I was taken aback by the comments earlier this week from World Rugby chief executive Brett Gosper, in which he inadvertently or otherwise suggested that internationals are not necessarily as equal as we thought.
“At the moment 56 per cent of the games of international rugby in the world are friendlies and that’s what we are looking at and maybe swinging it back towards more meaningful competitive games and that may even be with interaction between north and south,” Gosper said, speaking on the prospect of changing the way the June – soon to be July – and November Test windows might look in the future.
“There are a number of models out there. I think ultimately it would help add even more meaning to a Six Nations or The Rugby Championships so it would be good news for everyone, I think.”
Well, maybe.
Certainly, the idea of adding more meaning to games or series is worthy, but surely that’s the point of the World Rugby rankings, and why headlines were rightly written when the Wallabies’ loss to Argentina on the Gold Coast meant that Australia slipped to their lowest ranking ever.
Even the narrative before that Test – Australia needing to beat Argentina so as to avoid an unwanted record – ensured the Test had plenty of meaning.
Gosper’s attachment of the 56 per cent figure is worrying, because on the surface it certainly reads like more than half all of all rugby Tests are substandard. But how on Earth was this figure reached? How can it be determined which matches do and don’t have meaning?
It’s not like one-day cricket, where a three, five or even seven-match series will be played between two countries for no obvious reason – aside from broadcast money, particularly Indian broadcast money.
In fact, there are so few multiple-match Test series played between nations now; England and Ireland’s tour of Australia in the last two years were the first time either nation had played three Tests against the Wallabies in a single series in the history of the game.
And even if you wanted to argue that a ‘dead rubber’ third Test in a series carried less meaning than the first two, then that certainly wasn’t and can’t be considered the case before the series began.
AAP Image/Dave Hunt
There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that games outside the Rugby World Cup – and maybe you can throw qualifiers into this mix too – don’t quite carry the same urgency. But then when you bring ranking points back into the debate, and consider that those ranking points determine World Cup seedings, and who qualifies automatically or via a process, then surely the ‘meaning’ quickly returns.
And either way, games outside the tournament and its qualification process would be significantly more than 56 per cent of all internationals played.
But getting away from which Tests are meaningful and which ones aren’t, are there benefits to be found from this idea of the top 12 nations playing each other within a year?
Well, again, maybe. But…
And that’s perhaps the biggest issue. As noble as the idea might be – and I’m not totally against the idea – there are so many questions arising from the concept that you just wonder how it can possibly get off the ground.
For one thing, the revenue would have to split absolutely evenly. You couldn’t have the situation where, say, Ireland (currently ranked second), Scotland (sixth), and Fiji (tenth) fill their coffers from hosting ‘their’ pool of four teams, while the other nine countries wait for their turn to play host and enjoy the spoils.
Equally, it would have to be equally shared because there’s simply no economic way that Fiji and Tonga, say, would see as much revenue come in as would Wales and Australia, and neither would they see as much as England and France. It would have to be completely even and equitable.
Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images
But even then, this would cause problems in itself, because undoubtedly it would cost more to host a pool within the tournament in some countries than it would others. And what would stop the unscrupulous accountants slapping an ‘expense margin’ on top of their genuine hosting costs to ensure they get their windfall early, and before World Rugby split the rest?
Further, with the rankings changing so regularly – as rankings do – how and when would you decide the seedings? If Japan hovered around 11th for all but the last fortnight of the seeding period, but two losses in two weeks dropped them to 13th, wouldn’t they have a decent argument that they were still one of the best 12 teams that year?
And this is without getting onto important issues like how often should it be played, or how the pools should be split?
Would we end up with a League of Nations ranking inside the wider World Rugby rankings? And what could teams 13 and 14 do in order to break into the competition?
The idea isn’t without merit; I’ll very deliberately say that again. If there’s a way of doing something like this that’s fair and equitable, and national unions aren’t just looking for how they can most benefit for it, then by all means, let’s look into it.
But I’d hate to see rugby follow the mistakes made by the International Cricket Council, where genuinely meaningless series and competitions like the Champions Trophy have turned one-day cricket into a circus.
OzKiwi74
Roar Rookie
I think this is a great concept. 1. Fits into the existing July and Nov windows 2. Fast format (only 2 pool games) will encourage upsets (lose once and you are probably toast) 3. Broadcast rights can be sold by world rugby and distributed 4. Gives lower ranked teams exposure 5. Gives teams outside the 12 something to aspire to. 6. Doesn’t take the aura from the World Cup (two games and then a 4 month break for 2 more games is hardly a grueling campaign) 7. World ranking in prior year can determine participants (making rankings always important rather than just a snapshot in time every 4 years) Great concept. Love it!!!!
OzKiwi74
Roar Rookie
I understand the concern about reducing the aura of the World Cup but I think that’s mistaken. To win a World Cup teams need to play 7 internationals in 6 weeks and beat at least 4 other top ranked sides (3 in consecutive weeks) that’s a massive ask. Where as in this tournament teams play only 2 pool matches and then have a break for 4 months. This provides a great opportunity for lesser sides to get up for one big game. It then requires only 2 more wins and you take the trophy. It’s a fast format that will encourage upsets and may throw up some interesting finalists. But no comparison to a World Cup campaign.
OzKiwi74
Roar Rookie
@hoop This is the genius of the idea. There are only 3 games (2 per team) in each pool. This fits perfectly into the July window. If you make semi and final that means maximum 2 more games, fitting into the Nov window.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
1)Rugby has to many of these soccer style friendlies agreed and that needs to change. 2)Continent or more regional based tournament eg in the 4-yr cycle have a pacific cup every 4 years, but add Aust/NZ into it. Maybe have like a european championship every 4 years as well and add Georgia/Romania/Russia/Spain/Belguim/Germany 3)The RC is not working in it's current format either, and changes are gonna happen there.. 4)The America's tournament is good and as US/Canada/Uruguay/Chile get better Argentina might have to start sending there best side when they play these nations away from Argentina...
wallythefly
Roar Rookie
Agree. If you want to properly promote the game in somewhere like the US having an odd test here or there won't cut it. It needs to be given high quality matches on a regular basis.
AndyS
Guest
Which is probably all we could really hope for. I wouldn't expect it to stop movement of players, don't think it even should, but have some sympathy for the idea that there should be a compensating mechanism.
Unanimous
Guest
There may be an approximate precedent for that. Major League Baseball currently has a soft salary cap - i.e. it's a fee charged for going over the cap and it is redistributed to the teams that don't go over the cap. Your idea sounds similar but applied on a nations basis to international movements with a cap of zero. In Baseball it doesn't stop the richest few teams (NY Yankees for instance) from going way over the cap, because they have so much income they don't care much. It does balance things to some extent though.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
A big thing tag people don’t consider when they are talking about this is the players. They think it’s just big entities taking money from each other. How would any person here feel if any new employer had to pay a fee to their current employer in order to change jobs (ie putting you at a disadvantage to anybody else)? Unions would be ropable.
Jacko
Guest
no you are wrong....I have called "test matches" frendlies.....They are...and always will be test matches but to me the term "frendly" is refferring to the lack of a trophy or "prise" for winning.......Also most on here seem to be jumping to some massive conclusions because we have no details as yet....maybe the countries consulted already have much more details than we do and maybe things are massively different to the perspective you have of the facts you know so far....i say a bit more time and a LOT more info woll make the adea a good one or a bad one....So far we basically have nothing to go on...Many are saying we play enough already...many are saying where does the money go...well maybe that is info that decides whether its supported or not supported
Jacko
Guest
That is not correct mark....In Aus a number of league players have had transfer fees paid to clubs to release players....Actually the Warriors in NZ have also gone down this track. I believe it is reletively simple for any country to set up as the main body gets every player to sign a contract for life governing intellectual property but has no restrictions put in place re the player playing wherever they want to.
Brett McKay
Expert
Not seeing a lot of room in there for Super Rugby/Premiership/Pro14/Top14/Top League comps there, Wally..
Brett McKay
Expert
I absolutely agree PS. But equally, I can't see how you'd run a tournament like this as a closed shop. You would have to make it attainable for teams 13 and 14, as I mentioned..
Brett McKay
Expert
Really interesting point, Nobes. Have to admit I'd not considered the American angle, and it would certainly fit the bill for the real money-spinning type of tournament that a US audience could get into, doesn't it..
Brett McKay
Expert
yeah, identifying the ever-present questions in rugby is one thing, Chookman, but when we can't find answers... that's when we have issues...
Brett McKay
Expert
The point Jacko, is that you've just highlighted how different people view meaning in a certain game to be different. You call a match a friendly, I call it a Test Match, and we both think we're right. In my mind, if a Test Cap is handed out, it's not a friendly..
Rebel334
Roar Rookie
A league transfers to Europe would beg to differ.
Aussieinexile
Roar Rookie
I for one agree with the concept, it has merit and requires tweaking I understand where Pichot is coming from if you have been in T2 Countries, T1 Nations have an obligation to help T2 Nations and develop the sport. Europe just want the money revenue and in fact SH as far as I understand are not obliged to visit the home nations in November, or are they? they don’t make much money out of the visits. Why not visit the likes of Japan, the US if they can get a bigger share of revenue over there. Create a program to promote the game and increase interest and income from games in other nations such as Uruguay, Spain or Argentina in addition to the above. A kind of Nations League schedule could still be on the base of this. One thing I would like to know: why shouldn't they start swapping one (or more) of their November games for a game in the US or elsewhere? Why couldn't the US and Japan start hosting a proper November series?
FunBus
Roar Rookie
Yes, article is spot-on. Ludicrous idea. If there was an international in the last few years in which one of the teams 'phoned it in' like a football friendly I must have missed it.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
'Heaven forbid England & France should go back to developing their own talent. Sacre Bleu!' Developing their own talent? England have made the last 6 under-20 RWC finals. How many did Oz make, Sheek?
FunBus
Roar Rookie
'And Pichot himself has led the overhaul on eligibility being pushed out to 5yrs residency.' With the support of the RFU.