KEY POINTS:
It is one thing to correctly identify a problem. Determining the best way to solve it is an entirely different matter. On that basis, International Rugby Board chairman Syd Millar has done well to pinpoint many of the woes that beset rugby, and which, collectively, threaten to devalue it in even the eyes of its most ardent admirers. But his response - notably the creation of a tournament similar to football's European Championship - suggests not a solution but a faster drive down the same highway to self-destruction.
Mr Millar says, quite correctly, that "we have to be very careful not to diminish the value of tests by having them every day of the week. We have to make them more relevant." His main target seems to be the short end-of-season tours that litter the international calendar, although the same criticism could be levelled at the expanded Tri-Nations competition. Mr Millar's answer is a tournament for the leading nations. This, he says, would resolve concerns over player welfare and the number of games, create more relevant matches and be a more effective way of increasing revenue. His proposal would involve no change to the Tri-Nations or Six Nations competitions.
Mr Millar's programme might well make rugby richer, but it has little to suggest it would make the international game more attractive. The essential problem, from a New Zealand perspective, is twofold: the overriding importance of the World Cup and declining interest in the Tri-Nations. A European Championship-style tournament would provide an added point of attention for top-tier countries. But their emphasis would simply switch from one event to two. In a process started by the All Blacks, players would be rotated and rested for international games in between, thereby devaluing their status.
The Tri-Nations was, to a large extent, the successor to tours, during which a team would spend a lengthy period playing provincial teams as well as tests. These used to be the staple of international rugby. The 2005 tour by the British and Irish Lions was a reminder of how popular and memorable they were. Yet Mr Millar seems intent on banishing even the insipid end-of-season version and continuing with the tired Tri-Nations. In terms of introducing more meaning, relevance and quality to international matches, there is only vague talk of an integrated season - and the thumbs down for the global season promoted by New Zealand.
It is not difficult to see why Mr Millar might choose this route. He has identified many of the problems arising from professionalism, but he is also keen to ensure nothing is done to endanger lucrative broadcasting deals and suchlike. Therein lies the attraction of both a revenue-generating tournament of top-tier countries and the Tri-Nations. Yet such deals will languish if rugby keeps serving up forgettable fare to dwindling audiences.
The task for rugby's international governors is to devise new formats outside the World Cup that inspire and enthral. Giving more space to the likes of the Pacific Island nations and Argentina seems one obvious way of doing that. Staging a tournament that excludes them is not. Another popular move would be the rekindling of tours. A bonus of these is that they allow emerging players to be assessed in provincial games, eliminating one of the reasons for rotating players in test matches.
Money will always be an integral factor in any redrafting of the game, but it cannot be the ultimate determinant. Compromise is not a one-way street. If it becomes so, rugby followers will have more cause to fret.
