Test Rugby in Decline?

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9048092,00.html

Carlos Spencer thinks so. I believe he has a point about too much rugby being played?

We watch our club/provincial/franchises play more than 20 matches a year, and then say we play too much test rugby?

Makes no sense.

The reason why some may feel test rugby is in decline is because international teams can rarely play their best 22 due to injuries and fatigue.

that fatigue and the plethora of injuries we see is not due to playing 12 tests a year, it is due to playing 20-30 club games.

I was listening to an interview with Bakkies Botha the other day and he said playing in France takes some getting used to because it is every weekend and it seems like it will never end.

Spot on BB. We saw some amazing test footy this year. Find me a game like Wales vs Ireland, Lions 3rd test, NZ vs SA, Australia Wales, Italy vs France, Ireland vs NZ and find me comparable tests in the past few years. Some like Ellis Park have no equal. We have been blessed with some amazing test rugby this year. There have been some games like Perth that have been hard to watch but I wish administrators would sit up and notice that day light games played on good pitches deliver compelling rugby. Wet grounds played at night often deliver dross.

I don't think that there is 'too much' test rugby being played, I more think that the balance is pretty much right. Anymore may just border on the too much though.

English test rugby is on the decline I think and has been for 10 years. More to do with the poor class of players than anything else. Of course we've had a few good uns over that period but too many poor ones too.

englandglory4ever wrote:English test rugby is on the decline I think and has been for 10 years. More to do with the poor class of players than anything else. Of course we've had a few good uns over that period but too many poor ones too.

Not sure I agree to that. England test rugby had a dip after a few legends retired and after having a few issues with coaches but under SL, I think that they are making great progress and are on the up rather than in decline.

I agree, English rugby declined in relation to the quality of their players post 2004 - this has been reversed somewhat over the last few years and England have a strong talent pool again.

Injuries are perhaps affecting test rugby generally though - every year the game is becoming more physical and its taking its toll.

Certainly in Ireland I've never seen so many injuries as in the past 2 years.

i think there is too much test rugby, and too many intl friendlies.

RWC every 4 years. awesome.
6N every year, good but maybe the frequency and number of teams needs rethinking, ie every 2 years, and have a couple of extra teams in the mix, pool stage and semi final and final
AIs - love watching some of them, but these "friendlies" are a pure money-milking exercise
Tours down under every summer? gimme a break. sending a second string side to play the 1st test vs NZ? embarrassing.

the reason intl matches are special is that they are the peak, the culmination, and they are rare. we are in danger of making them not so rare.

Part of what he says is true... Rugby from 97-04 were the glory years.

The rugby was fantastic and we had 5 sides who were at any point in time genuine contenders for best team on the planet.

AUS are great to watch but they will be beaten by SA, NZ & ENG regularly now.
France look spent, like they've ran out of ideas and a lack of a genuine class 10 hurts them.. much more then England.

I think the French players despite their large club squads play too many games in a season because of the size of the T14.

The performances of their national team certainly doesn't reflect on the talent at their disposal.
That can't only be down to inept coaching.

'Interesting' effect on test team selection tho'. If you have a conservative coach like Stewie L, it's only thro' injuries that you develop a team over time.

Biltong wrote:We watch our club/provincial/franchises play more than 20 matches a year, and then say we play too much test rugby?

Makes no sense.

The reason why some may feel test rugby is in decline is because international teams can rarely play their best 22 due to injuries and fatigue.

that fatigue and the plethora of injuries we see is not due to playing 12 tests a year, it is due to playing 20-30 club games.

I was listening to an interview with Bakkies Botha the other day and he said playing in France takes some getting used to because it is every weekend and it seems like it will never end.

+ 6!

It's a nice number and is right popular.

It's just physics........... International is the cream - 'cause the genuine cream plays (not the mercenary phone-in-my-performance selections on super clubs), club fans PLUS casuals watch it (meaning bigger more nationalistic crowds)  And no - nationalism is not a bad word, it's a beautiful word and it creates games like the Ireland v NZ one and the Welsh v England one.

So as a business model.................... I'd say there is too many club games and that means International players haven't enough time to be international players, moving to the rhythms of their International coaches instead of their diverse club coaches all preaching different tactics.  Had they more time not less time, the quality would be even better as most players genuinely care much more about finding an International slot than playing for their clubs.  It's the top.

But rugby is money, I'm told; and people want to make more and more money it seems (as a sport in itself) - so yes, it's probably bye bye International bit by bit.   Certainly quality will suffer as pressures from clubs, and important club games, means more and more of them will be impeded in having valuable time with their national set-ups.

quinsforever wrote:i think there is too much test rugby, and too many intl friendlies.

RWC every 4 years. awesome.
6N every year, good but maybe the frequency and number of teams needs rethinking, ie every 2 years, and have a couple of extra teams in the mix, pool stage and semi final and final
AIs - love watching some of them, but these "friendlies" are a pure money-milking exercise
Tours down under every summer? gimme a break. sending a second string side to play the 1st test vs NZ? embarrassing.

the reason intl matches are special is that they are the peak, the culmination, and they are rare. we are in danger of making them not so rare.

"International friendlies"?? The more you post the more I feel you discovered rugby the day PRL started their shenanigans. Was Ireland-NZ a "friendly"? No, it was a test. Rugby is the sport where every international is a test. if you don't get that, then you don't get rugby.

Test Rugby is not in decline. It will continue to grow. The issues for me for the game globally:

The struggle between club/regional rugby and international for player access
The ever increasing injury crisis in terms of player availability
Concussions and their long-term legal effect
The rise of 7s which in my mind is not a gate-way drug to 15s
Constant rule changes

All of these can be solved by wise decision making at the top.

So we're fooked is what you're saying wolf ball. Wise decision making at the top is like waiting for Stuart Barnes not to sound smug whenever he talks.

wolfball wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i think there is too much test rugby, and too many intl friendlies.

RWC every 4 years. awesome.
6N every year, good but maybe the frequency and number of teams needs rethinking, ie every 2 years, and have a couple of extra teams in the mix, pool stage and semi final and final
AIs - love watching some of them, but these "friendlies" are a pure money-milking exercise
Tours down under every summer? gimme a break. sending a second string side to play the 1st test vs NZ? embarrassing.

the reason intl matches are special is that they are the peak, the culmination, and they are rare. we are in danger of making them not so rare.

"International friendlies"?? The more you post the more I feel you discovered rugby the day PRL started their shenanigans. Was Ireland-NZ a "friendly"? No, it was a test. Rugby is the sport where every international is a test. if you don't get that, then you don't get rugby.

i saw my first england matches at twickenham before you were born, son. the AIs are often referred to as friendlies as they are one-off matches organised bilaterally outside of regularly scheduled competitions and tours. they are organised for the financial benefit of the unions involved. no specific silverware is at stake.

and if you're going to get all sanctimonious on me, maybe if the Irish players cared more about international matches than their club Heineken Cup campaigns, and reproduced their performance against NZ, against other people, then i might be persuaded that all international matches are not "friendlies".

http://www.thescore.ie/ronan-1123466-Oct2013/

They'll try to in February, quins  And I hope nobody blames them for trying too hard if they happen to succeed.

Anyway, weren't they the only side from Europe that beat the best side in Europe last year?  Best side in Europe taken care of and, bejasus, almost clipping the wings of New Zealand as well...............!  Not bad for a team we all admit has been shyte for about four years now.

quinsforever wrote:i saw my first england matches at twickenham before you were born, son. the AIs are often referred to as friendlies as they are one-off matches organised bilaterally outside of regularly scheduled competitions and tours. they are organised for the financial benefit of the unions involved. no specific silverware is at stake.

and if you're going to get all sanctimonious on me, maybe if the Irish players cared more about international matches than their club Heineken Cup campaigns, and reproduced their performance against NZ, against other people, then i might be persuaded that all international matches are not "friendlies".

http://www.thescore.ie/ronan-1123466-Oct2013/

Again, they are not friendlies and I have literally never heard a rugby fan refer to them as such. Maybe blow-in football fans who think there is some equivalence between a Uruguay-Scotland football match and an Australia-Wales rugby match...

The issues with Irish test rugby, while primarily driven by poor coaching in the recent past, do have a provincial element to them (due, again in my view to coaching, as the provinces have been coached very well). But this provincial element effects 6 Nations performances/World Cup matches as much as Autumn International tests and has nothing to do with "friendly" internationals. Mate, when you watch the England fotoball team, are you really bemoaning that these players who in theory should be playing at the pinnacle at their career, are simply risking injury for their english, spanish etc. clubs?

"no specific silverware is at stake" sorry mate. It's cook cup, Hillary shield, etc. The AIs are most definitely played for silverware.

i dont watch england play football. dont watch club football either. so the only bemoaning going on is not mine.

does every AI have its own silverware? some do. lots dont.

quinsforever wrote:i dont watch england play football. dont watch club football either. so the only bemoaning going on is not mine.

does every AI have its own silverware? some do. lots dont.

Well on the "Dr Roberts claims being Wales based is not crucial issue!" thread you continuously speak about the wonderful world of football we can recreate in rugby with young welsh boys buying Halfpenny Top 14 rugby jersey's like they buy Gareth Bale's Real Madrid jersey. How wonderful! The joy of supporting another country's clubs! So my mistake, you seem to really admire and love football, but maybe its only their finances that attract you.

I've watched rugby for many, many years...and I have to admit, I still get a shock when I see silverware being presented during AI games..............

I don't know why I keep getting surprised to see it happen but I suppose I feel they're ...they're probably funny in the ............ professional age. I think sometimes even the players look a little like feeling: "What the hell are they giving me this for - it's only another game - not a championship or anything"

I wonder how many trophy's are on offer during a calendar year, anyone know?

Nachos Jones wrote:I wonder how many trophy's are on offer during a calendar year, anyone know?

It depends on who you play for and who you play against,it's pretty convoluted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_trophies_and_awards

Australia seem to have a trophy up for grabs against every Quad Nations team and every 6N team bar Italy and Scotland.

France,Italy and Argentina seem to have the fewest.

There's a massive one being forged for the result of the PRL v ERC game.

Silverware says nothing about the status of an international. Many of these trophies are just new creations to give the sponsors something to hand over in a nice photo opportunity.

For me, when a country deliberately does not field its strongest team, then it doesn't really qualify as a Test. In Ireland, of course, matches can only be called home Tests if they are played at the Aviva. That's why the team which played Fiji last year had to be called an Ireland XV.

Even allowing for Lions absentees, Wales didn't field their best side against Japan. England and Argentina didn't have first choice teams in the summer. England won't have all their first XV when they start their NZ tour. Australia couldn't select from all their Super XV teams when they played Scotland in 2012.

You see weak teams fielded in tournaments too. For all its status as the sport's main showpiece, the World Cup is full of non-Tests. Weaker teams like Canada, US and Japan keep their best players for matches where they feel they have a chance. Squad rotation means the second string often ends up turning out against the number one seeds in the group (see, for instance, NZ vs Japan in 2011).

Six Nations sides still tend to rest players against Italy. It may happen less but you often see calls for coaches to bring in fresh faces. Gatland did it so much one year with Wales, it affected their ability to challenge for the title since they hadn't put enough points on the board.

It's well known that New Zealand and South Africa virtually gifted Australia a Tri Nations by resting their players ahead of the last World Cup. Most World Cup warm-up games are friendlies where the coaches see how deep their squads go. The only loss England had in 2003 was to France, when we agreed to play two games of second XV against first XV

In short, not all internationals are Test quality. Some are specifically friendlies, while others are uncompetitive by default.

Rugby Fan wrote:Silverware says nothing about the status of an international. Many of these trophies are just new creations to give the sponsors something to hand over in a nice photo opportunity.

For me, when a country deliberately does not field its strongest team, then it doesn't really qualify as a Test. In Ireland, of course, matches can only be called home Tests if they are played at the Aviva. That's why the team which played Fiji last year had to be called an Ireland XV.

Even allowing for Lions absentees, Wales didn't field their best side against Japan. England and Argentina didn't have first choice teams in the summer. England won't have all their first XV when they start their NZ tour. Australia couldn't select from all their Super XV teams when they played Scotland in 2012.

You see weak teams fielded in tournaments too. For all its status as the sport's main showpiece, the World Cup is full of non-Tests. Weaker teams like Canada, US and Japan keep their best players for matches where they feel they have a chance. Squad rotation means the second string often ends up turning out against the number one seeds in the group (see, for instance,  NZ vs Japan in 2011).

Six Nations sides still tend to rest players against Italy. It may happen less but you often see calls for coaches to bring in fresh faces. Gatland did it so much one year with Wales, it affected their ability to challenge for the title since they hadn't put enough points on the board.

It's well known that New Zealand and South Africa virtually gifted Australia a Tri Nations by resting their players ahead of the last World Cup. Most World Cup warm-up games are friendlies where the coaches see how deep their squads go. The only loss England had in 2003 was to France, when we agreed to play two games of second XV against first XV

In short, not all internationals are Test quality. Some are specifically friendlies, while others are uncompetitive by default.

I think its more to do with club rugby. Theres wayyyyyyyy too much of it being played which is breaking down players and leading to uncompetitive tests .Especially in France which coincidentally has a lot of high profile NH players .

Resources - when best to use them.  When best to hold them back.  

It's always a science.  If you have limited resources (and basically if we say all sides often put out 'weakened' sides then we acknowledge that even the best sides have prefered teams) you organise and play chess with those pieces through a year.

But it is no different to club in that extent.  Same rules apply - limited resources and you have to play chess with the pieces through a year to more fully hope to realise your ambitions for that year

Rugby must be the fastest growing professional sport since it went pro in 96. Everyone wants a buck. Players, clubs, corporates and countries.only way to get the buck is more bums on seats...more games...at all professional levels.

Simple as that. And everyone, including the players, are obliging. Injuries and burnout are the obvious result.

At least Hansen has seen the only way to soften the impact is to have test experience deep in positions to cover...though all are just as likely to get injured.

Injuries are the biggest concern for me at the moment which comes down to the sheer volume of club rugby being played. The number of outstanding players like Stephen Ferris and Juan Smith we rarely see on the field is a huge worry. Barely an international game goes by where each team isn't hit by significant injuries to first choice players.

I think there is some truth to the argument that test rugby could be stronger. It needs a real restructure of the global season for this to happen. That would enable teams to train and play at full strength and for players to recover.

In terms about weakening. I'm not sure I think test rugby was probably at it's weakest around 2001-2003. At this time South Africa was eating itself up, NZ and Australia changed coaches mid stream. Wales, Ireland and Scotland were basket cases. Italy had only entered the 6 nations and were pounded. Argentina was only looking at emerging into it's current state. We're miles ahead of the state of play then.

blackcanelion wrote:I think there is some truth to the argument that test rugby could be stronger. It needs a real restructure of the global season for this to happen. That would enable teams to train and play at full strength and for players to recover.

In terms about weakening. I'm not sure I think test rugby was probably at it's weakest around 2001-2003. At this time South Africa was eating itself up, NZ and Australia changed coaches mid stream. Wales, Ireland and Scotland were basket cases. Italy had only entered the 6 nations and were pounded. Argentina was only looking at emerging into it's current state. We're miles ahead of the state of play then.

You know you're going to be crucified on that one when certain people see it!

You might get a reprieve until morning now.... but I'm outta here just in case!

SecretFly wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I think there is some truth to the argument that test rugby could be stronger. It needs a real restructure of the global season for this to happen. That would enable teams to train and play at full strength and for players to recover.

In terms about weakening. I'm not sure I think test rugby was probably at it's weakest around 2001-2003. At this time South Africa was eating itself up, NZ and Australia changed coaches mid stream. Wales, Ireland and Scotland were basket cases. Italy had only entered the 6 nations and were pounded. Argentina was only looking at emerging into it's current state. We're miles ahead of the state of play then.

You know you're going to be crucified on that one when certain people see it!

You might get a reprieve until morning now.... but I'm outta here just in case!

I see what you mean. Pretty much managed to potentially offend a few people. Meant Celtic nations were struggling (probably a bit hard on Ireland). Be interested if people think it was weaker at another time (I can't think of a time when NZ, SA and Australia were all rebuilding at the same time). The problem is when teams are doing well others must be by definition be struggling. I think the skill sets, training, etc have all improved. I do worry about the negative influence of the rich leagues on the international game and would be a lot happier if the players were managed better.

Sport administration is in decline. Too many incompetent and complacent officials. Football's corruption at the highest levels is well known and ignored; Rubgy admin is not up to the job in many cases - the old farts are an old joke but still true in many areas and we've added the worst sort of corporate shenanigans as well; Cricket has a serious and ongoing corruption problem which refuses to go away and personally sledging now just puts me off the game.

If you want examples from Rugby just look at the current European mess. Or the England NZ tour which is shot before it starts as a meaningful series.

Grrrr.  

blackcanelion wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I think there is some truth to the argument that test rugby could be stronger. It needs a real restructure of the global season for this to happen. That would enable teams to train and play at full strength and for players to recover.

In terms about weakening. I'm not sure I think test rugby was probably at it's weakest around 2001-2003. At this time South Africa was eating itself up, NZ and Australia changed coaches mid stream. Wales, Ireland and Scotland were basket cases. Italy had only entered the 6 nations and were pounded. Argentina was only looking at emerging into it's current state. We're miles ahead of the state of play then.

You know you're going to be crucified on that one when certain people see it!

You might get a reprieve until morning now.... but I'm outta here just in case!

I see what you mean. Pretty much managed to potentially offend a few people. Meant Celtic nations were struggling (probably a bit hard on Ireland). Be interested if people think it was weaker at another time (I can't think of a time when NZ, SA and Australia were all rebuilding at the same time). The problem is when teams are doing well others must be by definition be struggling. I think the skill sets, training, etc have all improved. I do worry about the negative influence of the rich leagues on the international game and would be a lot happier if the players were managed better.

No, didn't mean us at all. But we all know who was doing well back then... You saying everyone else was rubbish, well I felt it might draw some of them out. But nope, so far you're lucky

England! He's saying England were rubbish!

  

rugby always has been and always will be a relative game. you cant have a team from today playing a team from 10 years ago for fairly obvious reasons.

additionally, and i suspect canelion is in this category, younger fans tend to forget quite how much and how quickly the law changes affect which strategies are successful.

england completely dominated that era as their strengths were very well suited to the laws and interpretation prevalent at the time. rebuilding is nonsense. no-one is rebuilding in a RWC year (2003), but i can understand if by that he meant not as good as they are now in relative terms. which was self-evident.

quinsforever wrote:... no-one is rebuilding in a RWC year...

No-one wants to be rebuilding in a World Cup year but the best laid plans....

England were in disarray when Robinson was sacked less than a year before the 2007 Cup. Nevertheless, you are right to say none of the top teams felt they were in major transition in 2003.

I agree with other posters here that too much rugby is played but I don't think the problem is just club rugby. As a general point, the problem for our professional game is that levels below internationals aren't enough of a moneyspinner. We are far too dependent on the revenues of the international game. This causes national unions to try and pack the schedule with more Tests, while also making them reluctant to book fixtures with teams which aren't guaranteed to bring in the crowds.

It would be wiser to increase the scarcity value of international matches so that each one was more meaningful for fans and players alike.

Clubs suffer from a similar disease. They rarely see a free weekend without wondering how to cram a match in. The French season is ludicrous, while the stop-start nature of competitions in the North is a something administrators should be ashamed of.

quinsforever wrote:rugby always has been and always will be a relative game. you cant have a team from today playing a team from 10 years ago for fairly obvious reasons.

additionally, and i suspect canelion is in this category, younger fans tend to forget quite how much and how quickly the law changes affect which strategies are successful.

england completely dominated that era as their strengths were very well suited to the laws and interpretation prevalent at the time. rebuilding is nonsense. no-one is rebuilding in a RWC year (2003), but i can understand if by that he meant not as good as they are now in relative terms. which was self-evident.

The comments weren't about England. I can see why you could chose to be upset. I agree with you re rule changes and England. My points still stand re: NZ, Australia and South Africa. This period was probably the worst period in SA rugby history. It's the point when politics and coach selection created a revolving door and they struggled. NZ rugby was in turmoil in 2001. Wayne Smith was eventually replaced by the John Mitchell. This bought about a period of testing a broad range of players, experienced players leaving, etc. Australia faced the exit of their great coach Rod McQueen following the Lions tour. They were arguably the top international team at this point. They too faced changes and form dipped. I think the point is that all three SANZAR nations underwent substantial management changes at this time. It's unique in the professional era.

blackcanelion wrote:

quinsforever wrote:rugby always has been and always will be a relative game. you cant have a team from today playing a team from 10 years ago for fairly obvious reasons.

additionally, and i suspect canelion is in this category, younger fans tend to forget quite how much and how quickly the law changes affect which strategies are successful.

england completely dominated that era as their strengths were very well suited to the laws and interpretation prevalent at the time. rebuilding is nonsense. no-one is rebuilding in a RWC year (2003), but i can understand if by that he meant not as good as they are now in relative terms. which was self-evident.

The comments weren't about England. I can see why you could chose to be upset. I agree with you re rule changes and England. My points still stand re: NZ, Australia and South Africa. This period was probably the worst period in SA rugby history. It's the point when politics and coach selection created a revolving door and they struggled. NZ rugby was in turmoil in 2001. Wayne Smith was eventually replaced by the John Mitchell. This bought about a period of testing a broad range of players, experienced players leaving, etc. Australia faced the exit of their great coach Rod McQueen following the Lions tour. They were arguably the top international team at this point. They too faced changes and form dipped. I think the point is that all three SANZAR nations underwent substantial management changes at this time. It's unique in the professional era.

Yes all international teams go through transitional stages and it (2001-2003)probably wasn't such a great time for the SH teams however, it was a golden era for England who had a great squad at the time & the run of wins by a NH team over SH teams probably won't be surpassed.
Spencer has a point though I believe nowadays.

blackcanelion wrote: It's unique in the professional era.

I wouldn't read too much into coach turnover in the professional era.

A number of teams will come to change coaches after a World Cup cycle has finished. Off the top of my head, South Africa, England, Japan, New Zealand, France and Italy all changed coaches directly after the 2011 tournament. It's likely that not all teams will feel happy with their development running into 2015. Ireland, Scotland, Argentina and Australia didn't immediately switch horses but weren't slow to make changes afterwards. There's no reason why all the new entrants will get an uninterrupted run to 2015.

A rotten 2014 could yet end a few careers. Lancaster, for instance, would be in a difficult position if England have a poor 6 Nations, get stuffed in NZ and then struggle next autumn. It's not just performance on the pitch either. Warren Gatland's ladder exploits took him out of management for several months and Eddie Jones suffered a stroke recently. Managing top level sport is a stressful occupation. I hope Heyneke Meyer leads a healthy lifestyle because he often looks like he's going to burst a blood vessel while watching matches.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

quinsforever wrote:rugby always has been and always will be a relative game. you cant have a team from today playing a team from 10 years ago for fairly obvious reasons.

additionally, and i suspect canelion is in this category, younger fans tend to forget quite how much and how quickly the law changes affect which strategies are successful.

england completely dominated that era as their strengths were very well suited to the laws and interpretation prevalent at the time. rebuilding is nonsense. no-one is rebuilding in a RWC year (2003), but i can understand if by that he meant not as good as they are now in relative terms. which was self-evident.

The comments weren't about England. I can see why you could chose to be upset. I agree with you re rule changes and England. My points still stand re: NZ, Australia and South Africa. This period was probably the worst period in SA rugby history. It's the point when politics and coach selection created a revolving door and they struggled. NZ rugby was in turmoil in 2001. Wayne Smith was eventually replaced by the John Mitchell. This bought about a period of testing a broad range of players, experienced players leaving, etc. Australia faced the exit of their great coach Rod McQueen following the Lions tour. They were arguably the top international team at this point. They too faced changes and form dipped. I think the point is that all three SANZAR nations underwent substantial management changes at this time. It's unique in the professional era.

Yes all international teams go through transitional stages and it (2001-2003)probably wasn't such a great time for the SH teams however, it was a golden era for England who had a great squad at the time & the run of wins by a NH team over SH teams probably won't be surpassed.
Spencer has a point though I believe nowadays.

The point is not about England. This was a great era for them. It's about the general state of rugby at the time. You had three of the nations that are traditionally at, or near the top, in a state of turmoil. This independent of England. South Africa had been struggling post 1995, but had recovered under Mallet. They had serious issues when Mallet was ousted in 2000. They plummeted to the point where they were 6th when the rankings came out. New Zealand imploded to some degree when Smith openly doubted he could beat Australia in 2001. Mitchell took over in 2002, set about changing the team, dropping many players, taking a developing side away at the end of the year and setting himself offside with the media. Jones took over in 2001, by 2002 the slide was becoming apparent and their saving grace from a horror year in 2003 was their victory over NZ in the WC semi final.

Rugby Fan wrote:

blackcanelion wrote: It's unique in the professional era.

I wouldn't read too much into coach turnover in the professional era.

A number of teams will come to change coaches after a World Cup cycle has finished. Off the top of my head, South Africa, England, Japan, New Zealand, France and Italy all changed coaches directly after the 2011 tournament. It's likely that not all teams will feel happy with their development running into 2015. Ireland, Scotland, Argentina and Australia didn't immediately switch horses but weren't slow to make changes afterwards. There's no reason why all the new entrants will get an uninterrupted run to 2015.

A rotten 2014 could yet end a few careers. Lancaster, for instance, would be in a difficult position if England have a poor 6 Nations, get stuffed in NZ and then struggle next autumn. It's not just performance on the pitch either. Warren Gatland's ladder exploits took him out of management for several months and Eddie Jones suffered a stroke recently. Managing top level sport is a stressful occupation. I hope Heyneke Meyer leads a healthy lifestyle because he often looks like he's going to burst a blood vessel while watching matches.

What was unique is that you had the teams that are usually dominant all undergoing issues at the same time. In other words the 3 of the very best sides all having crisis of one kind or another. I'm not sure Spencer's point about Ireland is entirely valid either. Even when Ireland where strong, NZ would put out understrength sides against them. From an NZ perspective you expect the top sides to beat all but their closest rivals.

Rugby Fan wrote:

quinsforever wrote:... no-one is rebuilding in a RWC year...

No-one wants to be rebuilding in a World Cup year but the best laid plans....

England were in disarray when Robinson was sacked less than a year before the 2007 Cup. Nevertheless, you are right to say none of the top teams felt they were in major transition in 2003.

I agree with other posters here that too much rugby is played but I don't think the problem is just club rugby. As a general point, the problem for our professional game is that levels below internationals aren't enough of a moneyspinner. We are far too dependent on the revenues of the international game. This causes national unions to try and pack the schedule with more Tests, while also making them reluctant to book fixtures with teams which aren't guaranteed to bring in the crowds.

It would be wiser to increase the scarcity value of international matches so that each one was more meaningful for fans and players alike.

Clubs suffer from a similar disease. They rarely see a free weekend without wondering how to cram a match in. The French season is ludicrous, while the stop-start nature of competitions in the North is a something administrators should be ashamed of.

Agree with this.  

Decline?

We had two of the best tests ever in just one season.

Decline my derrière.

Perhaps some people are bored because NZ are winning everything?

Perhaps spencer is a bit jealous that he didn't deliver?

Well when players like kaino, DC, McCaw, Conrad Smith...all when at the peak of their game.. world best at the time, either need to or want to either rest it play club rugby, or when an england side would rather play its club final rather than maximising its chances of a history making series win over the number one side, I'd say there are problems alright. To either need to break from test rugby for self preservation or play in non test arenas as a preference or priority suggests test rugby is not in a good state.

DC, CS and McCaw are past it. They've played 80-120 tests. It's not fatigue or burn out, it's career preservation. A sabatical.

Kaino won the World Cup for us and then went after a pension pot. No shame there.