One Venue for International Tests: Good or Bad

So I was thinking: England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland each have a single stadium at which they play all their international tests (Whereas the SANZAR nations spread their test matches around several venues). Do you think this is a good thing or not? Venues like Twickenam, Murrayfield et al have built up quite a history but does this exclusive approach limit the spread of Rugby in those nations? Opinions please: as a Saffa I can only speculate, but I know I'd be pretty annoyed if all Bok matches were only played at, say, Newlands...

We used to play our internationals in Yorkshire. In the good old days

Two sides

One you don't get that 'true home' and therefore home advantage means less.

Other side become more accustomed to playing in different arenas, home advantage mean less.

Scotland take smaller tests to Pittodrie.

I've always thought England should be more enterprising in that respect. Problem is money always takes priority with the RFU, so Twickenham always seems to be used. I'm still angry that more rugby stadia aren't being used for the World Cup in England. I understand the financial reasons, but it's still a shame.

The top 4 ranked nations regularly play tests in multiple venues - could be a lesson there.
On the other hand being packed into a tiny island (ob not Ireland) does make the travel for fans easier.

We're a small nation. France, Australia and SA are big countries in which the cities are vast and spread out. It makes sense for them to take the game elsewhere. I think England and Ireland could do it because they have the stadiums and logistics. NZ probably do it to keep the interest in Rugby up and down the country. Seems to work.

The WRU would never have the game staged outside of the MS for financial reasons and because there's no other economically viable stadium. If there was a 50,000 seater in North Wales I have no doubt the North Walians would fill it, and there would be droning outcries from the South.

Its really the size and/or population of the country. NZ with its split islands means at least a flight (or a very long drive/ ferry ride) to get to the match.

Our population means we're not always going to get 60,000 crowds so dont need to hold them at Eden Park. We hold test matches in Dunedin for 25,000- some venues- hamilton less.

We're not going to make the money of a twickers size test every time but spreading it around does give it some variety and a feeling that everyone can wander along and watch the All Blacks once in a while nearby.

Can't see why England dont hold them in the North where rugby is traditionally stronger (well it used to be). It might spice up the game a bit.

I'd add history to that. The NZ union was set set up based on provinces, which were semi independent when the NZRFU formed. The first tours were of provinces with no tests. When test's came they were spread. Same goes for Australia and South Africa.

The other obvious issue is distance. It's patently obvious to anyone who's travelled that Britain is small. Australia and SA are big. Very big relative to the UK. Even NZ is big in terms of distances traveled. The distances between our 4 main international stadiums are similar to the distances between the old 5 nations grounds. The provincial grounds are similar in separation to the Heineken cup spread.

For England to viably do it we'd have to stage the game in a football ground due to the money - probably Old Trafford.

I agree with exiledscot that it still angers me that so few rugby stadia were on the IRB shortlist. Welford Road especially I found ridiculous to exclude - always a great atmosphere and loyal fans who love rugby. Yes it isn't a huge ground compared to the football stadium but when smaller matches between second tier nations wont pull in huge crowds grounds like Welford Road, the Rec, Kingsholm, etc would be perfect to allow a big atmosphere between loyal rugby fans.

The England team has played two matches at Old Trafford. The first against the All Blacks in 1997, the second against Argentina in 2009. We have an unbeaten record there!

I think the Premiership is considering holding their final there in a year or two.

I dont mind having the 1st team playing at Twickenham...or Scotland at Murrayfield etc...its their "homes" so to speak...and i like the idea of building up "a fortress"..

However the other games...'A' Level, U21's etc should be moved around and indeed they are. In February during the 6n...England Saxons v Scotland A is at Kingston Park on the Friday night prior to the main event on the Saturday....

I think the unions are a bit trapped, they've spent so much money developing their stadia that they can't afford to go on the road.

They have to use them to pay off the debts.

Wendy ball had the opportunity to move away from a national stadium when Wembley was pulled down (and indeed did while it was being rebuilt) but again went down the single national stadium route.

Personally i like a 'Fortress Home' but it doesn't 'feel' wrong when we tour down south and move around the country so who knows which is best!

France seem to be the ones touring round the most. Maybe that's because Stade de France is a horrible test venue and has the appeal of watching rugby in a ballet concert hall. The crowd are too far from the pitch, the atmosphere is artificial and there is no heating for the pitch which Irish supporters found out is perhaps not such a good idea.

That said, I can see why you'd want to play in England, Wales and Edinburgh in those respective stadiums. Dublin I'm not so sure about simply because Croke Park is a strange set up as all international games outside Dublin are not considered internationals and that to me seems to be going too far to push all games in one stadium to pay off debts.

Some home venues that have held Ireland internationals.

Leinster cricket club Rathmines, Dublin
Ormeau, Belfast
Ravenhill, Belfast
Balmoral, Belfast
Lansdowne road, Dublin
Royal Dublin Showgrounds, Dublin
Thomond park, Limerick
Croke Park, Dublin
Cork hosted a few internationals in the early 1900s. Not sure where in Cork though.

Anyone know of any other venues?

In the early days Ireland played nearly every second game in Belfast until around the 1950s when they stopped. The next time they played in Belfast as far as I know was in the 90s or 2000s.

Irelands first ever home game was held in the Leinster cricket club Rathmines, Dublin.

However, as the OP stated the vast majority of Ireland’s home games have been held at Landsdowne. I would imagine it would be in the top three stadiums in the world for most international matches played there with only Twickers and Murrayfield ahead or around the same.

Rugby Fan wrote:The England team has played two matches at Old Trafford. The first against the All Blacks in 1997, the second against Argentina in 2009. We have an unbeaten record there!

I think the Premiership is considering holding their final there in a year or two.

I think England have played more than a couple of matches in Manchester though.

Don't the three SANZAR sides have fortress like grounds anyway though even though they travel a lot?

I remember the AB's had the House of Pain and didn't SA and OZ have venues where they were historically very very strong?

That's probably more to do with the team than the venue. ABs have only lost a few games in Twikers though the MS is a bit of a daunting place

yappysnap wrote:Don't the three SANZAR sides have fortress like grounds anyway though even though they travel a lot?

I remember the AB's had the House of Pain and didn't SA and OZ have venues where they were historically very very strong?

I think Eden Park would be New Zealand's main stadium rather than the house of pain. Havent lost there is a long time.

Indeed GG. We lost to the Boks in the House of Pain (which is no longer now after the revamp) in 2009 but I don't think we've lost to the Boks since 1936 or something crazy like that and Australia in the 80s I think.

We also have a tendency to play our best attacking rugby in Wellington for some reason. My home town Christchurch invariably gets the opposite performance so I'm usually quite happy not to see it as a test venue.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:So I was thinking: England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland each have a single stadium at which they play all their international tests (Whereas the SANZAR nations spread their test matches around several venues). Do you think this is a good thing or not? Venues like Twickenam, Murrayfield et al have built up quite a history but does this exclusive approach limit the spread of Rugby in those nations? Opinions please: as a Saffa I can only speculate, but I know I'd be pretty annoyed if all Bok matches were only played at, say, Newlands...

Well we have the tradition of the game- so we home the games in our historic stadiums. we are also smaller countries.

it would be kinda unfair for aus to have a home stadium tbh!!

Australia does have a home stadium oakey. Don't let the name change fool you. Telstra stadium will always be Homebush stadium.

I was disappointed when I went there. The only pole I could see didn't have Tatiana Grigorieva and Yelena Isinbayeva sliding down them. Opportunity missed for a great day out.

SA is a big place, it would be discourteous to play all their Internationals at one venue ...I reckon.
For our part, Lansdowne Road Stadium has a sponsor and that certainly controls games being held there now - in other words, I think that they demand that all Internationals are held there...the basterauds!

Croke Park (GAA) was just a place the IRFU went to as Lansdowne was being redeveloped.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Indeed GG. We lost to the Boks in the House of Pain (which is no longer now after the revamp) in 2009 but I don't think we've lost to the Boks since 1936 or something crazy like that and Australia in the 80s I think.

We also have a tendency to play our best attacking rugby in Wellington for some reason. My home town Christchurch invariably gets the opposite performance so I'm usually quite happy not to see it as a test venue.

Oh so thats why Ireland came close in the 2nd tist.

Yeah sorry, that's why. Nothing at all to do with the Irish forwards and smothering defence.

Like the Lions 1st test and then the contrast in Wellington where Carter scored the perfect 10.

mystiroakey wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:So I was thinking: England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland each have a single stadium at which they play all their international tests (Whereas the SANZAR nations spread their test matches around several venues). Do you think this is a good thing or not? Venues like Twickenam, Murrayfield et al have built up quite a history but does this exclusive approach limit the spread of Rugby in those nations? Opinions please: as a Saffa I can only speculate, but I know I'd be pretty annoyed if all Bok matches were only played at, say, Newlands...

Well we have the tradition of the game- so we home the games in our historic stadiums. we are also smaller countries.

it would be kinda unfair for aus to have a home stadium tbh!!

Fair enough: I suppose I'm thinking particularly of England: Do many people from up north travel down south to Twickenham to watch tests? Is there a connection between the location of Twickenham and Rugby Union predominating in the South?

well tbh rugby fans in the south east are all pretty local to twickers anyway! not to many fans from the rest of london in my experience!

I am very sure that fans travel from all over england to twickers- the max journey on a train from up north is only 4 hours

When people talk of Fortress this or that inthe case of NZ it isn`t a case of having a winning venue.THE whole country is a winning venue about 30 odd losses since 1905.Even the Boks have only done it about 9 times since 1921.[won there]

emack2 wrote:When people talk of Fortress this or that inthe case of NZ it isn`t a case of having a winning venue.THE whole country is a winning venue about 30 odd losses since 1905.Even the Boks have only done it about 9 times since 1921.[won there]

Took NZ a lot longer to win a series in S Africa.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Yeah sorry, that's why. Nothing at all to do with the Irish forwards and smothering defence.

Like the Lions 1st test and then the contrast in Wellington where Carter scored the perfect 10.

You might be right. Pity for us becsuse one of Irelands most famous victories came at the beautiful iconic Eden park

Rainbow warrior TRUE the All Blacks NEVER achieved a series win in the classical sense of full Tours.
BUT that does`nt alter the fact they have still only lost 30 or so matches at home at Test level since 1905.
OR that they have THE Best Away record of ANY side in the World and consistently siince 1992 win in SA something like a 45 % record.
Only the 1974 Lions have won a traditional series in SA other than the mini versions France did.1928 was a halved series 2 each which was the best the ABs did.BUT the ABs did win as many matches in the Republic as the Boks did in
1937 two.
The de Facto World Championship was decided after 1949 by home series advantage 1956,65,81 ABs,60,70,76 Boks tho 76 would have been halved but for a bent ref.

Emack the ABS are great. We get it

x

Alan, I am intrigued.

No wumming, just trying to understand.

You are an Englishman, living in england?

You said before you watched the All BLacks and because of how they always won you decided to support them.

How did you get your mind around the fact that you are an Englishman and forsaking your loyalties for another country?

Maybe its because emack sees himself as an Anglo/scotsman! and due to that loyality split easier to just support the team that he loved watching as a kid!

Sorry Emack- dont wanna speak for ya- Just a suggestion! Your old enough to know your own mind .. x

I just think about myelf and my loyalty to the springboks.

Even if I were to leave SA, the springbok passion and tradition would stop me from supporting another team.

Bilt i 100% agree with ya- I have asked him the samne question before..

I have to support my local club teams as well..

But i suppose some of us over here are abit different tbh... Not me though!

NZ is a nation of explorers and immigrants. So many Kiwis live or have lived abroad. It always strikes me how accepting we are of people who want to live in NZ. It doesn't matter where you're from so long as you contribute to society. I think in part that has more to do with NZ's low population and unemployment and normally skilled labour is in high demand. That is not to say NZ is a utopia where racism or ethnocentric beliefs are not commonplace. Sadly it can be found anywhere. No country, just like human individuals, is perfect.

Sometimes in Europe, though, I get a sense that if you're an outsider, you will never truly be viewed as a native. There is a lot more history and also a history of conflict. You will always be to some extent a foreigner in a foreign land. Paying taxes and residing there doesn't change that. The term colonial commoner is used affectionately in the UK and is similar to the term guiri in Spain (used for foreigners from Anglo-Saxon countries as opposed to South America, who collectively have more derogatory terms).

Identity is a difficult thing. I am very proud of my NZ roots but as my Scottish and mother's parents are British, I feel a great affinity to that country as well. I live in Spain and I have a Spanish wife but don't consider myself Spanish and am certainly not treated or perceived as a Spanish person. I speak the language and have assimilated myself into the Spanish way of life and celebrated the Spanish victories in the World Cup and Eurocups. But I'd be lying if I celebrated them in the same way as the World Cup last year.

But you can sometimes admire a team from another country. Often when the ABs toured South Africa they would find a lot of support from the black community. Many basketball fans admire the USA basketball team as they seem to be on another level. Usain Bolt has millions of admirers the way he competes.

Alan is an Anglo Scot who just so happens to have a love of the NZ rugby team. I grew up with a love of the West Indies cricket team. I wouldn't say I had nearly the same passion as Alan invests in following the ABs but given I only had Paddles, Lance Cairns and Ewen Chatfield to cheer on as heroes, it made a lot of sense to support another cricket team. I don't think that's betraying your country or forsaking your loyalties. I used to love the way the French played rugby. They don't seem to play with that flair they once used to. 99 was probably the last time they weaved their magic against a major side, at least against NZ. 2007 and 2011 RWCs stand out as monumental displays of defence for me.

We Kiwi posters often have arguments over certain things with Alan but I don't think any of us would begrudge his love of the ABs. To me it's like being passionate about a music band from another country. Someone once said something to me that struck a chord with me. What defines you is not where you are from or where you are born or even where you live. What is important is where you feel you belong. If Alan feels a sense of belonging supporting the All Blacks, that it feels right to him and that he is happy in doing this, what right do I have to stop him in that endeavour?

Biltong 1953-4 was my formative year.was Sports mad and in my last year at junior school [10].In 1953 I saw the All Blacks live twice,England versus France on a schoolfriends TV .Hungary revolutionised soccer ,followed by the Russian Club sides,Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute mile,England regained the ashes,I idolised Yorkshire and England at Cricket because of Len Hutton and Fred Trueman.Later I discovered only players Born in the County qualified which seemed to me the way to go.
I must correct you I DID`NT back the All Blacks because they alway won 1953-4 was I think there least successful tour.
THE BOKS were the winning is team of the era Rugby Union was a minority sport
even when we got Tv .Rugby was seldom covered even as late as 1964,since I only saw the AB`s once every 10 years it was hardly a problem.
England/Scotland I still support versus anyone but theAB`s ,the AB policy of only picking players in country is also some thing I agree with.
You must understand that I live in an area which was Soccer not Rugby,my side
was third div south.Like many today i adopted briefly a soccer side Newcastle United until about 1955 then lost interest.
Rugby about the time was only followed by visits to library reading rooms and books.
When briefly interested in golf it was Gary Player,my influences were usually caused by certain players in sports.
Don Clarke,BobScott,Kel Tremain[especially] ,Fred Trueman,Johnny Wardle,Len Hutton,Geoff Boycott etc.Ronnie Simpson.
Mysti NO you don`t get it the AllBlacks ARE great it s in the record books.BUT my point here is it is THE hardest place to win a match is about 8or 9 in the pro era ,SA 3.OZ 3,France1,England 1 give or take.

Yep NZ is a tough place to play- NZ have won both there RWC as well.

I agree with that; However you really love the AB's

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:NZ is a nation of explorers and immigrants. So many Kiwis live or have lived abroad. It always strikes me how accepting we are of people who want to live in NZ. It doesn't matter where you're from so long as you contribute to society. I think in part that has more to do with NZ's low population and unemployment and normally skilled labour is in high demand. That is not to say NZ is a utopia where racism or ethnocentric beliefs are not commonplace. Sadly it can be found anywhere. No country, just like human individuals, is perfect.

Sometimes in Europe, though, I get a sense that if you're an outsider, you will never truly be viewed as a native. There is a lot more history and also a history of conflict. You will always be to some extent a foreigner in a foreign land. Paying taxes and residing there doesn't change that. The term colonial commoner is used affectionately in the UK and is similar to the term guiri in Spain (used for foreigners from Anglo-Saxon countries as opposed to South America, who collectively have more derogatory terms).

Didnt realise guiri was a derogatory term. I used to call myself a guiri all the time when I lived in Spain.

I absolutly cant stand people that say things like "bloody foreigners taking our jobs" "or scrounging off benefits" etc. The people who say things like this are often unemployable and ignorant. It is quite common in Ireland and Britain.

I would however be quite confident in pointing out that the biggest benefits scroungers in Ireland are Irish people and in Britain they are British people. Most foreigners come for a better quality of life and in my experience work hard any pay their taxes for it.

Believe me there is a large proportion of people that are grateful for the diversity and new ideas that immigrant workers bring.

Using terms like collonial commoner and Paddy etc. is just an indication of ignorance and not worth of comment.

I have worked with two Kiwis in Dublin and am very fond of them both. They are particularly intellegent, friendly and hard working as has been my experience with every Kiwi I have met. As a rule though I never discuss rugby with them.

Good policy mate.

Guiri is used affectionately. I use it myself to refer to myself. It's not an offensive term. But the mere fact it is used to differentiate somebody from a local person even though they may live there indicates that there's a demarcation between a native person and a foreign resident.

My experience in Spain was that while I really love spanish people and they were particularly welcoming to me, possibly because of my "religious" background, however, they can be a bit suspicious of foreigners particularly north africans which to some extent I understand as they spent hundreds of years repelling attack after attack from the South. A common surname in Spain is Matamoros which literally means killer of North Africans. Quite un-PC today but essentially part of their history.

A bit like Ireland with regards to Britain the Moors left some real gems behind in Spain such as the Alhambra and other beautiful buildings in Andalucia.

I should caveat the above by stating that I lived with a pro ETA Basque and former football hooligan film director, a gay theatre actor from Galicia and an Andalucian caberet singer/hippie. A really wierd and wonderful bunch of people.

When things changed in SA in the early nineties there was an obvious necessity for change in the work place.

Even though none of us are foreigners per say as we all grew up here the BEE (black economic empowerment) was a reality.

I realised that soon after that there was a necessity for oneslef to become self employed if you had any aspirations of a good life.

So that was the route I chose in the late nineties.

We have the same problem here where people compllain about the fact that their jobs are no " taken" especially amongst communities that feel "these zimbabweans" come here to take their jobs.

Well correct, they want to work and are prepaed to do it to the satisfaction of their employers.

They don't have a sense of entitlement.

So I guess it happens all over theworld.

Well it seems this thread has been hijacked by talk of identity and assimilation. Sorry Mr Fishpaste!

What we need, I have come to realise, is one stadium where all rugby games are played and where we all feel we belong. So let us make a push to make Eden Park the home of rugby and for all rugby games to be played there in 2013 thereafter.

haha..

there is only one home of rugby- thank you!!

The 'home' would be the oldest Test venue on the Planet.... back we go to Lansdowne Road. ..............

It's a nice home oakey but there's a problem with the bathroom. The last time NZ visited there they felt the toilet had seen too much use and smelled a bit.

yeah by NZ fans!! not the players!

How dare you sir!

I was making reference to the virus you gave the team as an early Christmas present.

Turkeypox.

I know What you were refering to. But i think them toliets were filled up with fans crapping there pants in prepartaion from the ribbing there were gonna get monday moring in there nice london offices and puking up with sickness after that result!!