Pumas set for Tri-Nations inclusion
9 Mar 2010
The International Rugby Board will provide $2 million so that Argentina can join the Tri-Nations in 2012.
As reported on keo.co.za last month, the IRB said they would fund the deficit of Sanzar’s costs for allowing Argentina into the competition, which will now be expanded to a four nations tournament.
The Pumas’ commercial viability and sustainability was the final stumbling block after leading French clubs agreed to allow the Argentinean players to play in the southern hemisphere showpiece. IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset said the one-off payment removes that final obstacle keeping the Pumas from joining the championship.
Lapasset said the IRB council is set to confirm the deal at a meeting next month.
120 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
9 Mar 2010, 18:35 pm
Hope this happen. A fresh breeze if you ask me.
9 Mar 2010, 18:37 pm
Quad Nations 2012.
9 Mar 2010, 18:43 pm
First at last!
9 Mar 2010, 18:45 pm
I wonder what the hell they’re going to call it now? Quad nations sounds stupid and four nations is just boring.
9 Mar 2010, 18:49 pm
@catleya:
A first without a DRAGONS…is not a first
9 Mar 2010, 18:51 pm
Well this is good news and will be very good for Arentina rugby
9 Mar 2010, 18:54 pm
Four Nations, or 4N, or the AWESOME FOURSOME. Might take a few years for Argentina to get up to speed, but when they do they’ll leave the NH in the dust.
9 Mar 2010, 18:54 pm
This is a very good thing but how long is the season going to be, they must make S15 a two tier comp then, otherwise the guys are going to be moeg.
9 Mar 2010, 18:55 pm
To all the excited cloud niners:
Can anyone tell me what benefit this holds for SA rugby? How are we advantaged by growing the game in Argentina?
I look forward to your responses.
9 Mar 2010, 18:58 pm
@Tacitus: Well nothing I can think of, yeh it realy just benefits the Argies.
9 Mar 2010, 19:02 pm
They can play their home games in PE.
9 Mar 2010, 19:02 pm
@THAT GUY/DAAI OU:
@Tacitus:
There’s nothing wrong with that though. We should be happy that the game of Rugby is growing.
9 Mar 2010, 19:03 pm
Why?
9 Mar 2010, 19:05 pm
This ‘agreement’ from the French clubs, is it watertight?
9 Mar 2010, 19:05 pm
@BASH!: But at what cost to the players,we saw what happened on the EOYT after the 2009 S14 and B&I Lions and 3N
I don’t want to sound negative just asking some questions.
9 Mar 2010, 19:06 pm
@BASH!:
It’s a an honest question. And I’m waiting for an answer.
Why should we be happy that the game of rugby is growing?
What difference does it make to the guy sitting at Newlands on a Saturday afternoon, watching the Stormers against the Highlanders?
9 Mar 2010, 19:07 pm
TACITUS – SO is rugby menat to revolve around SA and SARU? What self centred backward thinking that is!!
Infact SA started rugby off in Argentina so i find it welcoming that SA can help the Pumas further!
More importantly are they going to reduce the times we play each other to twice? They will to disband the current extened 3N back to the old format except there will be 4 more games now with the argies. Criky each team plays 4 games each, that is a wopping 16 games, great entertainment thought, but mega stress on the players.
9 Mar 2010, 19:07 pm
So the Argies will be playing in the Frenh comp until end of May, then Quatro nations until August and then back on the boat for the start of the NH season?
Going to be tough.
9 Mar 2010, 19:08 pm
@Tacitus:
Because if we love this game then we should be happy that it is growing and expanding to other parts of the world. It will bring more exposure, more interest, more money and hopefully a even better standard of rugby.
The game doesn’t belong to South Africans. We didn’t invent it, we just play like we did!
9 Mar 2010, 19:09 pm
What’s the 2mil for?
9 Mar 2010, 19:09 pm
@race of tan:
I repeat. What benefit is it to the average SA rugby supporter if rugby grows in Argentina, Japan, Italy, Russia and America?
How is that going to improve our rugby supporting experience?
(I can think of many ways in which this can THREATEN our enjoyment, such as the establishment of more clubs worldwide that can try to lure our players away, for one).
9 Mar 2010, 19:10 pm
Dantalian – The French clubs will have to give the argy players some rest time.
If SANZAR had more vision and brought in the Island Warriors, they could make a southern hemisphere 5N tournament, and the teams only play each other once!
9 Mar 2010, 19:10 pm
@BASH!:
I come back to my question. How does it benefit US if the game grows?
9 Mar 2010, 19:13 pm
@THAT GUY/DAAI OU:
Yeah. I agree that player burn out is a major problem and that right now there are too many fixtures on the calendar.
The administartors and leaders in SA rugby need to realise that and lesson the amount of tests we play. The tri nations or four nations or whatever is important and that has to come first.
I alos understand that more games equal more money and that rugby politicians might not want to lessen the amount. If that’s the case then the coach just needs to maneg his players correctly. We have enought oversease based players and even players astill back home who could play for the springboks without cheapening the jersey.
9 Mar 2010, 19:13 pm
Bringing the Argies in will hopefully boost interest in the tournament in Aus and NZ. Which will help them make more money, and thus have a better chance at retaining players who might otherwise head north during those tricky years between world cups. Better players in the SH means better rugby.
9 Mar 2010, 19:14 pm
TACITUS – With the player base that SA has, we should be able have 2 Bok teams that can compete with any team on the planet. There is a major lack of professionalism in SA with player handling, player ocaching etc.
So if players do decide to ply their trade else where, then so be it!
9 Mar 2010, 19:14 pm
@Dantalian:
“Quatro nations” I quite like that. lol
9 Mar 2010, 19:14 pm
Also their women are hot. Bound to have a benefit somehow.
9 Mar 2010, 19:16 pm
@Dantalian: That’s true. Imagine their cheerleaders if we can get some Argentine sides into the Super 15 (or whatever it would be called).
9 Mar 2010, 19:18 pm
Does anyone know the format for the 4N? will each team play each other twice, 16 games? Or are they remaining with extended 3N, extending to the 4N? Which means 20 games or so?
9 Mar 2010, 19:19 pm
@Tacitus:
I believe that something that benefits the game of Rugby is a benefit to all Rugby supporters.
It’s clear you don’t agree with me.
9 Mar 2010, 19:21 pm
@race of tan: Home and away matches for all nations, IIRC. Much simpler format.
9 Mar 2010, 19:22 pm
@SJonesIsAGit: By which I mean every team plays every other team home and away.
9 Mar 2010, 19:22 pm
SJonesIsAGit – Is that the oficial agreed format from SANZAR?
9 Mar 2010, 19:34 pm
@BASH!:
Ja the growth of the game in Europe has clearly benefited the Pacific Islanders…
9 Mar 2010, 19:41 pm
I can just hear the chorus citing travel disadvantages having to travel to Beunos Aires as well..
just cant see Argentina ever being truly competitive with the other 3 nations, I think this will eventually fizzle once Argentina prove they will be the Italy of the new competition…
9 Mar 2010, 19:42 pm
@poppa69:
Agreed.
9 Mar 2010, 19:43 pm
@race of tan: That’s what I heard when they first accepted Argentina into the tournament. It’s hard to imagine any other format they would choose. The 3N is more clumsy to set up fixtures for, since each team will play more matches against one of the other teams away than at home. With the 4N it’ll be fairer. One match at home and one away against every team.
9 Mar 2010, 20:01 pm
@Tacitus: Tac, I reckon there is one major benefit. Currently, there is this outcry that too much rugby is being played by the top 15 players in the country, and yet, because we are result driven, we are playing the same top 15 guys every game because we simply don’t want to lose, and rightly so.
I believe that if the Trinations is expanded, there will be a much stronger case to expand the size of the top playing core group to 30 or so players who are rotated discretionary. It’ll give the top 15 more time to rest and yet retain enough continuity for the team as a whole to retain continuity.
There can be no downside to this, because it’ll make personell changes seamless in case of injury, because there will always be an experienced sub for everyone of the top 15, and we will never again end up in a situation like in the third test vs the BILs where we have to play a team of which half had been warming the bench rather than being an active member of an expanded squad.
To sum up, the development of players and combinations will just become so much more gradual and take away the crisis management in the event of injury we are currently doing.
The way to go would obviously not be to make wholesale changes every game, but to pick a match 22 for game 1 and bring most of them on as subs during the match. Match 2 you pick 75 % of the 22 again in whatever mix and the new 25% start on the bench. Next game, same story.
So the 30 guys you want to take to the WC every 4 years are blooded over time.
I would actually get Fiji, Tonga and Samoa involved as well,and even Japan. So then you play it like the 7′s tournaments with play-offs in two pools of four teams, with semis and finals accross pools between the top two in each pool. Hell, I reckon it can work.
9 Mar 2010, 20:01 pm
jaysis Tacitus. And since when does every decision HAVE to benefit the average rugby follower.
Fecking hell dude, dont be so self centred.
9 Mar 2010, 20:03 pm
The problem of overplaying is found in both SANZAR Tournaments.
What really needs to be done is as follows:
FourNations Tournament held every year, hosted by one country, lasting three weeks ONLY! Each team plays each other once only, with bonus points and point differentials separating teams on the log. All monies would be divided equally.
The Super 15 is the real problem. It stuns me that no-one is making a bigger issue of this than what it really is. The new format has teams of each nation playing each other more than opposing countries. The only people that this benefits are the Aussies. Simply put, they are playing with themselves and getting the Kiwis and South Africans to pay for it. We don’t need that kind of situation where the two true rugby playing nations have adequate tournaments in place.
The most logical system would be to do away with local derbies. That way each team would play 10 games, 5 home and 5 away all against foreign opposition, before the playoffs.
That would mean that a guy like Victor Matfield would only be playing 15 SANZAR games per year as opposed to the current format of 22.
While the Shackledraggers will bleat about less revenue, the truth is that they are milking a dry cow, right now. Ten years ago SANZAR rugby was the greatest thing on earth. Now it is all vanilla pudding. Everything tastes the same. Stadia are empty and players from the three countries are more familiar with each other than their own spouses.
Removing those 7 games from the SANZAR format would allow for a return to traditional tours. The independent unions would actually get greater financial benefit. Just think about how much money SA Rugby made from the Lions tour.
Even the shackledraggers would concede that they would much rather see their beloved Brumbies hit out at the French, rather than just a another session of inbreeding with the Highlanders.
9 Mar 2010, 20:04 pm
@RedMan:
My question was directed at the “average rugby followers” who profess happiness at this development, as if it was somehow going to increase their enjoyment of the game of rugby.
My question was a simple one. How will this increase your enjoyment of the game?
9 Mar 2010, 20:11 pm
Let’s go one step further.
So we’re developing a provincial rugby setup in Australia. So let’s say in 10 years time Australian rugby is twice as strong as a result of this helping hand we’ve extended to them.
So wonderful, the game of rugby has expanded and gained a few million extra fans. Australian rugby has more money, and they can offer lucrative contracts to SA stars, who go and play there rather than for the Stormers, Sharks or Cheetahs.
Furthermore, Australia is now so strong that they regularly beat the Boks in the Tri Nations tournament.
Question: Is the average SA rugby supporter better off (enjoying rugby more) with SA regularly losing to a stronger Australia, or is he bette off with the current status quo, where we win as many as we lose?
9 Mar 2010, 20:17 pm
@Tacitus:
The plot thickens, doesn’t it?
9 Mar 2010, 20:18 pm
Argie will be easybeats.
9 Mar 2010, 20:22 pm
@Tacitus:
My hope is that SARU will use this to level the playing fields between SA, NZ and Australia in regard to travel, not by increasing SA’s travel, but by increasing that of NZ and Australia
9 Mar 2010, 20:25 pm
@Tacitus: the Argies aren’t going to want your players, they don’t even have their own players based in Argentina. If they get any money, it’ll be spent on bringing Argentine players home. The French are also cutting their number of imports to 6 per club from 2012.
@poppa69: NZ beat them by a whole 6 points last time they played in 2006, Argies were on the AB line at the end pushing for a winning score, true story.
9 Mar 2010, 20:30 pm
@Tacitus: Sounds like you love the Boks more than you love rugby. And by “rugby” I don’t mean the breadth of the game, I mean the quality of it. Surely the reason you lot love playing the ABs so much is because it’s the highest standard of rugby in the world? Or is it just because if you beat them you get world bragging rights?
My point being that if the quality of your opponents improve, the quality of the contest will as well. Your team will rise as the standards rise, and better rugby is seen by all. A weak Australia is bad for the 3N, as indeed is a weak SA or NZ. Cricket is far poorer for the fall of the West Indies.
9 Mar 2010, 20:40 pm
@SJonesIsAGit:
Why do I get home from work, tired and stressed out, fall onto the couch, and switch to the rugby channel?
Not to admire the technical details of the game, not to ponder on the various coaching theories, not to politely clap when an underdog outperforms a favourite in a meaningless clash somewhere on another continent.
No, I watch it to get emotional gratification when my team smashes an opponent into submission and emerges as the victor from the fray.
That’s it. I don’t get any pleasure from rugby if my team is on the losing end.
9 Mar 2010, 20:41 pm
@Tacitus: arguing for the sake of arguing?
do you watch 6 nations rugby? well then you can watch the argintines play and blog about it ,that is how i imagine it will effect you ,as far as rugby is concerned growth will only allow the irb to expand wich in turn may effect franchises ,for instance if argintina join the 3 nations to make it the 4 nations ,we will probably see argintine talent come play for auz nz and sa franchises
btw how can the growth of rugby be looked at so apetheticaly ,are you that narrow minded ?
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.