RWC - prize or curse?

In 1987 due to Australia and new Zealand mostly the RWC was born,South Africa was out of the game for political reasons,to replace the traditional tours.In theory it would be show case of Rugby,showing all the finer skills.It would bring on sides like Canada and the USA ,Pacific IslandsEuropean sides non -aligned.It is a success or is it?only two countries have enhanced there reputations.At the cost outside the RWC SA and Australia have[by there standards]underperformed sice it`s inception.One team New Zealand has dominated World Rugby but again by there standards underperformed at RWCs.One NH team England has done well in RWCS but been very up and down outside it,the rest of the NH sides by there own best standards have badly underperformed.In the name of the RWC the two premier SH tournaments have been devalued by resting players S14/3Ns.Players not really worthy of caps have had the odd one or two before being dumped on the scrap heap.I will concede that teams like the Pacific Islanders and Argentina over perform in RWCs because it is usually the only time they can field a full side.Is it acceptable to just say only the RWC matters,if we put together a string of 3Ns[4N]/6Ns losses. It isn`t important it s only a friendly not a RWC we are building/rebuilding for the next 4 years?To individuals coaches and players I know for many it is a pinnacle a single RWC winning cap is worth a hundred out side of it.Is a RWC worth being king of the hill on the day,then being kicked by every one between worth it.It depends on your perspective when I was young a national shirt was worth more than cash.Many Lions .lost considerable sums of money to tour Nz or Sa.Tours there were until the last SA one,against sides full of of Boks or All Blacks or wannabes eager to add there name to sides that had beaten touring sides.Just as teams in Europe did when sH sides toured.Once when I was very young i followed soccer,there were certain sides Aston Villa,Newcastle United were FA cup specialists.seldom won the league but often the Cup.Now the FA cup once a great trophy means nothing,and the League is won by whichever of the top 4 or 5 sides paid the most money for there team.Does that strike a chord with the TOP14.The RWC is neither fish nor fowl,in a cup competion there should be no such thing as seeding,only lady luck of course money interests nantes that.The thought of all the 3Ns,England,and France in the same group would give the organizers the vapours.My own views,and prejudices are well known, I love Rugby passionately,am a very staunch All Black supporte r I consider EVERY test match important not just an RWC one.Can you see any team other than the big 4 winning aRWC in the near future?because I can`t.Please let`s have a decent debate about this not just another All Black bashing session.

Could you please separate into paragraphs? Very hard to read.

I agree. Read 2 sentences and gave up.

Have to say first up that I think WCs that help and encourage the smaller sides work well. I have very much enjoyed supporting Georgia or Namibia, for example.

I understand that the IRB or WC organisers or someone arranged top flight coaches to be available for these sides six months or a year beforehand, and it really helped their standard of play and made a much better level of competition and hence spectacle for the paying public.

The alternative is to take the top four ranked sides , ignore the rest, and play a semi and a final.

The World Cup is a good thing on balance I think. But it depends on how well it is done. And how well it is done seems to me to be dependent on how well the minnows are treated.

It's got it's good points and bad points. The game now works in a 4 yearly cycle to head into the world cup but realistically most teams shouldn't use that excuse when their performing poorly after a World Cup. Most teams who enter the competition have no chance of winning it, so should build for the next game not a tournament in 4 seasons time. Also the team the takes the field directly after a World Cup and the team that takes the field 4 years later at the World Cup have few ofthe same players 1-3 at the most.

The truth is it's a lot harder to win the 3 Nation tournament than a World Cup.
South Africa won the last World Cup tournament here's who they played:
Pool games - England, Tonga, Samoa, Usa
Quarter - Fiji
Semi - Argentina
Final - England

Compare that to having to play Australia and New Zealand 3 times each to be top of the 3 Nations each year!
Frankly South Africa's last World Cup looks like a doddle in comparison.

I do think a lot of good work is being done to help the smaller teams, we now have various European 6 nations tournaments, a Pacific Nations Cup, an Asian 5 Nations. What we really need now is something for America, maybe a 4 nations with Argentina, USA, Canada and Uruguay and something for Africa.
I think the Lions should be scrapped and a European Cup brought in along the lines of the football one, to generate interest in European rugby.

With the birth of professionalism and hence more money, the RWC has became just as important as the Football world cup in rugby circles. Yet in a European perspective with football, some view the HC as a better competition just like the Champions league. Its a great competition no doubt but I think to much emphasis is placed on RWC to early. For example, coaches quoting 'judge me at the WC'. Unions building squads for the RWC which can be still2/3 yrs away. Build squads and nuture talent for all competitions, nevermind just RWC's.

Maybe its time to expand the 6N and tri nations to include more sides so they can compete regulary and not just every 4 years? Altho I do think its time to scrap the summer tours or restrict them to 'A' teams.

Alyn,

Without opening Pandora's box, you can look at it from another perspective where New Zealand have had no trouble winning the Tri Nations yet have not won the World Cup since the inaugural year.

Statistically a team could have the best players and the best coaches and they no doubt will on average win most of their games because of that. For people who like statistics the IRB have a ranking system.

OTOH for those of us who like the thrill of the battle, mano a mano where it's fifteen against fifteen in a one-off winner take all encounter, then there is nothing to compare to the prize that is the WWE trophy.

MBTGOG wrote:Alyn,

Without opening Pandora's box, you can look at it from another perspective where New Zealand have had no trouble winning the Tri Nations yet have not won the World Cup since the inaugural year.

Yes but it's the luck of the draw. In the World Cup there is no second chances after the pool stages one loss and your out, in 1991 Australia had their best team ever. While in the others France caught fire and sadly when that happens no team in the world can live with them, it's just sods law to be honest.

The Rugby World Cup is the highlight of a player/s carrer.Most players will only get one chance of either playing in it or winning it.So every player/team in the Rugby World Cup no matter which country you represent always, always up thier game.

For 2007 rugby world cup it was assumed that NZ would win at a canter.
No team can can cope with injuries in a major tournament like the rugby world cup. IF any of your players get injured that realy makes your teams heffort a little bit harder.

I do think that teams in the NH play too many games which puts them at a slight disadvantage against the SH treams imo. Disadvatage in the way of exhaustion/ player injurie/ player rest time is less for the NH players, something needs to change but what? (maybe lesss summer tours, maybe the season needs to change?)

A blanket apology,I have broken a rule of etiqutte in using capitals in the title,an oversight for which I am sorry. As to posting in paragraphs again sorry,I suffer from a form of dyslexia when it comes to typing/writing on pc`s.MyPC skills are very limeted due to learning at an advanced age.I hold English language and Lit.at GCe level on paper i`m fine on a PC screen whoops.Sorry again.

emack2 wrote:A blanket apology,I have broken a rule of etiqutte in using capitals in the title,an oversight for which I am sorry. As to posting in paragraphs again sorry,I suffer from a form of dyslexia when it comes to typing/writing on pc`s.MyPC skills are very limeted due to learning at an advanced age.I hold English language and Lit.at GCe level on paper i`m fine on a PC screen whoops.Sorry again.

No need to apologise Emack - it was a standard PM I sent you and I didnt mean offence. We've had several key offenders with regards to repeated posting in capitals and its a pet hate of the admin team.

Just make sure you dont do it in the future!

I struggled to read the original OP above, almost illiterate recognition of grammar. So I edited it to try to aid the readability.

Hope you don't mind Emack mate...! I am also very dyslexic myself, but have managed to get by after excellent coaching and instruction from my English master at school decades ago.

You have interesting points hidden in your post, take your time before you write and remember to read your posts before submitting them.

There are some nasty members who will make a mockery of you purely because you struggle to convey your thoughts in a clear and concise manner.

emack2 wrote:In 1987, mostly due to Australia and New Zealand, the RWC was born to replace the traditional tours. South Africa was out of the game for political reasons,

In theory it would be the show case of Rugby, showing all the finer skills. It would bring on sides like Canada and the USA , Pacific Islands. European sides non-aligned.

It is a success! Or is it?

Only two countries have enhanced their reputations! At their cost, outside of the RWC, SA and Australia have, [by their standards], under performed since it`s inception. One team New Zealand has dominated World Rugby but again by there standards under performed at RWCs.

One NH team, England, has done well in RWCs but been very up and down outside it. The rest of the NH sides by there own best standards have badly under performed.

In the name of the RWC the two premier SH tournaments have been devalued by resting players S14/3Ns. Players not really worthy of caps have had the odd one or two before being dumped on the scrap heap.

I will concede that teams like the Pacific Islanders and Argentina over perform in RWCs because it is usually the only time they can field a full side.

Is it acceptable to just say only the RWC matters, if we put together a string of 3Ns, [4N] or 6Ns losses? "It isn`t important"! "it's only a friendly not a RWC"! "we are building/rebuilding for the next 4 years"!

To individuals, coaches and players, I know for many it is the pinnacle. A single RWC winning cap is worth a hundred out side of it. Is a RWC worth being king of the hill on the day, then being kicked by every one between worth it?

It depends on your perspective.

When I was young, a national shirt was worth more than cash. Many Lions lost considerable sums of money to tour NZ or SA. Tours there were, until the last SA one, against sides full of of Boks or All Blacks or Wallabies, eager to add there name to sides that had beaten touring sides. Just as teams in Europe did when SH sides toured.

Once when I was very young i followed soccer. There were certain sides, Aston Villa, Newcastle United that were FA cup specialists and seldom won the league but often the Cup. Now, the FA Cup, once a great trophy, means nothing and the League is won by whichever of the top 4 or 5 sides paid the most money for there team.

Does that strike an accord with the TOP14?

The RWC is neither fish nor fowl.

In a cup competition, there should be no such thing as seeding, only lady luck. Of course money interests negates (??? It makes sense, I presume that was a typo previously...) that. The thought of all the 3Ns, England and France in the same group would give the organisers the vapours.

My own views and prejudices are well known. I love Rugby passionately. I am a very staunch All Black supporter, I consider EVERY test match important, not just a RWC one.

Can you see any team other than the big 4 winning a RWC in the near future because I can`t?

Please let`s have a decent debate about this not just another All Black bashing session.

I like the World Cup. It is unfortunately the be all and end all with some fans (especially part-time fans), but obviously the players and the coaches aren't just playing for one tournament every four years.

I think some players will bow out after the World Cup, but I wouldn't like to see my nation, England, pension off too many players. If a player is good enough to be at the World Cup in October/November, chances are he'll be good enough to be in the Six Nations in February/March.

I would like to see the older players like Sheridan (31), Palmer (32), Moody (33), Easter (32), Wilkinson (32) and Tindall (32) carry on to make themselves available for England even though they probably won't make the World Cup in 2015 and be replaced when Martin Johnson is ready to replace them, rather than just cut off their International careers at an arbitary point in time (just after the World Cup).

The world cup has had a weighty influence on the rugby calendar. Though as the OP rightly states it is "Pedalled" equally as an excuse for poor performance in between RWC years.

The cup also gives great exposure to the less wealthy nations, tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Argentina.

It would be great if the IRB could do more to give these teams the opportunity to compete outside of the RWC, their fortunes are otherwise governed by their players clubs decisions on whether they wish to release their stars or not.

I like it. Its the only real tournament we all get together on equal terms.

Without it we wouldn't have had a lot of great moments. The WC has lifted the profile of the game immensely.

For NZ, we need to find a way of improving our performances. No more can we rely on things like 'we beat you 9 times out of 10 so must be better'.

Theres no doubt not winning it more than 1 out of 6 has put a blot on our landscape but then its about challenges. We still have this to achieve so its got to be good in the long run for our Rugby.

I love the world cup and don't think it detracts from non-RWC tests as fans still get very emotional about them. I think in the course of the year, only the June tests lack sufficient spice with the 6Ns/3Ns and November tests all remaining passionate affairs. To me, NZ being sledged for their performance in RWCs is more a reflection of opposition fans needing something to argue with, rather than a sign that victory in other tests aren't highly valued.

The rebuilding of teams is a necessary process for most countries as we don't have the production lines that SA and NZ have. The four yearly cycle is, to me, just the time frame which it now naturally occurs as you often chnage coaches afterwards, plus key players are more likely to move on at the start of that cycle.

Almost every major sport in te world has either the Olympics, or a World Cup on a four year basis. That is the natural progression of every leading sport in the world, even athletics have a world championship even though there is an Olympic games in between.

For Rugby Union the World Cup is their pinnacle, it is the only tournament set up over a specific period every four years for all qualifying teams to contend. It is the only time where history doesn't matter. Take Argentina in the last world cup. Them placed third after beating France twice is an achievement that can never be taken away from them. imagine they actually win one. For the series losses and less than 50% win ratio's against most teams, they will have been world champions.

The Six Nations and Tri Nations are played every year similar to a Super XV or HC competition and although a very important competition, not as scarce as the RWC.

In the professional era since 1996, there has been 15 Tri Nation tournaments, but yet since 1987 we will now enter only the 7th RWC tournament, which is why it is such a coveted trophy.

As you all know I believe there are no such thing as a friendly test match, hence me being very passionate and sometimes extremely peeved off when we lose.

The school of thought for me is SA as an example basically competes in five areas when it comes to international rugby.

We compete in a Tri Nations which stands on it's own as a mighty important SH competition, it provides us with the best SH team for that specific year.

We compete in our winter against mostly development teams for the north ( I can't really remember when was the last time a NH team sent their best over to SA, and the results show.

We then compete in a NH tour in our summer, which even though at the end of our regular season shows us to be competitive.

The British and Irish Lions travel to our shores every twelve years, a scarce commodity, but also a very coveted tournament.

Then there is the RWC which perhaps because of the isolation years are the pinnacle for any SA rugby player or supporter.

It is as important for me that SA has a superior record against all teams, as it is for me that we win the Trinations. But most of all the RWC has a special place in my heart, because for that window in time, whoever wins are the RWC champions.

Someone earlier made the comment about how easy our RWC 2007 was, we never played Australia, NZ or France.

Well in 1995, we beat the then World Champions australia in the pool, beat the French in the Semi and NZ in the final.

What does irritate me a little is that for both world cups we have won, there is always some reason to negate our achievement. In 1995 it was the "food Poisoning" in 2007 it was we didn't play the top teams.

Well, we have two trophies, more than anyone apart from Australia, we can only beat those who qualify to play against us, and that is not up to us, the destiny of each team are in their own hands.

Let me ask you this, on world ranking at the moment we are "supposed" to meet NZ in the semi and Australia in the final, but let's say hypothetically NZ crashes out in the Quarters and Autralia crash out as well, and we end up against France or England in the final, will it then once again be a story of, "well you never got to play NZ or Australia"

Well rant over.

All rugby test matches are important, some teams are just more succesful than others in the various formats.

Some very good points there Biltong. It's hard to disagree with anything you've said. I can see your point on negated achievements at RWCs - us Kiwis cop it because SA wasn't there in '87

I do find it interesting that many NH fans are quite happy to can the June tests, but want to keep the November ones - you can't have one without the other.

Hi,Biltong as usual very fair points,1995 ,whether it was food poisoning or just
a virus.The All Blacks were vomiting coming onto the field I saw that from the TV footage with my own eyes.
The Boks deserved to win because they did what few had been able too,Shut down Jonah Lomu.Andrew Merthens tried a drop and missed.Joel Stransky did`nt.
As you correctly state you only beat those in front of you,that is the thing about knockout Rugby.Neither NZ,France,Or OZ really turned up in 2007
England on form should never have reached the Final,realistically.History shows no sidebeaten in a Tournament has gone on to win it.
SA were not there in 1987 or 1991 and both those sides were among the best to represent there country.There is no guarantee the Boks would have won either.
Playing Devils advocate what if the Boks lose in there group,and are knocked out or come second.Then face Australia and lose.
The All Blacks did`nt meet let alone beat the RWC 2003 or 2007 winners who knows what the result would have been.

Alan, that is the whole point I am trying to make.

To belittle any team's achievement with excuses, what ifs and whether they were there or not is unacceptable.

We can play the what if game for as long as we want.

There are statistics and history for all these events.

New Zealand is the greatest test playing nation in the world. Of that there is no doubt.

They have won from memory 10 Tri Nation Trophies, more than three the amount SA has won.

They have won 1 world cup.

I can use quotas, mismanagement etc as an excuse for many reasons why SA have lost important test matches in the past.

The truth however is that we are second best, no matter which way the cookie crumbles.

But.

We have won the RWC twice, irrespective of any if, buts and circumstances.

We have won only 3 Trination trophies.

We have a superior record to all teams apart from the All Blacks.

I will never belittle any team's winning performances, because then I am just another poor excuse of a rugby fan.

Well said biltongbek. I don't think the WC means as much to me as it does to you - win or lose, the ABs are the best side around - as usual. The rest of us are chasing, whether we are WC champs or not.

But I am immensely proud of England's performance in 2007 getting to the final - and being in that final with a chance of winning 'til Vickery had to go off. Then that awesome Saffer pack just monstered us. But given how poor we had been early on in the tournament, just getting to the final was really quite something.

I think Lions tours are as "big" to me as WCs. This opinion is subject to change over time.

Cowshot, of course you should be proud of what england achieved in 2007.

If it was my beloved Boks that lost 36-0 in a pool match against the team they have to play in the final, I would have given us no hope whatsoever.

I love the tri Nations, World Cup and the Lions tours.

The only thing I would change is the winter and summer tours to become three test match series ratehr than the one offs it is currently.

There is something about the test series of yester year when a team could lose a first test match but still come back to win a series.

(shudder) I had managed to forget that 36-0 until you reminded me. Thanks for that. Though I am reminded of one the great moments of rugby chivalry from the South African pack: Jason Robinson was just starting a run when his hammy went and he sort of skidded to ground at the feet of your forwards. They just put a hand on him to make it legal and let him recycle. Then he went off. It spoke volumes for the character of those great forwards.

I know what you mean about longer tours. But they are very hard to arrange in today's packed programme, unless you send development players and it is not clear to me that sending your young hopefuls off to get clobbered for three months does anyone much good.

Ok, well for those that treat SA's 2007 success as beig somehow undervalued, remeber SA won 7 consecutive matches. You can win the 3N by winning 3 and losing 3. I accept the standard of the competion is greater, but it is not as intense as an RWC and you get to play half your matches at home.

Im not making light of winning the 3N but an RWC is a different animal, and one that most NZers would tear your arm off for in 2011 if losing the 2011 3N was the cost.

We compete in our winter against mostly development teams for the north ( I can't really remember when was the last time a NH team sent their best over to SA, and the results show.

Well you've got us next, and we sent pretty much our best over to Australia last time, so hopefully we'll send a good squad over and it will be a good series. It will be the first 3 match series for both teams, so it is important that it is a closely-fought one in my opinion.

What does irritate me a little is that for both world cups we have won, there is always some reason to negate our achievement. In 1995 it was the "food Poisoning" in 2007 it was we didn't play the top teams.

Don't worry about it. If a team does well, some fans of other teams will always try to bring them down. It's a sign you're doing something right!

The only thing I would change is the winter and summer tours to become three test match series ratehr than the one offs it is currently.

Under the current calender we couldn't do that. If a 6 Nations country got a 3 match series against any team other than the 3 Tri-Nations (I know Argentina will be in the expanded tournament, but they aren't the same draw at the moment) then they would receive significantly lower gate receipts.

Though I am reminded of one the great moments of rugby chivalry from the South African pack: Jason Robinson was just starting a run when his hammy went and he sort of skidded to ground at the feet of your forwards. They just put a hand on him to make it legal and let him recycle. Then he went off. It spoke volumes for the character of those great forwards.

I know, it was a full-blooded test match in the World Cup pool, but South Africa really showed a good spirit in knowing the player was hurt and not mercilessly turning him over.

Em, from 2012 we are having 3 Test Tours by the NH teams going down south. Ireland are playing New Zealand, who'll have a point to prove having lost to Ireland in the 2011 RWC Final......

I can dream!

I suppose the answer is that the RWC may be both a prize and a curse. When a country wins it that's clearly a prize for players and coaches, but the target of retaining the RWC may become a curse blighting the careers of players and coaches in the intervening four years.

Its a good article. The Rugby World Cup is an amazing spectacle. However it means things like Lions tours and Barbarians fans are seen as a blip in international squad development by some fans. It has completely eroded the mentality of: "There are no friendlies in Rugby, only test games".

I like the World Cup, but I can't get as excited about it as I do about the Six Nations tournament. The pinnacle for me is a Lions tour.

Maybe if Wales had a better record in the World Cup, I'd feel differently...

robbo277 wrote:

We compete in our winter against mostly development teams for the north ( I can't really remember when was the last time a NH team sent their best over to SA, and the results show.

Well you've got us next, and we sent pretty much our best over to Australia last time, so hopefully we'll send a good squad over and it will be a good series. It will be the first 3 match series for both teams, so it is important that it is a closely-fought one in my opinion.

Well robbo can't wait for that one, Ireland has had three wins at home and only one loss against us in the last decade, so we owe them a 3-0 drubbing just to get the record balanced again.

The World Cup is special. The fact that NZers want to win it so badly again is testament to that.

But the great teams want to win every match, regardless of when it falls in the rugby calendar. The RWC should be a prized trophy but not all teams are capable of winning all or most of their matches like NZ or SA. England has a very proud record at the tournament and like Biltong mentioned, Argentina made the dream last for quite some time in 2007. To be the best team on the day is different to the best team in the world.

There are different things that can contribute to being the better team on the day but one thing is for sure. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN UNDESERVING WORLD CHAMPION. Sorry for shouting but thought it was worth being very clear on the matter.

I am sadly in the minority here,I think All tests are important the old cycle.NZ tour SA,Lions tour SA,SA tour NH those were more exciting.
One off matches are fine in a RWC.Not all teams can win a RWC why?Ireland,France,Wales if they put there mind to it could win one.
Knock out tournaments are just that on the day anyone can win,besides the Big 4.It is just as possible to Drop kick a team to defeat as score tries to do it.
Jannie de Beer in 1999,and Argentina last year proved that.
I would rather have a mini -tour of 4 tests,plus maybe 3 club sides than have July and November ones.
With alternate year NH or SH ones,theres no reason for example that Ireland tour SA in July.NZ don`t get a tour in July tour say France or Scotland in November.
Mini tours were very popular in the late 1950`s,60`s and 70`s,and it is worth remembering France was the first country to win a Series in SA in 1958.

emack2 wrote:I would rather have a mini -tour of 4 tests,plus maybe 3 club sides than have July and November ones.

I couldn't agree more. It used to be a big deal when the southern hemisphere sides toured here, but Wales play New Zealand, South Africa and Australia all the time now.

My solution would be that you play 5-match test series. So, as we have coming in, you would play a 3 match test series down south in June (eg England in South Africa 2012). Then you would play 2 matches against the same opposition at home in November to complete the 5 match series.

That way, with 4 AIs, teams that get 2 home games against Tri-Nations opposition can play 2 tests against some of the other sides (Argentina, Pacific Island Nations, USA, Canada or Japan), while the countries that end up with the 2 home games against the "lesser" sides can play 2 matches against Tri-Nations to get full-houses.

So in 2012, we would have something like:
9th June: South Africa Vs England (match 1)
16th June: South Africa Vs England (match 2)
23rd June: South Africa Vs England (match 3)
...
3rd November: England Vs (Samoa), (Italy) Vs South Africa
10th November: England Vs (Japan), (Scotland) Vs South Africa
17th November: England Vs South Africa (match 4)
24th November: England Vs South Africa (match 5)

Assuming that, for example, Italy and Scotland don't have long series against Tri-Nations opposition. Obviously this would be expanded for a full program, but this is just an example.

Any result other than 3-0 in the Southern Hemisphere leaves the Series open going into the Autumn, and if it is 3-0 there should be a real grudge match feel to it. As I said, all major NH nations then get a good share of the "premium" games against the Tri-Nations. And I think England and South Africa are next due to have a 3 match series in 2018 (I believe it breaks down '13 in Arg, '14 in NZ, RWC '15, '16 in Aus, '17 in Arg, '18 in SA), so we won't play South Africa for those 6 years (other than the odd match, possibly a RWC encounter), so by the time 2018 comes around the two sides are really looking forward to the match and England vs New Zealand/Australia/South Africa at Twickenham doesn't become stale.

In Lions years obviously France and Italy would pair up with the two non-Lions Tri-Nations and have 5 match series. Then, the nation toured by the Lions could go for a "Grand Slam" tour on their tour up here, taking on all four Home Nations for one match.

There is no please people. People want top quality professional rugby but dont want to accept any limitations that that entails. Tours exist today and have done for the whole of the Pro era; I think there have been 4 or 5 attempted 'Grand Slam' Tours undertaken by the SH sides in the past 10 years, not to mention the years when an SH plays France instead of one of the Home Nations. The reason Ireland or England etc cannot undertake a similar quest down South is the small matter of the SA to Oz/NZ trek. Not impossible of course but for the pro players to be in peak condition there is a world of difference between a 4 hour flight and a 10 hour one.

As for there being no friendlies etc, beiing Irish I see that 100% as being true and no Irish side whether playing Canada or New Zealand goes out with anything other than victory in mind. The proof of the pudding is that in the professional era, Ireland's winning ratio is infinately better than the pre pro one. Indeed, Ireland have beaten England 7 out their last 8 matches. That has never happend before, or even been close to happening. While we have massively underperformed against france of recent years, we have still beaten them 4 times in the last 11 years. Not amazing as we have played them around 15 times in that period but stil amuch improved performance compared to the Old days.

Does the RWC have come with a non financial cost? Yes, but its benefits outweigh the sacrifices.

Oh and emack, we owe you a win on your patch before long and a series win would be very sweet! If my memory serves I think we have a tour scheduled in a couple of years time. Next summer are the three Ire v NZ Tests, the following summer is the Lions in Oz and I think we are then touring SA in 2014. Could be wrong though!

robbo277 wrote:My solution would be that you play 5-match test series. So, as we have coming in, you would play a 3 match test series down south in June (eg England in South Africa 2012). Then you would play 2 matches against the same opposition at home in November to complete the 5 match series.

robbo, Ireland could engineer such an event if they meet NZ in the RWC Final in November, as that game combined with the scheduled 3 Test tour to NZ is then followed by a match in Lansdowne in November 2012. Potentially 5 matches between the two sides in a year. I'll take 4 losses and a win now, if i can choose which game we win!

South Africa's inbound tour schedule:
2012: England (3 tests)
2013: Italy, Scotland and "another" tier 2 Nation (would argue that Italy and Scotland are tier 1 nations)
2014: Wales (2 tests), Scotland
2015: n/a (Rugby World Cup year)
2016: Ireland (3 tests)
2017: France (3 tests)
2018: England (3 tests)

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/7739594/England-to-travel-to-South-Africa-for-three-Test-series-in-2012.html