There are 46 Tests in the next 30 days !!

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/brendan-gallagher/27075/brendan-gallagher-on-a-30-day-46-test-global-spectacular/

I humbly suggest that this is saturation? It is only 2 tests less than the last 2015 RWC.

The dash for cash by Unions in order to pay and thus control elite player employment contracts by condensing them into elite teams in ring fenced leagues has led to this ?? Are folk on this site happy with this ? and see it as the future ? Or are Tests being devalued ?


I have my view but offer no solution given the current structure of the professional game - but Unions slowly cooking the golden goose springs to mind.....

I miss the days where a single team toured each year. I accept that those days are long gone, but still have fond memories of the 1984 GS Wallabies Tour.

Me too - I went to the game at Twicks.

Saturation coverage for whom?  Do all of us watch all the Internationals that get played in the 30 day period?  I suggest we each watch as many International games over the coming weeks as we'd watch in any given Club weekend - two or three a weekend?

Plus, it presumes there are legitimate reasons to watch club rugby on a regular basis and not complain about saturation coverage yet only dubious reasons for watching International (Pro12, AP and Top 14 pretty much all happen through the same few months of a year - 19 games each and every weekend? - 76 games within a 30 day period?).  
A large percentage of the Rugby Union watching public would disagree with the idea that one is less legitimate than the other, and usually the attendances at International games prove the disagreement.

Plus - Union International Rugby, despite the continuous caricature of it being a mickey-mouse, blazerified amateur circus, is a "Professional" Rugby Union pursuit, with its own place in the calendar, its own hefty financial muscle, its own profit generating potential, its own demanding sponsor base, its own demanding broadcasting platforms, its own intense player motivations and its own large, demanding crowds.

Saturation coverage?  I'll enjoy Ireland's four games - and if I have time, I'll see if I can catch a few others.  I might reach 8 International games watched over the period; likely to be less though.  I'm sure English fans and Welsh fans and Australian fans and Japanese and Tongan fans etc will enjoy their slice of the coverage too without over-indulging.

If you only count test involving the Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams, it comes down to about 21 or 22. That doesn't seem excessive to me across four weekends... 5, 6 'major' tests a weekend. I would like all NH teams to reduce from 4 tests to 3- because we have the farcical situation where the provinces are playing in the Pro12, and the best Irish players are in Chicago preparing for the All Blacks. This has obviously been an issue in Welsh rugby for a while now as well. But 5 or 6 big tests a weekend doesn't seem like over saturation to me. I'm hardly going to watch them all but I'd struggle to sit through 3 Six Nations games now as well.

No disrespect intended to Japan, Georgia, Samoa etc.

Looking at this per single nation is certainly one perspective but my point was from the overall total being akin to a RWC. All the major Unions are culpable to this and whilst I might remember the old three test tours - these were before RWCs.

I will take it that you both consider the current status quo to be roughly acceptable, which is fine, whilst I guess not entirely surprising.

Another observation would be that Unions are nothing without individual clubs but that has been somewhat been subverted within the last twenty years with the emergence of club entities owned by Unions and made the top tier.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Looking at this per single nation is certainly one perspective but my point was from the overall total being akin to a RWC. All the major Unions are culpable to this and whilst I might remember the old three test tours - these were before RWCs.

Yeah but there's more teams included in that article than in a World Cup.

Recwatcher16 wrote:I will take it that you both consider the current status quo to be roughly acceptable, which is fine, whilst I guess not entirely surprising.  

No, I think it should be three tests not four tests. I don't think three games is unreasonable at all. That seems like the very least that can be expected. This isn't the amateur era, you can't just rock up and play 1 or 2 games and gel as a team. The quality of test rugby will suffer if games are reduced.

Fair enough then, still looking at individual nations, if presumably one senior NH nation has three tests (which is the current actual test window), then all presumably have to have three as a max - heaven forbid any Union gets a financial advantage, so which reduces the 46 games by half a dozen or so. This still leaves roughly forty games. It feels an extraordinary number of fixtures.

Yeah, I think that having teams that don't get to play in the World Cup play tests is vital and excuses the high number. I don't think there's over saturation, just fair representation

Recwatcher16 wrote:

I will take it that you both consider the current status quo to be roughly acceptable, which is fine, whilst I guess not entirely surprising.

Yes, I'd consider the current status quo acceptable.  

Firstly, like I said earlier, I don't think the expression 'saturated coverage' can be thrown at it as it's simply a period when International sides take advantage of the International period/window.  Each International side cares only about its own bit (three, four, five games). It doesn't quite care how many other Internationals are being televised.  It's too busy worrying about getting its opportunities in to have a few needed run-outs, to check the calibre of its players, to try to amass ranking points etc; it's a professional business and therefore needs practice and assessment.  
Alluding to the old amateur days when less International rugby was played is a little like alluding to the old amateur days of club rugby.  There were also less club games back in the amateur days.  But time moves on and money is the driver in both club and International.

Secondly, I personally have always felt that the International autumn window gives a club's 'lesser' players a chance to shine and show what they can do in their respective leagues.  Those periods don't come around too often and they're highly valuable to a club that it has a time to find out the calibre of the players on the fringes - to have their hand forced in a way.  
Granted, those conditions apply to smaller nations more than to larger ones, but even if it costs games and league position, I've always appreciated the benefits of seeing what Leinster has under the hood when their International selections are away.  So, in brief, and in my opinion, the Autumn International period benefits the club game in my country.  Not everyone agrees with that but I've always been someone who tries to see the long view picture.

Again though, with your "not entirely surprising" comment, Rec, you seem to keep inferring that somehow the idea of a series of internationals over a number of weeks is less legitimate than the club sequence over a season.  One, it seems, has more moral authority to hold the attention - or even demand it - than the other?  One has more right to be more frequent.  One has more a natural right to be viewed as the Meat of Rugby Union - whilst the other is an irritating side-show distraction.  Of course, if that's your view, then it's your prerogative to hold such an opinion; but I think there is room enough in a year for club and International.  The increasing idea that it's a battle between the two is the sad part.

I guess thats why its known as a test window....

Recwatcher16 wrote:Fair enough then,  still looking at individual nations, if presumably one senior NH nation has three tests (which is the current actual test window), then all presumably have to have three as a max - heaven forbid any Union gets a financial advantage, so which reduces the 46 games by half a dozen or so. This still leaves roughly forty games. It feels an extraordinary number of fixtures.

I don't see why though- what odds is it to PRL clubs if Spain play Georgia for instance? Why shouldn't each team get to play three games? I just don't understand why this figure of forty games matters. It includes every test nation as far as I can tell. If we got rid of the fourth tests and adhered strictly to the test window, which I would welcome, there would be about 16-20 games involving the 10 top test nations which hardly seems excessive at all. Unless I've miscounted (probable to possible) that actually seems quite light

No one is disputing Spain v Georgia and no-one is under any illusions either who are hosting the bulk of those 46 fixtures.
England will have played Australia fives times in the last 12 months. Ireland will have played SA three times and NZ twice in the last five months. It is those type fixtures volumes that have chipped away at the value of Tests and created a media circus.
I freely admit I don't like it - November feels like a tournament of Test rugby without an overall cup, although there are plenty of Mickley Mouse ones dished out.

Club rugby is the bedrock of the game but some Unions are attempting to make the elite tests the bedrock in order to maintain unaccountable control and I find it distasteful.

I was at the ground for Japan vs Argentina earlier. Great weather, good crowd but a one-sided game. A lot of top Japanese players took themselves out of contention, so it was a very raw Japan team.

I agree that we are playing the top teams a bit too regularly and that makes the match up lose some anticipation. I am glad, for example, that we wait to play NZ, not just because it gives us more chance but also because it builds for it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/11/07/rugby-is-in-a-dreadful-mess-as-the-chaotic-weekend-calendar-show/

Sums things pretty well, although doesn't touch on the underlying reasons. Not sure anyone can be hopeful, post 2019. Expect the PR campaigns from all the vested interests to start gathering pace after the end of season Lions tour.

Jesus, it's hard to please the mathematicians.  Did you watch any rugby games this weekend Rec?  If so, which ones?  If so, did you enjoy them as rugby games?  If so..... what's the problem?

It's not rocket science.  It's a series of games that mean something to their supporters.  Next week, England fans will understand why England are playing South Africa at Twickenham at 2.30pm.  Those England fans (or journalists) don't have to understand why Ireland played New Zealand in Chicago or why Japan played Argentina in Tokyo.  Some might say it's nobody else's business who these sides choose to play, where or when.  If you want to watch and can, then watch.  If you're too disinterested to watch then don't watch.

Again, the idea of 'chaos' suggests you as a rugby fan in England must have some sense of control over an International calendar that is actually not much of your business until the England bit appears and England itself plays.  I'm using you and England in a rhetorical sense.  Why should fans of any one Nation demand 'meaning' and agreed structure to games that don't have any connection to them.  The point about player release will inevitably crop up as a response.  Player release is a contract between whatever Unions and whatever clubs.  If clubs don't want to release, don't release.  Play hard ball if hard ball is the desire.  International sides will work around the issues and adapt.

The AIs and the issues about International v club/League has nothing to do with 'chaos' and, once again, everything to do with certain factions wanting more and more power to control and monitor International games that have nothing to do with them.  
Power, control, greed.  It's so lightly disguised these days that even Steve James himself couldn't resist using the language: "There is much jockeying for position going on..."
Nope, Steve ain't confused and neither are the 'players' in the rolling card game.

There are way too many international games. You only have to look at that friendly circus between NZ and Ireland in Chicago. Good for USA interest but otherwise just a chance for injuries. Hopefully no NZ or Ireland players got injured for the proper tests in the AIs.

The friendly circus rose us two places in the rankings. I'll take that kind of circus any day, Cyril, if it works out positively

Jordi Murphy has been sidelined now for 6 to 9 months with a knee injury. I'd dare any guy to walk into his hospital bed and admonish him for ruining his fitness all for the want of beating the ABs in Chicago. I know what the frowning righteous guys would get in reply. A f**king crutch hurled at their head

Keep it grey, lads. That's the best colour for winter to be sure to be sure.

SecretFly wrote:The friendly circus rose us two places in the rankings.  I'll take that kind of circus any day, Cyril, if it works out positively

Indeed. I still don't see how that works for an exhibition game against a NZ side in 1st gear playing to an American crowd. Was it a real test?

I thought it had Baa Baas status. NZ treated it as such.

Aye.  They were fooled then by the fools that played it for real, weren't they, Cyril?

Recwatcher16 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/11/07/rugby-is-in-a-dreadful-mess-as-the-chaotic-weekend-calendar-show/

Sums things pretty well, although doesn't touch on the underlying reasons. Not sure anyone can be hopeful, post 2019. Expect the PR campaigns from all the vested interests to start gathering pace after the end of season Lions tour.

The PR campaign has begun, that article is part and parcel of it. Control, money, power.

3 or 4 international test fixtures in the NH around November I don't mind. A reciprical trip to the SH June time I don't mind either.

I definitely agree with you that the clubs are the bed rock of the game of rugby. And the Unions should work in the best interest of their clubs. That should be in the interest of all clubs under the Union and not just an elite few at the top. If an extra fixture generates the cash to help fund facilities in smaller clubs, underage programs and the odd senior player then I'd happily take that over the likes of a Leinster/Leicester/Toulon getting an extra 5,000 attending one of their games on that same weekend.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/11/07/rugby-is-in-a-dreadful-mess-as-the-chaotic-weekend-calendar-show/

Sums things pretty well, although doesn't touch on the underlying reasons. Not sure anyone can be hopeful, post 2019. Expect the PR campaigns from all the vested interests to start gathering pace after the end of season Lions tour.

The PR campaign has begun, that article is part and parcel of it.  Control, money, power.

3 or 4 international test fixtures in the NH around November I don't mind. A reciprical trip to the SH June time I don't mind either.

I definitely agree with you that the clubs are the bed rock of the game of rugby. And the Unions should work in the best interest of their clubs. That should be in the interest of all clubs under the Union and not just an elite few at the top. If an extra fixture generates the cash to help fund facilities in smaller clubs, underage programs and the odd senior player then I'd happily take that over the likes of a Leinster/Leicester/Toulon getting an extra 5,000 attending one of their games on that same weekend.

Well said, band.

SecretFly wrote:Jesus, it's hard to please the mathematicians.  Did you watch any rugby games this weekend Rec?  If so, which ones?  If so, did you enjoy them as rugby games?  If so..... what's the problem?

It's not rocket science.  It's a series of games that mean something to their supporters.  Next week, England fans will understand why England are playing South Africa at Twickenham at 2.30pm.  Those England fans (or journalists) don't have to understand why Ireland played New Zealand in Chicago or why Japan played Argentina in Tokyo.  Some might say it's nobody else's business who these sides choose to play, where or when.  If you want to watch and can, then watch.  If you're too disinterested to watch then don't watch.

Again, the idea of 'chaos' suggests you as a rugby fan in England must have some sense of control over an International calendar that is actually not much of your business until the England bit appears and England itself plays.  I'm using you and England in a rhetorical sense.  Why should fans of any one Nation demand 'meaning' and agreed structure to games that don't have any connection to them.  The point about player release will inevitably crop up as a response.  Player release is a contract between whatever Unions and whatever clubs.  If clubs don't want to release, don't release.  Play hard ball if hard ball is the desire.  International sides will work around the issues and adapt.

The AIs and the issues about International v club/League has nothing to do with 'chaos' and, once again, everything to do with certain factions wanting more and more power to control and monitor International games that have nothing to do with them.  
Power, control, greed.  It's so lightly disguised these days that even Steve James himself couldn't resist using the language: "There is much jockeying for position going on..."
Nope, Steve ain't confused and neither are the 'players' in the rolling card game.

Secret, you can lecture and harangue me all you like but it doesn't change the reality of the impact of all these 'Tests' on the domestic season. If the impact becomes too much then the control will be challenged.
Yes there is a mutual benefit, the clubs acknowledge that and not least agree a chunk of change for access / use of their players. I am curious as to why the AP clubs allowed welsh players to play outside the test window - so clearly discussions are going on and to which the journo alludes to. With respect, pretty sure he has a better idea of what is going on than you or I.
As for Unions putting the finances into the grass roots - well some are more than others - it depends on whether they have a top tier elite game to pay for....

The Wales game being only three quarters full must have WRU alarm bells ringing.
There is huge disquiet in Wales and Australia where participation has fallen through the floor. The Scottish clubs have had enough and voted to sell off their two franchises. There are plenty of articles around on the financial focus of the elite tier at the expense of everything else. Your own Tony Ward has written about the feeling of abandonment of 'junior' historic clubs in Dublin.

I could list the articles but can't be bothered.
Ireland had a good win at the weekend, enjoyable, I get that, but there is far bigger long term picture. The evolution of the professional game continues.

And the evolution means that both international and club games will be looking to develop competition and competitions. What they clearly need to do, led by WR, is to acknowledge they need to live side by side and need each other. No good in cutting numbers of games in one arena to just have them filled by another.

Recwatcher16 wrote:


Secret, you can lecture and harangue me all you like but it doesn't change the reality of the impact of all these 'Tests' on the domestic season.
Ireland had a good win at the weekend, enjoyable, I get that, but there is far bigger long term picture. The evolution of the professional game continues.

The impact on your domestic season.  Let other people speak for themselves.  The English press and clubs don't have a contract to represent the opinions of other great swathes of fan bases around the world... but again I repeat, it seems the English game WANTS that influence to speak FOR the rest of the world in terms of club game v International v crowd numbers in stadia around the world that have nothing to do with them v all the myriads (not) of foreign players that have to rush off from Premiership rugby to go play nuisance small-time (not big important biz) rugby.

The whiff of supremacy of meaning from club rugby and their supporters is the thing that ignites me.  And it's become relentless.  They don't even know when they're at it.  "International is ruining the creases in our Private investment business suits and it has to stop therefore we gotta own International too as a Private concern, ideally running out of Head PRL office in England.  We've decided we want to own all International - not buy it, just own it."

Nice

Recwatcher16 wrote:No one is disputing Spain v Georgia and no-one is under any illusions either who are hosting the bulk of those 46 fixtures.
England will have played Australia fives times in the last 12 months. Ireland will have played SA three times and NZ twice in the last five months. It is those type fixtures volumes that have chipped away at the value of Tests and created a media circus.
I freely admit I don't like it - November feels like a tournament of Test rugby without an overall cup, although there are plenty of Mickley Mouse ones dished out.

Club rugby is the bedrock of the game but some Unions are attempting to make the elite tests the bedrock in order to maintain unaccountable control and I find it distasteful.

Why do you spout the same rubbish? Test rugby has supported the game since the dawn of professionalism and even before it, the game however would be lost without either

Which games do you think will pull the bigger crowd? Ireland and NZ or Ireland and Canada? What about England and Fiji or England and Australia?

Just because the matchups seem to bore you most fans want to see the best teams play each other, if you don't there are club games at all levels nearly every weekend how about going watching them instead of constantly moaning?

English clubs have no interest on who Ireland play against but if one Union wants to play tests for a month then they all feel compelled to do the same - surprised you can't see that.

Recwatcher16 wrote:English clubs have no interest on who Ireland play against but if one Union wants to play tests for a month then they all feel compelled to do the same - surprised you can't see that.

Really? Yet England aren't but apparently they feel compelled to?

Seems your theory is lacking in fact, reality and substance

Yes I am a season ticket holder - have been for best part of twenty years.

Well it is a designated international window. I'd echo there is no need for additional games outside this but unions are pushing for them and on the whole the leagues are agreeing.

Club rugby got more serious in the last four or five years - yes.  I hold my hands up.  Big money, big influence, big Broadcasting deals etc.

But at the very same time, International Rugby is also growing - as an entity in itself - big money, big influences, big broadcasting deals.

Again, the shame is that greed makes it a battlefield rather than a Union game double win for wandering sports fans.  International & Club promote the game to new audiences. Don't let rivalry greed ruin it.

I simply don't believe it is a question of greed but rather balance and impact and not least on the players.
The SH have already come out and said the June tests have to move or go because it is too disruptive to the S18 competition.

Perhaps the RFU should just run four teams and run a closed shop like your Union - who do you suggest should be the teams??

Recwatcher16 wrote:I simply don't believe it is a question of greed but rather balance and impact and not least on the players.
The SH have already come out and said the June tests have to move or go because it is too disruptive to the S18 competition.

Perhaps the RFU should just run four teams and run a closed shop like your Union - who do you suggest should be the teams??

That would be the RFU's business (if it has any business left after devolving much of out to the clubs) and for people like you to contribute to or suggest solutions for.  English rugby is your business.  That my continuing point.  

There is plenty of rugby being played in a year - fans pick and choose what they follow and when to watch - fans choose Their preference.  It isn't and shouldn't be imposed on them.  Some fans of the Rugby Union game prefer the International brand, others watch more Club, some watch 7s.  
I repeat yet again - one seems to be trying to power-influence all others and become the one stop Leadership shop for all strands of rugby; dictating when, where and which players play International from club controlled head offices.  No to that future for me.  That's FIFA territory to me.  That's F1 territory to me.  I'll resist that 'solution' in words for as long as that battle exists.

I understand what you say - I might like rugby to go back to a cottage industry too but it is simply not realistic. I think of all the Unions that employ players the NZRU have the greatest understanding of what is coming down the track.

The next set of exponential tv deals for the French and English leagues will further set the tone. There will still be an international arena but 12 to 15 games a season ? Probably not.

Recwatcher16 wrote:
Perhaps the RFU should just run four teams and run a closed shop like your Union - who do you suggest should be the teams??

East Anglia, Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria would make sense.

International Isn't a cottage industry.  That's my other continuing point.  It's naive to regard it so.
But the fact that it isn't a cottage industry is why the Private clubs see it as a rival/competitor for 'hearts, minds and money' not a partner.  It's a business competitor and that's how club bosses articulate it when talking about the friction between the two.
International has its own dedicated audiences that want more - not less.  Those are the fans and people the clubs see as competitors through a year.  
It's a brand game.  There are no cottage industries here.  ABs (an International side) is the biggest business brand in Rugby Union.  It isn't going to be dictated to or told to cease trading by folks that are turning out to be competitors in more ways than one; Competitors for fanbases and competitors for the players themselves.

rodders wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:
Perhaps the RFU should just run four teams and run a closed shop like your Union - who do you suggest should be the teams??

East Anglia, Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria would make sense.

You might remember the RFU's regional sides for the North, Midlands, SW and SE which often played touring SH sides in mid week games.
They were also proposed for entry into a budding European competition but the RFU having baulked at the potential payroll were told by the clubs that was not happening.
I remember the old SW sides with fondness with Bath Bristol and Gloucester players with odd cornishman thrown in coming together which made an odd sight- given they usually knocked ten bells out of each other.

I realise it is not a cottage industry now - but it used to be.

I prefer lots of international games than lots of club matches. That's why rugby is so much more interesting than other sports. It mainly revolves around the international game with no such thing as friendlies.

Club rugby should only serve to support the international game.

GunsGerms wrote:I prefer lots of international games than lots of club matches. That's why rugby is so much more interesting than other sports. It mainly revolves around the international game with no such thing as friendlies.

Club rugby should only serve to support the international game.

You had better buy a debenture at the Aviva stadium then. The IRFU are going to need every euro they can get.

Not sure what that is meant to mean but yes club rugby is sucking the life out of rugby in general at the moment.

The IRFUs books are ok for now. It is very well run and they received a big boost in the Chicago test.