Rugby Union Yearly World League Idea

RogerThis · 14-11-2015 8:33pm #1

We have the Six Nations, Summer Internationals, Rugby Championship and the Autumn Internationals.

Could all these competitions be put together to made a yearly league between the top teams in the world?

Standardising the Summer Internationals and the Autumn Internationals into competitions would have to be sorted out. Adding all 4 leagues together to get an overall winner at the end of each year.

Has anything like this been proposed?

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 12:49am

What would this do? Why do we need it? What of the countries who are not in the RC/6N? What benefit would this bring?

RogerThis · 15-11-2015 1:09am

It would make the autumn internationals more interesting. Making a proper competition out of it.
Playing the southern hemisphere countries each year in a structured competition as opposed to random international doesn't sound good to you? They are full internationals but there is nothing to win at the end. Say the championship teams play the home nation teams or what the top 4 from the previous 6 nations. Each Southern team plays each Northern team once with a league table. With something to win at the end.

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 1:11am

RogerThis wrote: »

It would make the autumn internationals more interesting. Making a proper competition out of it.
Playing the southern hemisphere countries each year in a structured competition as opposed to random international doesn't sound good to you? They are full internationals but there is nothing to win at the end. Say the championship teams play the home nation teams or what the top 4 from the previous 6 nations. Each Southern team plays each Northern team once with a league table. With something to win at the end.

It wouldn't really make them more interesting and it would make rugby more of a closed shop than it currently is. The way the games are played shows there is a lot to win.
We need to be doing more for "tier 2" nations and this doesn't help them or help the sport improve its strength in depth

Ken. · 15-11-2015 1:16am

I think it's a good idea Roger has. For the tier 2 teams there could be a second division with promotion/relegation every year. Something like the Irish football league. Bottom team of L1 go down,top team of L2 go up and second last L1 and second in L2 have a playoff.

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 1:23am

ken wrote: »

I think it's a good idea Roger has. For the tier 2 teams there could be a second division with promotion/relegation every year. Something like the Irish football league. Bottom team of L1 go down,top team of L2 go up and second last L1 and second in L2 have a playoff.

In practice its a good idea but the top sides will never agree with it and will never vote for it to happen
We don't need to make competitions out of the November tests. We need to make more European/world competitions...

Ken. · 15-11-2015 1:28am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

In practice its a good idea but the top sides will never agree with it and will never vote for it to happen
We don't need to make competitions out of the November tests. We need to make more European/world competitions...

Yeah, your probably right. The top league would have to massively(probably 100%) subsidise the second league for a good long while. So that alone would make it a non runner. It is a nice dream though.

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 1:34am

ken wrote: »

Yeah, your probably right. The top league would have to massively(probably 100%) subsidise the second league for a good long while. So that alone would make it a non runner. It is a nice dream though.

Yes the top league would probably have to subsidise the second league but the top sides would never agree as with potential of relegation no sides would want to lose out on games against a NZ/England etc

RogerThis · 15-11-2015 11:39am

Money talks. It would make another entertaining competition that TV companies would pay big money for. North versus South.

I don't know how much Sky pay for the Autumn Internationals, but it could be like 6 Nations money if it was a proper competition.

There could be a tier 2 element to it too, why not.

Is it better for Italy to be a top second tier team, or to be the whipping boy of the first tier?

Richard Hillman · 15-11-2015 2:50pm

I have thought for a long time that this will be the future for International rugby.

The Unions would be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of 20 or so Internationals a year. Especially the likes of France and England who are at odds with the clubs.

16 teams, 2 conferences.
North: 6 nation's, Georgia, Canada
South: Rugby Championship, Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa.

Play your conference teams twice and the opposing conference 1. 22 games, 11 home & away. Then play offs for the winner.

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 3:02pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I have thought for a long time that this will be the future for International rugby.

The Unions would be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of 20 or so Internationals a year. Especially the likes of France and England who are at odds with the clubs.

16 teams, 2 conferences.
North: 6 nation's, Georgia, Canada
South: Rugby Championship, Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa.

Play your conference teams twice and the opposing conference 1. 22 games, 11 home & away. Then play offs for the winner.

How is that in anyway feasible? It isnt the future for international rugby. International rugby needs expansion and that just is a closed shop

Muahahaha · 15-11-2015 3:08pm

Same here. For me international rugby is where it is at, club competitions just don't generate the same levels of excitement.

I think theres a huge appetite from rugby fans to see some kind of north-south competition more often than once every four years. Autumn internationals don't cut the mustard because they are relatively meaningless and in many ways misleading- we all saw Ireland beat SA and Australia in the most recent Autumn series but I don't think Ireland would have beaten either of those two teams if we faced them in the WC just gone. We need to be playing these top level teams more frequently in competitive games where there's a trophy for grabs.

Money talks, if the likes of Sky think its a goer I think it could happen. There's no reason we couldn't see a kind of Premier League of international rugby with 15-18 teams competing.

Richard Hillman · 15-11-2015 3:17pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How is that in anyway feasible? It isnt the future for international rugby. International rugby needs expansion and that just is a closed shop

That is an expansion. Georgia, Japan, Canada and the islanders will be on the same tier as everyone else. Playing games against the top teams every year.

The likes of USA,Russia, Namibia can get games every year from our pre season games. With a few of further expansion

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 3:21pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Same here. For me international rugby is where it is at, club competitions just don't generate the same levels of excitement.

I think theres a huge appetite from rugby fans to see some kind of north-south competition more often than once every four years. Autumn internationals don't cut the mustard because they are relatively meaningless and in many ways misleading- we all saw Ireland beat SA and Australia in the most recent Autumn series but I don't think Ireland would have beaten either of those two teams if we faced them in the WC just gone. We need to be playing these top level teams more frequently in competitive games where there's a trophy for grabs.

Money talks, if the likes of Sky think its a goer I think it could happen. There's no reason we couldn't see a kind of Premier League of international rugby with 15-18 teams competing.

This isnt a goer as World Rugby and the countries know they cant limit themselves completely to same crowd even more than they currently do. Club/provincial/region games dont attract same for me but they add variety and by going towards this idea we are going more like cricket and that isnt something that we should be doing. There isnt going to be any more north south competitive action unless the sport expands more to have more sides competing at a higher level. The autumn internationals/summer internationals are very competitive games and i dont see how making games like this as part of a competition will suddenly make things different in terms of us improving. A premier league of international rugby isnt needed or wanted

Bridge93 · 15-11-2015 4:42pm

Nothing mentioned here is feasible in the slightest. How do you expect the clubs to release the players for these extra games?

wp_rathead · 15-11-2015 5:21pm

Scrap the Lions tour for one - while the Tests are fun there is no point to the other games. Stadiums are often empty.

Have a European or Northern Hemisphere Tournament with 6 Nations and Georgia, Romania, USA, Russia and Canada every 4 years in a host country?

Southern Hemisphere could have their own tournament with SANZAR, Argentina, Japan and Pacific Island's involved and maybe Uruguay?

There is little point for the Lions Tour in the professional era other than romanticism. and I say this as someone who enjoys the Lions. Maybe can still do one of Test's but the tour eats into what could be used for a better competition

RogerThis · 15-11-2015 5:55pm

Bridge93 wrote: »

Nothing mentioned here is feasible in the slightest. How do you expect the clubs to release the players for these extra games?

Ireland play at least 6 test games a year that aren't in a competition, these are the games that would be used for the league not extra games.

RogerThis · 15-11-2015 7:18pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The autumn internationals/summer internationals are very competitive games and i dont see how making games like this as part of a competition will suddenly make things different in terms of us improving. A premier league of international rugby isnt needed or wanted

A lot of fans only watch the 6 nations and world cups. The television audience will go up dramatically with a competition, more viewers more money.

We need to be playing competitive games against southern teams every year to bridge the gap between south and north. Nobody can disprove Argentina have dramatically improved from having proper competitive games against the tri nations. Would this have had the same improvement if they were playing home and away tours against the tri nations teams? No, they wouldn't.

No 6 Nations team beat a Championship team in the World Cup. The gap is widening. The 6 Nations is a tier 2 competition. Whether it's needed or wanted the premier league of rugby is the Rugby Championship.

The Lost Sheep · 15-11-2015 11:41pm

wp_rathead wrote: »

Scrap the Lions tour for one - while the Tests are fun there is no point to the other games. Stadiums are often empty.

Have a European or Northern Hemisphere Tournament with 6 Nations and Georgia, Romania, USA, Russia and Canada every 4 years in a host country?

Southern Hemisphere could have their own tournament with SANZAR, Argentina, Japan and Pacific Island's involved and maybe Uruguay?

There is little point for the Lions Tour in the professional era other than romanticism. and I say this as someone who enjoys the Lions. Maybe can still do one of Test's but the tour eats into what could be used for a better competition

Scrapping the Lions tour wont happen as there is too much money at stake for it to be scrapped. None of Ire/Eng/Sco/Wal/NZ/Aus/SA will want to scrap it therefore it wont be got rid of. Where do you get the idea that the "tier 1" nations will go for that. A European championship/southern hemisphere championship is needed but in a year there isn't a Lions tour as that wont be got rid of. The Lions tour doesn't stop these continental competitions from occurring and these north/south hemisphere competitions could still occur while keeping the Lions

RogerThis wrote: »

A lot of fans only watch the 6 nations and world cups. The television audience will go up dramatically with a competition, more viewers more money.

We need to be playing competitive games against southern teams every year to bridge the gap between south and north. Nobody can disprove Argentina have dramatically improved from having proper competitive games against the tri nations. Would this have had the same improvement if they were playing home and away tours against the tri nations teams? No, they wouldn't.

No 6 Nations team beat a Championship team in the World Cup. The gap is widening. The 6 Nations is a tier 2 competition. Whether it's needed or wanted the premier league of rugby is the Rugby Championship.

Would television audiences go up "dramatically"?
Why do we need more competitive games against southern teams. Argentina are improving as they are playing the south hemisphere big 3 more often not because the games are now games being played in competitions. We already play the Southern hemisphere big 3/4 in June/November. The tests can be very high quality and changing the tests so that they are part of a competition isn't needed to improve the games. The 6 nations isn't a tier 2 competition.

RogerThis · 16-11-2015 12:37am

In the last 10 years we have played:

6 Nations Team| Total| Home| Away
England | 13 | 7 | 6
France | 15 | 7 | 8
Italy | 14 | 8 | 6
Scotland | 14 | 6 | 8
Wales | 14 | 7 | 7

Championship Team| Total| Home| Away
Argentina | 9 | 5 | 4
Australia | 9 | 5 | 4
New Zealand | 11 | 4 | 7
South Africa | 5 | 5 | 0

We are playing the Championship team nearly once a year. Why not standardise it, and play each year, either home or away.

Dave_The_Sheep · 16-11-2015 2:23am

RogerThis wrote: »

A lot of fans only watch the 6 nations and world cups. The television audience will go up dramatically with a competition, more viewers more money.

And money is the be-all and end-all, is that it? Sure it's done wonders for soccer, look at how fantastically well FIFA runs soccer due to all the extra mon... oh wait. Money ruling rugby is inevitable and we're already on the slope, look at Toulon, but I'd like it to be railed against and delayed as long as possible.

To be perfectly frank, I don't really care what the fans who only watch the 6 Nations or World Cups think. Call that elitism if you want, I don't care about that either.

16-11-2015 2:25am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What would this do? Why do we need it? What of the countries who are not in the RC/6N? What benefit would this bring?

Do you not think of actually forming a counter argument as opposed to this patronising questioning? Whats your actual view? Well? What is it?

The Lost Sheep · 16-11-2015 1:12pm

RogerThis wrote: »

In the last 10 years we have played:

6 Nations Team| Total| Home| Away
England | 13 | 7 | 6
France | 15 | 7 | 8
Italy | 14 | 8 | 6
Scotland | 14 | 6 | 8
Wales | 14 | 7 | 7

Championship Team| Total| Home| Away
Argentina | 9 | 5 | 4
Australia | 9 | 5 | 4
New Zealand | 11 | 4 | 7
South Africa | 5 | 5 | 0

We are playing the Championship team nearly once a year. Why not standardise it, and play each year, either home or away.

We don't need to standardize it. We don't need to play the RC sides each and every year the sport needs to do more than that or it becomes much more of a closed shop like Cricket is. That isn't good for the future of the sport

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you not think of actually forming a counter argument as opposed to this patronising questioning? Whats your actual view? Well? What is it?

I have been countering the OPs argument.

irishbucsfan · 16-11-2015 3:36pm

The answer is simple. The 6 Nations should be the top division of the ENC and under the auspices of Rugby Europe.

We don't need to close the shop even more, we need to open it up and develop rugby across the rest of the world. The first step is to kill the 6 Nations old boys' club and stop believing we're too good for the rest of Europe.

The Lost Sheep · 16-11-2015 3:48pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The answer is simple. The 6 Nations should be the top division of the ENC and under the auspices of Rugby Europe.

We don't need to close the shop even more, we need to open it up and develop rugby across the rest of the world. The first step is to kill the 6 Nations old boys' club and stop believing we're too good for the rest of Europe.

But that wont happen so something more radical needs to be looked at. Keeping the 6 nations but having a European championship with top 6/8 ENC sides and the 6 nations sides should be looked at once every 4 years or something like that. The 6 nations is kept. The "tier 2" sides get more games against "tier 1" sides and we have a proper senior pan European championship for the first time ever

irishbucsfan · 16-11-2015 3:50pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But that wont happen so something more radical needs to be looked at.

Is that not akin to saying "that won't happen so something less likely needs to be looked at!"

At the end of the day it's the only solution I'm really interested in to be honest. I can only hold out hope we'll get there some day.

CMOTDibbler · 16-11-2015 4:28pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I have thought for a long time that this will be the future for International rugby.

The Unions would be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of 20 or so Internationals a year. Especially the likes of France and England who are at odds with the clubs.

16 teams, 2 conferences.
North: 6 nation's, Georgia, Canada
South: Rugby Championship, Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa.

Play your conference teams twice and the opposing conference 1. 22 games, 11 home & away. Then play offs for the winner.

The first thing wrong with that is that you're excluding USA, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Namibia and Zimbabwe who are all growing rugby nation.

Secondly if a nation is going to have a minimum of 22 games, that's half the year gone at least. Even if you completely scrapped the six nations, what's left for club rugby? Or are players expected to play all year round?

whatawaster · 16-11-2015 4:36pm

Such an idea would cheapen the World Cup, which is something I'm sure all Rugby fans look forward to every 4 years.
It would also be a scheduling nightmare.

Pressure needs to be put on touring teams in the NH (Aus, SA, NZ, Arg) to play at least one game each Autumn against a Georgia, Romania, Russia etc. Similarly, while touring the SH, the likes of Ireland should have to play Fiji/Samoa.

I still believe a second division 6N is the way to go, with a promotion/relegation play-off each year.

It's also important that the domestic games in lesser nations are allowed to develop. Perhaps Georgia, Romania, Russia etc should be allowed field a national team (obviously excluding foreign-based players) in the European Cup/Challenge Cup. Similar to what Argentina/Japan are doing in Super Rugby.

CMOTDibbler · 16-11-2015 4:40pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The answer is simple. The 6 Nations should be the top division of the ENC and under the auspices of Rugby Europe.

We don't need to close the shop even more, we need to open it up and develop rugby across the rest of the world. The first step is to kill the 6 Nations old boys' club and stop believing we're too good for the rest of Europe.

What's the detail to this? A number of leagues with promotion and relegation or something else?

irishbucsfan · 16-11-2015 4:53pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What's the detail to this? A number of leagues with promotion and relegation or something else?

Yes, it already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

CMOTDibbler · 16-11-2015 5:04pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, it already exists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

Are the standards high enough for it not to be a farce? In other words would it be likely that the bottom team in the 6N would just yo-yo up and down between 1A and the current 6N?

Rugby Union Yearly World League Idea

Comments