General Rugby Discussion II

stephen_n

thebaz wrote: »

Well, I suppose rugby has been allowed grow organically past 20 years, in that time apart from Argentina no other country has really emerged - thats why I would like a radical change to help it grow internationally , the last world cup was so predicatble and given the uncertain times, and the uncertain times for professional rugby thats why I would have liked a bit of a radical re-think.

So how should it be grown internationally? How are they going to force feed it to grow in other countries? How would they fund this force feeding?

Oh and I think Japan have grown hugely in the last 20 years.

Podge_irl

thebaz wrote: »

Well, I suppose rugby has been allowed grow organically past 20 years, in that time apart from Argentina no other country has really emerged - thats why I would like a radical change to help it grow internationally , the last world cup was so predicatble and given the uncertain times, and the uncertain times for professional rugby thats why I would have liked a bit of a radical re-think.

I thought the last world cup was one of the more unpredictable ones. Japan topping the group, Uruguay beating Fiji and England beating NZ would all be pretty considerable upsets and two of those had a material impact.

You can't just magically create more competition at the top end of the game though.

Burkie1203

[Deleted User] wrote: »

OOooooh good idea Burkie.
.

Thanks again Burkie - great idea for a topic :pac:

https://twitter.com/robindavey01/status/1256906436845633536?s=19

thebaz

stephen_n wrote: »

Oh and I think Japan have grown hugely in the last 20 years.

I forget Japan , they obviously have come a long way - but, ther is a lot of room for the game to grow internatioanally, countrys like Fiji and Georgia are not really given the chance or incentive to progress.
Just thought Pichot would shake things up , and move rugby out of its comfort zone

sydthebeat

I dont think rugby is at all in a "comfort zone" at the moment.

It, like all other sports, is vying for new members in a ever decreasing resource pool. This pool is decreasing for to the apathy and sedentary nature of modern lifestyle. High contact sports like rugby are a very hard sell to a lot of parents these days.
Therefore the number one priority of the game should be to make it safer, and thus this will attract higher numbers, as the basic premise of the game is more attractive to all kinds of shapes, sizes and skill levels.

Safety in the game is extremely high on BB agenda, and there have been plenty of moves over his last tenure towards this.

irishbucsfan

I've been involved with rugby in small European nations. At that level if you're physically fit and co-ordinated you'd be able to get into a matchday squad in a couple of weeks (lots of wrestlers etc are targeted to be brought in), and if you're a natural you could probably get into the team in one day.

I've thought a lot about how you could grow the game in those countries. It'd take a seismic shift because even if that team did really well and went unbeaten at their level for years no one would care. If Bulgaria went unbeaten for 3 years, there'd be about 200 people in Sofia who would even know about it. It'd be like the Irish ice hockey team winning a few games in their division, and we'd probably notice it more in Ireland because we love jumping on weird sports bandwagons.

You'd need to give them a clear pathway to make it to the highest level first. That's impossible because the 6 Nations have been given control of their own destiny and exist outside of European rugby and selfishly do not care in the slightest. The Rugby Europe competitions are well run by passionate people but they will never be legitimate until they can actually be seen as Rugby "Europe" and not Rugby "Everywhere in Europe except the 6 countries with all the money".

If by some miracle you managed to fix that, next you'd need to get them onto national television or some online platform that puts them in the homes of local people. That's almost impossible because the sport has zero cultural relevance in those countries. It'd take a generation of investment.

Basically until the 6 Nations start to care even slightly about anyone in Europe outside of themselves, nothing will happen. I'd STRONGLY doubt if it would ever happen in my lifetime. There's absolutely nothing World Rugby could do about that even if a chairman wanted to, because that would ALSO need the 6 Nations unions to vote in favour. They never will, because they are national governing bodies and their responsibility is explicitly to rugby in their own nation. Until that power to decide to destiny of rugby across the whole of Europe is somehow taken away from them, we will not develop the sport outside those countries.

7s rugby has a much better chance because of the olympics, which says a lot about the awful political structure of world rugby given its not favoured by the vast majority of people who play or work in the sport.

bilston

Burkie1203 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/robindavey01/status/1256906436845633536?s=19

The thing is, without tens of thousands of people travelling from Ireland and the UK will there be much of a financial benefit for SA?

I can understand why the tour could be cancelled.

Eod100

Burkie1203 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/robindavey01/status/1256906436845633536?s=19

You'd wonder if it is cancelled whether it would come back. Fairly popular with touring fans but with talk of global calendar with season extending into summer you'd wonder would it still work?

RugbyLover123

Maybe it’s because it what got me really into rugby. But I f**king love the Lions Tours. Maybe it’s how it’s marketed and how much of a build up there is to it but I genuinely prefer a Lions Tour over a World Cup.

Never understood some people talking about it’s place in the game and wanting to get rid. I would imagine as long as Sky are pumping money into it it will be around for a good while longer thankfully.

salmocab

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Maybe it’s because it what got me really into rugby. But I f**king love the Lions Tours. Maybe it’s how it’s marketed and how much of a build up there is to it but I genuinely prefer a Lions Tour over a World Cup.

Never understood some people talking about it’s place in the game and wanting to get rid. I would imagine as long as Sky are pumping money into it it will be around for a good while longer thankfully.

Personally I’m over the Lions, used to love it but it is just a drawn out tour now with too much hype and too much advertising. I’d happily see it disappear. When it’s on I’ll watch but I just can’t care about it as much anymore.

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/Rreesrugby/status/1257014034215436289?s=19

awec

salmocab wrote: »

Personally I’m over the Lions, used to love it but it is just a drawn out tour now with too much hype and too much advertising. I’d happily see it disappear. When it’s on I’ll watch but I just can’t care about it as much anymore.

It still has the feel of an amateur concept in a professional era (ridiculous money aside). Players being unavailable to train with their own clubs / play for their own nations cause they're away on a 6 week tour with an invitational side.

If they want to save the Lions they need to make the tours shorter. The games against the club sides are a bit of a joke and should be scrapped. Turn it into a 3 test tour and that's it.

Buer

awec wrote: »

It still has the feel of an amateur concept in a professional era (ridiculous money aside). Players being unavailable to train with their own clubs / play for their own nations cause they're away on a 6 week tour with an invitational side.

If they want to save the Lions they need to make the tours shorter. The games against the club sides are a bit of a joke and should be scrapped. Turn it into a 3 test tour and that's it.

A three test tour would be the end of The Lions. It would automatically remove the amateur feel (not that there's much left of that). We would see a 30 man squad travel for 3-4 weeks and some guys never get a minute on the pitch. They'd also be soundly beaten. Interest would evaporate and I'd imagine the players would lose a lot of interest in being involved.

The Lions has been damaged hugely by the Gatland moves in the last two tours. He already spoke out and explained them but they made a mockery of the concept and completely devalued the selection. The temporary five players, the revolving door replacements/additions, Shane Williams etc. I had no interest in watching them throw out selections to whoever was near.

The tours should be cut to the Super Rugby sides and the tests. That automatically removes 2 matches from the schedule which are essentially exhibition games e.g. NZ Barbarians, Combined Counties etc. Playing only tests would be the death of the Lions; people would rather see their own nations tour these places for a three test tour.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

A three test tour would be the end of The Lions. It would automatically remove the amateur feel (not that there's much left of that). We would see a 30 man squad travel for 3-4 weeks and some guys never get a minute on the pitch. They'd also be soundly beaten. Interest would evaporate and I'd imagine the players would lose a lot of interest in being involved.

The Lions has been damaged hugely by the Gatland moves in the last two tours. He already spoke out and explained them but they made a mockery of the concept and completely devalued the selection. The temporary five players, the revolving door replacements/additions, Shane Williams etc. I had no interest in watching them throw out selections to whoever was near.

The tours should be cut to the Super Rugby sides and the tests. That automatically removes 2 matches from the schedule which are essentially exhibition games e.g. NZ Barbarians, Combined Counties etc. Playing only tests would be the death of the Lions; people would rather see their own nations tour these places for a three test tour.

They could possibly make the mid week matches more attractive by playing international teams. Mid week matches against Argentina and Fiji or Japan. Not sure of the logistics but I’m sure it could be done.

Clareman

The Lions tour is the last real tour though, used to be that international teams always played mid-week games, for example there was a game between Munster and New Zealand years ago, don't know if there's been much said about it but I think Munster might have won.

The Lions tour brings MASSIVE money to the home nations and the host nation but with such a backlog of fixtures I can't see how it can go ahead, the Super Rugby schedule has been destroyed and I can't imagine that Australia will be happy for SA to have the Lions while they've missed out on 2 fixtures against Ireland.

irishbucsfan

I absolutely loved the NZ tests. The standard of rugby was exceptional for a touring side. The Lions' defense on that tour was as good as any team you'll ever see. Their achievement on that tour is massively underrated imo.

The SA tour in 2009 was fantastic as well as a spectacle, the South Africans are incredible hosts for the Lions because their country is phenomenal, they offer a great welcome to touring sides and they're fiercely proud and committed to winning.

Gatland versus Rassie would be absolutely fantastic for me.

As for midweek games, they're just training sessions really and I think people are mistaken in expecting them to be anything else. They're down there for the tests and thats it, the other games are a bonus and its just about getting the team prepared for the 3 games they're there to play. I'd prefer if they didn't ever play any Super rugby sides at all, would be fun to see them play selections or currie cup teams you wouldn't normally get to see at the highest level. I'm sure that's up to the host union more than anyone else.

Clareman

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I've been involved with rugby in small European nations. At that level if you're physically fit and co-ordinated you'd be able to get into a matchday squad in a couple of weeks (lots of wrestlers etc are targeted to be brought in), and if you're a natural you could probably get into the team in one day.

I've thought a lot about how you could grow the game in those countries. It'd take a seismic shift because even if that team did really well and went unbeaten at their level for years no one would care. If Bulgaria went unbeaten for 3 years, there'd be about 200 people in Sofia who would even know about it. It'd be like the Irish ice hockey team winning a few games in their division, and we'd probably notice it more in Ireland because we love jumping on weird sports bandwagons.

You'd need to give them a clear pathway to make it to the highest level first. That's impossible because the 6 Nations have been given control of their own destiny and exist outside of European rugby and selfishly do not care in the slightest. The Rugby Europe competitions are well run by passionate people but they will never be legitimate until they can actually be seen as Rugby "Europe" and not Rugby "Everywhere in Europe except the 6 countries with all the money".

If by some miracle you managed to fix that, next you'd need to get them onto national television or some online platform that puts them in the homes of local people. That's almost impossible because the sport has zero cultural relevance in those countries. It'd take a generation of investment.

Basically until the 6 Nations start to care even slightly about anyone in Europe outside of themselves, nothing will happen. I'd STRONGLY doubt if it would ever happen in my lifetime. There's absolutely nothing World Rugby could do about that even if a chairman wanted to, because that would ALSO need the 6 Nations unions to vote in favour. They never will, because they are national governing bodies and their responsibility is explicitly to rugby in their own nation. Until that power to decide to destiny of rugby across the whole of Europe is somehow taken away from them, we will not develop the sport outside those countries.

7s rugby has a much better chance because of the olympics, which says a lot about the awful political structure of world rugby given its not favoured by the vast majority of people who play or work in the sport.

The way it was explained to me is that there's a massive step up between the different levels, for example here there's a massive step up from club, to AIL to Pro 14 to HEC to International, it's been said that a top HEC game could almost be a test match, for a lot of the tier 2 nations they'd just be at club standard but they aren't going to get any better without support from the top table but because of the money involved that won't happen, there's already a massive tug of war between clubs and country in France and England, they won't release matches/players as it is let alone do anything not in their own selfish.

Eod100

SA insisting tour will go ahead. I wonder who leaked idea to UK media. https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2020/0504/1136408-sa-rugby-adamant-2021-lions-tour-will-go-ahead/

thomond2006

Rory Scholes is being let go by Brive. Things never really went for him after he left Ulster. He had a decent run in the ProD2 with Brive but once promoted to the Top14 his starts were largely confined to the Challenge Cup.

thomond2006

2009 and 2017 were excellent series and 2013 had its moments. IIRC the third test in 2013 turned into a bit of a joke as the Lions were incredibly dominant at the scrum.

I think the 2021 calendar strikes the correct balance. I do wonder if they would ever consider playing the three tests over four weekends instead of three. They are incredibly intense games.

Eod100

Talk of Lions tour shifting to Autumn with new global calendar. So many ideas being floated at the moment, hard to keep up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52539537

Clegg

According to Rugbypass, Leicester Tigers will have a huge squad overhaul this summer. They say 21 players will leave the squad.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/leicester-exodus-continues-as-tigers-announce-latest-list-of-players-set-to-depart-the-club

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I've been involved with rugby in small European nations. At that level if you're physically fit and co-ordinated you'd be able to get into a matchday squad in a couple of weeks (lots of wrestlers etc are targeted to be brought in), and if you're a natural you could probably get into the team in one day.

I've thought a lot about how you could grow the game in those countries. It'd take a seismic shift because even if that team did really well and went unbeaten at their level for years no one would care. If Bulgaria went unbeaten for 3 years, there'd be about 200 people in Sofia who would even know about it. It'd be like the Irish ice hockey team winning a few games in their division, and we'd probably notice it more in Ireland because we love jumping on weird sports bandwagons.

You'd need to give them a clear pathway to make it to the highest level first. That's impossible because the 6 Nations have been given control of their own destiny and exist outside of European rugby and selfishly do not care in the slightest. The Rugby Europe competitions are well run by passionate people but they will never be legitimate until they can actually be seen as Rugby "Europe" and not Rugby "Everywhere in Europe except the 6 countries with all the money".

If by some miracle you managed to fix that, next you'd need to get them onto national television or some online platform that puts them in the homes of local people. That's almost impossible because the sport has zero cultural relevance in those countries. It'd take a generation of investment.

Basically until the 6 Nations start to care even slightly about anyone in Europe outside of themselves, nothing will happen. I'd STRONGLY doubt if it would ever happen in my lifetime. There's absolutely nothing World Rugby could do about that even if a chairman wanted to, because that would ALSO need the 6 Nations unions to vote in favour. They never will, because they are national governing bodies and their responsibility is explicitly to rugby in their own nation. Until that power to decide to destiny of rugby across the whole of Europe is somehow taken away from them, we will not develop the sport outside those countries.

7s rugby has a much better chance because of the olympics, which says a lot about the awful political structure of world rugby given its not favoured by the vast majority of people who play or work in the sport.

Eod100 wrote: »

You'd wonder if it is cancelled whether it would come back. Fairly popular with touring fans but with talk of global calendar with season extending into summer you'd wonder would it still work?

Running these 2 threads together (and suggesting this without any fore-thought whatsoever), but if the Lions was done away with, would there be an opportunity to have a soccer-style "European Championships" in it's place?

Would give a platform for the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain. It's likely a horrendous / unworkable idea for many reasons, but throwing it out here.

I guess the argument against is that you look at Italy, who have been in the 6 Nations for 20 years now and still haven't become competitive.

RugbyLover123

Going by Bill Beaumont’s interview on The Rugby Pod today the Lions isn’t going anywhere any time soon. It’s probably the most successful brand in the game and is hugely profitable for everyone involved.

He had some interesting views on changing the amount of substitutes allowed in a game. Not sure how that would work with player welfare.

aloooof

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Going by Bill Beaumont’s interview on The Rugby Pod today the Lions isn’t going anywhere any time soon. It’s probably the most successful brand in the game and is hugely profitable for everyone involved.

He had some interesting views on changing the amount of substitutes allowed in a game. Not sure how that would work with player welfare.

Presumably decreasing? It seems counter-intuitive, but I believe the idea is that it could work to the benefit of player welfare. If a player may have to play a full 80, you'll see fewer units like Uini Atonio, who's capable of emptying the tank for 50 minutes, say. His conditioning is probably specifically designed towards it.

The flip side is a more tired player is more prone to mistakes, so potentially more prone to injury. They'd have to do their homework before making any decision, I'd imagine.

Squidgy Black

aloooof wrote: »

Presumably decreasing? It seems counter-intuitive, but I believe the idea is that it could work to the benefit of player welfare. If a player may have to play a full 80, you'll see fewer units like Uini Atonio, who's capable of emptying the tank for 50 minutes, say. His conditioning is probably specifically designed towards it.

The flip side is a more tired player is more prone to mistakes, so potentially more prone to injury. They'd have to do their homework before making any decision, I'd imagine.

The argument is around making players be prepared/conditioned for the full 80, bringing down playing weights for forwards and backs, as well as trying to rule out scenarios like rolling out a whole new front row after 60 minutes to crunch the oppositions front row etc.

swiwi_

Every Irish rugby fans favourite AB named captain. No doubt, even Robbie “he could literally have been decapitated” Henshaw is on board with this.

sydthebeat

swiwi_ wrote: »

Every Irish rugby fans favourite AB named captain. No doubt, even Robbie “he could literally have been decapitated” Henshaw is on board with this.

Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement from what I've read on line.

Many calling into question his ability to play 80 and his injury record.

gp1990

Watched the Lions 2001 review on YouTube - its over 3 hours but a decent watch for nostalgia purposes. A few observations

- Even with Will Greenwood, Mike Catt, Dan Luger, Lawrence Dallaglio all being ruled out of the tests what a starting 15 they had available. That was a brilliant Aussie side but there's no way that Lions side should have lost a series to anyone. That said they were back-boned by the future English world cup winning side and its no secret many of the English players were unhappy with their game plan being so different to their own under Woodward

- It just does not appear a happy tour on the whole. Lots of sniping, and tetchiness all round. It eventually tarnspired there were lots of cliques - Clive Woodward claimed that an English player sat down with a group of Welsh players at dinner, who continued conversing in Welsh in his presence. Andy Robinson comes across as a right pr1ck (who Scott Quinnell nicely puts in his place at one stage ), and its very hard to know what to make of Henry, he's all pally with players one minute and then chastising individuals in front of everyone the next. Donal Lenihan always seems to have something to say

- The team talks from Lenihan and Henry are ridiculously basic and just filled with cliches. Johnson and keith Wood are the only 2 actually worth listening to in the dressing room, pure inspiring stuff from Wood. Rob Henderson was quite vocal too, which I was quite surprised with. He comes across a great character on the whole though, and I had forgotten how effective he actually was in the Tests

- NSW waratahs should have gotten massive fines for their conduct in the warm up game. How did McRae play a match again within the next year?

- The players look absolutely WRECKED by the time the final test comes around. They can hardly even run out on to the field and all the build up looks extremely laboured.

- Never knew how much of a rough time doctors and physios can get off management when they insist on taking a player off or they make a sensible decision on medical grounds. I'd doubt it happens as much nowadays though

- One funny part was the phsyio having to hide the ball and pleading with the kicking coach to stop Jonny Wilkinson from overdoing his kicking practice!!!

- The documentary really is in-depth. Proper match coverage and actual footage of conversations between physios and injured players on the pitch. Mini interviews with subs during the match. I can't get over how relaxed some subs are mid-game!

- Players are not nearly as beefy back then. Will Greenwood walks around topless at one stage and looks like he's never done a bench press in his life. Much less emphasis on the power game back then

- Matt Dawson's interview with the Telegraph mid-tour was mental when looking back - even the journalist had to contact him a few times pre-publishing to triple check it was actually ok to go ahead with it (acc to Dawson's autobiography). Absolutely scathing assessment of Henry and Lenihan and none of the Tests even played yet!!! He then went on to kick the winning score in the mid week test and when Henry comes over to hug him he barely even acknowledges him - haha he couldn't give a fk!!

- John Eales comes out for the pre-match coin toss for first test all smiles and friendly, and Johnson just completely blanks him throughout!

- Austin Healey has to be one of the most annoying people you will ever see. I heard that Bod gave him a hiding at one stage on the tour and I'd say he never had to buy himself a drink again after that

Yeah_Right

sydthebeat wrote: »

Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement from what I've read on line.

Many calling into question his ability to play 80 and his injury record.

Its an interesting one. Most people were picking Whitelock to get it.

I've never rated Cane that highli but that is due to my own recency bias. He follows on from the GOAT and before that Kronfeld and Jones. He isn't as good as they were but is actually a very good player. Solid, high workrate but nothing spectacular. Obviously very tough mentally to come back from a broken neck.

I guess that means Savea will be playing 6 or 8.