It's time for an international window across all rugby leagues

Bath FC owner Bruce Craig suggested many years ago, that the international and club season need to be separated. His suggestion was to move all test rugby to August-October, let's say 14 weeks, with NH club rugby starting in November. In the SH, Super Rugby would play through to mid July without any break for tests. This system works for most, but some issues would need to be resolved. 1) moving 6N to August 2) other tests would not be an annual fixture, there would have to be a 4 yr rotation, of RWC, Tests, Lions, Tests. The tests could easily be played in one 7 week block where teams swapped for 3 matches, e.g England would play 3 in SH, then move back home for a further 3. Finally, the clubs in NH need to accept that in order to have a 'free' run during the winter, they will have to reduce the number of fixtures per season. Won't happen as unions in NH will not move 6N, SH unions will not give up annual tests, and the NH clubs will not reduce fixture list. I can dream for the sport I love.

Actually, Wales, England and Scotland are all countries. Great Britain is the name of the island they share. Four countries (Eng, Wal, Scot and N Ire) then form the United Kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom Just a short geography lesson. Otherwise, your point regarding Unions stands.

@Rugbyfan and @Taylorman both of you guys make some interesting arguments. I’m not going to pick a side, but I would like add this observation - International rugby is not a “test” between countries. It is a test between Rugby Unions. Why do I say this? Well, for a start, none of the home nations are actually countries: Great Britain is a country but Wales is not a country. England is not a country. Scotland recently voted not to become a country. Ireland is a rugby union combining two countries: Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (and some foreign citizens). This Home Nations peculiarity means that conventional citizenship / passport controls can not apply to International rugby eligibility like they do to the Olympics. To accommodate the Home Nations World Rugby created its own laws that usurp those of governments when determining eligibility. World Rugby’s own laws allow Rugby Unions to select non-citizens, and they do. Whether a rugby team is representative of their country or not is just a value. Argentina value their country representation highly and only select Argentinian citizens. France and Australia place no such value on this, and select their ‘United Nations / foreign legion’ teams accordingly. Players ply their trade across hemispheres. In fact, Southern Hemisphere teams now play in NH tournaments (Pro 12) and NH teams (Japan) now play in Super Rugby. Consequently the Northern / Southern Hemisphere rivalry is no real consequence. It’s not a real thing. And neither is the test between countries. If you do want to see international rugby played as a contest between countries then World Rugby will need to get out of the way and allow citizenship to control eligibility, like the Olympics does. Personally, I would like to see that. What is true though, is that the New Zealand are the dominant rugby country, and the All Blacks are the dominant international team. The battle for second place has never been more interesting though. Take the All Blacks out, and international rugby is a closer and more engaging contest than it has ever been, in my opinion.

Domination isn't a binary. If one party isn't dominating, then it doesn't mean the other is. If Southern hemisphere sides had an unbroken 110 years of dominating, then they would never have lost home series to northern hemisphere sides. in that period.They did. If all you are actually saying is that New Zealand have an unrivalled record against Northern Hemisphere sides, and would almost always go in as favourites to win any encounter, then you'd get no argument from me. "Our teams don't have an outside, ie NH player so exclude us from ‘every’. Its a NH thing." John Gallagher? Why doesn't he count? When New Zealand teams were able to make competitive offers, they were only too happy to do so. Martin Johnson was made an offer which, if he hadn't picked up an injury, and decided to go home, might have seen him in an All Black shirt too. Johnson went to NZ initially because there was a specific policy by local clubs to try and recruit top schoolboy talent from the North, The only thing stopping NZ teams from doing it more now, is a comparative lack of resources.

Our teams dont have an outside, ie NH player so exclude us from 'every'. Its a NH thing. And many clubs have many more, without whom they not have the same success. Regarding the 70's the ABs had one of their worst decades ever yet on one win was conceded, the sole England side here in 73. From memory may have lost to England in 79 as well. In fact it is 'everyone else bar the home unions' that beat the ABs, at least 3 times each. That does not suggest domination to me. Like 03, once those once in fifty year players retired...Davies, JPR, Edwards etc and a few others, the north went back to losing, big time. No foundation was built off the back of those Lions sides. The players came, and went.

There are no home and away games in the Six Nations. Each team plays the others only once. That's not the model used in the old Tri-Nations or new Rugby Championship. On top of that, New Zealand plays Australia three times every year. Australia have played Wales 41 times since 1908. That's nearly 110 years of competition. Nearly half of those matches have played in just the last 10 years. There were four games in 2012 alone. England have played 40 matches against New Zealand. It took 92 years to play the first 20, but only six years to play the last 10. Rugby as a whole has a problem. There are diminishing returns from playing the same opponents too frequently but many national unions depend heavily on Test revenue. On top of that, only a few teams can sell tickets, or bring in TV money. With the World Cup cycle now looming over everyone, there's even less motivation for top sides to tour off the beaten track, because it doesn't help with Cup preparation. The All Blacks are a huge sporting success story but Super Rugby has hit growing pains, and it continues to be a struggle to get spectators to turn out to watch Mitre 10 game. Certainly, New Zealand is a small country, but the population has grown considerably since the 1960s. If there are sparse crowds at the grounds, it isn't because there are fewer New Zealanders than before. I don't think the English or French set-ups are the answer, so I'm not putting them forward as the ideal. Players in both countries play far too much rugby. The Test calendar has become too crowded but the main problem is the number of club games spread across several competitions. Cut those down, and I'd be a happy man.

Oh and the playoffs! Wasps and Bath could meet again in the playoffs! Jesus Christ the NH has so many dumb games that I can't even remember them all.

I think that you are being disingenuous. The most historically followed annual rugby competition is the 6 Nations. All the SH did is copy it. They play home and away each year in the Rugby Championship because of time zones. NZ and SA don't play each other more often than Wasps and Bath. They probably actually play each other less with English club sides maybe meeting even more times in the cups. It's hard to critique the NZ set-up when it creates the best rugby players in the world. Rugby players that the NH would rather hire directly than develop themselves. It's also not odd that an organization like the NZRU would focus on the national team because it is their best, most accessible product. The only thing that the European club game has that SH does not is content - lots and lots of games. That yes, people can follow every week of the year. I am personally not sure that it makes for a better rugby supporting experience, but yes, it does (and should) create more revenue.

Woodward's England is not an isolated example. There's wide acknowledgement, even in New Zealand, that the there was more coaching innovation in the North in the seventies. The Lions victories in New Zealand and South Africa are pretty clear evidence that there was no Southern hemisphere dominance in this era either. How on earth could you forget that? Nick Bishop's recent article - to which you replied - makes that point very clearly. If anyone was trying to argue that New Zealand have not been a leading force in rugby, then I could understand why you might over-egg the argument, but no-one is doing that. It makes little sense to ignore the contribution of northern hemisphere sides when the record speaks clearly. It makes even less sense to try to and include South Africa and Australia in this picture of Southern hemisphere excellence, when their record against the north is notably less impressive than New Zealand. For much of rugby history. In particular, England and Australia have been pretty evenly matched. I don't really understand what point you are making about a hybrid game. In England, at least, rugby has always been hybrid. Three leading teams in the amateur era English league were England-based Scots, Irish and Welsh. In the early professional era, we saw French, Argentinians, Australians, Islanders, South Africans, Italians, Canadians and New Zealanders. You appear to be using "hybrid" as some kind of slur but I don't think a single English club supporter would know why. Almost every club has had an overseas player who has become a local hero with the supporters. Chabal (France) Nick Evans (NZ), Castrogiovanni (Italy), Tuigamala (Samoa), Ayerza (Argentina), Pienaar (SA), Manoa (USA), Wood (Ireland), Hadley (Canada) to name a few. It creates enormous variety. NZ Super Rugby teams play ways determined by the NZRU, as a means of creating consistency across the player base, all with the goal of improving the All Blacks. There's nothing like that in France and England, where some clubs have developed distinct identities, and others lurch from triumph to despair. It's a compelling spectacle. Arguably, the focus on internationals has undermined club rugby in the south. The demand for more revenue means the unions have played more Tests, against the same opponents, which has helped contribute to an ambivalence about matches that were once eagerly anticipated.

Geez your missing the point re the dominance. I said in the period to date the north hadnt turned the tables on the south in terms of dominance. That one team is on top for a short period wasnt reflective of the north dominating the south. It was England having one good side that came and went. The other home union sides were still poor and even England were poor both before and especially after it, when they collapsed by 2004. Thats why I said if you want to claim that as northern dominance, one where no trend existed, then fine. And yes NZ can claim dominance because as a SH side they set a very long trend, and with SA dominated the NH as a rule for the entire 20th century. England spiked for three seasons yes, and even that was at a time when both SA and NZ were poor, Oz holding the reigns for most of that period. But an England spike is nothing compared to what you are getting now, and that is the actual influence of SH players and coach impacting the test results. Its no coincidence then that the first time in history the north is trending upwards against all SH sides happens to be when the influx of SH players and coaches saturating the NH game is easily at its highest levels. Sure you can try and attribute it to 'youth ' are coming through, but that doesnt explain the coaching, nor the lack of those players available for our sides. I repeat, NH rugby is now a SH/ NH hybrid and northen contracting is negatively impacting test rugby, particularly SH test quality. Its compelling, dont get how you dont see that.

You agreed England did top the world rankings (hard to contest that), so your claim of unbroken southern hemisphere dominance fell apart with just a cursory examination. If England alone can't stand for the Northern hemisphere, then New Zealand alone can't stand for the south when South Africa and Australia are bested by teams from the North. You can't have it both ways. It's the same with the Lions: when the Lions lose, then it's a feather in the cap for the south by beating "the best the North can offer" (happily ignoring France). When the Lions win, then it apparently doesn't count as a credit for the north because it's a composite team.

No, my main point being the NH is ruining SH and test rugby through its greedy clubs. That is still the case. The other point is NH is now a hybrid NH/ SH game due to the massive influx of players and coaching, a point I have made several times to which you seem to bevresigned to by not commenting on it. So no, the points remain, and its going to get worse. You can justify the club scene till the cows come home but to me clubs are about local, not international. The game is heading the way of football and more entrenched vetsions of the same, the NBA, where club comp has killed of the international version. Its a sad state , and yes, I blame the NH club scene.

So, T-man, just to be clear, it seems to me you have admitted you were wrong. Would be good to get that on the record. Do you disagree?

Millenium Stadium should of been a 50000 seater stadium and the Cardiff Football club could of been the weekly tenant.

I could never see the point of top level club/county/international games being played at 3.00pm as that time was when the amateur/grass roots clubs had kick offs.

I'm not sure that mid-week games didn't work Bakkies? I remember attending a Waratahs Tuesday night match with a crowd of 32,000! That's more than the 'Tahs get on the weekends now. If it was only inter-conference games played mid-week then the travel factor is negated. I think the official reason given was coaches needed the entire week to prepare tactically for the game ahead; and forwards needed a full week to recuperate from niggling injuries.Yet, NPC manages to play mid week games. Go figure?

You missed Poth Ale's point, T-man. He wasn't saying players paid in the North should shut up. He was imagining a situation where there are no jobs for Southern Hemisphere players (or, indeed, coaches) in the North. There'd be no room for all in the Super Rugby franchises, so many would be in lesser competitions, earning, as he says, "buttons". The money and depth in Northern Hemisphere competitions has done a great deal to spread the sport. When Argentina took third place in the 2007 World Cup, they did so with 24 of their 31 man squad playing for clubs in the North. There's a lot of talk about improving standards in Georgia. At the 2015 World Cup, they used 32 players, and 21 were playing outside Georgia (almost all in France). Out of the 31-man Tongan squad, only one was attached to a Tongan club, and only three were in Super Rugby squads. Samoa used 33 players, with three attached to Samoan clubs, and only one in Super Rugby. Fiji also used 33 players, with 2 attached to local clubs and only one with a Super Rugby franchise. How would it benefit the global game if these players were not employed as professionals in the North? Super Rugby franchises are mostly under the national unions, and their priority is developing players for the national team. Not only do they lack the cash, to support so many overseas players, they do not want large numbers, as it would cut down the limited opportunities for local players to play elite rugby.

They tried Super Rugby midweek matches for a year and it didn't work. No one went to the matches and the travelling team didn't have much time to move on to their next match on the weekend.

Tman no one is holding a gun to their head to sign those contracts. A lot of those players abroad would be playing in the NPC which the NZRU has turned in to a development tournament while the ABs are touring around like a club side.