Should there be a 6nations South, and 6nations North?

Question

Well 6nations in the Northern-hemisphere already exists, but how about having the tri-nations become the 6nations Southern hempishere? NZ; Aus; SA; Argentina; Fiji/Tonga/Samoa (the three nations Tonga;Fiji and Samoa can then have a knockout for the final two spots prior to the beginning of the annual event .)

Answer 1

Yes , y like 6 nations South.

Answer 2

I think the idea is a very good one. It will certainly help teams like Argentina who is currently playing some good rugby. This will rational help the sport to grow. As mentioned by some, travel times can be a bit problematic for some teams but I guess that can be overcomed. In the case of Argentina, rugby is semi professional and it can be hard on some of the players who must work during the day and play and train after work. Do you also not think that increasing the teams will put players under more strain. Will they be able to cope with such long seasons. From aplayer perspective if think they be finished after a season with too little time to recover before the new season.

Answer 3

To me the division is SE and NE does not make much sense, particularly for Argentina. They have nothing in common with the other (6) SE countries you listed, huge distances in between a very cumbersome travel for the teams and impossible for fans.



It does make some sense for the NE because all the countries are in Europe.

But do you have any idea about the time travel between Argentina and New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, etc.? It is already a problem for South Africa, which is closer.

In the case of Argentina, the players play in teams in Europe, so they would have to travel to their country for training and then to the other side of the world, with 12 hours jet lag... and then the matches would be televised in one country at 2AM, not much fun!

In my opinion Argentina should play with European teams, they could even be asked to play their local games in Europe (i.e. Spain), and they would agree.

Argentina has more in common with Europe than with any of the other nations in the SE and much easier travel for teams and fans.

I would agree with a (8) Nations for the NE + Argentina (you can add Romania, etc.) and the other (6) you listed for the SE.

****************added to answer johnboy*******

I agree that the Pumas would take gladly the 3 nations if that is all they can get, but that does not prove that it makes sense. What they really want is to play in the 6 nations (or 8 nations).

How can they base themselves in Australia? Most of the professional players, the ones that make the Pumas good right now, live and play in Europe. Do you think their teams will allow them to go for a month to Australia? Or to travel for each match? No way. So they will have to go with an amateur team. Amateurs that will have to give up their day to day activities, jobs or college studies, a complete mess. And there will be very few followers from Argentina on ANY match, not even much public watching on TV as the times will be absurd.

And to play a home game in Australia against Australia would be really unfair, don't you think? If they were in Spain or any country in Europe they would have a decent fan base.

I simply do not understand why Europeans seem not to want anything to do with Argentina, when most people from Argentina (especially the ones in the rugby world) look at Europe as their root origins as they have almost exclusively European ancestry, and there are large communities of people from Argentina in Europe.

I can understand competitions by geografic location, like in soccer, because this way countries have to travel less and they are (in general) in close time zones. The division in North and South Hemispheres is one that does not make sense from that point of view, just an invention like if you said East from Greenwich or West from it and that would make more sense than a division in Hemispheres where the only thing in common is that they are all head down.

The closest rivals for Argentina, at a similar level, are in Europe.

Answer 4

Two very good answers to the question here. It is a very hard one not one that we can say should happen. Maybe even bring Japan into the equation. I do not think travel is the problem it was 20 years ago. One idea is maybe base it in one country each year and play over a month/6 weeks. Maybe a mini world cup type scenario.

Answer 5

thats a good idea but maybe just extending the tri-nations to qaurtered- nation, because it doesnt seem fiji , tonga or samoa are at the level fo the other 4 yet.

Answer 6

Sounds great!

Answer 7

It sounds good dude.

Everyone keeps saying that Argentina is so far away but the Argentinians would give their left t******e to be involved in something like this!

I reckon Argentina could base themselves in a closer location. Plenty of critics claim that they could locate in the NH at a base in Spain etc and be invovled in a 7N. Well they could also base themselves in Australia, or in South East Asia and be involved in a Southern Hemisphere competition.

Perth in Australia would be a great place for them to base themselves. They have all the facilities and the Perth population would love it because they are isolated from international rugby.  

Asia is pretty close to the pacific so it would also be a good place to base themselves. How about Hong Kong?? They do a d**n good job of hosting the 7's so why not?

Edit:

Good reply Luis A. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to an extent.

The thing is, I just can't see what you are saying happening. It took Italy years to finally be accepted into a new 6N tournament and it is unlikely for it to be extended again. South Africa has already complained about the impractical nature of the tri-nations for them. They have expressed interest in being included in the 6Ns and basing themselves in Europe but that is also unlikely.

The IRB has recently stated that they would like to see Argentina included in the tri-nations and create a quad-nations. They are apparently putting pressure on SANZAR. Lets face it the IRB doesn't have a sensible bone in its body, Argentina will probably never enter the european tournament.

I think basing Argentina in Perth would be a good idea. Sure it has its complications, but it could be quite successful. South Africa has based their sides in Perth a few times over the years and I think they had a home game their one year (can any1 validify this for me??).

There certainly are difficulties with club contracts. A total revamp of the international and domestic schedules is needed I reckon. They are totally out of sync.