What reports out of Ireland? I haven’t seen a single report suggesting that

KPM I think you’re pushed too far, now I’m convinced you’re just trolling people, because nobody could be that dense. Northampton beat Munster last weekend off an 80m backline strike move, that is you had them replay it wearing Tahs and Hurricanes jerseys you’d be drooling.

NFL is the richest league in the world in terms of revenue, has (some of) the biggest TV deals, and contains 7 of the top 10 teams in the world by net worth. As I said, by nearly any metric you choose, the world’s biggest sports are American football, soccer football and cricket.

What anti-NZ parts have I thrown in, never mind incorrect ones? Your problem, Jacko, is you treat any comment that even mentions NZ in passing that isn’t treating you with complete deference as anti-NZ. The only time I mentioned NZ in that whole thing is discussing the negative media, and given some of the main media from NZ that I see promoted are the Breakdown and writers like Reason, that seems like a fair call. It’s not all NZ media either, I find the Aotearoa Rugby Pod is a much superior product to the Breakdown, for example, but it’s not the headline act.

Again KPM, you nake this claim all the time but never back it up with data. Of the 6N teams, only one of them could be accused of playing 10 man rugby (England), whereas 4 of them throw it wide more often than Australia does! Wales are the outlier because I frankly don’t know if they have a gameplan under Gatland other than hoping for the best.

Yet another whinging article based on false premises, written by someone who I can only assume is a closeted League fan looking to bring Union down.

Moaning about the TMO is a huge bugbear of mine because WR are dawned not matter what they do, because any reduction in TMO usage leads to all sorts of online hyateria about decisions costing those fans a victory, and any increase leads to moaning about too much usage. If we (rugby watchers) could behave, TMO usage could be solved, but we have clearly demonstrated that we can’t.

But you keep saying rugby is dying, when it isn’t? Rugby literally had its most popular/biggest/etc World Cup last year, beating the previous records (set in 2019), which in turn beat 2015, so where is the evidence of rugby dying globally? And compare that to the “thriving” League, who has had to change World Cup host because of worries over financial viability?

The biggest problem with World Rugby (note that it’s WR and the IRB hasn’t existed in half a decade, which is a huge indicator of how accurate the claims in this article are) isn’t anything on the pitch, but the fact they keep tinkering with the laws and competition formats to try soothe a cohort of (mostly SH-based) whingers who will never be happy. Rugby is better than ever by most metrics of the complaints, it’s faster, more skilfull and with higher ball-in-play than ever before, it just doesnt have the nostalgia goggles the past does!

As for what makes a sport survive, by pretty much any metric the biggest ball sport on the planet is one of association football, NFL, or cricket. Union, League and AFL aren’t close. And none of those big three would pass all the checks that rugby detractors keep ruling rugby against. NFL is extremely stop-start with an extremely low ball-in-play time (a 60 minite game takes 180 minutes to complete for roughly just 12-14 minutes of action), some forms of cricket takes 5 days to play and the systems of overs leads naturally to many short stoppages, soccer frequently has games that are 0-0 after 90-120 minutes of play and with nobody ever looking like scoring, both NFL and cricket are exceedingly complicated with often arbitrary seeming rules and terminology, and with a massive input from technology and officiating teams, soccer is a lot simpler but still has officiating complaints, nearly every complaint that can be leveled at rugby can be thrown at at least one of those three as well.

As much as it sucks to say, when people say “Rugby needs a strong Australia”, “We need to stop the game dying in Australia”, sometimes I think the opposite might be true. Because, in my opinion, BY FAR the biggest issue with today’s rugby is how negative its own media is, you rarely see other sports as willing to gleefully tear itself apart as rugby’s media does, and Australia is possibly the biggest contributor to that (alongside NZ and England when England lose). I’m not advocating for intentionally killing rugby in Australia, but why should the rest of the world (where mostly rugby is going from strength to strength) sacrifice parts of itself to save a market that’s just gleefully going to rub salt in those wounds anyway?

The biggest problem with your first point is the fans. It would be all well and good if people just accepted it and moved on, but everyone would throw a fit and demand TMO interventions if it negatively affected their team (just look at some Kiwis and Barnes, all these years later, for example)

The Ball-In-Play time is literally the highest it’s ever been, considerably higher than it was back in any “golden era” that people like to hark back to with their nostalgia-goggles.

There are still tap moves! Leinster (and Ireland) have a whole catalogue of inventive 5m moves, and numerous other URC teams are following suit.

Problem with your suggestion is you will start to see persistent infringement from teams between their 22m and 40m lines, with very little downside (particularly if they#re on top in the lineout).

Making penalties worth two points is a guaranteed way to reduce the number of tries per game, because it incentivises defenses to transgress in order to prevent tries.

Do you struggle with reading comprehension Jacko? Because I gave you multiple metrics. I can do it again, in less words if that helps.

Attendance (average attendance is over 20,000 more per game in the 6N).

TV coverage (games are free to air in all 6 countries).

Prize money.

Atmosphere at the stadium.

Anthems.

Historical legacy (Nearly 150 years vs just under 30).

Internal competitiveness. 4 different winners in 4 years vs NZ winning 20 out of 28.

Is that sufficient?

Minor point as I follow the URC, but that’s become very competitive. Just before the start of the 6N, the top of the table read 1. Leinster (Ireland), 2. Benetton (Italy), 3. Glasgow (Scotland) and 4. Bulls (SA). Benetton have lost ground since then (given they’re missing most of their squad to Italy), but after 11 rounds only 4 points separate the top 3, a small jump of 6 from Glasgow in 3rd to Edinburgh in 4th, and there’s only 5 points between 4th and 11th.

Jacko, I know that the idea of those filthy NH peasants daring to think they even play the same sport as the All Mighty All Blacks really winds you up but you’re widely off base here (as your NH-centric comments usually are!).

This was already covered by others, but the Munster-Crusaders game was pretty meaningless. It featured one team not at full strength and in preseason mode travelling to one team who were equally weakened and testing fringe and academy players (while keeping the minutes of a handful of starters not good enough to get international callups ticking over). Entertaining enough rugby, but I don’t think you can take anything from that as evidence (other than Munster C are capable of beating Crusaders C at least once, I guess?). If Munster sent a preseason team down this year and faced the Crusaders on the Friday night of a weekend with a NZ-SA Rugby Championship clash on the Saturday, I’d read equally little into that result. Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea behind the game is fine, but it’s a money earner the organisations, a cheap(er) day out for the fans, and a chance to experiment for the coaching staff, not a game with bragging rights on the line.

Where you’re really off-base if saying there’s not one metric where the quality of comp is worse in the SH when your entire argument seems to be based off ONLY one metric, WC wins. Quality of comp is a vague term, but there is definitely metrics in which the 6N can top the RC.

Historically, they win that metric as the 6N began in 1883 (as the Home Nations), became the 5N in 1910, and 6N in 2000.

Attendance, and overall money, all points in the 6N column too. Every year you get moaning about attendances, compared to the atmosphere in a packed out Millennium Stadium/France/etc. On the money front too, the cash prizes Ireland get for finishing in the top 3 (and winning one or two) across any given WC cycle absolutely dwarf anything they’d get for a RWC SF appearance (for example).

Attractiveness of rugby (because I know it will be brought up by someone who hasn’t watched a NH game since 2003) is something I’d credit as even between the two, 6N can be up-and-down from game to game, but Ireland, Scotland, France and Italy (even if they’re not as good at it) all play enterprising, attacking rugby in various forms. And people can forget the RC can have some really error-strewn stinkers in there.

The latest WC was won by a URC country using a majority of URC based players if we want to go the club route. Also I’d argue that of the big 5 leagues, SRP is last in most off-field metrics (not an attack on the rugby on the field! But the URC (minus the Welsh teams), Top14 and JRLO are all definitely ran better, and the Premiership arguably is too as they seem to have settled after losing those three teams post-COVID).

But to me, and why the 6N beats the RC, is (what I consider) the most important metric: Competition. The last 4 6N have had 4 separate winners, and there hasn’t been a repeat winner since 2016-2017 (although will probably be broken this year). There has only every been one threepeat (France won 4 from 1986 – 1989, and 2 of those were tied championships), and there has NEVER been an outright threepeat. Compare that to the RC, were NZ have won 7 of the last 8, 11 of the last 14, 20 of the 28 in total, hasn’t finished outside the top two since 2004, and if you take out the shortened RWC year formats you have to go all the way back to 2009 to find a non-NZ winner. NZ threepeat basically every RWC cycle! And there has never been a tied competition either. Before anyone loses their mind, this is not an attack on NZ, that’s an incredible run of form, but it does make the competition on the whole a little boring for outsiders (if you’re not an ABs fan, at least). There’s no jeopardy, its like that joke, “The RC is a simple game, 30 men chase a ball around a pitch for 6 games and in the end NZ win”. Compare that to the 6N, which (this year excepting) often comes down to the final weekend and a race for BP and PD. And before you have the “But Italy have no chance!!!”, I’d counter that Argentina’s results are pretty comparable. Even with this year being an outlier with it looking like Ireland will have it before the final weekend, before the tournament Ireland weren’t odds-on and France were most bookies favourites. And another fact about the competitiveness is Ireland are lookng to be first team to get back-to-back Grand Slams since France in 1997-1998.

If you want to take RWC wins as the be-all-and-end-all metric, feel free, but to say that’s the only metric is an outright lie. I know I prefer a more open competition, and the average neutral probably does too.

Your mouth guard complaint makes no sense to me? Because I cannot work out why this is any different than a doctor watching on a slight delay and pulling people he thinks need to be tested based on other indicators. These “numbers on a spreadsheet” arent just arbitrary figures from a random number generator. Genuinely, can anyone against them explain what the difference is, keeping in mind that this is to catch incidents with delayed-onset symptoms.
“You will turn the game into a farce if some bloke in a lab medical coat is able to keep arbitrarily removing players from the paddock because of numbers on a spreadsheet a suspicion he has.”

People that say that tend to ignore the fact that Aki, JGP and Lowe are all incomparably better players than they were when they left NZ. Lowe and JGP in particular, Lowe was regarded as a massive liability in defence, and now Ireland have him shooting up to make vital choke tackles, and JGP was barely even starting for the Blues. If you suggested that the Blues’ JGP deserved to be an AB, you’d have been laughed out of the country.

I would put money on if we could somehow get you to watch a selection of URC, Premiership and SR games with all the identifiers blocked you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, you just refuse to let any and all evidence (and it is literally ALL of the evidence) dissuade you from your incorrect stereotypes about NH Rugby. Over the last 8 or so years, Ireland, France, Scotland and Italy have all played more heads-up, attacking rugby than NZ or Australia (to different degrees, like Italy weren’t particularly good at it, but that doesn’t change the fact they kicked amongst the least of any T1) teams.

1) I wouldn’t argue it’s unique, Ireland has a near identical scenario with (soccer) football, GAA football and hurling. For example, look up some photos of one of the recent All-Ireland winning Limerick squad! And globally, football is the #1 sport in a massive proportion of every country in the world, even the rugby-playing ones. I’m happy for someone to find stats to prove me wrong, but off the top of my head the countries I think have Rugby Union as their main sport are Georgia, SA, most of the Pacific Islands, and weirdly enough I remember reading about Madagascar having it as a main sport.

2) If rugby union IS competing with League, I’d argue that instead of changing the rules to be an almost-but-not-quite imitation of League but without any of the personal history that any converts would have with it, so why would they even care, Union should emphasise the differences instead. For example, one of the most influential players of the entire World Cup was Ox Nche, and in what other sport could a man of that size and body shape not just play at the highest level, but excel? I can only think of NFL (as only as a lineman), and maybe weightlfting or one of the hammertoss-type events in athletics? And he looks wildly different from other top-class players (your Savea/Doris types, your Will Jordan/Penauds, your Moungas, your Pollards/Sextons, your Duponts and Smiths, your Retallicks and Etzebeths, etc) and they can all succeed too.

This article is so remarkable I am genuinely doubting if you’ve ever intentionally even watched a game of Rugby Union, you’ve just accidentally seen a couple and thought “Huh, that’s odd, this League game doesn’t seem to have a tackle count”.
One thing I think people need to keep in mind is Rugby is not dying, globally. In fact, outside Australia (and I understand this is an Australian-focussed site so a bit blinkered), it’s doing better than ever, the others exceptions you could maybe possibly make a argument for are:
NZ (where the decline is much less than Aus, and I would argue a big factor that people don’t like to talk about is the comparative catch-up to the ABs from other nations),
Wales (which is an absolute mess that has nothing to do with the state of rugby laws, or the “spectacle”, or anything like that, and entirely down to the game there being run by an organisation that make RA look competent and forward-thinking),
Romania (which took a serious hit from the move of rugby to professionalism and the move of Romania out of communism, as state-sponsored players from the likes of the army formed the core of their player base),
and Canada (which is arguably the worst run union in the world).
Even the USA (missed the WC and the MLR has some issues but it’s overcoming them) and England (the loss of teams appears to have stabilised and arguably the Premiership looks better than ever, certainly more competitive in Europe with the talent more condensed into the fewer teams) aren’t all doom and gloom, and France is thriving, Argentina is doing fine, every URC country (apart from Wales) is probably doing better than at any previous point in history, same with Japan, Fiji, Georgia, Portugal, Spain (if they can sort out their eligilibilty things), pretty much all of Europe outside the few exceptions above, the entirety of South America frankly, the list goes on.
It really blows my mind how people want to throw all that down the drain to make a cheap, late-to-the-party League knock-off that sure, the NRL and SOO might be huge on one Australian coast, but internationally pales in comparison. Union is not doing too bad, sure it’s not FIFA but you’d kill your game trying to replicate that, even the NFL’s cash can’t help them there

Your comments give away the fact you never actually watched any of the rugby in question and you have 0 idea what you’re talking about. Ireland frequently kicked less than most other international teams and would regularly hit 60%+ possession in games. And on the few occasions they DID kick, it was via Conor Murray, not Sexton.

I have no idea why you think something so demonstrably wrong, I guess it must be the outdated stereotype that some idiots like to fall back on, of Ireland = NH = therefore they must kick loads? Gatland’s Wales played a “Kick then back their defence & fitness” gameplan, maybe you mixed them up?

Why do very few writers of rugby articles think about consequences at all? Part of the beauty of rugby is how complex and interlinked every aspect is, so every change needs to have the wider impacts considered. Most people complain WR tinker too much, and part of the reason is every change leads to a further one.
For example, these changes would be adored by defensive coaches and absolutely ruin the game for anyone who is already complaining about it as a spectacle (I can appreciate all aspects of rugby, but some people should probably just stick to 7s), because now they can just make every breakdown an absolute mess, and ruck speed would slow to a crawl.
“But that’s covered under professional fouls”
You are going to take every single instance of a tackler falling off his feet onto the wrong side is covered? Even if it’s unintentional? Because I see people complain about that as it is, as well as similar cries about deliberate knock-ons.
“No, refs can just punish the deliberate ones”
Intent is one of the hardest thing to judge in any situation, only the offending player themselves can really know (and even then not always). See above re: deliberate knock-ons, and also how many people complain about high shots “that they didn’t mean”.
“I think you’re overestimating it”
I would put a lot of money on a game played under these laws being an absolute horror-show, with every single defending ruck have players flopping all over it, hands on the ball. Players and coaches are athletes whose jobs, first and foremost, are to win games (within the rules, ideally). If you could genuinely look me in the eye and tell me that a team (particularly with, say, a championship on the line) would play “all’s fair, fair dinkum mate, here’s the ball and we’ll let you win on your own time” rugby instead of taking every chance they can. I hope Santa is bringing you what you’ve asked him for this year. I mean, this article bemoans players playing for penalties to win, how would this be any differrent?
“The refs could just solve that by carding persistent offenders”
Probably the biggest complaint (and one I have serious issues with those complaints but that’s for another time) is “Waaah, 14v15, unfair, ruins the spectacle, let the boys play”, and now people think we should have 4+ yellow cards a game?
Not to mention, in the RWC final NZ only conceded 5 penalties across the whole game. Yes, FIVE. SA, the team who won, conceded 10, and I’d guarantee Rassie would have had them make more under your rule set. My (unserious) suggestion because I don’t think it actually needs that much change is this: If you want more tries, make penalties worth five points instead of three. Once people get over their repeated (false) stereotypes about Those Big Mean NH/SA teams harming the Glorious Aussie/NZ Rugby, which completely ignores the reality of, say, Ireland, France, Scotland, Italy, the SA backline (when they want), Portugal, Spain, Georgia, etc, and frankly ignores cynicality in NZ (which, to be clear before the usuals focus on that, I 100% mean as a compliment not an insult, it’s part of the whole Winner’s Mentality they have) and the state of Aussie rugby, consider this: Why would you give away a penalty in defense if conceding the try is potentially the same, if not better? 3 points with a small chance of going off (but you back your teammates to mean that’s all that you’ll concede) vs 5 points with a chance of 7 (so worth 3 penalties) is a no-brainer, 5 points with a chance of going off vs the exact same 5 with a chance of 7 is much more of a conundrum.

Having the audacity to win, presumably. Usually I find it’s rarely win = plucky or spirited, occasionally win = tenacious, consistently win = arrogant.

This article is several things which are real pet peeves of mine, so I’ve got a long rant inbound. The headline nails it, while the article itself misses the mark, because it’s the self-interest, arrogance and denial of Australasian rugby as a whole that’s the issue, not just administration. I hope you have some self-reflection, because a lot of this content is based on out-of-date or even entirely baseless stereotypes, or a narrow and misrepresentative selection of data. If that running rugby is what you seek out, try giving 7s a go.
To start, have you ever rewatched rugby from the 90s? I mean, actually sat down and watched a full game from start to finish. And not a carefully selected one that’s renowned for being one of the best of that year, just an average game. There were good games, obviously, but also real stinkers when the quality was awful in comparison to today, the average player considerably worse at tackling, passing and catching, fitness was non-existent, and a large percentage of tries are down to shocking defence more than anything else. For example, go back and watch every group game from 1987 in full, no fast-forwarding through the numerous setpieces. Sure, some will be very enjoyable, but I don’t believe you if you think you’ll prefer every single one. Even things like Kirwan’s try vs Italy is shocking tackling as much as anything else. By pretty much every measurable statistic (BIP time, tries scored, etc), not only has the quality of players improved, so has the spectacle. People talk about the running rugby of yesteryear through the nostalgia-tinted glasses, because they forget all the drudgery that surrounded the bits they remember. Of the 25 games played so far at this year’s comp, nearly every one of them has been enjoyable. There’s been 7 uncompetitive affairs (France-Namibia, NZ-Namibia, Ireland-Romania, Ireland-Tonga, SA-Romania, England-Chile, Scotland-Tonga) all of whom involve the same 4 weakest teams in the comp, as even other blowouts have had the weaker teams in it until they fall away in the second half, and just 3 dirges that were bereft of attacking quality (England-Argentina, England-Japan, Argentina-Samoa). Even then the England-Argentina game was interesting to watch for the tactical nous of Ford and complete capitulation of the Pumas. I’d say England-Japan and Argentina-Samoa have been the only two games so far I have not enjoyed in at least some aspect, which is a way higher hit rate that 1987 had for me (I went and watched it over lockdowns, but as I am too young to have experienced it “live” there was no nostalgia clouding my judgement).
World rugby’s endless rule tinkering has strangled anything resembling running rugby. Players dive in, enter from the side, hands on the ground and the whistle squeals: A player pinned to the ground is penalised for not rolling away. It’s frustrating.
Not only have WR taken steps to up running rugby recently, for example the 50/22 taking players out of the defensive line, and the goal-line changes disincentivizing forward packs from repeatedly bashing their heads against the tryline, but in the very next sentence you then complain about the refs penalising players for committing offences that stop running rugby! I can guarantee you that if WR had a game where none of those (or similar offences) were penalised it would not be a good watch, as defences would slow every ruck down to a crawl, 9s taking up to 10 seconds to get a pass away, leaving the defensive lines aeons to reset themselves.
Next point, you tar the entire NH with the same (English) brush, effectively implying that Australia and NZ are the noble bastions of running rugby holding out against everyone else who just scores in increments of 3. Have you seen Scotland play at any point over the past couple of years? Or France, or Ireland, or even Italy? And that’s just 6N teams, what about Fiji, Japan, Uruguay, Portugal? Georgia have one of the best FBs in the Top14, and the Georgia-Portugal game was a back-and-forth attack-minded thriller. Or, frankly, on the other side of this, have you seen Australia? To say what you said would have an equivalent of saying all NZ attacks are rubbish, just unimaginative one-out runners with massive bodies before booting it away, because that’s how Australia have attacked under Jones and that’s basically the same thing because they’re all the same as SH.
Ireland are #1 in the world and that’s based off an enterprising attacking plan of running rugby, of keeping the ball, moving it and the defences around at a high pace, and striking when the opportunity arise. France (WC favourites for me) have a completely different plan, but are also extremely enterprising, kicking more than nearly any other team, but in a way that disorganises the backfield and leads to counterattacking opportunities to exploit their excellent support lines and offloading game. Also, this is rather incidental, but I prefer sports were there is no one clear winning tactic, and people can take different approaches depending on the resources available. Look at the top 3 in the world right now, all have completely varied approaches! So while you’re wrong about WR “killing running rugby”, even if you were right, the alternative is bad too as a game were everyone plays as carbon copies of each other to varying levels of success. I like a global game where multiple teams can challenge with completely different gameplans. Goal-kicking is a skill just like offloads or the ability to win turnovers.
Sadly, I think this may not be the nadir for the Wallabies or the ABs, as while you are right to call out the unions themselves, certain parts of the media and the supporters have not helped. There’s a certain section that are both firmly entrenched in the past, thinking the world still operates like Randwick in 1980, and that it’s their birthright to win every game they enter except against each other, and not only are they stuck in time, and in geography. Look at the reactions over the Wallabies losing to Italy, or the ABs losing to Ireland/Argentina, with people saying “X coach is obviously the problem and this is unacceptable, because clearly we must have all the best players” even though the world has improved and if you look at it objectively, they don’t. Italy, for example, are a quality attacking side now, with players at the top end of the Top14 and with Benetton regurlarly challenging for URC post-season. I think there’s a certain level of ignorance amongst the journalists and supporters (and even some playing/coaching staff, NZ in Chicago anyone?) about rugby outside their bubble. These are going to be two incredibly controversial statements here, but I do believe them:
1) I think if you look at it more objectively (and ignoring injuries), on form no current Wallabies or ABs are in a World XV. There’s certainly some in contention in gold, eg I think Skelton has a strong argument having had multiple EPCR commendations, and there’s 5 or 6 in black who you could nominate, but none certainly walk in. Even their best player in Savea, are you really definitely picking him ahead of Aldritt (or Doris)? I’m not. Now I’m not saying he’s bad, and I can agree with picking him as he’s one of the best in the world, but the key is he’s one of the best in the world, not the clear best in the world, and it’s the debate within that which is what I’m talking about. Same with Smith, Mo’unga, each Barrett, etc.
And:
2) Even under Robertson, NZ are going to lose a couple more “firsts” over the next decade. The one I feel is most likely is lose to Scotland at Murrayfield, but there’s other options, for example I think NZ would be favourites going in, but given the performance of the Drua and current national team (who were a bit of composure in their multiple chances away from being 2/2 over their T1 pool competititors), could you really completely rule out the ABs getting overturned in Suva?
And that’s kind of summarised by your closing statement, Let the northern hemisphere keep their kicking competitions and we can run our own game, how we like it. Fast and furious.
Not only does that come off a little petulant, like “We’re no longer guaranteed to win, so we’re taking our ball and going home”, it also gives me the impression of that ignorance I mentioned. When was the last Bledisloe cup game that matched the recent Ireland-SA one for furiousness, for example? There’s numerous high-quality competitive games outside Oceania, like recent France-Ireland clashes (which have set records for game speeds and BIP time), and Scotland-France clashes are usually humdingers.

You’ll probably make the QF given that group has a woeful Wales as the other T1 team (Fiji and Georgia will both fancy their chances at you both though).
Compare that to SA, who have Ireland (#1) and Scotland (#5), as well as a newly juiced-up Tonga and physically huge Romania.

OK was exactly how I felt. I didn’t think he was good, per se, but just the 6/10 was more than anyone else in the pack deserved either.