The Tri-Nations-A poisoned chalice?

Hey guys

Since Australia has now added to the curse that 3N (soon to be 4N) winners don't do the business at the World Cup, any ideas on what to do in World Cup years for the SANZAAR nations? (I just chucked another A in for Argentina I don't know what the new acronym will be if any)

We abbreviated it this year but it still meant NZ played 10 tests in 12 weeks. That's a hell of an ask and with the curse of the 10s we had I'm sure Mehrts and Foxy were getting in some kicking practice.

I'm leaning towards wanting it to be scrapped in World Cup years-I know it's a revenue issue but wouldn't a three test series and a couple of non-test warmups be ok? Even send the players back to provincial level where they can get conditioned without the sheer intensity of test match rugby.

Thoughts?

For me the 3Ns, now 4Ns, are as important than the RWC. The sides I want to beat the most, consistenly, are the other 2 3Ns sides. So for me keep it up, and I am disappointed whenever one of the sides field a weaken team, thus cheapening the game.

I am sure there are other people out there who thinks the 3Ns is up there with the RWC for game satisfication. sure, winning the RWC gives you bragging rights for 4 years, but the 3Ns winners are contested every year, thus making it more relevant.

Disney, the problem does not lie with te Tri nations, it lies within this bloody conference extended mish mash of australian media driven super XV.

1. Let us be clear about this, the conference system is there for the benefit of australian domestic rugby Union. they want a conference system which encompasses a hidden agenda ( local domestic regional professional league) within the broader "international" or "inter provincial" rugby competition, this makes their domestic league sustainable.

2. The six team play off system DOESN'T WORK., why? because it has been proven in the RWC, that when they have more than 4 pools the teams having to "qualify" for a QF spot were on a hiding to nothing. The same happened this year in the play offs during the Super XV.

3. There are too many teams to play every other team, so now you miss out on some teams and could end up playing stronger teams than the opposition which makes it totally unfair to qualify.

4. Forget about this idea, go back to a single round system where the top four teams qualify.

5. Even with the current 15 teams you will reduce the length of the tournamnet by a month.

6. THe SUPER tournamnet is not super anymore, why ? Becuase it is no longer strength vs strength, Even SA and NZ are struggling to have more than 3 very competitve teams, how are australia going to do it.

THe only solution is to reduce the number of teams, or alternatively bring in a two tier system.

The Super rugby tournamnet should not take more than 16 weeks, no matter which way you structure it.

To me what was worse than the 3N was the behemoth that is now called the S15. It started in February when I used to go surfing on my birthday. I think if you´re going to get rid of something or abridge something in a World Cup year, that would be my starting point.

Indeed, it doesn´t even matter if it´s a World Cup year. Just shorten the thing. The conference system is supposed to promote rivalry between the nations. In SA and NZ, they already have a home-based competition that does that. At least SA got good crowds for their S15 games. But to me it dominates the SH calendar going on for far too long.

Just as an aside, how does this 4N work in terms of travel. Those are ludicrous distances involved if you play home and away games?

OzT wrote:For me the 3Ns, now 4Ns, are as important than the RWC. The sides I want to beat the most, consistenly, are the other 2 3Ns sides. So for me keep it up, and I am disappointed whenever one of the sides field a weaken team, thus cheapening the game.

I am sure there are other people out there who thinks the 3Ns is up there with the RWC for game satisfication. sure, winning the RWC gives you bragging rights for 4 years, but the 3Ns winners are contested every year, thus making it more relevant.

Yes the Tri Nations/ four Nations is fine, keep it to a single round robin home and away.

Because there are now four teams it might even be worth it to host it on a rotation basis in a different country every year. It will cut down on travel, it will keep everyone in a tournament for 6 weeks and will attrack a "tournament" flavour which will attract tourism, fans and great crowds. Imagine hosting the tournament every four years, something like a "mini" world cup.

Yeah agree the SXV was a joke this year.

That's an idea biltong, but means 3 years every country will have no revenue from home games, or supporters to watch the games live.

Although if hosted in Argentina what a great party that will be there!! Cheap beer, dusky women, oh, and the games themselves!!! LOL!

But back to the point, the 3Ns for me is more relevant than the RWC, and I in a RWC year I am disappointed that it then gets relegated more to a trial series.

I like the idea of rotating the hosting rights to the 4N. The travel is ridiculous otherwise. Already it´s too much with the 3N. The Silly 15 is the main culprit though. Bigger is not always better, although very small is a problem with no solution.

Ozt, SANZAARG is going to share everything else, they might as well share the gate money. (not all of it though, I am sure percentages can apply)

Regarding the Conference system, why did SARU and NZRU go for it?

Not just the gate money biltong, but the money spent going to/staying/at the games themselves.

But am looking forward to next year's games, and also for Argentina to upset seemingly everyone expectations on here and win a game NOT against the wallabies first!!!

When SANZAARG one day wakes up and smeel the roses they will realise that their quest for the almighty dollar is buggering up everything else.

If you consider January as the pre season training and start the Super whatever first weekend in February it provides ample time to conclude the Super rugby whatever before the end of May.

That leaves June open for the traditional winter tours. in a non world cup year there is ample time to run the four nations for the 6 week period in july and august.

In a world cup year it depends when they want to run it, but the winter and autumn tours fall away anywya, which leaves enough time to either have the RWc first or the four nations first.

It all comes back to the super rugby whatever tournament.

boomeranga wrote:Regarding the Conference system, why did SARU and NZRU go for it?

boomeranga, i really wish I knew, I was reading some articles of late which suggests that John O'neil and his boys has been promoting the conference system from the start of super rugby. I am trying to figure out whether SARU and NZRU are simply incompetent and allowing ARU to lead them by the noses, or whether O'Neill is just tat persuasive.

Either way, I like the super rugby format, but it is not working at the moment, and far too long.

My first choice would be it go back to 12 teams. Sinlge round robin, finished in 14 weeks inclusive of the finals.

forgot to say, according to reports i read the Tri Nations is worth 6o% of the broadcast deal, thus if anything gives it must be the Superrugby whatever tournament.

12 teams, great idea!!!

NZ and SA 4 sides, Oz and Argentia 2 sides each, I think that will make a cream comp, with the best players in the country for each side, though then we need a 2nd tier club comp to bring players thru to the Super12 - national sides.

If Argentina is involved in the super tournament , I would suggest 3 teams each in a tier one tournament, and another 2 from each country in a tier two tournament.

I like the idea of a 2 tier tournament but I don´t think the teams or the fans of those teams in the 2nd tier would like it much. If there were a chance of relegation or promotion, then it´d probably be more palatable.

You could probably argue for bringing in a Pacific Island team into the S12 or whatever it is. You either have more teams but they don´t play games against every team and you make a random draw or a draw according to region or you cut the teams and play each side and keep it to just 3 months.

Kia, to have a relegation put inplace s simple.

If you are going to add Samoa, Fiji and Tonga to the tier two system, it would work great, just add Japan and you have two 12 team tiers, who can relegate and promote in an out of the tier one tournament based on performance.

This way both tournamnets last 11 weeks for the round robin and another 2 weeks for the finals.

At the end of both tournamnets, the two finalists of the tier two can play the bottom two teams in tier one for promotion.

This will change the dynamics of the tournament and performcne dictates your share of the pie.

Excellent idea, I like that. Playoffs between bottom of 1 and top of 2 for relegation/promotion.

Now just need to get the logistics of having a two tier club comp, and enough players to fill them, but that woudl be great if it coudl happen

Yeah you have to have a chance of upward mobility or face the prospect of relegation to make it palatable. The difficult thing is choosing first up who are the top teams? Do you base it on the previous year´s results? The Hurricanes wouldn´t want that. Do you average it out over the years? The Rebels or Highlanders wouldn´t want that?

Who are the top tier teams:
NZ Crusaders, Blues Hurricanes, Chiefs, Highlanders in that order.
Australia: Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies, Force, Rebels (Brumbies overall record does it for me)
SA: Stormers, Bulls, Sharks, Cheetahs, Lions (those top two have changed maybe but the Sharks are ghosts of their former selves and the Cheetahs and Lions looked to turn a new page last year.

How do you decide out of that those crucial 3rd or 4th placed calls for the top sides. It´d get ugly.

surely if the bean counters in SANZAARG were actually to do this they would give the current teams fair warning and give them a season to prove where they would end up the next year.

By doing this it will ensure that the first year of the two tier comp, you may even have more teams from one country in the teir one comp than another. but at least then the tier one will be SUPER again.

Common sense doesn´t seem to be all that common in rugby nowadays. But certainly a sensible proposal. What happens in the event of a tie for points? Countback of wins, bonus points or do you have a game to see who goes to the relegation game? And can teams only be relegated by country as opposed to whoever finishes bottom of the table?

Just ironing out these difficulties so I can cut and paste and send them all off to SANZAR.

Yeas, start with wins
then points difference
and then tries for and against.

That should be enough


The relegation and promotion does not work by country.

As I said, imagine we are going to go to this strucutre for 2013.

Currently you have 15 teams.

After 2012 the top 12 teams go through to tier one, irrespective from which country they come.

The other 3 joins the 2nd tier plus 3 teams from Argentina, then you add Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Japan all for the second tier.

Relegation will be by league position, last each season in tier 1 places top of tire 2.

It is meant to be a super club compo, so the best clubs in the 4 nations will be in tier 1.

My 2c worth

OzT wrote:Relegation will be by league position, last each season in tier 1 places top of tire 2.

It is meant to be a super club compo, so the best clubs in the 4 nations will be in tier 1.

My 2c worth

absolutely.

The problem is MONEY,realistically TV rights rule Super Rugby has become unwieildly.THe Franchize system for NZ/Aus at lest is virtually a closed shop as feeders for the test sides.
THAT in my view is still the way to go it is the ONLY thing stopping a mass exedous to the NH or Japan.
The current set up favours Australian Super franchises ,15 teams is too many .
Face facts each conference could lose one side easily,a Barbarians side runs contrary to the Super Rugby ethos.
Australia are pushed to sustain 3 not 5 sides.
A two tier 4Ns with the P acific Nations plus Japan with a one up.one down
relegation promotion .each year.
Players would develop the 2 tier sides would get more cash and exposure,and perhaps NH based players playing for them.
The 3Ns/6Ns should be sacrosanct not devalued for a RWC,BUT reality says
the human body can only take so much.
12 matches in 14 weeks,3Ns finishing 14 days before RWC starts madness,no wonder the Sh sides were running on empty towards the end.
A universal season for Both SH/NH is the way to go,in RWC year scrap S15 and play the 4Ns early in the season.
Then let playere Rand R a precedent set in 2007,repeated 2011 when 3 N was prioritized to attempt to win a RWC.
Its worked both times but time will come TV companies will want there pound of flesh.
THE BEST team playing all matches ,NOT having whole squads M>I>A then suddenly appearing fit.
Whatever happens 4Ns/6Ns should be as important to sides concerned as a RWC.