Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 16:51

Edgar wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
NaBUru38 wrote:I don't understand why you consider than expanding to 18 teams was a bad idea. The smaller crowds and TV ratings have nothing to do with that.


Not so much the expansion to 18 teams more how they handled it.


Exactly. Super 18 could have worked brilliantly if they'd been more patient, enforced stricter criteria and stayed within perceived geographical confines. The Kings and Sunwolves simply weren't up to scratch, the latter's inclusion destroyed the championship's geographical identity and with the two South African conferences and convoluted playoffs system this undermined the tournament's credibility. Simply put, they treated the fans like idiots and assumed they'd just go along with any old formula.

Meanwhile, this guy's got some interesting ideas. Not sure I agree with 7-point tries, and the five-phase maximum would just about complete rugby's gradual metamorphosis into league in the professional era. But some of the ideas certainly have merit. I'd personally like to see drop-goals reduced to a point, so that basically they would only be useful as tie-breakers (as in league). & yes, bring back the geographical names if you want to market the game to an international audience. They were only ever dispensed with due to petty small town provincialism in the first place.

1. One point for a penalty goal but three points for a goal kicked as a result of a penalty for foul play.

2. Conversions and field goals would be worth two points and tries seven points.

3. Only nine technical reasons why penalties can be awarded for breaches of scrums, lineouts, rucks and mauls, thus eliminating all those archaic rules produced by lawyers who like to sit around and debate how many angels can sit on the point of a pin.

4. Kicking out on the full in general play would be outlawed.

5. A team could have only five phases of the ball to gain ground. If not, it sacrifices possession. If it makes “forward progress”, as Rex Mossop said, it holds the ball indefinitely.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/aust ... a6b2871255


Four of the five aren't bad. The no kicking into touch on the full was employed in the GRR exhibition series last year. Worked quite well. Certainly wouldn't opposed streamlining of the laws either. The tries being worth 7 was done in the 1st iteration of the NRC alongside the 1 point penalty. That actually worked out well as well in my opinion. Produced very attacked Ng ball in hand mindset.

Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby sk 88 » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 19:57

1. & 2. are pointless tinkering. The scoring system does not harm the game.

3. is getting on for the kind of changes we need. Fewer penalties for technical offences, I would say clearer offences (i.e. just ban hands in the tackle/ruck totally so get rid of jackalling in totality), less influence for the referee, also just give the penalties if they are there. Watch any 6N match (and I guarantee super rugby is the same) and about 75% of attacking rucks see the attack cheating by coming in the side or sealing off. Players are routinely allowed to hold on after the tackle, they only have to release after a few seconds now. Makes the game risk averse and predictable and very dull.

4. Don't mind this. Makes penalties very important though to clear your lines. Got to say I don't see defending sides clearing their lines as the biggest problem in the game at the moment.

I'd also add one here: Get rid of the ability to mark the ball. This has grown on me so much that I now like it so much I advocate for it now. Would result in more up and unders, but for me as a spectator these are fun and break the game up. They are certainly preferable to the non-ending pick and goes. Also you'd need to win the resulting ruck so you'd need at least 2 people back and near the ball carrier. Would also incentivise fitter forwards as they would need to be able to shift back to win the rucks and chase forward to pressure the catchers.

5. No thanks. I recognise the problem he sees but this is an incredibly poor solution.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 23:57

sk 88 wrote:1. & 2. are pointless tinkering. The scoring system does not harm the game.

3. is getting on for the kind of changes we need. Fewer penalties for technical offences, I would say clearer offences (i.e. just ban hands in the tackle/ruck totally so get rid of jackalling in totality), less influence for the referee, also just give the penalties if they are there. Watch any 6N match (and I guarantee super rugby is the same) and about 75% of attacking rucks see the attack cheating by coming in the side or sealing off. Players are routinely allowed to hold on after the tackle, they only have to release after a few seconds now. Makes the game risk averse and predictable and very dull.

4. Don't mind this. Makes penalties very important though to clear your lines. Got to say I don't see defending sides clearing their lines as the biggest problem in the game at the moment.

I'd also add one here: Get rid of the ability to mark the ball. This has grown on me so much that I now like it so much I advocate for it now. Would result in more up and unders, but for me as a spectator these are fun and break the game up. They are certainly preferable to the non-ending pick and goes. Also you'd need to win the resulting ruck so you'd need at least 2 people back and near the ball carrier. Would also incentivise fitter forwards as they would need to be able to shift back to win the rucks and chase forward to pressure the catchers.

5. No thanks. I recognise the problem he sees but this is an incredibly poor solution.


I'd take 1, 3 & 4. As I've said previously this actually worked quite well when trialled in the NRC. Drove teams to opt for the ball in hand rather than take the quick 3. And it didn't adversely effect the scorelines either. 2. Was also trialled but honeslty had a lot less of an effect than 1. Number 3. is definitely worthwhile looking at. Though, I'm not sure eliminating jackaling is something I'd support. It's a skill in the game afterall. Perhaps it could be alleviated alongside the whole side entry issue with limiting the numbers that commit to the ruck. Say no more than four a side. So the tackler, the tackled player plus three more. Or perhaps make it that you have to be in possession of the ball as the jackal before contact by the clearing players are made. The moment they make contact in the act of clearing the ruck they must let go or it's an immediate warning with the next offence being a YC. Similar for side entry. Except make that a straight YC>

Posts: 6915
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby victorsra » Thu, 27 Feb 2020, 02:50

Thesjhughes wrote:
victorsra wrote:The expansion itself was never a problem IMO. The problem was how SR dealed with it, ie the format. The main conceptual mistake was to believe all teams from the Atlantic (SA/ARG) should play the Pacific teams and vice versa. What's the economic logic behind Cheetahs vs Rebels, Kings vs Sunwolves, etc...? For me cross Pacific-Atlantic matches should only happen in a final stage, between only the stronger teams.

Hi victorsra The South Africans do not want to pay local derby they do enough of it in the Currie Cup. They want to play the New Zealanders and Australians mainly the New Zealand teams The problem with the super Rugby for four different countries have different ideas of what they want to do with the competition.


Yes, but SA clearly didn't care about having Cheetahs vs Rebels, as they reduced their numbers. I don't think Currie Cup is the issue as it is played without Springbok players (and many players leave SA after Super Rugby to play in Japan or Europe... which means it isn't a full strenght thing).
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 5766
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 27 Feb 2020, 02:50

I don't mind kicking out on the full or taking marks but maybe a rule that could be trialled is changing the 22m line to a 10m line. The 22m zone gives the attacking team a lot of easy outs in my opinion. If you're well inside your own half the onus should be on you the attacking team to get yourself out of the situation.

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Edgar » Thu, 27 Feb 2020, 08:47

New Zealand Rugby set to post multi-million-dollar loss, announce radical changes following McKinsey review:

The process of radically changing the set-up of rugby in New Zealand will begin tomorrow when provincial unions are presented with a new blueprint for how the game should be organised, managed and structured.

Having seen the game evolve rapidly in the last decade, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) believes the time is right to make sweeping changes to give it a better chance of dealing with prevailing issues such as stagnant participation rates, increasing drop-out rates among teens and plunging spectator interest in Mitre 10 Cup and Super Rugby.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12312298



Meanwhile, Sanzaar boss confirms South Africa is not leaving the Southern Hemisphere competition:

Sanzaar boss Andy Marinos has shot down rumours that three-time Rugby World Cup champions, South Africa are about to bolt to the Northern Hemisphere, the Six Nations Championship.

A Daily Mail report surfacing out of England earlier this month stated that South Africa was set to leave their long-time traditional partners Australia and New Zealand.

Marinos said that he would be surprised if the Six Nations wanted to tinker again with the tournament, having expanded to include Italy in 2000.

Marinos added that South African directors had reassured him that South Africa will stay with Super Rugby until 2025.

He says this is nothing more than media speculation and he thinks this is just someone trying to set a bit of fire

https://www.fijivillage.com/sports/Sanz ... on-8r5f4x/

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Edgar » Fri, 28 Feb 2020, 08:48

Well, Super Rugby appears to be gradually righting itself with the reduction in teams, and we are now seeing South Afican and Australian sides winning on NZ soil again. The Rebels have just shocked Otago in Dunedin, which, following the Brumbies' victory at the Chiefs, gives the Aussies their second success across the Tasman in as many weeks, after they'd managed a collective 1 in their previous 45 attempts! Add to that the Chiefs' win over mighty Canterbury, and this may just turn out to be the most competitive season for quite some time.

Update 29/2: But another 60-point thrashing for the Sunpoodles this morning. :oops: :oops:

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Edgar » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 07:43

This looks like a roundabout way of saying the Rugby Championship is going to be reduced from two rounds to one. That's actually a great development, so far as I'm concerned. For one thing it will make the competition less predictable. For another it will address the issue of overkill. Interestingly the prospect of lead-up matches on tour, presumably against representative sides, has been raised, though it is clearly only speculation at this stage. & if the competition does go to a single round of games, will that open up the possibility for fixtures elsewhere - in Australia and New Zealand's case, perhaps against their Pacific Island neighbors (or a 6 Nations also including Japan)?

The Rugby Championship is set for its first overhaul since Argentina was admitted into the competition eight years ago.

The New Zealand Herald has revealed that the competition will be re-formatted so that the All Blacks and Wallabies will play the Springboks and Argentina at home on a biennial basis, and vice versa.

The shift in scheduling brings an end to teams having to travel halfway across the globe to play two matches against opposing sides each year.

Story continues here: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugby-ch ... next-year/

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 07:48

Edgar wrote:This looks like a roundabout way of saying the Rugby Championship is going to be reduced from two rounds to one. That's actually a great development, so far as I'm concerned. For one thing it will make the competition less predictable. For another it will address the issue of overkill. Interestingly the prospect of lead-up matches, presumably against representative sides, has been raised, though it is clearly only speculation at this stage. & if the competition does go to a single round of games, will that open up the possibility for fixtures elsewhere - in Australia and New Zealand's case, perhaps against their Pacific Island neighbors (or a 6 Nations also including Japan)?

The Rugby Championship is set for its first overhaul since Argentina was admitted into the competition eight years ago.

The New Zealand Herald has revealed that the competition will be re-formatted so that the All Blacks and Wallabies will play the Springboks and Argentina at home on a biennial basis, and vice versa.

The shift in scheduling brings an end to teams having to travel halfway across the globe to play two matches against opposing sides each year.

Story continues here: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugby-ch ... next-year/


What's weird about it is the two team conference like set up. But if it brings in the opportunity to play Tests aginast the PIs and Japan then great. I'd actually like to see that in the form of the Pacific Nations Cup.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 08:54

This is fantastic news. What is needed now is for South Africa and Argentina to compete for a trophy, like the Bledisloe Cup.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Fiji should inaugurate a Pacific Four Nations, and the Bledisloe Cup can be decided over 3 games.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 16:50

Chester-Donnelly wrote:This is fantastic news. What is needed now is for South Africa and Argentina to compete for a trophy, like the Bledisloe Cup.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Fiji should inaugurate a Pacific Four Nations, and the Bledisloe Cup can be decided over 3 games.


While I like the Pacific 4 Nations concept I do not want to see a return to 3 Bledisloe Cup matches. In fact, I'd prefer it if they'd do away with the 2 game series. A winner takes all game each year would be much more of an occasion in my opinion. And I know many others who agree.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 17:18

Working Class Rugger wrote:
Chester-Donnelly wrote:This is fantastic news. What is needed now is for South Africa and Argentina to compete for a trophy, like the Bledisloe Cup.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Fiji should inaugurate a Pacific Four Nations, and the Bledisloe Cup can be decided over 3 games.


While I like the Pacific 4 Nations concept I do not want to see a return to 3 Bledisloe Cup matches. In fact, I'd prefer it if they'd do away with the 2 game series. A winner takes all game each year would be much more of an occasion in my opinion. And I know many others who agree.


I don't disagree with you. But with the new format for the Rugby Championship, and a new Pacific Four Nations or Pacific Tri Nations, there would be 3 games each season between Australia and New Zealand. It would be good if they played the Pacific Four Nations match at a neutral ground in Asia.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 17:27

My suggestion for the name of the Argentina vs South Africa cup is the Tristan Da Cunha Cup after the group of volcanic islands in the South Atlantic between the two countries.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 17:36

Bledisloe Cup decider should be played in Krasnoyarsk :x

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Hernan14 » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 18:03

Chester-Donnelly wrote:My suggestion for the name of the Argentina vs South Africa cup is the Tristan Da Cunha Cup after the group of volcanic islands in the South Atlantic between the two countries.


Of course champion, name a cup with an island belonging to the UK, great idea...if there was a cup between them it should be called Heatlie Cup, considering that for him the Springboks play in myrtle green and later he also would play in the Argentine national team ...

Anyway replace SA and Argentina by Japan & Fiji is a nonsense...

Avg. Results against AUS & NZ:

Japan= -39 pts (last 2 games: -60 pts) / -72 pts (last 2: -43)
Fiji= -17 pts (last 2: 20 pts) / -63 pts (last 2: -68 pts)
Argentina= -11 pts (last 2: -8 pts) / -25 pts (last 2: -11 pts)
SA= +2 pts (last 2: +14 pts) / -5 (last 2: -10 pts)

Can you expand it to 6, but change for one another? Japan with its foreigners only gives money but I would like to know if fans prefer to go to see the ABs versus Japan or SA ... if one should add one by one, I prefer Fiji 100 times...

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 18:22

Japan > Argentina

User avatar
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 19:21

What would be the benefit of reducing the Rugby Championship?

Posts: 673
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby carbonero » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 19:37

The tournament won't be reduced. It stays at six games.

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Hernan14 » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 23:04

Chester-Donnelly wrote:Japan > Argentina


If you think that, it makes no sense to keep talking, you have no idea about Rugby...it's like I put Argentina > All Blacks...

Posts: 673
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby carbonero » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 23:25

¿Dónde estuviste estos últimos años? No le ganamo a nadie maestro...

Both sides are in a similar level. A Tier 3 made of Japan, Argentina, Scotland and Fiji.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 23:40

carbonero wrote:The tournament won't be reduced. It stays at six games.


Under the revamp it would be four games. Two against one nation. Aus/ NZ X2 and SA/Arg X2 and then one against the other two either home or away. That's 4 games.

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Hernan14 » Tue, 03 Mar 2020, 23:52

carbonero wrote:¿Dónde estuviste estos últimos años? No le ganamo a nadie maestro...

Both sides are in a similar level. A Tier 3 made of Japan, Argentina, Scotland and Fiji.


Me estás jodiendo? Le pasamos metimos 54 en Tokyo la última vez y jugando bastante flojito...porque hay que vender a Japón, lo mismo que hicieron Australia y los All Blacks...les meten 60 y después maquillan el resultado, Sudáfrica le pasó el trapo, antes y durante el Mundial...No le ganamos a nadie por los rivales con quienes jugamos...realmente crees que un hincha neocelandes prefiere ir a ver a los All Blacks contra Japón, en lugar de contra Sudáfrica? Aún perdiendo contra los mismos rivales, por lejos Japón con sus 16 extranjeros no nos hace ni la tos...en promedio perdió contra Australia y los All Blacks en los 2 últimos partidos por 60 y 43 puntos respectivamente, nosotros por 8 y 11 puntos...igualito y jugando para el tor...

EDIT: Y mirá que los amo a los 2, pero Fiji perdió con Uruguay!! Con la mano en el cuore, mano a mano, Los Pumas 100% contra Los Teros, hoy por hoy :roll:

Posts: 673
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby carbonero » Wed, 04 Mar 2020, 00:28

Working Class Rugger wrote:Under the revamp it would be four games. Two against one nation. Aus/ NZ X2 and SA/Arg X2 and then one against the other two either home or away. That's 4 games.

Sorry. I think you are right. Here ESPN reported that one of NZ and Australia would play twice in South Africa and the other one twice in Argentina. That would save them one transoceanic flight but doesn’t make any sense after that.

Hernan14 wrote:Me estás jodiendo? Le pasamos metimos 54 en Tokyo la última vez y jugando bastante flojito...porque hay que vender a Japón, lo mismo que hicieron Australia y los All Blacks...les meten 60 y después maquillan el resultado, Sudáfrica le pasó el trapo, antes y durante el Mundial...No le ganamos a nadie por los rivales con quienes jugamos...realmente crees que un hincha neocelandes prefiere ir a ver a los All Blacks contra Japón, en lugar de contra Sudáfrica? Aún perdiendo contra los mismos rivales, por lejos Japón con sus 16 extranjeros no nos hace ni la tos...en promedio perdió contra Australia y los All Blacks en los 2 últimos partidos por 60 y 43 puntos respectivamente, nosotros por 8 y 11 puntos...igualito y jugando para el tor...

EDIT: Y mirá que los amo a los 2, pero Fiji perdió con Uruguay!! Con la mano en el cuore, mano a mano, Los Pumas 100% contra Los Teros, hoy por hoy :roll:

Con la mano en el cuore, si jugamos mañana contra Fiji o Japón, no sé si les ganamos viejo. Me parece un partido 60/40. Ellos le ganaron a Escocia, le ganaron a Irlanda, empataron con Francia. Nosotros desde 2016 que no tenemos esos resultados contra los europeos. Por ahora, estamos un pasito por encima de ellos. Yo soy optimista. Pero es un momento para ser un poquito más humildes.

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Hernan14 » Wed, 04 Mar 2020, 00:43

carbonero wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:Me estás jodiendo? Le pasamos metimos 54 en Tokyo la última vez y jugando bastante flojito...porque hay que vender a Japón, lo mismo que hicieron Australia y los All Blacks...les meten 60 y después maquillan el resultado, Sudáfrica le pasó el trapo, antes y durante el Mundial...No le ganamos a nadie por los rivales con quienes jugamos...realmente crees que un hincha neocelandes prefiere ir a ver a los All Blacks contra Japón, en lugar de contra Sudáfrica? Aún perdiendo contra los mismos rivales, por lejos Japón con sus 16 extranjeros no nos hace ni la tos...en promedio perdió contra Australia y los All Blacks en los 2 últimos partidos por 60 y 43 puntos respectivamente, nosotros por 8 y 11 puntos...igualito y jugando para el tor...

EDIT: Y mirá que los amo a los 2, pero Fiji perdió con Uruguay!! Con la mano en el cuore, mano a mano, Los Pumas 100% contra Los Teros, hoy por hoy :roll:

Con la mano en el cuore, si jugamos mañana contra Fiji o Japón, no sé si les ganamos viejo. Me parece un partido 60/40. Ellos le ganaron a Escocia, le ganaron a Irlanda, empataron con Francia. Nosotros desde 2016 que no tenemos esos resultados contra los europeos. Por ahora, estamos un pasito por encima de ellos. Yo soy optimista. Pero es un momento para ser un poquito más humildes.


No tiene que ver con la humildad, tiene que ver con el realismo. Para crecer hay que ser realista.

Cuando entramos en el Rugby Championship sabíamos que eso también iba a significar más derrotas que victorias, y tras el Super Rugby, incluso también lo iba a ser en las ventanas de Junio y Noviembre (sacando la cama para sacar en su momento a Hourcade, que me pareció patética, no por Hourcade en si mismo, sino por la actitud).

Sacando el empate con la errática Francia, las otras dos victorias de Japón ante Escocia e Irlanda fueron en el Mundial, de local y con ciertos fallos, que bueno, me enseñaron a no hablar del referee...contra Escocia no, fue buena victoria, y como bien lo dijiste está un paso debajo del resto.

Pero de ahí, a pensar que para los All Blacks y sus fans (o para Australia por caso) es preferible jugar ante Japón que ante Sudáfrica (porque siempre hice hincapié en Sudáfrica) es un sinsentido, que no se agarra de nada más allá de lo monetario. Y no te parece una gran diferencia? Si fuera por lo monetario, nosotros no jugaríamos allí.

El día que Japón deje de contratar jugadores, esperar el tiempo de residencia y meterlos en el seleccionado, que jueguen de igual a igual, quizás piense diferente. Pero para el crecimiento, es preferible un Rugby Championship de 6 equipos que los All Blacks y Australia pasen de jugar contra Sudáfrica y Argentina para jugar contra Fiji y Japón...que crecimiento es ese???

Posts: 673
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby carbonero » Wed, 04 Mar 2020, 00:54

Lo de Fiji / Japón por sobre Sudáfrica / Argentina lo inventaste vos. Nadie en el foro dijo eso. Lo que sugirieron era que al haber menos partidos en el Rugby Championship, se podían armar otros tests contra Japón o Fiji.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests