IRB Super 8's tournament.

In cricket the ICC has what they call the ICC tournament, it is played by the top countries.

I would like to see such a tournament for the top 8 nations of the rankings.

Imagine on a quadrannial basis, similar to the RWC, it is hosted in a country, 8 teams compete (qualification could be based on rankings or the quarter finalists of the previous RWC) in a single round robin tournament.

If you look at the Quarter finalists of the last RWC it would be:

NZ
FRA
OZ
WAL
SA
ARG
IRE
ENG

If based on rankings it may differ.

Seven rounds over 7 weeks, similar time frame as the RWC, that can provide everyone the "real" status of every nation. There is no place to hide as you have to front up against all the top teams.

First of all, the RWC makes the most money for the IRB and that money funds many countries, this tournament will be 28 matches in total which would bring in a huge amount of money, which once again can help fund smaller nations.

I personally think playing the six nations or four nations every two years will make a change from the norm and add variety and 3 different types of tournaments in a four year cycle.

I have seen many posters saying they got bored with the format of the Tri Nations, and by sticking in this type of tournament might just break the boredom.

Let's make this happen.

I do think they should have something like the JWC where you would have tiers.

The AIs every second year could be a five/six team league

I think that each division would be close and you could have the top 18/20 teams it so three or four divisons

div1
NZ, AU, SA, Wal, Eng,

div 2
Fra, Arg, Ire, Scot, Sam

div 3
Italy, Tonga, Fiji, Georgia, Japan

Div 4
Canada, US, Nambia, Rom, Rus

One up one down. Would also help with removing the 6 nations glass ceiling

You also could do 2 groups of 3/4 bottem get relegated

Brendan wrote:I do think they should have something like the JWC where you would have tiers.

The AIs every second year could be a five/six team league

I think that each division would be close and you could have the top 18/20 teams it so three or four divisons

div1
NZ, AU, SA, Wal, Eng,

div 2
Fra, Arg, Ire, Scot, Sam

div 3
Italy, Tonga, Fiji, Georgia, Japan

Div 4
Canada, US, Nambia, Rom, Rus

One up one down. Would also help with removing the 6 nations glass ceiling

You also could do 2 groups of 3/4 bottem get relegated

Brendan problem with yours is once again it will have the feel of an extended Tri Nations just adding Wales and England.

The reason why would want the top 8 nations, is due to the fact that this way there is no excuse of "SA won in 2007 cause they didn't face NZ or OZ" or "NZ won in 1987 casue SA wasn't there"

The top 8 plays everyone, what better measure can there e of bragging rights?

The idea is fine because it makes a RWC redundant ,if it goes ahead forget about a RWC.Only 4 sides have won one only 5 made a Final,also you could lose both the 6Ns and 4Ns.Extend it to a Super 9 Scotland would be in the mix too. All but one RWC they have at least made it out of there group which is the same for most others.If you have a RWC make it for the rest of the world and a grand play -off.

Alan, I wouldn't want the RWC to become redundant. It is just about the only opportunity where the smaller unions get an opportunity to play the top nations in front of the world watching.

I never get this thing of who plays and doesn't play people.

People aren't going to say that France and England were better then SA in 2007.

There is a reason why only 5 teams have got to the final and to be fair its unlikely to change. Probably it is more of a suprise that France haven't got one yet.

Would there be any difference with having the top 8/9 teams. It would mean that the 3n would come 1-3 as the 5n would take wins off each other. There has always been a NH finalist which would end.

This is a terrible idea as it would kill the World Cup. If rugby is to grow or even keep its support, then it has to be more inclusive rather than more exclusive.

The ICC Champions trophy is an ODI competition and the rugby equivalent is sevens. The IRB will undoubtedly re-instate a sevens world cup every four years which would be a far better investment.

Why would it kill th world cup? It has nothing to do with the world cup?

Could expand rugby if it was done with 4-5 divisions of 8 teams each with the team finishing last in each division swapping places with the first placed team in the division below it. Would give lesser nations something concrete to aim for.

Galted wrote:Could expand rugby if it was done with 4-5 divisions of 8 teams each with the team finishing last in each division swapping places with the first placed team in the division below it. Would give lesser nations something concrete to aim for.

The Great Aukster wrote:This is a terrible idea as it would kill the World Cup. If rugby is to grow or even keep its support, then it has to be more inclusive rather than more exclusive.

The ICC Champions trophy is an ODI competition and the rugby equivalent is sevens. The IRB will undoubtedly re-instate a sevens world cup every four years which would be a far better investment.

another thing with this idea as well is that when would it fit into the playing schedule? There is already too much rugby being played and the quality
would get worse as players become worn out and mentally fatigued!

biltongbek wrote:Why would it kill th world cup? It has nothing to do with the world cup?

As well as the issues already mentioned:

Do you not think having a "top 8" (T8) competition that has probably the same teams as in the last 8 in a RWC detracts from the uniqueness of the RWC?
A "definitive" T8 champion would be hailed as the "real" world champion by fans such as yourself, rather then the "circumstantial" holder of the RWC wouldn't they, so every prior RWC would be devalued by association?
Are the main rugby sponsors going to be reluctant to shell out every two years rather than four?

Then there's the small matter of the Lions tours. Surely you would have to cancel these to have two years between the Top8 and the RWC. If the intention is to play the T8 either the year before or the year after the RWC that would diminish the RWC even more.
The T8 competition would also be inherently unfair as one nation would have seven home games and the other seven none. That is a massive advantage compared to the RWC and every other competition.

Can't see any merits in the idea.

You'd have to have a global season and would probably have to scrap the 6 nations and 4 nations.

I'd rather keep things as they are, the 6 Nations shouldnt have to play second fiddle to any competition.

Geez, you guys have no sense of adventure, no want or desire to challeng the status quo.

Agree Shifty!

Replacing a traditional popular competition like the 6N with a charmless 8N based in one country that basically prohibits many foreign fans from seeing their team first hand is crazy. Some fans find it hard enough to travel once every four years to a RWC never mind every two. With more games are they expected to stay in a hotel for seven weeks!

biltongbek wrote:Geez, you guys have no sense of adventure, no want or desire to challeng the status quo.

I take it you don't have any good arguments for this idea either as you're resorting to personal attacks?

The Great Aukster wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Geez, you guys have no sense of adventure, no want or desire to challeng the status quo.

I take it you don't have any good arguments for this idea either as you're resorting to personal attacks?

You see that as a personal attack?

biltongbek wrote:Geez, you guys have no sense of adventure, no want or desire to challeng the status quo.

I don't see how a tournament like this would challenge the status quo?
There's no room for it to start with, it would threaten the existence of the world cup, thereby punishing any up and coming
nation. The teams in the top 8 would streak ahead of the others as their unions would no doubt receive greater tv revenue and therefore
provide better funding to their team.

How would fixtures work? you couldn't have one team playing at home one week and then traveling to play 12000 miles away the next!

Yes. Your saying I have a failing, so what is that if it's not a personal attack?

I'd rather debate the thread rather than debate your perception of my shortcomings - is that too adventurous for you?

The Great Aukster wrote:Yes. Your saying I have a failing, so what is that if it's not a personal attack?

I'd rather debate the thread rather than debate your perception of my shortcomings - is that too adventurous for you?

I suggest you report me then, if you find that as a personal attack there isn't much sense in debating anything with you.

Majestic83 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Geez, you guys have no sense of adventure, no want or desire to challeng the status quo.

I don't see how a tournament like this would challenge the status quo?
There's no room for it to start with, it would threaten the existence of the world cup, thereby punishing any up and coming
nation. The teams in the top 8 would streak ahead of the others as their unions would no doubt receive greater tv revenue and therefore
provide better funding to their team.

How would fixtures work? you couldn't have one team playing at home one week and then traveling to play 12000 miles away the next!

Majestic, currently we have a situation where during a four year cycle there is only one tournament where countries have an opportunity to compete against one another, and even then it doesn't happen on a regular basis.

Take NZ for example, the only NH six nations team they faced in the RWC was France.

The other three years you have a Six nations and a Tri nations/fournations running.

I have seen many posters say the reason why the Tri Nation teams stay on top is because they almost exclusively play one antoehr and hence rack up ranking points that way.

If you reduce the six nations and Tri/fournations to twice every four years and have an additional T8 tournament it allows more countries of the top tier to host an important competition in place of the six nations or four nations, this way the IRB and unions will generate a lot of money from these tests ( we all know and have agreed many a time tests are the cash cows of rugby union, and the RWC is the pinnacle of this)

So there will be an opportunity for all the top teams to compete, not on a knock out basis, but every team gets the opportunity to compete against every other on a basis that is fair for everyone, and the revenue will fund all the nations as well.

Currently the IRB make almost all of its money from the RWC only.

Why do people presume that England would be in a division one?
And Ireland would be in division two?
Over the last decade Ireland have a 64% win rate over the English.

Infact the only top seeded teams the English have dominated since the glorious 2003 world cup win are France and Scotland,
the rest they have less than 40% chance of winning.

Lets crush this myth today that England are still a force in world rugby it's getting tiresome ,
they are average joes with a lot of money end of.

A tournament like this is never going to happen. For one there will be very few people who are going to back having this tournament at the expense of the six nations.
The six nations is a major event in europe that makes a lot of money for each of the teams involved. Most importantly though the six nations is something that players feel honoured to play in due to the history of the event.
The players and the fans aren't going to want to give that up, especially the fans who if i am reading your post correctly you would want one country to host the new tournament. Therefore the majority of supporters aren't going to travel to watch it and miss out on the experience of attending a six nations game.

What would be a more realistic tournament to have in place would be a world club championship where the top few clubs from europe, super rugby and say the japanese league play in a tournament.

viewtothegym wrote:Why do people presume that England would be in a division one?
And Ireland would be in division two?
Over the last decade Ireland have a 64% win rate over the English.

Infact the only top seeded teams the English have dominated since the glorious 2003 world cup win are France and Scotland,
the rest they have less than 40% chance of winning.

Lets crush this myth today that England are still a force in world rugby it's getting tiresome ,
they are average joes with a lot of money end of.

Even then i wouldn't exactly use the word dominate for englands record against France and Scotland since 2003!

I realise it won't happen, not much changes with the IRB, its all too familiar for them, I would however really enjoy such a tournament, even if I am in the minority.

The club prospect would never work because the English would want ten teams entered to every one else two teams each.

Also the Tigers would have to choose the ref and threaten legal action if you beat them and withdrawal if you don't do as your told.

biltongbek wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Yes. Your saying I have a failing, so what is that if it's not a personal attack?

I'd rather debate the thread rather than debate your perception of my shortcomings - is that too adventurous for you?

I suggest you report me then, if you find that as a personal attack there isn't much sense in debating anything with you.

Aren't you a Moderator Biltong?

Since you seem incapable of defending your own thread with any sort of logical debate without getting personal, and seem determined to decry anyone who doesn't agree with you, perhaps indeed there isn't much sense in continuing the debate with you.

Hmmm - the IRB would make money - yes - but everyone else would lose tons of money, because they would not have incoming tours or something. How big was the loss that ARU posted last year? How much did NZ lose hosting the World Cup?

Rugby is a tough game. Rugby players can only play 10-15 internationals a year. (Current limit 11-12)

Cricketers can play 50 + depending on format. They can play 3 20/20 a week, easily.

Nice to see some thinking, but don't think it'd work.

The world cup provides us with the world champion. This league would provide us with the team which is undisputedly the best in the world so it would devalue the prestige of a world cup. If there were to be a secondary competition then I'd like it to be treated as such. Something which is nice to win but not in the same league as the world cup. I can't see a cup like this in rugby unfortunately

Forget the personalties bit and look at it objectively,IF you had an annual 9 team tournament with teams playing Home and away.A total of 18 test matches.It would be considered a de facto World Championship.The ONLY
way it could work is if the 4Ns and 6Ns ceased ,the RWC would become not
a Superior Tournament but an inferior one frankly it would be redundant.I have been brooding myself about Rugby,the RWC ,and what went wrong the answer
MONEY.I love the idea of a RWC ,but HATE what it has become and the way it is manipulated.

The rugby world cup is a redundant tournament anyway - as soon as the final's over the moaning about the champions not being true champions because of the refs/countries they didn't get to play etc begins. The 6-nations is the same story - it seems that only a grand slam is an acceptable way of winning and the lopsided amount of home/away fixtures means that the winner is often a foregone conclusion. Fixtures such as Eng v Scot that would possibly not happen under a super 8 tournament could be played as not very friendly friendlies. Getting rid of the 6 nations & rugby championship & cutting back on the overlong Heinecken Cup & Super Rugby would open plenty of time for a home & away league for 8 teams.

Galted wrote:The rugby world cup is a redundant tournament anyway - as soon as the final's over the moaning about the champions not being true champions because of the refs/countries they didn't get to play etc begins. The 6-nations is the same story - it seems that only a grand slam is an acceptable way of winning and the lopsided amount of home/away fixtures means that the winner is often a foregone conclusion. Fixtures such as Eng v Scot that would possibly not happen under a super 8 tournament could be played as not very friendly friendlies. Getting rid of the 6 nations & rugby championship & cutting back on the overlong Heinecken Cup & Super Rugby would open plenty of time for a home & away league for 8 teams.

Galted that would be an ideal scenario, however from a practical sense, if people are fighting against the concept of the T8 tournament as a concept, is is even more unlikely that they will concede to reducing other tournaments.

Unfortunately that is correct, we can always dream though.

Well I think the current world champs would like that format because then we would tend to iron out those anomalies that seem to happen so regularly to NZ. But I see how people might not like their World Cup bragging rights undermined. Though if the tourny happened next year, it would be alright.

I would much rather see a euro championship with 16 teams in it played while the Lions are away so the top few teams would be b teams and Italy and soctland would be pushing to win it.

That would do more for europe and thus make us better as rising tides lifts all boats