RC and 6N set to align calendar

[Danno]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ndar-shift

Couldn’t see a relevant thread to add this to on the first 4 pages.

"Plans to shift the Six Nations’s traditional slot by a month to March and April and play the Rugby Championship in the same window as part of a synchronised global calendar have moved a step closer following an unprecedented joint announcement by the respective tournament organisers.

Both the Six Nations and Sanzaar, who run the Rugby Championship, have committed to further discussions in the coming weeks, amid increasing optimism that a joint accord could be rubber-stamped by early July"

[twitchy]

Bit of a shame honestly as it gives you some thing to watch in the most depressing part of the year. I'm not opposed to it really though.

[Danno]

Bit of a shame honestly as it gives you some thing to watch in the most depressing part of the year. I'm not opposed to it really though.

On the upside, you get to start drinking at 6am

[Stom]

Yeah, I start to be doing things at the weekend again by March and April time. February I'm still only venturing outside if forced.

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ndar-shift

Couldn’t see a relevant thread to add this to on the first 4 pages.

"Plans to shift the Six Nations’s traditional slot by a month to March and April and play the Rugby Championship in the same window as part of a synchronised global calendar have moved a step closer following an unprecedented joint announcement by the respective tournament organisers.

Both the Six Nations and Sanzaar, who run the Rugby Championship, have committed to further discussions in the coming weeks, amid increasing optimism that a joint accord could be rubber-stamped by early July"

I think this deserves a thread of its own - we're not the Scottish Board.

I can see the advantage for the NH, but not so much for the SH - where will Super Rugby fit in? It's currently Feb-June and them not wanting to have it split by internationals was the whole point of moving the summer internationals to July and f*cking up our season. So are they gonna still start in Feb and have a split domestic season or will they not kick off till May and somehow fit it into the calendar?

Puja

[Danno]

This will likely kill any ideas about SA joining the 6N for the forseeable

[Puja]

This will likely kill any ideas about SA joining the 6N for the forseeable

Good. The 6N is a precious jewel that is luckily also a phenomenal money-spinner. I don't see why we should screw with it to benefit a Tier 1 nation who are big enough and competent enough to find their own rugby competitions.

Puja

[Danno]

Don't hold back

[Puja]

Don't hold back

Plus they had the cheek to beat us when we'd already written a dozen newspaper articles about our 2019 world cup winning side and how they compared to 2003. F*ck 'em!

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Bit of a shame honestly as it gives you some thing to watch in the most depressing part of the year. I'm not opposed to it really though.

On the upside, you get to start drinking at 6am

Haha. Very good.

[morepork]

Pissy little bitches when you want to be, aren't you?

[Timbo]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ndar-shift

Couldn’t see a relevant thread to add this to on the first 4 pages.

"Plans to shift the Six Nations’s traditional slot by a month to March and April and play the Rugby Championship in the same window as part of a synchronised global calendar have moved a step closer following an unprecedented joint announcement by the respective tournament organisers.

Both the Six Nations and Sanzaar, who run the Rugby Championship, have committed to further discussions in the coming weeks, amid increasing optimism that a joint accord could be rubber-stamped by early July"

I think this deserves a thread of its own - we're not the Scottish Board.

I can see the advantage for the NH, but not so much for the SH - where will Super Rugby fit in? It's currently Feb-June and them not wanting to have it split by internationals was the whole point of moving the summer internationals to July and f*cking up our season. So are they gonna still start in Feb and have a split domestic season or will they not kick off till May and somehow fit it into the calendar?

Puja

March-April would be Rugby Championship
May-Sep elite club competition
Oct- host NH teams
Nov- tour NH teams

And honestly, whatever their elite club competition is, I’d be surprised if it’s Super Rugby. They’ll get 1 or 2 more seasons out of it at most I reckon.

[Mellsblue]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ndar-shift

Couldn’t see a relevant thread to add this to on the first 4 pages.

"Plans to shift the Six Nations’s traditional slot by a month to March and April and play the Rugby Championship in the same window as part of a synchronised global calendar have moved a step closer following an unprecedented joint announcement by the respective tournament organisers.

Both the Six Nations and Sanzaar, who run the Rugby Championship, have committed to further discussions in the coming weeks, amid increasing optimism that a joint accord could be rubber-stamped by early July"

I think this deserves a thread of its own - we're not the Scottish Board.

I can see the advantage for the NH, but not so much for the SH - where will Super Rugby fit in? It's currently Feb-June and them not wanting to have it split by internationals was the whole point of moving the summer internationals to July and f*cking up our season. So are they gonna still start in Feb and have a split domestic season or will they not kick off till May and somehow fit it into the calendar?

Puja

March-April would be Rugby Championship
May-Sep elite club competition
Oct- host NH teams
Nov- tour NH teams

And honestly, whatever their elite club competition is, I’d be surprised if it’s Super Rugby. They’ll get 1 or 2 more seasons out of it at most I reckon.

Yeh. By the sounds of it Super Rugby will crawl through to the end of the current tv deal and then it’ll be done. It’ll be interesting to see how Super Rugby Aotearoa goes. It could be a precursor of what the future looks like.

I’m all for the 6N moving into slightly warmer months and I think that combined calendar would work well.

[Lizard]

This will likely kill any ideas about SA joining the 6N for the forseeable

Good. The 6N is a precious jewel that is luckily also a phenomenal money-spinner. I don't see why we should screw with it to benefit a Tier 1 nation who are big enough and competent enough to find their own rugby competitions.

Puja

Yes, the Six Nations is a sacrosanct, immutable chalice bearing the spirit of rugby through the ages. It must never change. Well, except for that one time in 2000 when they had to let Italy in on the strength of losing to England by 60 points in RWC1999. And that one time two times they let France join so the blazers could have a weekend in Gay Paris.

Hey - fun fact. In the 20 seasons prior to joining the 6N, Italy beat 5N teams 5 times (Fra, Aco, Ire x3) in 22 attempts, or 22.7%. In the 20 years since joining the 6N, it has beaten those teams 12 times (Ire, Wal x2, Fra x2, Sco x7) out of 121 attempts or 9.9%.

[Puja]

This will likely kill any ideas about SA joining the 6N for the forseeable

Good. The 6N is a precious jewel that is luckily also a phenomenal money-spinner. I don't see why we should screw with it to benefit a Tier 1 nation who are big enough and competent enough to find their own rugby competitions.

Puja

Yes, the Six Nations is a sacrosanct, immutable chalice bearing the spirit of rugby through the ages. It must never change. Well, except for that one time in 2000 when they had to let Italy in on the strength of losing to England by 60 points in RWC1999. And that one time two times they let France join so the blazers could have a weekend in Gay Paris.

Hey - fun fact. In the 20 seasons prior to joining the 6N, Italy beat 5N teams 5 times (Fra, Aco, Ire x3) in 22 attempts, or 22.7%. In the 20 years since joining the 6N, it has beaten those teams 12 times (Ire, Wal x2, Fra x2, Sco x7) out of 121 attempts or 9.9%.

Expanding a European rugby competition to allow European nations to play is an expansion on the same theme. Importing a side from Africa because they've left their previous establoshed competition seems like a bit more of a change of theme. Or would you like to extoll the benefits that going to additional continents have brought Super Rugby?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Same (near as damn it) time zone, high quality competition, established rugby nation and a big economy, even if they are doing their level best to remove this one from the positives list. Other than carbon footprint, I can only see an upside.
Bring in Georgia and you could have two groups of four with playoffs for the following years seedings with a money spinning grand final between the top nations in each group.
It could be possible to lose a match out of the calendar and not lose too much money.
Add in that the Pro14 has SA franchises already, and rumours they will be strengthened when/if Super Rugby folds, and it looks fairly sensible to me.

[Lizard]

Good. The 6N is a precious jewel that is luckily also a phenomenal money-spinner. I don't see why we should screw with it to benefit a Tier 1 nation who are big enough and competent enough to find their own rugby competitions.

Puja

Yes, the Six Nations is a sacrosanct, immutable chalice bearing the spirit of rugby through the ages. It must never change. Well, except for that one time in 2000 when they had to let Italy in on the strength of losing to England by 60 points in RWC1999. And that one time two times they let France join so the blazers could have a weekend in Gay Paris.

Hey - fun fact. In the 20 seasons prior to joining the 6N, Italy beat 5N teams 5 times (Fra, Aco, Ire x3) in 22 attempts, or 22.7%. In the 20 years since joining the 6N, it has beaten those teams 12 times (Ire, Wal x2, Fra x2, Sco x7) out of 121 attempts or 9.9%.

Expanding a European rugby competition to allow European nations to play is an expansion on the same theme. Importing a side from Africa because they've left their previous establoshed competition seems like a bit more of a change of theme. Or would you like to extoll the benefits that going to additional continents have brought Super Rugby?

Puja

I'm pretty sure that in 1910 the Home Nations Union Committees would never have described themselves as European. Thank Jove you've got that nonsense out of your system now.

Seriously, having SA in the 6N is not a great idea, but frankly neither is having them in a regular comp with NZ. Auckland is 30% further from JoBurg than London is.

[Puja]

Yes, the Six Nations is a sacrosanct, immutable chalice bearing the spirit of rugby through the ages. It must never change. Well, except for that one time in 2000 when they had to let Italy in on the strength of losing to England by 60 points in RWC1999. And that one time two times they let France join so the blazers could have a weekend in Gay Paris.

Hey - fun fact. In the 20 seasons prior to joining the 6N, Italy beat 5N teams 5 times (Fra, Aco, Ire x3) in 22 attempts, or 22.7%. In the 20 years since joining the 6N, it has beaten those teams 12 times (Ire, Wal x2, Fra x2, Sco x7) out of 121 attempts or 9.9%.

Expanding a European rugby competition to allow European nations to play is an expansion on the same theme. Importing a side from Africa because they've left their previous establoshed competition seems like a bit more of a change of theme. Or would you like to extoll the benefits that going to additional continents have brought Super Rugby?

Puja

I'm pretty sure that in 1910 the Home Nations Union Committees would never have described themselves as European. Thank Jove you've got that nonsense out of your system now.

Seriously, having SA in the 6N is not a great idea, but frankly neither is having them in a regular comp with NZ. Auckland is 30% further from JoBurg than London is.

While I don't necessarily disagree that having South Africa and New Zealand in a competition together isn't a great idea in terms of travel, I don't see how that translates to it being our problem.

Puja

[Lizard]

Expanding a European rugby competition to allow European nations to play is an expansion on the same theme. Importing a side from Africa because they've left their previous establoshed competition seems like a bit more of a change of theme. Or would you like to extoll the benefits that going to additional continents have brought Super Rugby?

Puja

I'm pretty sure that in 1910 the Home Nations Union Committees would never have described themselves as European. Thank Jove you've got that nonsense out of your system now.

Seriously, having SA in the 6N is not a great idea, but frankly neither is having them in a regular comp with NZ. Auckland is 30% further from JoBurg than London is.

While I don't necessarily disagree that having South Africa and New Zealand in a competition together isn't a great idea in terms of travel, I don't see how that translates to it being our problem.

Puja

Well that's exactly the "us and them" attitude that's hamstringing the global game. I think the general consensus is that the modern game benefits generally from the top tier sides (and probably the lower tier sides) being involved in frequent, regular, meaningful competition with sides of equivalent strength. This means tournaments. There is obvious logistical logic (even apart form the history of the H/5/6 N) to a Home Nations/Europe tournament*. Similarly, there is some sense in NZ and Australia tying things together.** South Africa stands somewhat alone in having no near*** neighbour of suitable standard (Argentina is in a similar bind, as is Japan albeit at a lower level). Now, one could point at the history of South African rugby and its relationship with the peoples generally found north of the Limpopo, and conclude that it has the neighbourhood it deserves, in terms of rugby standards. However, leaving modern multicultural Springbok rugby to wither on the vine planted by apartheid might be a little unfair**** and certainly not in the interests of the global game.

So, is it more logical to lump SA in with the closer teams in about the same time zone, but the wrong season, or the more distant teams, in the wrong time zones, but in the right season?

The original 3N was set up the way it was for several reasons, some of which still apply and some that don't:
1. A lack of alternatives. In 1996, the 5N was never going to expand other than to include a 2nd continental side. Given the the involvement of SA franchises in European club rugby, this seem less of a barrier.

2. The desire to increase matches and "settle the series" between the then undisputed top 2 teams in rugby. As at the end of 1995, the Springboks had the edge at 21 wins to NZ's 18 (3 draws) although each side had a clear home advantage and more games had been played in SA. Since 1996, this issue has been clearly answered with the All Blacks running away with 41 wins in 57 attempts.

3. Money.

International rugby is clearly at something of a crossroads, with a chance to for a bit of fresh start in some respects. If (big if) we were starting totally from scratch, I do not think there is any compelling argument that makes a TRC-style tournament a more natural fit for SA than one involving the Home Nations and stronger European sides. Arguably, its the northerners "turn" to make a place for SA.

*Putting aside squabbles Italy v 2nd tier involvement.
**Again, putting aside the place of PI nations in that.
***Even in the Auckland-Sydney sense of "near" which I remind you is somewhere between "London-Bucharest" and "London-Minsk."
****That said, there has been plenty of time since the early '90s for SA to have done more for the likes of Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

[Digby]

What's hamstringing the global game is there aren't a lot of fans of rugby, and certainly not people who want to pay to go and watch. If the game is to grow either it builds a base, or (and my guess) we'll try the cricket approach of throwing so many international games into the mix there's no need to give a shit because the next game will be along soon enough

[Cameo]

I'm pretty sure that in 1910 the Home Nations Union Committees would never have described themselves as European. Thank Jove you've got that nonsense out of your system now.

Seriously, having SA in the 6N is not a great idea, but frankly neither is having them in a regular comp with NZ. Auckland is 30% further from JoBurg than London is.

While I don't necessarily disagree that having South Africa and New Zealand in a competition together isn't a great idea in terms of travel, I don't see how that translates to it being our problem.

Puja

Well that's exactly the "us and them" attitude that's hamstringing the global game. I think the general consensus is that the modern game benefits generally from the top tier sides (and probably the lower tier sides) being involved in frequent, regular, meaningful competition with sides of equivalent strength. This means tournaments. There is obvious logistical logic (even apart form the history of the H/5/6 N) to a Home Nations/Europe tournament*. Similarly, there is some sense in NZ and Australia tying things together.** South Africa stands somewhat alone in having no near*** neighbour of suitable standard (Argentina is in a similar bind, as is Japan albeit at a lower level). Now, one could point at the history of South African rugby and its relationship with the peoples generally found north of the Limpopo, and conclude that it has the neighbourhood it deserves, in terms of rugby standards. However, leaving modern multicultural Springbok rugby to wither on the vine planted by apartheid might be a little unfair**** and certainly not in the interests of the global game.

So, is it more logical to lump SA in with the closer teams in about the same time zone, but the wrong season, or the more distant teams, in the wrong time zones, but in the right season?

The original 3N was set up the way it was for several reasons, some of which still apply and some that don't:
1. A lack of alternatives. In 1996, the 5N was never going to expand other than to include a 2nd continental side. Given the the involvement of SA franchises in European club rugby, this seem less of a barrier.

2. The desire to increase matches and "settle the series" between the then undisputed top 2 teams in rugby. As at the end of 1995, the Springboks had the edge at 21 wins to NZ's 18 (3 draws) although each side had a clear home advantage and more games had been played in SA. Since 1996, this issue has been clearly answered with the All Blacks running away with 41 wins in 57 attempts.

3. Money.

International rugby is clearly at something of a crossroads, with a chance to for a bit of fresh start in some respects. If (big if) we were starting totally from scratch, I do not think there is any compelling argument that makes a TRC-style tournament a more natural fit for SA than one involving the Home Nations and stronger European sides. Arguably, its the northerners "turn" to make a place for SA.

*Putting aside squabbles Italy v 2nd tier involvement.
**Again, putting aside the place of PI nations in that.
***Even in the Auckland-Sydney sense of "near" which I remind you is somewhere between "London-Bucharest" and "London-Minsk."
****That said, there has been plenty of time since the early '90s for SA to have done more for the likes of Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

If there are to be two separate international tournaments, who would you propose joining NZ and Australia then? Wasn't a big reason the Tri Nations came into being that Australia and NZ needed at least one other country to make it a tournament.

One day Japan or Fiji (or a combined PI team) might be an answer but right now a tournament of any of those plus NZ and Australia would barely qualify as a tournament

[Mr Mwenda]

Interesting thread, thanks chaps.

So if professional rugby is fundamentally on shaky ground financially what is it 'we' are shooting for with these different situations? What time is successful measured by?* Sounds a bit like what might be most realistic is a situation bit like rugby league but with the Kiwis in place of the Aussies and the game a bit better distributed around Europe.

Re: SA, I think Lizard makes some good points. I'm undecided.** I do feel that it challenges the identity of the brand in a way adding Italy didn't (adding France probably did change the brand but i think sport on the whole was understood completely differently back then). From that perspective, expansion within Europe probably makes more sense***. Of course brand identities can change, I just don't have much enthusiasm for moving the annual boks fixture which already seems to come round too often.

*it feels to me that there is now disatisfaction with super rugby and the rugby championship. Was this always the case? For what periods was it considered successful by most people?
**Actually, I am against it unless flying becomes carbon neutral really soon. But that's different to Lizard's points. I appreciate it would be more environmentally friendly than sa continuing in a tourney with nz, mind.
***I've a suspicion that a problem League has is the fact they have these random mixtures of teams from different countries contorted through various formats that constantly. It just makes things feel less serious somehow. I'd be interested if there's any evidence for my hunch but it seems to me both codes if rugby desperately tinker with competition formats in search of success that sekdom go anywhere. The fact that the 6 nations seems to be successful (is it? I'm assuming here i realise) it seems odd to change it.

Wibble

[Puja]

If there are to be two separate international tournaments, who would you propose joining NZ and Australia then? Wasn't a big reason the Tri Nations came into being that Australia and NZ needed at least one other country to make it a tournament.

One day Japan or Fiji (or a combined PI team) might be an answer but right now a tournament of any of those plus NZ and Australia would barely qualify as a tournament

While I don't fancy Japan or Fiji's chances against NZ, they'd be decently competitive against Australia right now and frankly, I don't know I fancy Australia's chances against NZ either.

Puja

[Lizard]

I think that Super Rugby lost its initial promise when it first expanded by diluting the player base in the two countries least able to support it. Australia was always going struggle to staff and pay for teams outside the union states. SA had its own politics that I still don’t fully get. Then to try to fix that they added more teams to give the Rebels someone to beat. That lead to a situation where the top teams had very few competitive games. This was “fixed” with the dumbass conference system that no one understood except to get that it transparently ensured weaker sides made the playoffs.

Poor super rugby sides led to (relatively) poor test sides meaning that the 3N became an All Blacks parade. This was “fixed” by increasing the fixtures (didn’t work) and then bringing in Arg just a bit too late for them to be competitive.

If NZ had been forced to add a couple more Super teams, it might have balanced things out, at the cost of All Black supremacy perhaps.

The other problem is that travelling for fans is really hard. I’d love to have a weekend in La Plata or see the Chiefs play at Loftus but I’m not travelling 24 hours each way for that.

[Mr Mwenda]

Thanks, Lizard.

So there was some sort of balance between quality teams and international teams to make an exciting product. However, if it was working, then why did people want change it? Was it only really working for NZ? Wasn't part of the reason Aus wanted more teams was so they could expand their playing resources? I'm wondering if the real issue has been the fact that Aussie have regressed from managing to produce two generations of world class players back to their natural level. I'd be interested to know what the causes were of that if there were any.

Sounds like NZ will be better off just playing among themselves.

Do away fans travel in Aus and SA? Still awfully long trips for a weekend one would think. I guess people like to go for the European Cup weekend breaks.