argentina - the next nz

BenBen

i think in the short time that argenrina hav been involved in rugby they hav shown more potential than any other nation. they drew wit the lions when 26 of their players were unavailable.

please discuss, am i alone in this theory or am i talking sense?

BenBen

no i think ur absolutleyb right, ur my new hero

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Red Soup

Argentina were very good against the Lions, not excellent, but very good (the lions were playing grade D rugby). they were playing with their second string team and looked confident and skillful, but then when they played with their first choice team against england a month later, they were hammered, if i remember rightly. they can be class, but sometimes average

GreenHell

The one thing holding the Pumas back is being locked out of the SANZAR group. Get them into the tri nations and get some money into their domestic game!

Amazotheamazing

How could Argentina play in the 3N when all their best players play in Europe? Do you propose a 12 month season for the Argies, maybe we could send all their players to look for contracts in he crowded s12?
Just because Argentina is in the Southern Hemisphere doesn't mean their rugby season is compatible with the 3N's.
If anything the IRB should do what the Argentina coach asked for and let them into the 6N, base them in Spain or southern France (which they agreed they'd do, at least at first), since all their first team players in Europe. They are currently stronger than Scotland and Italy, and capable of beating any of the other nations.
People need to forget the pipe dream of Argentina playing in the 3N, it manifestly can't happen, without huge changes in where their players are based.

GreenHell

Why do you think all their players are in Europe?

The SANZAR deal is worth about 500 million dollars, I think they'd manage to bring their players back if they actually had any money. Currently their domectic game is amateur.

Amazotheamazing

The number of players they produce a year wouldn't make for a competitive domestic league, compared to the super 12, or the French or English League, much like Ireland need the Celtic League, Argentina wouldn't have a strong enough internal league.. Also what dollars are you talking about? NZ and Aus dollars are worth less American dollars, and Argentina as junior partner would probably not get a full quarter of any deal. Argentina must look to Europe for help.

uberwolf

I wonder could the lions tour there as well? invite them into the fold like that?

GreenHell

Chicken and the Egg argument starting here. Obviously Argentina would have to reorganise itself and enter the Super 14 which is part of the SANZAR deal btw. South Africa currently enters 4 teams I would imagine that Argentina could stretch just as far.

Amazotheamazing

So now there'd be a super 16 or 18? hmmm, how many games a season do you think top players can play? SA produces far more players than Argentina, they can afford to lose players like Rathbone, De Velliers to other nations, plus players going to Europe for better money, and still be a top 5 nation, and still their clubs underperform in the s12. There is no way you can compare SA to Arg.
Anyhow players get paid more in Europe than they do in the S12 (on average). Do you think the Argentinian players are going to play more games in a super 16 for less money?
Not to mention rugby being a minority sport in Argentina, I can't see tv rights or sponsorship in Argentina being anywhere comparable to the same in Aus/NZ/SA.

You basically want to completely re-organise Argentian rugby, internally and externally, simply because Argentina lies below the equator, a geographical divide, which has no relevance to where their players play. Do you realise how difficult it is to get simple reforms, such as the AIL being reorganised, in place? The most effective solution is to allow them into the 6N.

GreenHell

Amazotheamazing wrote:

So now there'd be a super 16 or 18? hmmm, how many games a season do you think top players can play?

SANZAR is a closed shop at the moment, allow in the island nations as well and you've got 2 divisions.

SA produces far more players than Argentina, they can afford to lose players like Rathbone, De Velliers to other nations, plus players going to Europe for better money, and still be a top 5 nation, and still their clubs underperform in the s12. There is no way you can compare SA to Arg.

True they can't be SA has had a professional domestic competition for a long time, but you miss my point. Argentina could send in professional regional teams.

Anyhow players get paid more in Europe than they do in the S12 (on average). Do you think the Argentinian players are going to play more games in a super 16 for less money?

Very few internationals or hopefull internationals go and ply their trade outside of the tri nations, Percy Montgomery is the only one I can think off right now. International players get a bigger contract and are encouraged to say, even here we give our players a tax break if they stay in the country for ten years.

Not to mention rugby being a minority sport in Argentina, I can't see tv rights or sponsorship in Argentina being anywhere comparable to the same in Aus/NZ/SA.

I've no idea what the viewing figures are like in argentina for rugby, do you?

You basically want to completely re-organise Argentian rugby, internally and externally, simply because Argentina lies below the equator, a geographical divide, which has no relevance to where their players play. Do you realise how difficult it is to get simple reforms, such as the AIL being reorganised, in place? The most effective solution is to allow them into the 6N.

Ya, in my opinion the tri nations would be a better competition with the Pumas in it. We created a professional structure in our country so did wales and scotland. Ok the AIL is a mess, but that is really clubs holding on to whatever status they can with their finger nails.

Amazotheamazing

Ok, I'll take this slowly. If you were to enlarge the 3Ns to 7 teams, ie including Arg, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa (or 8 including Japan), where would base the teams? Or if you were to fly teams across the pacific ocean for a weekend, you don't think fatigue would decide who'd win the match? Of the 4 teams only Argentina could compete with the big guns, NZ put 100+ points on Fiji (the best of the Island teams) this year. The IRB is more concerned with building the internal rugby standard rather than sending teams to be murderised in international mismatches.

Argentina could probably put one semi-competitive team into the super12, probably closer to the Celtic League standard of the Borders than the Ospreys, unless you now think they should enter the national team as a club side in the super12, any second team they entered wouldn't have enough quality to beat even the weaker existing teams.

BTW in SA most of their players leave the national team to play in Europe at the age of 27, and only SA will pick players who play outside their country (and even they only allowed it since last year, to bring in Montgomery). Players stay at home to represent their country, they leave in thier late 20's to make money.

So in order to get what you want, you'll rip up the national leagues in 4 countries, to put uncompetitive teams into an international league? Do you really think it would help any of the teams involved?
For example Romanian teams play in the various European Cups (below HEC level) without any success, why would your plan be any different?
Also the economies in Arg/the Islands could not compete with wages offered in Europe or within the Super12, the best players would inevitably drift towards the big Europe/NZ/SA/Aus teams, leaving the others teams truly ****ed, unless you've found a way to prevent internal transfers?
I'll admit you plan looks fine on paper, but it's impratical to the point of impossible, you'd have to rearrange an entire hemishere's rugby, and even if you did that there's no guarantee it would succeed.
On the other hand you could allow Arg into the 6N's quite easily.