others and same with the coaches. So when you say "their best full-strength teams whenever possible – go check the team sheets', i cant agree or disagree as its up to me to think these 30 were the best availbale at that time. Then when you say "If you had noted the comments of both Warren Gatland and Declan Kidney when they took over as coaches of Wales and Ireland, you would know that both publicly stated they were targeting getting wins in the SH as part of their longer-term development plans". What do you expect them to say? "naa, the June tour is a holiday'?! Thats a PC speech that all coach in any sport have to use to please everyone. Obviously teams always want to win a game: thats what competing is all about. SA wanted to win in Oz and NZ during last year's TN, it doesnt mean they sent their best 30 players (oh, but de Villiers said so you might tell me!?). Plus in the north clubs put a lot of pressure on their players and federation to keep or rest some of them when they are tired. Anyway, am not trying to convince you but you are certainly not going to convince me either that they always bring their 30 best players available in their June tours. hope it will change though.

Game has now been re-scheduled for March 4 at 4pm. Usual gnashing of teeth by French clubs. Irish provinces just get to suck it up.

oh give it rest mate...rugby, sport, sport and rugby. If we wanted to listen to paranoid conspiracy we'd go to Alex Jones.

You don't need to accept it for one minute. Just accept it. Equally you are right in saying that the record of NH teams in touring in June has been abysmal. It has been. No one denies this.

Spiro, Sorry to burst your bubble mate but climate change doesn't mean we'd have less snow, let alone none. It's why the name was changed from global warming to climate change, because what is happening results in more frequent and more extreme freakish weather events, like this winter. Not that current weather is definitively being impacted by climate change..

Pot Hale. lets for one mintue accept that you are correct and that the NH teams always send their best available teams downunder. then if that is the case then it is a very poor reflection of the quality of NH teams considering how few games they have managed to win here. I defended soem of those results on the basis that they were not the best possible teams available from the NH. however, you claim that is not the case. so they are the best available teams, but they are just very average sides in terms of quality and the ability to win games? from memort i cant recall to many NH victories against the SANZAR nations. there was a memorable French victory in NZ. the english played soem great rugby in Sydney the other year, but besides that it makes very depressing reading for the Northern lads. Perhaps one day your NH teams will be competitive down here.

Enzo - the whole point we are talking about is moving rugby out of the NFL season. There is no argument that NFL is the elephant in the room in the US. Any one who thinks otherwise is in la la land.

Nick - you've cited as your evidence a Roar article containing the usual lazy one-liner about B teams and nothing else of note or detail. The second article is a Guardian blog from 2008. I've defended this point before on the Roar that all NH teams send weekend squads on June tours. Leaving aside the point that SH teams are not averse to doing the same when they tour in November - SA in particular - it is inaccurate to paint or tar all nations with the one brush. The real truth behind this complaint from SH commentators about NH weakened teams is really a shorthand for France and England - because that is who the sporting media and chattering classes are interested in. You cite the example that Ireland brought a "weakened squad" to tour OZ and NZ. You say the players were more or less 'injured' (your use of quotation marks, not mine, as if to imply these were fraudulent). Which of these players do you believe was faking it? Because if you knew the history of that tour, you'd know the facts behind the injuries and that a number of the players had missed some of their league and cup matches as well, and that the tour started with a match against the Barbarians in Limerick in which another couple of the players already picked for the tour were injured during the match. That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. But Ireland toured with their best team available - there is no doubt on that score. I'm not sure what you mean by "SANZAR wants these tours, hence the deals with Wales". This was an IRB negotiated deal led by Steve Tew of NZRU who was accusing NH teams of sending weakened teams (he really meant England and France and largely insulted Ireland who have toured New Zealand regularly over the last decade with their their best full-strength teams whenever possible - go check the team sheets). The deal was that France, England, Ireland and Wales would commit to having three-game tour series in a single SH country each year except in a Lions or RWC year. The unions control and contract the Irish and Welsh players and what their provincial teams want nearly always come second. If you had noted the comments of both Warren Gatland and Declan Kidney when they took over as coaches of Wales and Ireland, you would know that both publicly stated they were targeting getting wins in the SH as part of their longer-term development plans. It's why Warren Gatland seeks to have Wales play SH teams whenever and wherever possible - SA in June 2011, Australia in November 2011. Equally Martin Johnson made it equally clear that's what he wanted to achieve with England, and was successful in going so in Australia. Nick Mallet always chose to bring his best squad available on tour with Italy - what would be the point of bringing a purposely weakened team? I would agree with you that it may have been a deal that the NH unions should not have agreed to given the much longer season that the NH players already endure. However, there may be a bit of balancing this year as SANZAR comes to terms with the new schedule they have negotiated for themselves in a much longer Super Rugby season, a break for internationals in June, resumption of the SR finals, then the Quad Nations, and finally the November internationals.

KOTG I do know it's true. Teams using injuries as excuses is just a tired cliched response by some SH fans/commentators who are too lazy to check the facts. If you actually checked the teams from say Wales, Italy, Ireland and England who have toured in June over the last 5/6 years, you might arrive at a different conclusion. This weakened NH teams touring in June mantra has been chanted ad nauseum on this forum with only the occasional informed poster acknowledging that it has changed substantially since the early 2000s when it was more prevalent for a number of years. "the worst exampel though was when the french were touring australia and had all their best players battling out in the top 14 final. that was appaling, but i believe has now been rectified." When exactly was this occasion? And why would it be appalling for the Top 14 to play its final when it always plays it?

A couple or articles about the ongoing issue of NH sending 'weakened' teams during their June tour down under (it has been going on for years ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/06/autumn-internationals-rugbyunion http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/10/27/will-rugby-ever-become-a-truly-world-game/

High taxes. Big government. Marriage "equality". Blind faith to the environmental cause. Seems pretty leftist to me.

By 'B' team I didnt mean NH nations leave their top 30 players at home and bring the next 30. NH coaches take advantage of the June tour to 'experiment' and bring fringe or young players, but definitely not the 30 players they would have brought if they were playing the RWC. Then as KOG says below, are players really injured, tired, unfit etc, no one knows. Every rugby nation has a pool of 50 players who play international rugby. To say they bring their best team or not is very subjective and in saying that i accept i was wrong in my statement. Yet, to say they bring their 30 best players is also wrong. The fact SANZAR fights for these tours isnt surprising: they need the money anf they have the 'blanks' in their calendar. A couple of years ago, Ireland brought a "weakened squad' to tour Oz and NZ. No Rory Best, Paul O'Connell, Kevin McLaughlin, Keith Earls, Fergus McFadden, all more or less 'injured'. I agree with you: sanzar wants these tours, hence the deals with Wales. Am just not sure most NH players and club coaches want them knowing their players have been on rugby fields for the last 10 months and that training starts end of June early July for the next season.

I have organised a world calendar that enables the NH to keep playing in winter, but with a more coherent structure so there is not the stupid scenario of Saracens playing Wasps on a 6N weekend. The link is: - http://www.scumv.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=48826 I have made an attachment to my proposal so it is easier to see.

The world doesn't stop to the U.S. borders Rugby is clearly global: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Five_Nations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_sevens#Summer_Olympics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRB_Sevens_World_Series There are professional leagues in Russia, Ireland, France, UK, NZ, OZ, South Africa, Spain and Japan. On a middle term, Argentina wants to modify its province championship as a south american province championship. American Sport is a minnow on a global scale ... It can be disturbing for a guy who never travel outside the US but it's a reality ... Do you remember the big success of the "NFL Europe" ?

Lads, in developed countries people have actaully almost stopped getting taller over the last 20 years. All come down to diet and health as you point out. But yeah we dont see the rapid generation v generation changes we say in the last century. KOG - you're also over stating the height thing a touch. Still plenty of players in all codes below six foot. But yeah its hard pressed. As for pro rugby, aside from locks actually think it has more to do with weight that height...bare with me. Rugby has become obsessed with bulk. Moving 115kg around a park on a 6'1 frame is much easier than 5'9. Better conditioning also means taller players have bulked up more and again have an advantage over their shorter mates. In actual AFL player has got smaller over the past few years. They have started looking for players with skills rather than athletes and teaching them skills. a few years back just about every bloke on an AFL field was 6'2 and 85 kg. This has changed a lot.

Saturday's game between France and Ireland was the first Six Nations match to be called off since 1985!!! I think it's somewhat knee jerk to call for a global season and one that doesn't include games during Europe's Winter months. The time of year that sport of Rugby union, like many other sports such as Soccer in Europe is underpinned by tradition and heritage and the incremental weather conditions only add to the occasion. It has never been a problem in the past 120+ years so why become a problem in 2012 when sport is so far progressed in terms of resources and technology. It would appear that the postponement of the France game was an error on the part of the Stad de France's staff who had left the covers off the pitch for too long prior to kick off. The game will get played during the bye week over the first weekend in March and the tournament will reach its conclusion by the scheduled end as it does every year and has done so every year since its inception.

More evidence rugby is on the rise Tiger. You will like this article to WCR. About the las vegas sevens on the weekend a huge success Samoa beat NZ in the final. http://www.lvrj.com/sports/u-s-rugby-seven-thrills-crowd-of-30-000-139175029.html

There are two entirely separate issues being discussed here. 1) How to cope with inclement weather affecting major rugby internationals. 2) How to refute the ridiculous suggestion that we have a single global season. We have had the first problem before and will have it again. To say that it is the first time a Six Nations match has been postponed because of bad weather is mere semantics. Matches in the Five Nations WERE postponed for that reason certainly as recently as the 1980s and, I think, the 1990s. I remember that in 1985 the first weekend's matches were cancelled because of unplayable pitches. And I seem to remember that a few years later a match in Dublin was cancelled a week in advance because it was known that icy weather was in prospect. The main concern was that the conditions for spectators would have been too dangerous in the charming but decrepit old Lansdowne Road stadium where much of the viewing area at the time was still standing terraces. Not a good idea to have thousands of people slipping down icy steps. It IS probably the first time a match has been cancelled 10 minutes before kick off. For an ultra modern ground like the Stade de France, the same concerns for spectator safety do not apply. The only issue at stake was the state of the pitch and the immediate weather conditions. There was plenty of prior notice about this with weather forecasters predicting that the temperatures in Paris would be sub zero that day. But it was all left to the referee to make his decision in the final minutes. A fine bit of scapegoating. Almost as fine as the gallantry exhibited by the French suit who came out to tell the crowd what the TV audience already knew, and indeed had started informing friends in the stadium by text message. He came on with a crestfallen woman beside him, said effectively "Guys, I've some bad news and Sheila here is going to tell you" then handed her the microphone and fecked off. My sister and brother in law who were in the crowd decided to scarper immediately. A moment of high farce ensued when a steward angrily told them that if they left now they wouldn't be allowed back in! My little sister, well able to kill a man at 50 paces with a single blow of her tongue, gave him what for and they made their way quickly to the train station where they were fortunate enough to catch a scheduled train almost immediately. As they made the way to the station they saw hordes of riot police with mounted support moving into position. Which points to the really scandalous issue here, the complete lack of a plan B. The French police are well acquainted with the need to contain a riot, particularly of the sort that occasionally attends a major soccer fixture. They had no idea of how to contain a horde of disgruntled but not violently disaffected rugby supporters. Stade de France is situated in St Denis, a grim suburb some distance north of Paris itself. Nobody wants to hang around there after a match. They want to get back to La Belle Ville. So of course the French are organised to move huge numbers of people in and out of the ground at the apposite times. They weren't expecting the stadium to be disgorged of its contents at about 9:30 pm. They had planned for peak traffic an hour and a half later. I can only imagine the chaos that ensued. There needs to be a fall back position built in to take account of the need to postpone a fixture. Naturally, it should be the last resort but it could be handled a lot better. They could have brought the kick off time forward. Even if it meant overlapping, wholly or in part, with the other Six Nations match being played that day. They could have made the decision to postpone a few days earlier, informed both sides and enabled them to make their alternative arrangements in time. It might also have enabled travelling supporters to rearrange their schedules. Not all would have been able to do so but it would have helped. This is especially valid in the case of a match in France, where not only the visitors but also the French supporters, most of whom come from the rugby heartland in the south west of the country, have to make considerable efforts to get there. Even given the marvel that is the TGV. None of this is insurmountable. It's just a question of planning. And even given the capricious European weather, such instances are rare. All of which helps to debunk the unrelated notion, mischeviously put forward by Spiro Zavos that this necessitates a global season. As he well knows, and as even his arguments in favour make clear, this has got NOTHING to do with dodgy weather and everything to do with the blinkered self interest of a few potentates who would like to think they own the game. The weather argument is spurious. It can chuck down rain in Europe at any time. How many times are cricket tests rained off or tennis matches postponed in high summer because of the weather? Yes indeed, they are covering over centre court at Wimbledon to help so that the top seeds can get their matches played. But they quickly run out of opposition if most of the other matches are curtailed. Those who want a global season tend to be thrusting aggressive business men, who typically of their breed have bags of energy and focus but bugger all peripheral vision. These are the same muppets who told us that property prices would continue to accelerate and the worst that could happen would be a "levelling off" of prices leading to a "soft landing". Maybe these buzz words don't mean anything to you southern hemisphere types but believe me they resonate discordantly in this part of the world. They think summer rugby and they see only exultant shirtsleeved crowds, teams playing Harlem Globetrotter style rugby on pristine grounds and everybody happy. They don't see the squeeze on schedules that will ensue. They don't see the inevitable rationalisation of budgets between TV/media companies who nowadays compete for audience with different sports at different times of the year. "Hang on! We've paid millions to televise the Ashes but instead everybody's watching the Six Nations on our other channels? We're cannibalising our own markets! One of them's got to go. I want the rugby guys and cricket guys in my office Monday morning. Each can make their pitch and we'll decide who to ditch. Yours, Rupert." They don't see simple things like the squeeze on resources for venues, transport infrastructure, even hotel space. They don't see the vicious competition with other sports fighting for their lives instead of co-existing in a spirit of what some suits call "co-opetition". They don't envisage what we hardy Europeans who have learned over the centuries how to endure our miserable winters, will do to replace one of its major consolations if it is taken away from us. We will devise something else to do over the winter months. Maybe something better than rugby! Or at least, something better than the stripped down "audience friendly" abortion that the game would become if the marketeers have their way. The glory of rugby has always been the spirit in which it is played. Which filters through inevitably into the spirit in which it is watched and supported. That is its unique selling point. The camaraderie, the humour, the trade off between monster and midget, the capricious conditions which at times benefit one over the other. It's hard to capture on a PowerPoint but it's there. Moving to a global summer-only season would be the most short sighted idea since some cretin in Australia in the 19th century thought how nice his adopted homeland would be if only it had a few rabbits he could hunt. So he had a few sent out to start breeding a population. What harm?

Pot Hale is right. If a weakened squad is sent it tends to be the exception to the rule, just like the weakened squad that NZ sent to Europe in 2001 or 2002, and the squad that SA sent to England in the mid-00s.