Autumn Nations Cup concept review

[Puja]

You know, I actually really liked the ANC. Yes, it was a bit of a bodge job this year with sides coming in and out, no SH nations, and Fiji losing most of their games to COVID and England refusing to play any rugby at all, but I think the overall concept is sound and bears repeating.

I don't know I'd want to have the proto-6N make-up of it again, but I'd be in favour of England setting up an annual tournament in the AIs. It wouldn't require us to do any more AIs than we normally do, would give an invitational competition that we can invite developing sides like Georgia, Fiji, Japan, USA, etc to (and also share the wealth with the PI nation from the sponsorship), and give us a competition to sell rights and sponsorship to, rather than a bunch of internationals.

What do people think?

Puja

[Shiny]

I enjoyed it and the format of the competition. I agree on inviting developing sides as well. My only concern is when would we play our traditional autumn opponents of NZ, Australia and SA in an already congested season. I would hate for England only to play those sides at a world cup. Just as the developing nations need to play better teams to improve we need to annually play NZ, SA & Aus to keep improving too.

[Puja]

I enjoyed it and the format of the competition. I agree on inviting developing sides as well. My only concern is when would we play our traditional autumn opponents of NZ, Australia and SA in an already congested season. I would hate for England only to play those sides at a world cup. Just as the developing nations need to play better teams to improve we need to annually play NZ, SA & Aus to keep improving too.

Ah, I was thinking of incorporating the NZ/Aus/SA in. So have it as an 8 team invitational with England, 2/3 x SH nations, 1/2 x 6N countries, 3 x developing nations (with the ratios to change depending on who we can invite that year). Only downside is that I can see NZ requiring a massive bung to grace us with their presence, so there'd be less chance of playing them.

Puja

[Mr Mwenda]

I enjoyed it and the format of the competition. I agree on inviting developing sides as well. My only concern is when would we play our traditional autumn opponents of NZ, Australia and SA in an already congested season. I would hate for England only to play those sides at a world cup. Just as the developing nations need to play better teams to improve we need to annually play NZ, SA & Aus to keep improving too.

Ah, I was thinking of incorporating the NZ/Aus/SA in. So have it as an 8 team invitational with England, 2/3 x SH nations, 1/2 x 6N countries, 3 x developing nations (with the ratios to change depending on who we can invite that year). Only downside is that I can see NZ requiring a massive bung to grace us with their presence, so there'd be less chance of playing them.

Puja

I like the sound of that. I think it's nice to have a bit of uncertainty about the final match's opponents.

[Mellsblue]

It was good to have a competitive structure to it rather than just a string of games. For me, the AIs always pale in comparison when compared to the 6N and the summer tour/series against one nation.
If world rugby get their way we’ll definitely be seeing something like this every Nov & Dec, albeit with SANZAR and replacing the weaker NH nations (Georgia, Italy and Wales).

[Puja]

The only question is who owns the concept and whether we can make it an England-owned thing, given that it was split between the 6N this year. I wouldn't want it if 6 of the 8 spaces had to go to the 6N teams or even to the 4 British Isles teams - as Shiny said, we need to keep playing the SH sides. Maybe it could work as an Anglo-Welsh competition, splitting the games between Millennium and Twickenham (maybe with satellite games going to places like Liberty Stadium, Ricoh, or Ashton Gate), with England and Wales having a pool each that contained 1 x 3N, 1 x mid-tier nation (Arg, Fiji, Samoa, etc) and 1 x emerging nation (Romania, Georgia, Russia, Spain, USA, etc).

If world rugby get their way we’ll definitely be seeing something like this every Nov & Dec, albeit with SANZAR and replacing the weaker NH nations (Georgia, Italy and Wales).

World Rugby want the entire season to be a competition though, which I can't stand the idea of. Why f*ck with the 6N, the one thing in rugby that is an unqualified financial success?! And no-one wants a long drawn-out competition where you've forgotten how it began by the time it ends - look at the damp squib that was the end of the 6N for an example.

Puja


ETA. Also, nice.

[Digby]

I tended to think of the AIs as superior to the 6N because you're playing better sides. Against which Ireland and Wales have been more consistent this last decade than SA and Oz, even if at their respective best SA and Oz have been better, so it has swung a little.

[Digby]

The only question is who owns the concept and whether we can make it an England-owned thing, given that it was split between the 6N this year. I wouldn't want it if 6 of the 8 spaces had to go to the 6N teams or even to the 4 British Isles teams - as Shiny said, we need to keep playing the SH sides. Maybe it could work as an Anglo-Welsh competition, splitting the games between Millennium and Twickenham (maybe with satellite games going to places like Liberty Stadium, Ricoh, or Ashton Gate), with England and Wales having a pool each that contained 1 x 3N, 1 x mid-tier nation (Arg, Fiji, Samoa, etc) and 1 x emerging nation (Romania, Georgia, Russia, Spain, USA, etc).

If world rugby get their way we’ll definitely be seeing something like this every Nov & Dec, albeit with SANZAR and replacing the weaker NH nations (Georgia, Italy and Wales).

World Rugby want the entire season to be a competition though, which I can't stand the idea of. Why f*ck with the 6N, the one thing in rugby that is an unqualified financial success?! And no-one wants a long drawn-out competition where you've forgotten how it began by the time it ends - look at the damp squib that was the end of the 6N for an example.

Puja


ETA. Also, nice.

What the IRB want is to active one major new market for the sport by 2025 to support an overall aim of raising the value of audience engagement activity by 50% by 2025. To that end they consider the development of a more compelling competition structure that delivers more meaningful matches by 2024 and a more unified approach to promoting the international competition cycle important drivers of getting their hands on more money.

Basically the game is fucked financially, but if they pretend now they can drive 50% growth they don't need to make more difficult choices today about what to cut, those decision can be put off to the future when they'll be someone else's problem.

The bit about the game being fucked financially is my own prose, but quite a bit of the rest is as per the IRB

[Oakboy]

Maybe, the concept is sound but could only work practically (in terms of numbers) on a two-competition basis i.e. two groups of 8. That could deliver quality of opposition and a variety year-on-year. It might mean an initial 4 team split with one of the 4 SH nations in each but a good chance of playing a second by getting to the final, a fair reward in itself.

[Which Tyler]

Commenting before reading the above - so apologies if this has already been gone through...

Ultimately, I quite liked having a sense of tournament about it; though it was a complete hash of a rushed job. I'd like to keep that element; but we need to be careful not to kill the golden goose of the RWC if we want to keep that element.
Consequently, I'm not sure how to go about it.

My main thought would be to hold it in a Lions year, combining Summer and Autumn windows, using the non-lions squads from the home nations; and some 2nd tier teams - let France and Italy play the next best from the Quad-Nations. Home nations host the remaining QN side, top 3 from the Pacific, Top 2 from ENC and 2 from the Americas.


So next year, Lions go to SA; France to NZ, Italy to Argentina (and maybe the reverse opponents at home).

Rest of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland invite Australia, Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Georgia, Spain, USA and Uruguay.
2 pools of 6 gives 5 games each, + a final (complete with up, Plate, Shield etc).
Almost a spiritual successor to the Churchill cup - but played every 4 years; and with first choice (but depleted) home nations sides, rather than official A-teams (I'm pretty sure that was the reason given for discontinuing the Churchill).

This would have to be hosted in Europe to allow for travel; but with revenue sharing so that the visitors an actually pay their players.

Something like this gives the minnows more time together, against decent opposition, playing on TV in decent sized stadia - which an only be good for them (so long as funding is there). Hopefully being denuded of the best from the home nations and quad nations means that it doesn't tread on the toes of the world cup - but almost as a stepping stone for the 2nd tier; and depth gathering for the top tier; whilst evening up some of the mis-matches.


ETA: Having read the comments above mine - I seem to have gone in a different direction than most.
I do NOT want something like this to be annual - do that, and we wouldn't need a RWC anymore - not to mention that playing the same old sides every year is already boring. I'm more interested in expanding the game, than contracting it further.

[Puja]

The only question is who owns the concept and whether we can make it an England-owned thing, given that it was split between the 6N this year. I wouldn't want it if 6 of the 8 spaces had to go to the 6N teams or even to the 4 British Isles teams - as Shiny said, we need to keep playing the SH sides. Maybe it could work as an Anglo-Welsh competition, splitting the games between Millennium and Twickenham (maybe with satellite games going to places like Liberty Stadium, Ricoh, or Ashton Gate), with England and Wales having a pool each that contained 1 x 3N, 1 x mid-tier nation (Arg, Fiji, Samoa, etc) and 1 x emerging nation (Romania, Georgia, Russia, Spain, USA, etc).

If world rugby get their way we’ll definitely be seeing something like this every Nov & Dec, albeit with SANZAR and replacing the weaker NH nations (Georgia, Italy and Wales).

World Rugby want the entire season to be a competition though, which I can't stand the idea of. Why f*ck with the 6N, the one thing in rugby that is an unqualified financial success?! And no-one wants a long drawn-out competition where you've forgotten how it began by the time it ends - look at the damp squib that was the end of the 6N for an example.

Puja


ETA. Also, nice.

What the IRB want is to active one major new market for the sport by 2025 to support an overall aim of raising the value of audience engagement activity by 50% by 2025. To that end they consider the development of a more compelling competition structure that delivers more meaningful matches by 2024 and a more unified approach to promoting the international competition cycle important drivers of getting their hands on more money.

Basically the game is fucked financially, but if they pretend now they can drive 50% growth they don't need to make more difficult choices today about what to cut, those decision can be put off to the future when they'll be someone else's problem.

The bit about the game being fucked financially is my own prose, but quite a bit of the rest is as per the IRB

And, like with anything written in the style of the IRB, my gaze just bounced right off the first paragraph without taking a single word in!

Puja

[Digby]

The only question is who owns the concept and whether we can make it an England-owned thing, given that it was split between the 6N this year. I wouldn't want it if 6 of the 8 spaces had to go to the 6N teams or even to the 4 British Isles teams - as Shiny said, we need to keep playing the SH sides. Maybe it could work as an Anglo-Welsh competition, splitting the games between Millennium and Twickenham (maybe with satellite games going to places like Liberty Stadium, Ricoh, or Ashton Gate), with England and Wales having a pool each that contained 1 x 3N, 1 x mid-tier nation (Arg, Fiji, Samoa, etc) and 1 x emerging nation (Romania, Georgia, Russia, Spain, USA, etc).



World Rugby want the entire season to be a competition though, which I can't stand the idea of. Why f*ck with the 6N, the one thing in rugby that is an unqualified financial success?! And no-one wants a long drawn-out competition where you've forgotten how it began by the time it ends - look at the damp squib that was the end of the 6N for an example.

Puja


ETA. Also, nice.

What the IRB want is to active one major new market for the sport by 2025 to support an overall aim of raising the value of audience engagement activity by 50% by 2025. To that end they consider the development of a more compelling competition structure that delivers more meaningful matches by 2024 and a more unified approach to promoting the international competition cycle important drivers of getting their hands on more money.

Basically the game is fucked financially, but if they pretend now they can drive 50% growth they don't need to make more difficult choices today about what to cut, those decision can be put off to the future when they'll be someone else's problem.

The bit about the game being fucked financially is my own prose, but quite a bit of the rest is as per the IRB

And, like with anything written in the style of the IRB, my gaze just bounced right off the first paragraph without taking a single word in!

Puja

If you are to take just one thing from the special interim meeting in November perhaps you can be reassured there'll no longer be reference to sides being labelled tier1, tier 2 etc. Such language is not inclusive and the IRB is keen to look at how it can improve diversity and inclusion in all it does.

[Puja]

What the IRB want is to active one major new market for the sport by 2025 to support an overall aim of raising the value of audience engagement activity by 50% by 2025. To that end they consider the development of a more compelling competition structure that delivers more meaningful matches by 2024 and a more unified approach to promoting the international competition cycle important drivers of getting their hands on more money.

Basically the game is fucked financially, but if they pretend now they can drive 50% growth they don't need to make more difficult choices today about what to cut, those decision can be put off to the future when they'll be someone else's problem.

The bit about the game being fucked financially is my own prose, but quite a bit of the rest is as per the IRB

And, like with anything written in the style of the IRB, my gaze just bounced right off the first paragraph without taking a single word in!

Puja

If you are to take just one thing from the special interim meeting in November perhaps you can be reassured there'll no longer be reference to sides being labelled tier1, tier 2 etc. Such language is not inclusive and the IRB is keen to look at how it can improve diversity and inclusion in all it does.

Nope. Just glanced right off it. It's like the adults talking to Charlie Brown.

Puja

[Spiffy]

Nothing wrong with the concept. But if it is played with a win-at-all costs, stick-it-up-yer-jumper or kick-it-away rugby (e.g. England) it will be a dull affair. I'd be more interested if participating teams agreed to make it a developmental type competition to blood new players and combinations. Coaches don't have much to learn about players like Youngs, Farrell, Murray, Sexton, Hogg, Vunipola etc. Many of us are quite bored watching them anyway. This would be a chance to do some experimentation that they certainly won't do in the 6N or RWC. Meantime players like Marcus Smith, the Simmonds bros, Umaga, Ted Hill and many other prospects don't get a look in.
For England the crucial 10/12/13 midfield axis looks a shambles but nothing really gets done about it. Farrell won't even be subbed when he's playing like a drain.

[Digby]

This was a chance to see some experimentation, Hill, Dunn, Lawrence, Thorley, Malins, Willis and Lawrence have all appeared in the last few weeks, how many more new faces could you want that wouldn't be irresponsible to those new faces?

[Spiffy]

This was a chance to see some experimentation, Hill, Dunn, Lawrence, Thorley, Malins, Willis and Lawrence have all appeared in the last few weeks, how many more new faces could you want that wouldn't be irresponsible to those new faces?

Take your point, but maybe they are the wrong new faces. We are still seeing Ford/Farrrell/Youngs/two Vunipolas etc.

[Digby]

This was a chance to see some experimentation, Hill, Dunn, Lawrence, Thorley, Malins, Willis and Lawrence have all appeared in the last few weeks, how many more new faces could you want that wouldn't be irresponsible to those new faces?

Take your point, but maybe they are the wrong new faces. We are still seeing Ford/Farrrell/Youngs/two Vunipolas etc.

Maybe they've had a problem bringing in so many new faces.

And whilst Ford and Farrell have struggled over the series you'd be hard pushed to say Lenny, Mako and Billy haven't done well

[Danno]

I meant to ask in the last MBM you did, but why Lenny?

[Digby]

I meant to ask in the last MBM you did, but why Lenny?

When he was a little lad Ben Youngs called himself Benny Lenny, sensibly he told his mates in rugby that and ever since he's been Lenny. Something made popular by George Chuter and Tom Croft with their then website called 'things Len said' which was just stupid things he'd said, and he's said a lot of stupid things

[Danno]

I meant to ask in the last MBM you did, but why Lenny?

When he was a little lad Ben Youngs called himself Benny Lenny, sensibly he told his mates in rugby that and ever since he's been Lenny. Something made popular by George Chuter and Tom Croft with their then website called 'things Len said' which was just stupid things he'd said, and he's said a lot of stupid things

Oh that's getting a google, cheers.

[Digby]

I meant to ask in the last MBM you did, but why Lenny?

When he was a little lad Ben Youngs called himself Benny Lenny, sensibly he told his mates in rugby that and ever since he's been Lenny. Something made popular by George Chuter and Tom Croft with their then website called 'things Len said' which was just stupid things he'd said, and he's said a lot of stupid things

Oh that's getting a google, cheers.

I'm pretty sure the Chuter/Croft site came down a long time ago, some of it must still exist at least in part, but how much and where I don't know.

[Puja]

I meant to ask in the last MBM you did, but why Lenny?

When he was a little lad Ben Youngs called himself Benny Lenny, sensibly he told his mates in rugby that and ever since he's been Lenny. Something made popular by George Chuter and Tom Croft with their then website called 'things Len said' which was just stupid things he'd said, and he's said a lot of stupid things

I thought it was an "Of Mice and Men" reference to call him stupid?

Puja

[Digby]

I meant to ask in the last MBM you did, but why Lenny?

When he was a little lad Ben Youngs called himself Benny Lenny, sensibly he told his mates in rugby that and ever since he's been Lenny. Something made popular by George Chuter and Tom Croft with their then website called 'things Len said' which was just stupid things he'd said, and he's said a lot of stupid things

I thought it was an "Of Mice and Men" reference to call him stupid?

Puja

It's possible it's nothing to do with an early nickname for himself. I heard it in the Final Whistle from Johne Murphy, but it's not beyond impossible he was making stuff up on the spot to amuse himself