Hoskins: Tri-Nations in trouble
25 Apr 2008
South African Rugby Union President Oregan Hoskins believes the Tri-Nations is in need of a massive overhaul.
From a South African perspective the 2007 tournament was a non-event, with former Springbok head coach Jake White using the Australasian tour as an opportunity to test fringe players ahead of the World Cup, while putting his elite players through their paces in a training camp.
Last year featured a shortened tournament – with each side playing each other in a home and away leg. The tournament culminated in New Zealand beating Australia in the unofficial final to claim the title.
In 2008 the tournament will revert back to a nine-game format, with each team playing each other thrice. Hoskins, initially asked for his views on the viability of the Super 14 in it’s current format, believes the Tri-Nations is too long and reinforced the widely held view that the travel schedule seriously compromises the chances of success for the Springboks.
“SANZAR are discussing ways to improve the Super 14 but it remains a very good product. The Tri-Nations in it’s current format is, however, a major concern for me,” Hoskins told keo.co.za.
“It’s too long and doesn’t capture the imagination of the supporters as a result. It has certainly gone backwards and that’s a problem we have to address urgently because the tournament is in trouble. What’s more, it is an ongoing problem that the Springboks don’t get a fair bite at the cherry because of the effects of travel.
“If they have a poor tour, South African interest in the tournament is lost, as it inevitably ends up being a two-horse race between New Zealand and Australia. That’s not a healthy situation for us to be in.”
The tournament will remain in its current format until 2011 because a $323 million broadcasting deal with media giants News Corp, signed in 2005, prevents the addition of any teams or changes in scheduling. Hoskins said both those options are being discussed by SANZAR for the 2011 tournament.
Among the SANZAR administrators, it is hoped the introduction of the ELVs into the Tri-Nations will give the tournament a much needed jolt. The Super 14 has, however, shown that the new laws often result in matches degenerating into scrappy affairs marked by a plethora of free kicks conceded at the breakdown, which certainly wouldn‘t make for an entertaining Test match for either the players or spectators.
The tournament certainly needs an overhaul, as does the Super 14, which features far too many dour contests packed into 13 weeks. How SANZAR hopes to achieve that remains to be seen.
By Ryan Vrede
92 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
25 Apr 2008, 09:49 am
We could have an eight nations. Include argentina, fiji, samoa, tonga and japan.
25 Apr 2008, 09:50 am
It could be like a little curry cup for the Southern Hemisphere.
25 Apr 2008, 10:03 am
#51 – dont want to add to many teams, travel will kill the players and more importantly, the tourny will go on for too long.
perhaps argentina, who could probably give at least the aussies a run for their money
25 Apr 2008, 10:19 am
Include Argentina and use the 5 nations format.
Everyone plays each other once, alternating home/away on a annual basis.
25 Apr 2008, 10:19 am
Thant should be 6 nations
25 Apr 2008, 10:29 am
Northern Hemisphere 6 nations and Southern Hemisphere 6 nations, winner of each respective 6 nations to then play each other for championship?
25 Apr 2008, 10:30 am
I think Fiji or even Samoa could rack up the odd win against Australia if they were allowed to play regularly enough.
25 Apr 2008, 10:43 am
halfgk – They do have to bring in the island warriors, pumas and maybe Japan/Asian warriors then the amount of times we play each other will probably be just once. The Tri-Nations is a money making selfish tournament that is not spreading rugby in the SH. By bringing in Japan a new competition will create even more revenue for the money moguls and takes the game of rugby to new parts of the world, exciting stuff!!
25 Apr 2008, 10:51 am
I agree, make it every two years between RWCs. Then there can be tours too. And drop these **** ELVs. People want to watch rugby not tinkerbelle sport.
25 Apr 2008, 11:03 am
If you want to bring Argentina in, we can keep the competition yearly and change the championship finals. The top team gets the right to host the championship with Argentina invited – thus giving a four nations comp every 4 years, but then I’ll change it so that the WC year and the Tri-Nations Competion year 1, is in the same year. Thus the Tri-Nations Champions (or Four-Nations then) fall in the year before the WC.
The $$$ involved in hosting the Four-Nations will force every team to take the Tri-Nations seriously every year.
25 Apr 2008, 11:32 am
Who’s the clown who says NZ still can’t beat SA in a world cup competition? In 2003 NZ and Carlos Spencer bundled SA out of the world cup competition by whacking them by a massive 29-9 in the quarters. In all of test history since 1921 no Bok side has ever won by a 20 point margin against the ABs, let alone a world cup.
25 Apr 2008, 11:51 am
Tackler: Three words – Four More Years. Doos.
25 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
Sorry, that fourth one just slipped out.
25 Apr 2008, 11:56 am
#61 TheTackler: 2 WC wins since 1995 compared to NIL and the Boks lead 2-1 in WC contests, sounds good to me….
25 Apr 2008, 11:57 am
#63 mako: mako, the only problem I have is that you give d**s a bad name by linking it to tackler.
25 Apr 2008, 11:58 am
Luger,
That article from Paul Ress of the Guardian is wind up no?
“Australia are only too aware that the balance of power in the game has shifted to Europe, no matter that South Africa won the last World Cup. England and France have each contested two semi-finals in the last two tournaments, while South Africa, New Zealand and Australia have each played in one”.
Erm, NZ played SA in the QF of 2003 world cup, which meant only one of them was ever going to make the semis. England played Wales, and France played Ireland, meaning a NH team was always going to make the semis. If South Africa had faced Wales or Ireland they too would have made the semis in all likelihood, irrespective of the fact that they were dire in that tournament.
Winners of last 2 world cups – 1 NH, 1 SH. What does it mean. F*ck all!
As for saying the NH now has the balance of power, it only does so because of one thing – money. Their clubs can now cherry pick the best talent from across the globe. But compare the international results of England and France against Oz, NZ and SA inside and outside world cups, and they are still a distant second to their SH cousins in the win/loss ledger.
Finally, I cannot f*cking stand the fact that the media in the Britain have politicised the ELVs into being a “them vs us”, a NH vs SH contest in effect. The media are spinning yarns and passing it off as fact.
They state that defenders can pull down mauls in the new ELVs (true if all ELVs were being trialled), and in the next sentence they say that SANZAR are trialling all the new ELVs yet conveniently forget to point out that only a subset of the ELVs are being trialled. Unless Jonny Englander, Hamish Scotsman and Daffyd Welshman are avid rugby followers and watch all rugby (meaning S14), they won’t know that the rugby media are feeding them a pack of lies. They take what these scribes write to be gospel, then cry foul that it is all an Australian conspiracy to produce another form of rugby league. Last time I checked, the ELVs were devised by Scots, Saffas, Ozzies and others. Also, last time I checked, the Ozzies only have 2 votes on the IRB council against 10 of the home unions and France.
Even coaches that I respect like Ian McGeechan seem to have been blinded by the media spin. I read comments from him and he appears to have formed an opinion that the whole lot of ELVs are bad for the game rather than picking out the law variations that would improve the game.
The NH don’t want to change what they have. They say rugby is in rude health in the north, so why change? The NH rugby style is predominantly slower and is more cynical IMO than its SH counterpart. Taking away things like kicking for touch from inside your 22m and having to stand 5m further back at scrum time scares most of them sh*tless it would appear, but IMO it would improve the game.
The ELVs were devised by rugby experts to improve our game, to move it away from rewarding negativity to rewarding positive rugby, whilst retaining the traditional facets that make rugby what it is. Some of the ELVs shouldn’t be implemented, but some are worth doing so.
Just like it has always been through the ages, the “old world” is resistant to change and ideas that don’t originate from within. I hope our friends in the new world keep driving forward and keeping innovating.
25 Apr 2008, 12:01 pm
Fabio’s idea above is the best one for me.
Host the Tri Nations in one country. Have Oz, NZ and SA play each other in a round robin, then let the top two teams play off in a grand final.
The Trie Nations can then be rotated every year in between world cups (2008 SA, 2009 NZ, 2010 Oz) and then shelved in world cup year.
25 Apr 2008, 12:15 pm
#67 stodders:
you will never get a year without a Tri-Nations. the unions are dependant on that $$, that’s why I say turn the 4th year into a Championship year and keep the other three competitions. Prefrebally I would also have killed the Tri in WC year.
25 Apr 2008, 12:42 pm
Possie,
I hear you. $$$ talk. The inidividual unions of SANZAR won’t give up the hosting of their home tests every year.
I really don’t see how they can change the format unless they renegotiate a new TV deal and a bigger sponsorship deal which would allow them to scrap the 9 game 3N in favour of a shortened, more attractive competition held in one country that would attract travelling spectators and foreign viewers.
One other thing to note is that the Lions tour SA in 2009. I think that in the year the Lions tour, the other 2 SANZAR nations should have incoming tours, say:
- 3 official tests
- 1 match against the U21 or team
- 3 games against S14 teams
- 3 other games against lower club opposition
This would mean that every two years after a world cup is SH incoing tour time.
The SH nations would then take turns to conduct a Grand Slam tour of Europe each year after the world cup. In 2008, it would be SA’s turn to play 4 tests against Sco, Wal, Ire and Eng, along with games against Provincial teams (Munster) and lower clubs.
The Sh nations could opt out of a Grand Slam tour if they decide they would rather tour an individual country and play all their tests against that nation, e.g France.
25 Apr 2008, 13:00 pm
Tackler
Must have been me who said that.
NZ have never won the WC with SA competing.
1987 we weren’t ‘invited’, and we kicked your asses the year before in SA 3-1.
So, that is my reason for saying that.
The AB’s have actually never won the WC since the mighty Boks’ re-admission to world rugby.
Hard to believe, I know, but it is a fact.
25 Apr 2008, 13:41 pm
Stodders, you don’t want the ELV’s mate. The game has been turned into a breakdown lottery and the refs are just fakking things up left right and centre. It is a 50/50 call each time and more often than not they get it wrong or imo blow it wrong anyway!!
25 Apr 2008, 13:45 pm
stodders – they should have already have included the island warriors into the tri-nations, then 4 Nations, and maybe just play each other once with ABs and Wallabies having an extra game for the bledisloe cup which frees up the Boks to host the Argies or play there. Then the next step to include Argentina would have been easier but no SANZAR had to bore us with more Tri-Nation games and run the SH players into the ground.
But a SH 6 Nations tournament including possibly Japan or an Asian warrior team would bring in a new untapped market, which would appeal to O’Neil.
So we would have:-
1.Japan/Asian Warriors
2.Island Warriors
3.Pumas
4.Boks
5.All Blacks
6.Wallabies
would be great for rugby. Players that aren’t being chosen for the Boks could go and play for Japan etc.
25 Apr 2008, 14:06 pm
leeanthonyw,
Rugby followers would like to watch games involving the Pacific Island nations, Japan, and Argentina. Unfortunately, rugby followers don’t hold the purse strings – the TV money men do. And the TV money men have no interest in developing rugby union outside of those nations that currently generate interest and global revenue – namely SA, NZ and Oz. They want ratings, and they specifically want them in the revenue generating market of Europe.
Europeans by and large couldn’t give a rats *** about Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Japan, therefore the money men don’t see them as revenue generating nations.
Unless rugby union breaks from the obsession of making money and focuses on the deloipment and growth of the game, the Japans and Fijis of this world will continue to be ignored.
It also has to be said that NZ especially do not have the revenue in their home market to support the ABs and keep them at or near the top of the rugby world. They need international TV revenues to supplement the domestic revenues generated in NZ. I can’t see them sacrificing their existence for the greater good of the game of rugby, can you?
25 Apr 2008, 14:35 pm
When I was a kid chicken was something we had for lunch on a Sunday and looked forward to. No you can have it every day and at any time. The AB tours to South Africa were legendary as were those by the Lions and others. It kept the rugby nation focussed for weeks. Wednesdays and Saturdays.And now it is like , well, chicken every day. Too much of the same.The 3n is boring as there is too much of it.The s14 is even more boring with the rugby league style game.From one end to the other – like basketball.No buildup, just kick, charge and bash it up.Mind you at least I have something to look forward to on Sunday – tuna but I shall have to catch it first!!
25 Apr 2008, 14:45 pm
We should have a five nations (or 6 nations) as per the North. With:
SA
NZ
Aus
PIslands
Argentina
(Japan)
And run it in the same way as the six nations. Only play each team once, with Home and away fixtures on rotation.
Easy and Interesting, and grows the game.
This comp should not be played in WC years.
25 Apr 2008, 14:53 pm
Stodders
The IRB is all out protecting the celtic nations.
The money markets are USA, Russia & Japan, from which one can mine corporate sponsors and television networks and these countries have been treated like second class citizens with the high handedness of the IRB.
This is no longer a club. Money rules and as much as the IRB want to treat international commercial rugby like a club, there will be these mismatches and (yawn) competitions.
The markets need to be opened up with innovative new competitions and new money. Why else trial the ELV’s. Great concept that needs to be implemented across the board to save the game.
Not a little bit here and little bit there. Implement wholesale changes,
Superba:
You don’t have to wait till Sunday. Pop down to your local sushi bar and try the spicy tuna rolls or sashimi. Everything is there, all the time.
25 Apr 2008, 15:16 pm
Stodders – it is better if you catch your own – nothing like a fresh tuna steak! Now where would you get that in Britain?
25 Apr 2008, 18:19 pm
Superba,
We don’t have many tuna swimming round our waters. I’m afraid we’ll have to make do with salmon
25 Apr 2008, 18:22 pm
Luger,
Thanks for your post. I agree with much of what you write. I think the Far East should be targeted and I think John O’Neil (as much as he is an annoying bully at times) has it right in expanding rugby into that area to grow the game, both playing and money wise.
The NH feels it has wrested control back from the SH, not through outplaying them but through outpaying them. They will not give up their new found power easily. They want to keep the status quo for as long as they can.
I hope they fail…abysmally!
25 Apr 2008, 18:39 pm
Hey Guys,
Firstly I do not think the Tri-Nations has to be played every year. I would personally suggest a 4 year schedule as follows,
year1 – Trinations
year2 – Tours
year3 – Trinations
year4 – World Cup (Tours or have maybe warm up tours)
year1 – Trinations
contines…
For a start, I think having the tri-nations and 6 nations for the matter in a World Cup year just devalues the both these 2 tournements (3nations & 6nations). Last year both these tournements were not interesting or exciting to watch, it was basically a meaningless training schedule.
I believe in the World Cup year a series of tours would work a lot better and not devalue both these competitions.
Now, there is no reason why we can’t have both the tri-nations tournement and a also the traditional tours. There is no reason why the tri-nations has to be played every year, certaintly at least not world cup year! I would suggest in the four cycle to have 2 trinations tournements instead, and one touring year where maybe we can have a SERIOUS 5 test series in NewZealand and NewZealand repay the favour next year. It will alo give teams like Argentina and the Pacific Islands a better look in as we can be better involved with the top tier rugby community. At the moment these 4 teams just don’t get a look into the current tournements.
To further add to this, the trinations needs to be expanded in my opinion. Argentina simply have to play. The Pacific Islands also need somewhere to play and both need to finances, which I believe a four year system of tours and competitions can not only provide but maximise their exposure. It will also be beneficial for Us (SA), NZ and AUS.
Lastly, I would tend to agree because the geography (particulary conerning us and Argentina that we should ATLEAST consider playing a single tri-nations tournment in a single country, playing each other once. SANZAR need to look into the viability of this as I really do think it could become more of an issue especially if and when Argentina join the Competition. Also if the tri-nations expands even more in the future to include the Pacific Islands, then playing we can only really play each other once.
Finally, off topic we should scrap most of the elvs! The game becomes really scrappy and uninteresting to watch (IMO) and if forward play is devalued then there is less space for the backs to operate, and hence less excitement!
GIVE ME YOUR OPINIONS!
25 Apr 2008, 18:42 pm
Sorry, just in the above comment I meant New Zealand (after we have toured) they return the favour next cycle not next year. Also sorry about spelling/ gramaitcal mistakes, I rushed it a bit!
25 Apr 2008, 20:13 pm
play the third game of the series in a neutral venue in asia, rotate between singapore and hong kong. Similar travel times for all teams.
The bledisloe cup is in hong kong, 1 nov
Ps.who are those ugly ******** at the bottom of the page?
25 Apr 2008, 20:30 pm
Spotted another mistake, I meant to say that they can be better involved with the top tier international community, they meaning the Pacific Islands and Argentina. Instead I had written we could be better involved etc…
25 Apr 2008, 23:14 pm
The Super 14 may be a good product, but it’s not good for South African rugby. We are stronger with Europe, than stretching ourselves to play provincial rugby in Australasia.
Europe and South Africa are the geographic center of the rugby world. The rugby focal lenses are being warped by the Super 14. Let New Zealand and Australia stretch to reach us.
We need to exit the Super 14 and join an expanded English/European provincial competition. This way we will be able to watch our overseas based players weekly, the unbalanced travel schedules of our teams in the Super 14 relative to the Australasian teams will be eliminated, and SARU will be paid in pounds or euros for its share of the television rights.
Then the Tri-Nations might have more significance.
25 Apr 2008, 23:15 pm
There would be more opportunities for Argentina too.
26 Apr 2008, 02:17 am
Until Argentina have a professional domestic competition like the NPC, Currie Cup , Heineken/Zurich Cup etc feeding into a higher-tier elite pro comp like S14 and then on to test level, they have no place in a 3N.
A Puma can’t earn a pro living playing only six tests a year for Argentina and nothing else. He can’t even earn a decent crust if Argentina was awarded only one S14 franchise — they’d need at least three to make it a viable proposition, travel-wise. And Argentina just doesn’t have the rugby depth to sustain three S14 franchises.
So there really is no conceivable foundation on which Argentina can build an entry into the Southern Hemisphere pro rugby competitions. As all their pros play in Europe, it is Europe who will be entrusted with the future of Puma test rugby, not the Southern Hemisphere’s Big Three.
And it is the Southern Hemisphere’s Big Three — especially NZ — who have always dominated test rugby. The North is weak by comparison.
26 Apr 2008, 06:50 am
The Springboks didn’t loose a test series for 50 years. That is unlikely ever to be matched.
The decision to create the Super 10, Super 14 and Tri-Nations effectively strengthened Australasian rugby at the expense of South African rugby.
26 Apr 2008, 07:29 am
There would be more opportunities for Argentina if South Africa honored its central geographic location and was Euro-centric, rather than distorting the rugby focal lenses eastwards towards the Anitpodes.
26 Apr 2008, 08:50 am
While I agree that we may have too much rugby, I find that living in Melbourne I don’t mind because I’m starved of too little rugby here, except on pay TV of course! I also find that when the S14 is finished it’s an anti-climax because I’ve enjoyed watching soooo much. You may be spoiled, but please remember those poor Sth Africans that live in those centres that don’t have regular rugby union matches.
26 Apr 2008, 09:31 am
Whatever…..can you name the kak Refs and will you include kak Refs from all three countries.
Pietman……We had a super short tour by the British Lions in 2005…..one of the best ever. It was all over in 4 weeks I think and had full houses at every venue. The tour should include 3 tests and 5 provincial games.
And also when you want a Pacific Islanders team in any of the comps do you realise that 95% of the players will be NZ citizens. That includes Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, so you really are kidding yourself you are playing against genuine Pacific Islanders who actually live in the Islands…….they are infact NZ citizen players who can’t make any NZ rep teams.
26 Apr 2008, 10:03 am
Patrick
That’s the real deal, short tours…
1 Jul 2008, 22:45 pm
I think Argentina and the Pacific Islanders should be introduced to make it a 5 Nations. It’s absurd that Argentina, especially, isn’t already involved.
Meanwhile, why doesn’t Argentina try to secure a Bledisloe Cup style annual trophy fixture with South Africa as a step toward full integration in SANZAR? ie the Hugo Porta Cup. The Bledisloe Cup helped Australia to get up to speed and maintain consistency.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.