Your views: IRB look at creating new rugby tournament

IRB chairman Syd Millar is proposing a new event between World Cups to replace end of season tours.

Do you support the idea of a rugby tournament every second year which would feature the All Blacks and the world's other top international teams?

>> Read the story

>> Send us your views

A selection of your views appear below:

Huzaime Hamid

Thank you for allowing us a means to express our views. I believe that such a tournament featuring only the worlds best every 2nd year would be detrimental to the overall, global development of the game despite its best intentions and crowd appeal. The strong will only be allowed to be stronger, and the weaker teams will fall even more behind in international match practice. Instead, IRB should consider using such funds to further develop weaker rugby nations even further, such as region vs region tournaments (e.g. selected international teams from the Oceanic region vs those from Asia, for instance) to help get an expanded and stronger core of good rugby playing nations for the benefit and perpetuity of the game.

Jay

Fred, regular international rugby has been on cable TV/satelite in the US since 2000. All Tri Nations games have been covered live, several live Super 12/14 matches per week, plus Six Nations, Heineken Cup etc, etc are shown here.

Néstor A. Cadario

I’m an former Argentine rugbier. I think that the idea of this tournament not is bad, specially for the countries that not are in the old boys group, and are away of the 6N and 3N, as the Argentine, Fiji, Samoa, and others. The proposal deserve be studied by people that can show too much experience and looking all its sides. The soccer Eurocopa is a successful tournament, as the America Cup. Why not have a similar tournament in the Rugby, but not only of a region, as the related cups?. For not make it equal to the RWC, perhaps we must think in two zones "A" and "B" and played during all the year in the involved countries?. Thank you for permit me give my viewpoint about the proposal, and please, excuse my bad English.

PJS

KC sounds very English to me. It is wrong to generalise about any nation of rugby fans. New Zealanders love rugby, and the more global it is the better. This means however that another tournament between the top international teams will increase the huge divide between the top nations and the rest of the world - a bad idea. All international matches are important and should never be regarded as friendlies, as with international soccer matches.

Amanda Love

Whilst extending the game of rugby to the next level globally with an international competition within competition for the leading rugby nations is a great idea, what about the developing rugby nations such as the islands nations, Japan, America and other developing countries? To increase the standard of international rugby we need to work on developing the game in other countries where rugby is not the number one sport. Otherwise it will always be played out amongst the main contenders New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England, Ireland, France etc.

David

The new tournament will only entrench the existing order. If we were serious about lifting the standard of tier 2 and 3 nations then we would push for a 50/50 split of gate takings. Finance is the one of the largest hurdles for 2nd tier rugby nations yet when they play games in Europe they receive no percentage of the gate takings. Half the gate takings from a game at Twickenham would be Christmas for a union like Samoa or Canada.

Anthony Owen

A big no. It will take away from world cup and teams are already playing rach other too much .The tri nations playing each other three times becomes boring. Bring back tours of countries. It was a great system,.

Chris Saunders

I cannot believe the audacity of the IRB’s chairman! This tournament means more money in the richboys coffers while the rest of the rugby world starve. I’m an avid Kiwi rugby fan living in the UK and here football means soccer. It’s a global game which is truly democratic and gives EVERY country the chance to meaningful competition. I’m still rugby mad but if the administrators keep up their incredible avarice act then I’ll definitely be following the round ball game. Wake up IRB and founding unions you greedy fat cats: there are 90 other mouths to feed!

Ronnie Ward

The Shield idea is worth examining closer. It would add a worthy prize, which Millar seems to want. It would expect that holders and challengers front their best starting XVs which most fans want. It can provide interest throughout the global calendar, which is good for everybody. It would give smaller nations a chance at international glory, which does more for the 2nd-rung and lower-tier nations than anything Millar is suggesting with his elitist new tournament. Best of all it adds zero additional fixtures to the IRB international schedule.

Ron Aylan-Parker

Provincial or international rugby, our national game, used to be a special event we could watch on our national television. Today it is no longer special and no longer available to all. Both situations contributing to its decline in popularity. More rugby, at any level, will only exacerbate that decline.

KC

The problem with international rugby is that there are only 3 games every 4 years that have anything riding on the results. They are the 2 world cup semis and the final. That is it. The rest are just meaningless ,pointless ,often one sided boring friendlies building up to the World Cup. If rugby wants to try and raise the profile of the game globally and generate some interest in the sport it needs to have more International games in which the result actually mean something. However the majority of rugby fans in NZ are narrow minded and are only concerned about rugby in NZ not the global big picture of the sport. So what ever the IRB suggests I am sure the egocentric NZ rugby fans will oppose it regardless if it is in the best interests of World Rugby.

Justin Stewart

Personally I do not see how we can introduce yet another tournament to an already overcrowded schedule. While mentioning that there are ‘too many matches there is nothing said about anything being sacrificed other than the end of year tours. Keeping this in mind are we then to assume that one year we are to have the already too long Super 14,followed by the already too long Tri Nations with then the possibility of entering yet another tournament to potentially play the Australia and South Africa again should it work out that way? What would be far more interesting would be the scaling back of said tournaments, reintroducing proper tours and a world club championship series. Who would not be just a little curious to see how the Crusaders went against say London Wasps,or the Hurricanes vs Munster (with Christian Cullen). A global season is possible, but money and ego seem to always prevent it.

Tui

There is already a huge gap between tier 1 & tier 2 rugby playing nations and this proposed new format will only widened the gap. Do the tier 1 nations want to keep the game alive in the tier 2 & 3 nations or do they worry more about their already huge bank balances? If they approve having this new format, then we will surely find some of the Tier 2 countries diverting to rugby league.

Sam Swain

How many teams make up the top tournament, NZ-A, NZ-B, NZ-C, NZ- Maori, Australia (6th seeds) South Africa, France, and best UK team. If he want to create a great competition put the six nations teams into the Super 14, may be with promotion relegation and include, US, Canada, Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, two pools of six and two teams drop out of each pool and two comes in. Anything that shows the world how good we are has to be good.

Lars

How does Mr Miller get the figure that 4 billion people will watch the next world cup? When NZ play a test in NZ ,about 500,000 people will watch it in NZ on TV or live out of a population of 4 million. When Oz play maybe 1 million aussies will watch it out of 20 million people. When the South Africans play maybe a couple of million out of a population of 0 million will watch. When England play 3 or 4 million might watch out of a population of 65 million. When France play I can imagine maybe a couple of million might watch when they play. That is not even 10 million people from so called rugby countries where are the other 3.99 billion viewers going to come from? I really cant see 1 billion Chinese or 1 billion Indians or 1 billion Africans turning on their TV sets to watch the rugby world cup.

Murray B

An interesting idea but I think the IRB are turning down a dangerous side road. I find it strange that Syd Millar thinks the ABs are too strong but his best solution is to invest in the 8 or so sides best in the world. Unless I have missed something here, I do not think this increases the depth of world rugby at all. While the sport would remain global, that would be just in name. Its depth would be no different to cricket, rugby league, softball etc. If Mr Millar (is that the same as the IRB?) wants to globalise the sport, then he must think beyond the big nations and invest in the smaller unions. At present these countries are given lip service by the IRB and that is being kind. To highlight the arrogance of the IRB, it is clear that they still think that Argentina is still a ‘minnow’ rugby team! There are many ways that the smaller nations can be supported but it seems they are being ignored. I like the idea of a Ranfurly Shield type challenge. That has some strong merit to consider further. But the best option is to bring back tours for all nations, big or small. If there is a mini World Cup, then there must be some sort of access for smaller nations to participate. If this does not happen, bye bye rugby as a truly global sport.

Oscar L

I say make TriNations and Six Nations 2nd Tier competitions and have the 1st XV do meaningful tours. In place of the SN the SH teams should tour the NH and in place of the 3N the NH teams then tour the SH. The have the RWC every 4 years. Before the tours the Unions can arrange 2 or 3 non-tour home tests with any country not involved in their tour that year.

Mahaki Waititi

I think this should not happen because we have seen the effects of playing each other too much. Australia has benefited with the Tri nations and now they are treated as equals. You play each other enough and all the teams use the same tactics and they all play the same style of rugby. Its good to see an even level of competition but not at the expence of pinching other teams ideas. This tournament has my thumbs down unless they get rid of the tri nations.

Andrew Rae

Im a Kiwi living in Australia and think it would be a damn good idea. It would be just another comp where the All Blacks can beat the Ozzies.

Jennie Allen

I do think that it is a good idea because, it will provide experience to younger and older players and having it every second will fill in some of the space between world cups. This will give players a chance to play against the best and have the chance to be the best. It will provide view into improvements of all players and it will also improve rugby relations between the countries, better sportsmanship will be a major outcome and that is something to look forward to and be proud of because being a good sportsman is a very valuable characteristic and there are only a few true sportsman and this competition will heighten those numbers.

Ian McMurray

This should replace the World Cup which, while it os not quite as predictable as the Rugby League World Cup in 2008 is, is not likely to throw up any surprises. I would rather have a tournament between the top six nations and have a mini-World Cup left for all the other IRB member nations. The winner of that Tournament could replace the wooden spooner in the six nation tournament.

Sam McIver

I think these changes would be a step in the right direction, although maybe not the right step. If the goal is to give the lesser teams more of a chance, then I am not sure it will work. You will see the same teams that are going to dominate the RWC this year in that tournament 95 per cent of the time. I think that a World Club Championship could be the way to go. Drop the Super 14 and split the world game into Continental Club zones, ie. Oceania, South America, Asia, Africa etc, top 2 teams from each zone go through to a Finals tournament. Would be a great way to allow more players from the lower nations (especially in Asia) a chance to experience rugby at a top level and I think it would create more support in these nations.

Aaron Subsin

I would rather see a global season with tours, also would this mean the end for the Lions tours? I hope not.

Sam Brindle

I think this is a crazy idea and will only devalue the world cup, which should remain the pinnacle for test rugby. NZ already plays far too many games against OZ and South Africa, the last thing we need is to be playing them in another tournament in the northern hemisphere. We desperately need Argentina and the Pacific Islands to join the Tri Nations to create a meaningful tournament. A far better solution could be to create a competition similar to test cricket where teams play home and away test series over several years or alternatively playoffs could be held between the winners of the Six Nations and Tri Nations.

Charlie Hoff

I have played and been a rugby fan for 31 years.I remember getting up as a kid in the middle of the night to watch the mighty All Blacks play in Britain. We need to get back to full blooded tours Not whistle stop tours. The interest created in the All blacks playing club teams in Europe would be huge both financially and for rugby followers. This is where folklore and legends are made. Coaches would have the chance to blood in new players without turning test matches into trial matches. Look at the lions tour. How much excitement and anticipation did that create?. Make the Tri nations Biannual and lose the extra games because it is become monotonous.Super 14 needs changing. More is definitely not better. We do not need another meaningless tournament. As each year passes by, I become disillusioned at where rugby is going. If only the IRB can see that quality not quantity is what the fans want to see.

Johan Jacob

I agree with Ed. The RWC will become a white elephant. This is just another money making scheme by the IRB. They want this new competition every two years and the WC every four. So double the money! Rather make sure second tier countries are getting stronger by making sure 1st tier teams tour there more. NZ to Fiji for example. Instead of NZ just taking the best Fijians, Samoans and Tongans for themselves, they should give something back as well.

Dean OKeefe

To grow world rugby and to add a degree of variety and excitement I feel the IRB should be lobbying for rugby to be included in the Olympics, both 7s and 15s. Imagine the excitement of watching rugby somewhere like Beijing, What a shame that wont happen. Countries such as China that do have a minor rugby base see no incentive to develop it, Olympic medals would be a huge motivation. As for another tournament between the world cup, I believe that this is crucial to prevent rugby from being an event only anticipated every 4 years. Hopefully a new tournament would support a Pacific Islands team that could easily develop into the West Indies equivalent of world rugby if they only had the chance to garner decent revenues and improve their resources. The IRB idea of not touching the Tri nations is nonsense, until the Pacific Islands, Argentina and possibly Japan are added to this tournament it is destined to become increasingly stale.

Fred Martin

The idea of the tournament sounds pretty good. But some of the things Syd Millar is saying about the state of the game are disconnected. Millar says he is concerned about devaluing Test matches as more rugby is demanded by television. Millar insists the game is in robust health and showing huge growth. And last year Millar was saying the North American market is the IRBs biggest potential cashcow and priority for rugby expansion and development, saying the audience and market for rugby was ready to explode on that continent. Adidas and Nike were thinking the same thing. Take those three items as a package and you get a chairman talking codswallop. Millar thinks too many test matches devalue the sport. On the other hand, many North Americans are screaming it is already way too over-valued. Maybe if there were more test matches, then whomever owns TV rights might offer and sell them cheaper. That would be a great benefit to the world game, because outside the Big 8, the world really doesn’t watch rugby. Eg. in North America, there not only is not too much test rugby on their TVs, there is in fact zero test match rugby on their TVs. They do not get any televised professional league games, nor Six Nations, nor Tri-Nations, nor even their own USA and Canada test matches. Anyone who has paid attention to the IRB website knows there are less rugby fans in number in North America than there are fans of underground Icelandic trance electronic music, and they are throwing their hands up in disgust at the way they are being left in the dark. Rugby is not only a fringe sport in North America, it’s off the dial. There is actually less rugby coverage on North America TV now that the sport is professional and TV viewers there have access to 500 channels, than was ever the case when the game was amateur and viewers had maybe 1/10th of the channels available. Syd Millar can talk all he wants, but that is not growth, that is regression. Rugby fans from the big nations (NZ, SA, England, etc.) are routinely poo-pooing the RWC as being bloated with too many teams. That is probably true. But consider that half of the nations in the RWC never even get to see rugby unless it is the World Cup. A nation like Canada which for some nonsensical reason has an IRB vote on the RWC will never have a chance to actually win the RWC, but their fans are more than happy simply to see their national team play on TV, and they’re only ever going to get that every four years for the RWC, since they can not even televise their tours and RWC qualifying tests. In many parts of the world, the RWC has become a lot like the Olympic Games an event. Viewers see sports like Biathalon and Judo every four years, then quickly forget about it. Rugby is exactly the same, most people only see it every four years, because rugby has priced their broadcast rights so prohibitively high that even American networks and specialty sports channels there refuse to pay for it.

Hugh

Yes, IRB, money is very important to keep the game alive, but what about the so called bridge that is to link the weaker rugby sides with the stronger? If the IRB think by throwing money at the weaker nations they will strengthen them, they are wrong. Game time is how to improve a team and what does not kill you only makes you stronger. Remember we used to (and still do from time to time) embarrass Australia with huge scores, but they learnt from their mistakes. Look at Italy, since joining the Six Nations they have gone from at least we didn’t lose by 100 to if only we had of landed that penalty kick. It wouldn’t surprise me if Italy caused a few upsets this year.

Maybe two tournaments is what is needed. So if a half decent team like Scotland or England do not make the top grade, teams like Fiji, USA, Canada and Romania will have a chance to learn from them in the lower of the two competitions.

Andrew Adam

I think this is a good idea, International Rugby needs a boost. I also would suggest that the IRB opts for the World Cup to be played every 3 years. This would increase revenue by at least 25 per cent and it would steal a march on the soccer world cup which has always been every 4 years.In between cups, the soccer fans would be able to watch the rugby world cup. This would also increase International Rugby audience greatly. Argentina should also be a part of the Southern Hemisphere program, Argentina is a sleeping giant in rugby terms (look at their football. If they do go to Europe they will soon become the best team in the Northern Hemisphere. Sanzar will look like fools for not allowing them in. Wake up Sanzar it is just what the tri nations need.

Martin Lark

I feel rugby should return to its roots of tours and test series, as this is what makes the sport unique. Too much focus on winning special tournaments takes away the intensity and importance of winning a test series. Rugby does not have to follow or mirror soccer; in fact it should celebrate and promote its differences. There are enough tournaments already and they could do with further development or changes to make them more successful rather than just coming up with new tournaments. For example, the TriNations: Are there too many games in this tournament against the same old faces? What about including the Pacific Island combined team and Argentina With New Zealand hosting the 2011 Rugby World Cup there is a chance to develop this tournament into something unique from soccer and more beneficial to rugby. The format of rugby 7s accounts for the obvious tiers of different rugby nations ability. If the Rugby World Cup could adopt such a format it would be benefit many aspects of the sport. Importantly, developing rugby countries would get more games against opposition of similar level and experience playing finals rugby for the plate or bowl trophies. Players and fans of lesser rugby nations would surely leave the tournament with a greater feeling of achievement than being thrashed by major teams in the pools and returning home. Rugby is not the same as soccer and the difference in nations abilities can be promoted and addressed by taking a leaf out of the rugby sevens book. I am for the Rugby World Cup, Plate and Bowl.

Barry Clfford Cherrington

What of the world cup? Having a series every 2 years with only the world top teams puts all other less well know teams on the sideline and no longer means any need for having a world cup every 4 years apart from showing how inept other teams have become and practising the worse form of discrimination possible. Denying any country the right to play for the love of the sport but how much money they have buying the privilege.

David Nelley

This idea from the guy that denied NZ the world cup last time round? He can kiss my date. We dont dont need this Irish fools ideas.

Frank James

Nothing like an elitist tournament to widen the gap of playing ability between countries. Is that what we really want? Some countries already struggle to compete at the World Cup, which will become nothing more than a spectators bore. The game of rugby needs to have a global following like football serving the interests of a few countries may not be great for the game. I think rugby is all ready well served with competitions seeing other nations being more competitive against the All Black’s would make it a far more interesting spectacle.

Neill

The problem with this tournament is that what suits the IRB doesn’t necessarily suit world rugby. Sid has obviously seen another cash cow to augment the income from the RWC, but he is sending out a mixed message.On the one hand, he says that world rugby needs to get stronger, yet on the other hand he wants to introduce a tournament that only the top teams will be eligible to play in. Is it not time that rugby began to embrace all its participants, not just the elite? Make a five nations SH tournament with NZ, Aus, SA (if they still consider themselves part of the SH), Argentina and PIRA. The 6N is still highly regarded and should carry on as at present. Those tournaments would lead into home and away series between the corresponding NH and SH teams (1v1, 2v2 etc with Samoa and Fiji to even it up) would generate more interest and depth than playing a IRB run tournament among the so called big boys.

Henry

They need to think of something else if they want to improve rugby world wide. All I can see is that they are trying to weaken the all black dominance in world rugby. They need to improve the standard of lower grade rugby to be able to sell it world wide such as world under 16 19 21 and junior competiton. Those competitions will bring the weaker countries into a competition were they can compete we will get left behind if we help countries Australia, England and such countries. At the moment we can generate our own revenue, which we are starting to do now. We do not want to be the laughing stock of world rugby again. One world cup is not good if they compare soccer and rugby. Poor old England. No world cup for a long long time is strong in soccer tradition.

Peter Connolly

Integration of NH & SH tests towards a new Competition is an idea worth considering. Particularly if it means we can drop the additional games introduced to the Tri Nations in 2006. While I appreciate the requirement for additional revenue to fund the game internationally, there has to be a balance between risking over-exposure, the costs of game attendance (tickets) and the desire for revenue. Last year, by the time the last round of Tri Nations arrived, just about everybody had had enough. Even the ABs apparently lost focus. I doubt this would have happened if the games had been against different countries. There is still the issue of Argentina to consider. What International Tournament will they play in? Or will there be a new local tournament based in the Americas? Perhaps, if the IRB considered a new tournament with 4-6 teams in the Americas and then had the top two from this tournament plus the top two from the Tri Nations, the Six Nations and a South Pacific competition play each other once every two years. The solution is not easy, but certainly something needs to be done.

Steve Watson

Andrew Robertson is a stirrer. If the enlighten rugby administrators of the NH can not set in motion a programme that will develop the rugby intelligence, skills and physicality of their international players then perhaps the IRB should allocate less money for the development of rugby in the Six Nation countries and offer more to other Rugby Nations that have the potential to produce a more exciting brand of rugby. This despite fewer registered rugby players, less ability to pay huge salaries typical of those paid to European rugby players, less money available to boost the infrastructure of rugby in their countries and less money for the development of rugby through Rugby Academies. After all, if the superior intelligence, science and wealth of the Six Nation countries is not enough to keep their teams at the top of the international rugby ladder despite strategies like denying NH club players from the smaller Polynesian nations the ability to play for their country - then perhaps those NH countries need to look at what they are not providing their players or what their players are not. Anyone can see that many Polynesian players are natural athletes that pound for pound are able to offer more physicality and adventurous play than players bigger than themselves. Allow the Polynesian teams the same funding as their NH counterparts so the Polynesians can magnify their natural attributes through the latest sports science diet, conditioning and training strategies and we will see some more losses by NH international teams. The Maori All Blacks were able to beat the 2005 Lions by matching then surpassing the best of the English, Irish, Welsh and Scots muscle, skill and rugby intelligence. Quadruple the IRB funding to the Pacific Island Rugby Nations and see them move up the International Rugby Standings ladder while some NH teams move down.

Joe

The Aussies came up with an idea a few months back, which was similar to IRDs new proposal but better. The Aussies wanted all international wins to give points to teams and every two years the two teams with the most points play in the final. This way, all end of season tours will not be so experimental and will also give a proper 1 vs 2 final unlike the world cup at times.

Benny

Too much money will go into the coffers of the IRB. Leave the world cup alone and bring back the big grand slam tours of the UK, full tours of South Africa, tour of Australia as well as the Pacific islands.

Leslie Simes

The Rugby now shown on TV is very good. Many more matches are likely to become like league in Australia; just goes on and on with free to air TV, Foxtel and radio. Boring. Perhaps a world secondary competition to find a world champion school team followed by widely organised national schools w.c. in two or three levels to really promote rugby in all countries.

Toby

Absolutely. NZ needs to capitalise on its dominant role on the world stage for once. Look at the effect the once so called World Series has had for cricket in Australia. Whether deserved or not, people begin to view the starring side (in this case the Occa’s) with an amount of reverence that only serves to solidify their position of superiority. Its a not-so-vicious circle for the hosting team. when you are on top you don’t even give others a glimpse of what it is like or they’ll take it from you. Its called complacency. world cup sub-hosting rights 2003; pop idol NZ (went on to become American Idol with no financial benefit to NZ); Russell Coutts sailing for Switzerland means lost opportunities, The list goes on.For a nation whose self-efficacy sadly depends so much on the state of its rugby team, we risk an awful lot by not defending it any way possible. If we do defend it effectively and intelligently, perhaps then we can all stop comparing ourselves to our Australian neighbours who we begrudge so much for defending their interests effectively and intelligently. leadership requires leadership.

David Peterson

For years people have been saying that the IRB should introduce something special in international competition by implementing a Ranfurly-style Shield for world rugby. (An international shield would provide interest throughout the rugby calendar, not merely at four-year intervals. It would give teams like Ireland, Wales, and Argentina who stand zero chance of winning the RWC, as well as minnows like Canada and Samoa, a chance to win a piece of global silverware. But why wait around for IRB to do something? NZ Rugby should take the initiative and get one going themselves. They can call it the Colin Meads Trophy. NZ would start off with it after we win the World Cup (of course we will!). Then the first team to beat the World Champion All Blacks after the World Cup gets to hold the Colin Meads Trophy, then the team who beats them gets to hold it, etc...

Geoff Le Cren

Millar says we need more competitive first tier teams, and then proposes a tournament which would command the same kind of attention and resources as the RWC, but only for the first tier teams! WHY? Because that's where the money is and also the reason our sacred All Blacks can continue to raid Polynesian talent.

Richard Bock

Another big leap for the strong unions and no development for the smaller nations. Let's face it, smaller countries never ever will get a chance in developing as long as the current model persists and this new elite comp starts up. There is no World Cup, they should just call it the five nations and tri nations cup, not world cup like soccer where everyone has a chance from the top 16 up.

Palagi Oopha

Don't know why Andrew Robertson has used this forum unnecessarily to be racist & ridicule Polynesians & Maori players. Just goes to show how dumb he is with the language he uses. If you say that palagi players like Colin Meads, Ken Gray, Buck Shelford etc didn't use brute force in their heydays to subdue their opponents, then moron Robertson needs to put his mouth underneath the boots of Polynesians & Maori players. All Black rugby has always been about brute strength in the forwards and all across the park. World Rugb