As we’re all aware rugby in Australia has faced its fair share of challenges over the last decade, but we have an opportunity to expand the game by including Japan and Fiji in the Rugby Championship, copying the format of the Six Nations.
The format
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, Argentina, and Fiji would play each other once, with the nation at the top of the table winning the tournament.
This format means the All Blacks won’t automatically win the tournament.
In order to win the current Rugby Championship, you basically have to beat the Kiwis in New Zealand, which is incredibly hard to do. In fact, since 2012, the only time the All Blacks have lost was in years when the tournament was shorted – 2015 and 2019.
In a format where everyone plays each other once you are only required to beat the All Blacks once and so if they lose an away match, the team that beats them is in prime position to win overall. This will lead to more interest in the competition, as South Africa and Australia are far more likely to win the trophy than in the current format.
(Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
At the other end of the table, Japan have improved immensely over the last decade and Fiji are also formidable. Although Fiji, Japan and Argentina are unlikely to win the tournament, the matches they play against each other will be competitive.
This will make the tournament more competitive and doesn’t featured too many Tests, so fans are likely to stay engaged for the duration. The Six Nations considered expanding to a full home-and-away schedule a few years ago but decided against it, in part because they felt it would reduce competitiveness.
Growth, beautiful growth
This would help to grow the game in Japan and Fiji, securing them revenue and exposure to elite rugby each and every year.
Growing the game in Japan, in particular, should be a priority. The country has an enormous population and after the success of the 2019 Rugby World Cup, SANZAAR would be fools not to feed that nation’s ravenous appetite for rugby.
Japan operates in essentially the same time zone as New Zealand, Fiji and Australia, so the opportunity to grow the game also means an opportunity to grow the TV market considerably, and for all unions to cash in on some sweet, sweet yen.
This would yield an immediate financial benefit to Rugby Australia in the short term, however over the next 15 or so years, investing in Japanese rugby has the potential to secure tremendous wealth. Administrators would be barking mad not to explore this option.
Kotaro Matsushima (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
Domestically, this competition would give the Wallabies a chance to play the game across more of Australia. Home games against Fiji, Japan and Argentina could be played in areas which aren’t traditional rugby regions.
For instance, the Wallabies could play Fiji on a Saturday afternoon in Penrith or host games against Argentina or Japan at Redcliffe, Newcastle, Wollongong or Townsville.
The additional Tests would give the Wallabies an opportunity to play in working-class or regional areas and make the game of rugby union accessible to all Australians.
The catch
The most glaring downside is that this proposal means fewer games against NZ and the Springboks, which could mean less elite games and a possible financial hit.
One solution would be to reintroduce the tri-nations as a separate tournament to the Rugby Championship.
If this were the case, following the Rugby Championship, Australia, NZ and South Africa would play an additional round against each other, with the table including the matches from both the Rugby Championship as well.
Playing both tournaments would guarantee a minimum of eight Tests per year and four home Tests from these two competitions, which is an increase on the six Tests and three home games played currently.
More Tests equates to more money and greater cohesion for the Wallabies, which can only be a good thing.
This format strikes a balance between expanding the game, securing revenue, and maintaining our exposure to elite-level rugby. What do you think?
Biscuit man
Roar Rookie
South Africa and Argentina should play in the northern hemisphere . More suited to their time zones . We need investment $$$ and quick. The USA and Japan offer that and there is positive pay off for them. Bring on the “Pacific ring of rugby”.
Puff
Roar Rookie
Reading the collection of interesting comments, we are sick of playing second best against NZ. But, what we don’t convey, NZ invests a bloody side more in youth rugby and development than we do, the answer is simple. Expanding the championship may not increase revenue or country motivation to play second tier teams. Many Fijians play in Europe and if you consider the financial struggle they endured to send teams to the Tokyo Olympics. Tours to SA / Arg / Jap, would require financial support, something other unions may consider a cost burden. The international window for the enthusiast is about excitement and for the back room boys it’s revenue raising. Playing second grade teams is not about excitement and in some regions will not encourage supporter to pay healthy sums for uninspiring fixtures. Eden Park was a good example, the test window is limited and teams like SA and NZ desire to showcase their abilities against the best.
Eltski
Roar Rookie
I can't see SA or Argentina jumping at the idea, essentially more opposition in the pacific region with horrible travel for them. Besides I imagine after 2023 we'll see south africa relocating to an amended 6 nations regardless of whatever contracts have been signed with SANZAAR. I wouldn't be surprised if Argentina followed as well since so many of their players are in europe already after the disbandment of super rugby.
CW Moss
Roar Rookie
You were going great until you weakened and brought in the Tr-Nations. Playing the Bledisloe every 2 years and re-introducing old-fashioned tours with mid-week and weekend games could round it out very well. I appreciate we have had to play NZ in NZ for money in the last couple of years but it's not very astute.
Angelo
Guest
You do realise the Springboks and possibly Argentina are joining the Six Nations? For the exact reason to lighten the travel burden, but also the commercial interest. Same time zones thus basically zero jetlag excuses. I can imagine renaming it something like The Atlantic Rugby Challenge. As for the Rugby Championship you will be left with AB's, Wallabies, Fidji, Japan, Samoa and Tonga. Perhaps rename the tournament to the Asia Pacific Cup.
nroko
Roar Rookie
They need to get the Pacific Nations cup up and running ASAP. Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, USA, Canada. Add Australia and NZ Maori or All Blacks XV (the so called NZ 2nd team that never got off the ground in 2020 due to pandemic). The problem is these teams don't have a set calendar at the moment, so they how fare in the face of regular competition is a bit unknown. Then in a few years when it comes to expansion it becomes clear which team is ready. Obviously Japan and Fiji look like front runners however need them to be consistently playing matches so the step up in level is manageable.
piru
Roar Rookie
Step 1 - move RA headquarters to Perth
Sinckler for the rules
Roar Rookie
All good, I was being cheeky in my original post as well. As I mention below NZ won the "grand slam" of RC 5 times in past 11 years so in those years they clearly would have won irregardless of the format but they have three other championship wins where they have lost or drawn at least one of the games. If the one game series was adopted it would stand to reason they would have won only one or two of these three championships Of course there are assumptions and limitations out the wazoo for this claim but I do think it would lead to better rugby and tighter competitions
piru
Roar Rookie
Piru, Why are you down with including Japan and Fiji may I ask ? Are they not as entitled to compete as any other nation. Why would you oppose their inclusion ? But I don't oppose it? Being "down" with something means you agree with it. It's been a long time since I was the young kid confusing the adults with street slang, but I'll take it where I can get it. Catch you all on the flip, jive turkeys
piru
Roar Rookie
Well, I was mainly being facetious, so probably don't expect too much logic from my original comment (I think I'm funny, at least sometimes) My point would be that I would expect the best team to win regardless of the format. If the format is designed specifically to allow the odd 'lucky' win (so to speak) to have a much bigger impact, then it's not as good a measure of which team is best. Admittedly that may not be the intention, and if not, fair enough.
Sinckler for the rules
Roar Rookie
One of the authors points in the article is that in the current format with two games against each team the rugby championship doesn't produce many winners other than New Zealand which is born out in the stats. You then comment saying "Maybe, and bear with me here, if SA and Australia want to win the comp, they should get better at playing rugby, rather than tweaking the comp to give them a leg up?". I read this as you not wanting to switch the format to one game per country because you thought it less likely NZ would win otherwise how does it give a leg up? So my question was if you think NZ are so much better than SA & AUS why can't you win one off matches? Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment but personally I would be a fan of one off matches - it has much more tension than knowing you can play them again next week. IMO it will lead to a more equal championship and games with bigger meaning.
Johnny Eales
Guest
With cracker ideas like this Andy Marino better watch out for his overpaid job, there is a new sherrif in town @Alex Gordon ????????????
Hughy1
Guest
They really should just mirror the 6n and host a rugby championship with, Jap,Nz,Aus, Rsa Arg and Fiji (as stated) and have each country host over a rotation of 6 years in that order. A predominant percentage of profits is given to host whilst rest gets shared evenly. This centralises travel, allows fiji years to build up world class hosting facilities, injects local cash flow and varies the comp yearly.
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
Makes sense, thanks!
Wayne
Roar Rookie
Alex The URC runs from end Sept to end Oct, break for Autumn Internationals, December to June. The Gallagher Premiership from September to June. Top14 from September to June. Players get 2 months off - July & August.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Like the 6N RC component, don't like the additional Tri Nations on the tail. I'm all for getting Japan and Fiji involved, play our version of the 6N under the straight 5 matches as proposed. A single additional Bledisloe hosted in which ever country didn't host the 6N match between Oz and NZ. Other than that, we have our reciprocal tours with the NH and play some of the developing teams to help them come up but overall let's have a reduction in Tests. Keep them special and build our Super AU and Super Aotearoa comps up..
AndyS
Guest
No problem with a six nations instead of a RC, if it is felt that would generate more interest and financials. But that is about all that would be possible, and I don't see as there is any point to any sort of 'finals'. Wouldn't bank on any big paydays though...I'm sure the push towards everyone keeping their own revenues wouldn't have been lost on the Japanese, especially after their last experience with SANZAAR.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Six teams. Everyone plays everyone once. A semi final and final will provide the additional high quality games that are desired. Determine the winner of the Bledisloe cup by the aggregate of the two games.
Peter
Roar Rookie
Piru, Why are you down with including Japan and Fiji may I ask ? Are they not as entitled to compete as any other nation. Why would you oppose their inclusion ? Just curious, Is it because they are not good enough ? Is it because the Japanese have too much money ? or the Fijians too little ? What if British Rugby had treated France the same way a hundred years ago. Rugby wouldn’t be the popular game that it is to today in France. How do you expect the Fijian’s and the Japanese to improve if they are not allowed to compete. I know that watching Australia getting beaten is a popular past time in New Zealand but let me tell you. Interest is growing a bit thin on the ground here in Australia. Bear with me here, I know that this is a difficult concept to grasp but people like to be entertained and the best way to do that in sport is to offer up a contest. The All Blacks winning consistently is good for the All Blacks and possibly by extension New Zealand but it is not healthy for Rugby. It has become a bore to watch them win the Rugby Championship year in, year out and people and the Media in Australia are tuning out. The paradigm needs to be shifted and the concept of a Six Nations championship would be in my opinion a good catalyst to start such a conversation and help invigorate what has become a tired competition. I have nothing against the South African national anthem for example or for that matter the Australian and the New Zealand national anthem’s. They are fine anthems but it is not 1934. Hearing the national anthem is not the special event that it once was. There are only so many times I want to hear them. The concept of listening to the same tunes week in, week out has personally speaking, worn a bit thin for me. Just like tuning in to watch the same results year after year has worn thin. It’s time Rugby learned to play to a different tune. It’s time that the Rugby community thought of the broader picture and not just what is in it for themselves.
Wayne
Roar Rookie
Alex, all the ideas on expanding the RC are fine and dandy, but only if you are not South Africa or Argentina. They bear the brunt of the travel burden and unless whatever the RC format is does not take that into consideration then it will not happen. Adding more teams just means a greater travel burden. There is also the problem of the limited windows we have to play the RC as it is so I do not see how adding more teams would work. The last thing we want is for the Argies & SB's to send a B team because of NH club commitments.