Is the RWC Tournament ruining traditional test matches?

In a RWC year, there is no surprise there is tremendous emphasis on preparing squads so they peak at the right time. Outside the RWC itself, sides are playing more test rugby than ever before largely as a result of the need for the unions to raise cash to pay the players. But I wonder whether the existence of this tournament is causing the quality of international rugby to fade not only in a RWC year but also the in between years.

It has just been announced that SA have discovered that 21 Springboks are actually "injured" and therefore will not participate in the away 3N tests against ABs and Wallabies (those tests are in the back end of July and into August). While the SA "B" team might still be formidable, it is nevertheless disappointing that 3N will be reduced in quality due to the policy adapted by the Springbok powers, which appears to be that tests against the No1 and 2 rugby nations are unimportant and that all that matters is winning the RWC tournament - a policy adopted successfully (from a RWC perspective) by Jake White in 2007. This is not the first time (or the last) that SA appears to be saying they don't care much for SANZAR co-operation, the 3N or in fact Super Rugby (I only throw that in because SA previously threatened to leave Super14 unless the format was changed to a conference system to ensure there is more domestic SA rugby on offer for SA fans).

Beyond SA, tests in SH that involved NH teams have also suffered in quality. Ireland, and to a lesser extent England, have intentionally toured with second rate sides preferring to rest their top players and generally complain they are tired when playing these games. The quality therefore suffers as well and it seems they don't care too much about trying to win tests in SH. Their emphasis this year also appears to the RWC (they are playing a series of "friendlies" and no doubt will experiment and chop and change around looking for a combination to take to the RWC), though 6N was still a serious competition.

The exception I think is the ABs and the Wallabies. They always take the best available sides to play in NH and winning a "grand slam" still seems to mean something. For them winning 3N and Bledisloe is still also a massive focus.

Is the RWC tournament becoming such a focus to the detriment of international rugby as a whole ?

Firstly I don't think that the RWC is to blame for this occurence. Since I can remember most NH teams do not send their first choice teams to the SH in June/July. So on what do you blame that?

The SH teams send mostly their uninjured first choice players north at the end of the year, even though fatigue surely plays a role.

Of the 21 players not going to the away leg of the Tri Nations, there are actual injuries:

Here is the list.

" Duane Vermeulen (knee), Fourie du Preez (knee), Schalk Burger (thumb), Victor Matfield (calf and neck), Frans Steyn (back and ankle), Jaque Fourie (groin), Jean de Villiers (groin), BJ Botha (knee), Juan Smith (Achilles), Willem Alberts (shoulder), Bismarck du Plessis (shoulder), Andries Bekker (shoulder, groin and ankle), Jannie du Plessis (knee), Francois Louw (clavicle), Gurthro Steenkamp (forearm), Francois Hougaard (ankle), Butch James (knee), JP Pietersen (back), Tendai Mtawarira (hamstring), Bryan Habana (shoulder), Bakkies Botha (knee)."


Perhaps the scheduling by rugby administrators is to blame, if you look at the SANZAR nations and their scheduling this year. 18 weeks of Super Rugby, Tri Nations and then straight into the RWC.

Perhaps it was a "blessing in disguise" that Dan Carter, Richie McCaw and SBW and a number of other New Zealand players had injuries during the Super Rugby competition?

Gee Biltong thats a pretty good team in itself........

Rob B wrote:Beyond SA, tests in SH that involved NH teams have also suffered in quality. Ireland, and to a lesser extent England, have intentionally toured with second rate sides preferring to rest their top players and generally complain they are tired when playing these games.

Are you sure the players aren't injured? A lot have surgery that was put off during the season and they need recovery time prior to the next season. Not sure what that's got to do with the World Cup.

I do think that the age old adage of "There are no friendlies in rugby, only test matches" holds up anymore.

Whether or not it has ruined international rugby is not yet clear - rather it has changed the focus.

International teams no longer can play their best XV in every match. Fixture scheduling has meant that international teams are playing about 11 international games in a normal year with that figure increasing in a RWC year. This season Ireland had 4 November Tests, 5 games in the 6 Nations, 4 Summer Tests and 4 RWC Pool games. Thats 17 games in 12 months without even factoring in that we may well make the knockout stages of the tournament.

However I do know what you mean. People go on a lot about blooding players at test level and we have seen the likes of Marc Lievremont really embrace this. France won the 2007 Six Nations Grandslam and made the RWC Semi Finals. They had a very good team. In the next tournament which was the 2008 Six Nations new coach Marc Lievremont gave debuts to no fewer than TEN players. I've seen Welsh, Irish and English fans calling to blood new players the minute they've lost one 6 Nations match. Reason being they can't win the slam so they should look to the future.

Whether it is the fault of the RWC and even whether it has ruined test matches isn't clear. However it is no longer realistic for teams to treat every fixture with equal importance and the status of test rugby is diminished for me.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Rob B wrote:Beyond SA, tests in SH that involved NH teams have also suffered in quality. Ireland, and to a lesser extent England, have intentionally toured with second rate sides preferring to rest their top players and generally complain they are tired when playing these games.

Are you sure the players aren't injured? A lot have surgery that was put off during the season and they need recovery time prior to the next season. Not sure what that's got to do with the World Cup.

In relation to NH teams that come to SH, I am sure there would be cases where there are genuine injuries. Fair enough. However, the view has been that understrength sides are sent to SH routinely in order to rest players - as you said it is regarded as effectively the "off season", but I don't think ABs and Wallabies regard it the same way.

As to SA, I am sure there are some genuine injuries like all 3N at the moment. But 21 all at the same time?? It is difficult not to see it as cynical. Of course it could backfire on them as they only plan to field full strength teams for the 2 home tests.

World cup is only once every four years, don't think there's any case for suggesting WC is ruining "traditional" test matches

Uhm, they are really injured - But that is because of the new S15 format and nothing to do with the RWC. When the Cheetahs beat the Crusaders, they didn't nearly have a full strength team (the Crusaders that is). And with the double derbies now, it really has to hurt the SA teams. SA teams tend to inflict injuries on opposing teams, because they tend to play more with their forwards than the more free running NZ and Oz teams. I am pretty sure NZ and Os will also be heavily injury ridden.

I think it does in the eyes of some people. I don't like that some teams and their supporters try to use performing above expectation in one tournament as justification for rubbish performances in the other 3 1/2 years. I do come from the other side in that I'm a Kiwi but I was also alive before the World Cup and the way some people carry on it's almost like the tests before 1987 didn't matter.

A test is a test and I think the top XV should play all the time. But for this to happen there should be less tests in a year, and I'd agree with a reduction. Gone are the days in which you look forward to a game so much your hairs stand on end and I'm finding games against Aussie and SA to be a bit tired. The mythical status afforded Bok AB tests has diminished. I'm not saying go back to 4 tests a year-think 10 would be the max-but it'd be nice to see tests as the cream of the crop. Reading about NZ and SA not losing for an age was great fun. Now the law of averages intimates that in a 12 test season the ABs would lose 3 times normally. As an AB fan I'd see that as a massive failure despite it being in line with our 75% record!

Henry saw it this way last time and tried something different. Yeah it didn't come off but ah well at least he took a chance and wasn't going to die wondering. Glad he got the chance to learn from it as it wasn't like he wanted to win the thing less than us.

Duane Vermeulen (knee) - He hurt this in last game, needed to have an operation
Fourie du Preez (knee) - That bothered him the whole season
Schalk Burger (thumb) - injured in semi final
Victor Matfield (calf and neck) - I don’t know what happened to him
Frans Steyn (back and ankle) - Dont know how he got injured
Jaque Fourie (groin) - They played with these injuries in the semi
Jean de Villiers (groin) - They played with these injuries in the semi
BJ Botha (knee) – is he even first choice – why would they lie about him?
Juan Smith (Achilles) – Been out almost the whole season
Willem Alberts (shoulder) – also, not first choice I think
Bismarck du Plessis (shoulder) – Didn’t watch the Sharks Crusaders game
Andries Bekker (shoulder, groin and ankle) - have been carrying these injuries for a while now
Jannie du Plessis (knee) – Didn’t watch the Sharks Crusaders game
Francois Louw (clavicle) – injured in Bulls-Stormers game,
Gurthro Steenkamp (forearm) - Been out most of the season
Francois Hougaard (ankle)
Butch James (knee) - Morne is still first choice, they won’t lie about Butch.
JP Pietersen (back) – Didn’t watch the Sharks Crusaders game
Tendai Mtawarira (hamstring) – Didn’t watch the Sharks Crusaders game
Bryan Habana (shoulder) - I don’t know what happened to him
Bakkies Botha (knee) - has been carrying this injury for a while now

And if they wanted to rest the players Morne Steyn surely should have been there - love him or hate him but he is going to be the Bok 10 come world cup.

I would argue that the sheer number of tours is killing the game as opposed to the RWC. It used to be that Ireland would play New Zealand/South Africa/Australia once every 3 years. Now it is almost an annual event in the autumn series and NH teams heading south generally visit 2 countries in the Summer window. The unions know it generates cash but really it would be more special if a Tour was 2 tests against one country with 2 games against club/province.

FerN wrote:Uhm, they are really injured - But that is because of the new S15 format and nothing to do with the RWC. When the Cheetahs beat the Crusaders, they didn't nearly have a full strength team (the Crusaders that is). And with the double derbies now, it really has to hurt the SA teams. SA teams tend to inflict injuries on opposing teams, because they tend to play more with their forwards than the more free running NZ and Oz teams. I am pretty sure NZ and Os will also be heavily injury ridden.

OZ and NZ do have their injuries, but not have their entire first XV run on team (less 3) out for a month.

Rob B wrote:

FerN wrote:Uhm, they are really injured - But that is because of the new S15 format and nothing to do with the RWC. When the Cheetahs beat the Crusaders, they didn't nearly have a full strength team (the Crusaders that is). And with the double derbies now, it really has to hurt the SA teams. SA teams tend to inflict injuries on opposing teams, because they tend to play more with their forwards than the more free running NZ and Oz teams. I am pretty sure NZ and Os will also be heavily injury ridden.

OZ and NZ do have their injuries, but not have their entire first XV run on team (less 3) out for a month.

Read three posts up where I gave an account for most of the injuries, except the Sharks ones.

Obviously the RWC has an influence because of the 4 year cycle and the intention for at least 5 or 6 teams (Tri Nations, England, France and Ireland) to attempt to peak for the culmination of this cycle.

However, the problems really relate to having the northen and southern hemisphere teams playing at opposite times of the year - therefore our AIs are against SH teams at the end of their season (and obviously missing those players who require surgery or rest having played with niggling injuries at the end of their season) and our summer tour squads are compromised in the same way. Other than one hemisphere switching to summer rugby (and there's a can of worms to open), there isn't really a simple solution other than reducing the frequency of summer tours to the other hemisphere.

As for the 21 injured South Africans, while I wouldn't suggest any are faking it, how many would be fit enough to play if these matches were the biggest in their short to medium term future?

I am sure if there were one test next week being really big Jaque, Jean, Andries and Bakkies could still play, but why would you risk them in an away game and with them almost definitely being out of the home games because the injuries were aggravated and risk them not even competing at the world cup. And Andries really didn't play well the last two or so games because of these injuries.

FerN
Exactly the point I was making - if it was the World Cup sf against the ABs next week, several would play through the pain, but as it is 'only' the Tri-Nations, they're better off missing it and resting the various niggles.

I think NH teams sending weak squads down to the SH has hurt those test matches. You see your team lose 50-10 and you have to write the match off as meaningless. However, I think we will see a reversal in this trend as we get 3 match tours.

The AIs for me are fairly meaningless. In the last few years, England have played:
2010: New Zealand, Australia, Samoa, South Africa
2009: Australia, Argentina, New Zealand
2008: Pacific Islanders, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand
2007: Rugby World Cup
2006: New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, South Africa

so in 5 years we've played at Twickenham: South Africa 4 times; New Zealand 4 times; Australia 3 times; Argentina twice; Samoa once and the PIs once. No wonder we look forward to the Rugby World Cup, because it's always the same team.

I've mentioned my solution before, but I would have 5 match test series, so you play 3 in the SH and then 2 in the NH. If you have a 5 match test series against a tier 1 nation, you play a couple of games against a tier 2 nation before those 2 matches and vica versa. Then you don't get to play that nation again for several years (unless you meet them in the World Cup), which would really build a bit of interest to each series.

For example, we get excited for the Lions because they only play every 4 years, and the SANZAR nations only get to host them every 12 years, which gives it a "once in a generation" feel. If I knew I was only going to get 2 chances to see any of the All Blacks, South Africa or Australia at Twickenham (both matches would be within a week of each other) in about 6 years, I would definitely try to get up there and see them. Now, no home AIs are special to me, because if I miss them this year I can just catch them next year.

Extract of an article from rugby.com:

"What made matters suspicious is that only a couple of injuries had been reported by the players clubs but as soon as they joined the Springboks team the SA team doctor said that a number of players faced a race against time to be fit for the two-fixture home leg of the Tri-Nations in August. "

Rob B wrote:Extract of an article from rugby.com:

"What made matters suspicious is that only a couple of injuries had been reported by the players clubs but as soon as they joined the Springboks team the SA team doctor said that a number of players faced a race against time to be fit for the two-fixture home leg of the Tri-Nations in August. "

If a player is injured while with the Boks, do they have to pay compensation to the club? If so, I'd always give my players a cleanish bill of health when leaving the club so that any little knock that becomes a full injury doesn't impact the club as much financially.

YES,no further comment required i`ve said it since the start.

biltongbek wrote:Firstly I don't think that the RWC is to blame for this occurence. Since I can remember most NH teams do not send their first choice teams to the SH in June/July. So on what do you blame that?

The SH teams send mostly their uninjured first choice players north at the end of the year, even though fatigue surely plays a role.

Perhaps it was a "blessing in disguise" that Dan Carter, Richie McCaw and SBW and a number of other New Zealand players had injuries during the Super Rugby competition?

Since you can remember, most NH teams do not send their first choice teams to the SH. Where's the evidence for this, biltongbek? This line has been trotted out continually about NH teams by media commentators as well as fans on blog sites such as this. Which teams are we talking about, and what years are we talking about? Weakened teams have been sent in the past undoubtedly (early 2000s comes to mind.) But the scorelines in some of the matches hardly reflects that they have been second string teams in recent years. When has Italy sent a purposely weakened team to tour? When has Ireland done so?

Equally to assert that SH teams have not fielded weakened or development teams on their tours north is simply not true. Both SA and Australia have done so, and it showed in the results in the last decade. I seem to recall that Bok commentators offered as a reason as to why they lost to Ireland twice was because they had only fielded a "second-string" team. And why do you say that "fatigue plays a role" on these November tours, but not in the June ones?

The reality is that tours are used for development of players - by both SH and NH sides in the squads they bring on tour. It is only New Zealand who have largely managed to keep clean sheets as a result of doing this.

On the question of the 21 Boks who are not available, I think any right-minded Bok fan would acknowledge that it is an extraordinarily lage number of players to be absent - and if this was not a RWC year, the number would be reduced considerably.

Ultimately, it's the Springboks choice who they decide to field - they did it before under White in 2007. It might be better to just call it what it is, rather than get into a situation where the ARU is seeking to have the Bok players checked to see if they're really injured. It reflects poorly on the game. And yes, the absence of players like Carter, Read and McCaw did seem to go on for a very long time during the Super Rugby season in what seemed to be an unsubtle piece of player management organised by the 3 witches.

*

Since you can remember, most NH teams do not send their first choice teams to the SH. Where's the evidence for this, biltongbek? This line has been trotted out continually about NH teams by media commentators as well as fans on blog sites such as this. Which teams are we talking about, and what years are we talking about? Weakened teams have been sent in the past undoubtedly (early 2000s comes to mind.) But the scorelines in some of the matches hardly reflects that they have been second string teams in recent years. When has Italy sent a purposely weakened team to tour? When has Ireland done so?


The reality is that tours are used for development of players - by both SH and NH sides in the squads they bring on tour. It is only New Zealand who have largely managed to keep clean sheets as a result of doing this.


Ultimately, it's the Springboks choice who they decide to field - they did it before under White in 2007. It might be better to just call it what it is, rather than get into a situation where the ARU is seeking to have the Bok players checked to see if they're really injured. It reflects poorly on the game. And yes, the absence of players like Carter, Read and McCaw did seem to go on for a very long time during the Super Rugby season in what seemed to be an unsubtle piece of player management organised by the 3 witches.

I believe it was widely recognised that Ireland sent a second string team to Australia last season - certainly my Irish friends thought so. The actual scoreline is not the point. The impact is on the crowds who turn up to watch and the crowds do fall off - why go watch a second rate test? This impacts severely the finances of the host country - because the host country takes the gate proceeds. In 2007, the crowds in Australia were very disappointing when the second string Boks toured here. And that's not fair if the host country routinely sends their best side when touring the other country.

I do not recall ABs or Australia sending second string teams to NH on tour and they do not regard them as development tours.

I do not understand why NH treats the tours as development - they are playing the No1, 2 and 3 sides in the world - don't they want to give it their best shot and see how they measure up? I don't want to sound disrespectful, but winning a "slam" or the 6N, while it has history is not the top rugby challenge on offer. It playing and trying to beat the best when the opportunity arises.

Ultimately, it's the Springboks choice who they decide to field - they did it before under White in 2007. It might be better to just call it what it is, rather than get into a situation where the ARU is seeking to have the Bok players checked to see if they're really injured. It reflects poorly on the game. And yes, the absence of players like Carter, Read and McCaw did seem to go on for a very long time during the Super Rugby season in what seemed to be an unsubtle piece of player management organised by the 3 witches.

I think that is the point - the issue is do the Springboks actually have the choice? They have signed an agreement with ABs and Wallabies stating they are obliged to field their strongest available team in every test. ARU happen to think they are in breach of the agreement.

Players being managed during Super Rugby is different - this does not impact the test sides

Rob we did in 2002. We left 21 of our best players in NZ to rest up for the WC (fat lot of good it did as usual for NZ's Cup preparations).

There was a stink about it in NZ but you didn't hear a peep of it in England where they gained their fifth victory over the All Blacks. Though it's testimony to our depth. I was confident that we could turn them over with a below full strength side and my feelings were very nearly realised as it took a Ben Cohen tackle on Ben Blair to deny NZ victory at the last minute.

France are notorious for it and England have done the same in the past a few times. Though 98 will serve as the ultimate caveat as they do not have the depth to do so and never had.

I think they could be in breach of the agreement too and further episodes like this may lead to cancellation of the Four Nations next time around. Which would be a good thing IMO.

I have been pondering this question for some time,what I am about to say may seem to wander of the point,But just sit and listen to an old mans meanderings.
The ill informed here,maybe uder the illussion that the Rugby World Cup first
occurred in 1987.The defacto World Crown began in roughly 1905-6 when the All Blacks and Boks toured Europe.
From 1921-8 the two giants met twice with a halved series each time,later the Lions became the third contender.Australia like Canada[or rather British Columbia] had a mini -tour tacked onto a incoming or out going Lions/Boks/All Blacks tour.
I was bought up in an era when sport was an escape form austerity of rationing,rebuilding,infrastructures world wide.
I lived through an era when Sport meant going to watch[or play] for your local team in the nearest park.At School I played to varying levels of skill at Rugby,Soccer,Cricket and Hockey team as opposed to individual sports like golf or Tennis.
Rugby Union or League you followed at national level by newspaper,radio,or movietone news .Rugby meant even into the late 1960`s.
The odd 5Ns match,the University Match and a surprise event on Grand stand,plus maybe a two minute clip on Sports night that was it.
Sport on Tv was,Cricket,Soccer,Horse Racing ,plus Athletics that was more or less it.
Sport was also used as a propaganda weapon to prove the supremacy of an ideaology,racial aspects,or the colour of the skin.
The British played sports against some of the most repulsive regimes known to man.High Jumpers 7stone wringing wet and 10 feet tall
filled with more chemicals than an I.C.I warehouse.[Moderators this is Fact not a rant on my part so please do not delete this].
It must be admitted this Sports arms race produced superb teams Spartak,Dynamo,Honved,Russia, Hungary at soccer.Rumania at Rugby Union,Argentina in the Maradona era.
Sorry,I have paited a picture of my own background but it is germane to my later points.
Rugby union in this era was AMATEUR,the game was more important than the result,it was a Winter Sport in both NHs,in Summer we played Cricket.
In this era in the NH coaching was hardly known in the SH coaches were de riguer since 1905.
Rugby meant domestic Club matches 5Ns.Lions,incoming tours or outgoing ones.Selection meant playing for the right clubs,and how you did in a trial.
When you consider the constraints they were under players did wonders,no substitutes,a pair of ordinary Boots,socks,shirt,shorts.plus box,shin pads,heavy leather balls un covered stadiums.
Goal kickers had to contend with a rain sodden ball,a mound made of mud,or sand[on hard grounds] but produced some of the best kickers in history.
This is not an old man looking through rose coloured glasses this was reality
in an era,when the SHIRT was every thing.iIf you were injured if you could walk or stand you played on.When energy meant a slice of orange at half-time.
Now back to this thread these three teams contested supremacy until 1982
when SA dropped out.
A Lions tour place,or Boks,or All Blacks was a treasured moment and players
made huge sacrifices in the name of the team.
Now a touring team would consist of more or less the established side,one or two veterans,plus several young hopefuls.In Practice a wednesday and a saturday side.Long tours could be 36 matches over 4 continents after a 6 month boat trip.So most of the team gotplenty of game time.
For the period in practical terms from 1921-8 there was no world Champion,!937-56 it was the BOKs,[with honourable mention to Lions in 1955 with a shared series.All Blacks 1956-60,Bok 60-65,AB 65-70,Lions 1971-74,Boks[maybe 1976],AllBlacks after 1982 etc.
In practical terms it was about prestige not money,for a Test or Club/provincial / Countie group to beat a touring side was huge,laws seemed more black and white then ,simpler,players were as skilled as todays without all the advantages the modern game provides.
What went wrong MONEY,the product,has to be sexy to put bums on seats
or for the Television millions.In amateur days you played Rugby to get and keep fit,have a few bevvies with the lads of both teams,camaraderie,Kick hell out of each other for 80 minutes then down the pub.
Players had a job,played from April to September[unless they were on an overseas tour].
Greed means a top player to day wil be training or playing for something like 10 or 11 months with little break.
PDV has made several points,saying one thing and doing another "we will put out full strength sides"then declares 20 odd players injured.ABs making similar noises.
Until 2007 there was no hiding top players in whatever Super comp,or 3Ns was running.Then in 2009 a Lions tour was devalued by provinces hiding key players.
PDV has bewailed having no control over his players,is he saying that picking NH players is a mistake and that Nz/Aus policy is the right one.
Someone pointed out that PDV can`t win he has a successful run its "well its the players" lose "Oh it`s PDV`s fault."
The constant need to win trophies in the Pro fessional era has meant the expansion of competions Super Rugby being expand ed S6/10/12/14/15 or 6 match [7 ifyou count the extra bledisloe fixture].
Means as proven a huge number of injuries in ALL the franchises,certainley some sort of player management is required.
Now to the points of understrength teams in varoius tests,look at it from a selectors point of view.A SH one as a point of argument,you last played a test November 2010.
The Public says more or less that is you team,the extended S15 season,then the 3 Ns starting only abot a fortnight afterwoulds.
3Ns finishes a fortnight before RWC starts.
You team has suffered injuries [genuine],loss of form,some young guns have held ther hands up what do you do.
You pick the STRONGEST available side you can,that may not be the side the public expects,BUT it may well be a better side than the established one.
My own ethos differs from most here,a RWC match is just another match,there should be no targetting of sides.
Last year the All Blacks won the last 6 series 3N title 6-0 unique in the history of the game.THAT is worth more to me than any RWC.
In the professional era NZ sides 10 3Ns,10 Super series,a total of 31 defeats and a 81.5% win /loss in that era is worth far more to me than a couple of RWCs.
For the NH fansThe Arch Chokers t they have managed since 1903 the Grand Total of 21 wins versus the All Blacks and only 6 of them in NZ.

Great read emack2, you really put the current rugby situation in full historical context.

That's exactly where we stand right now too - 'tactical selections' to rest players or give them more time to recover from injuries - whereas in time gone by they'd most likely take the field to be part of the contest. I'm all for player safety and use of best medical practices, etc but the criteria are obviously undergoing revision as well (to protect future mobility, etc of a player)

I'm all for the 'fielding the best team possible' in all international match ups. I notice the same thing is being done in a popular summer sport taking place in the Carribean. This devalues the 'Test' status for me. Either you field your best - or call it an 'A' XV, XI, or whatever. I realise there are more younger replacements rearing to go and who now have the opportunity to go on tours and I'm all for them being exposed to high level competition as much as possible... but to me this is not the same as the pure 5N of old or the 3N a few years back before 2007, say. The game is defintiely spreading around the world (in terms of participating nations and player numbers) so perhaps we have to review the Classification or attribute values/status to the different 'non-best XV' match-ups. Would probably involve more panels of arbitrators/administrators within the IRB and the could case more controversies and disputes though.

And at the same time we have U17/U19/U21, etc 'world cup' competitions happening on an increasingly regular basis. Nothing wrong with this - it's always great to watch - but we need to re-instate the importance of representing your country at the highest level by fielding the best available players. It certainly devalues things when someone says: "...but that was our second/third string side..." This type of approach can/will/already has started to damage our game.

When I first got into rugby I loved international rugby it was my favourite. But to be honest I much prefer Heineken Cup / Super 14 now.

We have to reduce the number of Tests. They should have the cream of the crop and people should be out due to injury, not needing a rest.

disneychilly wrote:We have to reduce the number of Tests. They should have the cream of the crop and people should be out due to injury, not needing a rest.

Or having to "blood" people.

Of course, I think it's great young rising stars like Lambie, O'Connor, etc are thrust into the limelight at an early age. Same with the Baby Blacks who have gone on to represent their nation at Test level. Apologies for not naming others from the NH...I'm sure there's a few there too.

Bold moves like that can reward teams significantly as by the time they're 24 or 25...they are like 'old heads'.

George Smith had 100 caps by aged 29

red_stag wrote:George Smith had 100 caps by aged 29

He was always good to watch. I went to his cafe (shared owner with George Gregan & their wives...they have a chain now) in Canberra one morning after a Brumbies match. I said something predictable like "Well played, mate!" and he said "Thanks, coffee's on me, mate" - then gave the eye wink to his other half behind the counter. Great PR man too!

If I wasn't at work I might find and put up here a list of Welshmen with the most international caps, showing over how many years they amassed them. That would give a reflection of how much quicker a player can amass caps now compared to earlier eras. But I am at work.

Rob B wrote:I don't want to sound disrespectful, but winning a "slam" or the 6N, while it has history is not the top rugby challenge on offer.

No, the World Cup is, which is why it sits above all other test matches.

In answer to the initial question, I think the answer is no. The RWC occurs once every four years. There is an element of preparation during the prior year, but the best teams in the world don't spend 4 years simply preparing for it, they treat each test match as important in itself - that's what ultimately makes them successful.

robbo277 wrote:

Rob B wrote:I don't want to sound disrespectful, but winning a "slam" or the 6N, while it has history is not the top rugby challenge on offer.

No, the World Cup is, which is why it sits above all other test matches.

Arrrr, cute, but my point obviously is different. RWC is a hard challenge yes and probably see it as the ultimate. However, the whole point of setting up this post for discussion was to explore the impact it is having on test rugby and the attitudes of its participants. And I think you just answered the question from a NH perspective (perhaps). In between 6N and RWC maybe NH teams don't give a toss. If so, very sad. Perhaps it is an avoidance of the issue.

The World Cup does not 'sit above all other test matches.' It's just a different animal. A World Cup final is something very special indeed but I'd take a match in the Six Nations over a World Cup pool game any day of the week.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:The World Cup does not 'sit above all other test matches.' It's just a different animal. A World Cup final is something very special indeed but I'd take a match in the Six Nations over a World Cup pool game any day of the week.

Madness!!

With the RWC acting as a draw to keep a number of SH players playing in SR, some returning from Europe specifically for it, many planning to head north immediately after it; would we see fewer stars in traditional test matches if we didn't have the RWC?

Rob B wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Rob B wrote:I don't want to sound disrespectful, but winning a "slam" or the 6N, while it has history is not the top rugby challenge on offer.

No, the World Cup is, which is why it sits above all other test matches.

Arrrr, cute, but my point obviously is different. RWC is a hard challenge yes and probably see it as the ultimate. However, the whole point of setting up this post for discussion was to explore the impact it is having on test rugby and the attitudes of its participants. And I think you just answered the question from a NH perspective (perhaps). In between 6N and RWC maybe NH teams don't give a toss. If so, very sad. Perhaps it is an avoidance of the issue.

I find it hard to get into the mid-year and end-of-year test series. The peak of weakened squads for me was the squad we sent down to South Africa in 2007, I couldn't believe it. I enjoyed last year's series in Australia because we took a full strength squad and could therefore compete.

And as I said earlier, the Autumn Internationals are far too repetitive for my liking. We play the same teams year in, year out. They're not special.

3 test series should increase interest in the mid-year series, especially if the NH teams send down full-strength squads, but I wish we had something similar in the Autumn, rather than playing the three tri-nations + a tier 2 nation ever year.

Even then, however, I still think the Rugby World Cup will be the pinnacle. I wouldn't spend 4 years building towards it, but if I could only win 7 test matches in 4 years, they would definitely be the World Cup matches.

Obviously during cycles teams will be rebuilding.or trying out newcomers but this should only take a limited period not 4 years.
In the past it was common for SH sides to have about 10 years service out of there players.team rebuilding meant a one for one basis.
Sometimes it took nearly a decade example All Blacks 1933-49[when 2-3-2 scrum was banned],1952-4 when the Kiwis and Cavanagh coached players went out of the game,The 1970`s when most of the greats retired,1991,1998 and so on.
In 2008 the All Blacks lost some 22 players to retirement,or cash,they used the Wellington v Crusaders S 14 match as a test trial and in 2008 despite a couple of losses.It was almosta painless transition.
Why are NH sides not competeing in RWCs,its a poor show when teams are targeting games they think they can win.So it does`nt look too bad when they just subside.

The one feature that worries me about the RWC,is the perception only 4 sides can really win it.
It seems as if the major NH sides look on the RWC as a damage limitation exercise.
Trying to look good instead of believing they can win it.

.[/quote]
And as I said earlier, the Autumn Internationals are far too repetitive for my liking. We play the same teams year in, year out. They're not special.
[/quote]

What about 6N? Don't you play the same teams year in year out? I actually like the AI as with 3N you get a bored watching 3N - the same teams play each other 3 times a year. Argentina coming coming in should help that if they can compete.

Rob B wrote:.

And as I said earlier, the Autumn Internationals are far too repetitive for my liking. We play the same teams year in, year out. They're not special.
[/quote]

What about 6N? Don't you play the same teams year in year out? I actually like the AI as with 3N you get a bored watching 3N - the same teams play each other 3 times a year. Argentina coming coming in should help that if they can compete.

[/quote]

Agree with this. I find the 6 Nations and the new extended 3 Nations can get a bit boring.

Those Aus-SA games last year were far from boring though...hair ripping stuff!

Agree it will be good to see the Argies coming in. They will be a hard task at home (BA or Rosario?) for Australia and maybe SA. All Blacks away will be interesting too.

The RWC is just another competition. It's all about marketing. For starters it's called the "world cup" so folks tend to believe that the team who win it are necessarily "world champions" and "the best team in the world", which is clearly nonsense.

It's great for the casual sports fans who like the feel of well sign posted event. As such the IRB love it, because it will get picked up around the globe, hopefully increase the fan base, and hence the global revenue etc. etc.

However, as a spectacle it's fairly dire stuff. A pool stage full of lop-sided stompings followed by a short not out phase typified by negative rugby, low accuracy and refereeing controversy.

In terms of legacy, the RWC offers nothing. How can we expect non-rugby super-powers to host the tournament and get any sustained impact from it when a rugby super power like the NZRFU can struggle to build a new stadium or make a profit. Ultimately the tournament will gravitate back to wealthiest rugby states increasing the gap between the haves and have nots. Japan and HK failing to fill stadiums for one-offs Bledisloes should tell you everything you need to know a RWC hosted elsewhere.

In the end, it's all about economics and not about the sport. The rest of the time it's subtracting focus from the rich traditions of the game all for a spectacle dreamed up by NZ/Aus in the Shamateur era. It's where it should have stayed.

Stomp it out before rugby goes the way of football with fickle "superstars" wandering from club to club (Henson is 20 years ahead of his time, like him or loathe him), foreign ownership diluting any cultural depth, rampant ticket price inflation and the marginalisation of the international game.

TheGreyGhost wrote:In terms of legacy, the RWC offers nothing. How can we expect non-rugby super-powers to host the tournament and get any sustained impact from it when a rugby super power like the NZRFU can struggle to build a new stadium or make a profit. Ultimately the tournament will gravitate back to wealthiest rugby states increasing the gap between the haves and have nots. Japan and HK failing to fill stadiums for one-offs Bledisloes should tell you everything you need to know a RWC hosted elsewhere.

HK certainly didn't fill the stadium last year (largely attributed to the economic woes), but Tokyo was only 3000 off 48000 full seating capacity in 2009, giving it the second highest attendance for the Bledisloe that year. HK in 2008 was 200 short of 40000 full capacity.

There is certainly a limit to what nations it will be possible to stage a 'successful' WC in. Japan should be well placed to do so, it has a similar number of total registered players to NZ, but twice as many registered adults, it has more higher capacity stadia, higher capacity infrastructure and it is more conveniently located for more nations.

Given that the RWC revenue accounts for 95% of all money distributed by the IRB for development of the game, the question is whether the poorer lower tier rugby nations would be better served by staging a competition there, but receiving less money over the following years as a result. I would love to see a joint PI held competition, but I suspect it wouldn't be deemed 'strong' enough. I could see countries like Argentina and a joint USA & Canada competition being a success in a decade or so, particularly if 7s in the Olympics focuses some countries' attentions as a few people are suggesting. If that is the case, a couple of decades from now, maybe Russia or China could work as well.

It's comparatively early days in the WC's development and indeed professionalism's. Both are far from perfect and have more than a few issues to be resolved, but I can't see that things would be better off for most nations if they were abandoned. I suspect the lower tier nations would certainly be left behind if they were.

I think the idea of the RWC going to Japan is just daft at this stage.

If a rugby mad country like NZ can only get small crowds to games like Canada vs Tonga how on earth can Japan do much better? Sure they have lots of people but how much do they love rugby.

Since its about money the only places to have the RWC in the future are SA, UK France and Aus. Is this bad for rugby in the long run? Probably if you care about the traditions of rugby. Probably not if you only care about the continued existence of world rugby.

Say NZ get rudey poo at rugby because its lower and middle levels get gutted too much too long by players going overseas for the money. Will this kill professional rugby? No. Could this happen? Ask the West Indies cricket team.
Would the international rugby fans mourn their (ABs) demise - probably for 40 -50 years but then they will just move on to the next best team. (probably China cause that's where the money will be)

The RWC wouldn't be to blame but professionalism might be.

The rpoblem is that money has meant that rugby sold it's soul.

There aren't just international rugby but also domestic competitions and Super club/Franchise competitions. and therefor players play too much rugby.

We are spoilt for choice, on almost every weekend, there are a plethora of matches from different countries available on television to watch.

It is like a kid in a candy store, eventually you reach the point of satisfaction after a few sweets and the rest doesn't even satisfy you anymore but you keep on eating.

Broadcasting rights have meant that competitions expand, and therefor the quality does suffer as any country only has a certain amount of talented players.

It therefor means that some teams included in these super Club/Frnachise competitions aren't up to standard.

Then you also have so many role players, each figthing for their own slice of the money pot. So none of them are really working towards the same goal.

If I were IRB chairman for a year, I would get all these role players together, from domestic club level to internationla level and sit around the table to find solutions.

Firstly all countries need a domestic competition and hence that would be the first order of business. To set aside a window for each country to have a domestic window.

Then onto a Super Club/Franchise window, where only a selected few teams compete ( otherwise it is just another tournament raking in money, and it isn't so super after all).

Then change the schedule of internationla matches.

Have the world cup once every four years.
have the six nations and tri nations every 2 years, and the rest of the time 3 test match series.

To me this is the only way you can satisfy fans, where they have their domestic competitions which should be the life blood of their development, a shortened higher quality Super Club/Franchises competition and meaningful international events.