Here's the problem I have, going into world cup year, do you really want to play the teams you are most likely to meet at the business end of the competition prior to the event? Do you really want to give the players that kind of load, when they need to rise to the highest level physically and mentally every week, and then expect them to do it all again at the World Cup?
The fact is that the Tri-Nations competition has become quite stale - and this is coming from a guy who has watched his team win it 7 times out of 11. Thank goodness this year they are only playing each team twice instead of three times like the farcical series last year!
Rugby, and Rugby fans need something new and different. Or maybe even something old and forgotten, like a real tour. The two teams bandied around most often when this conversation begins are Argentina and the Pacific Islanders. I'm a fan of either(or both!), but both have thier problems.
Argentina is just...a long way away. The nature of the competition already makes the extended trip to South Africa exceptionally difficult, imagine adding another long trip to Argentina on top of that. On the upside, it would provide the professional Argentinian players a focus to play at home, currently they play all thier rugby in France!
The Pacific Island concept was popular a few years ago. Basically it ran something like this - each of the Islands - Samoa, Fiji and Tonga, produces a few good player every so often. Inevitably these players leave the Island and play for a top tier team, usually New Zealand, but also Australia. If these guys had something to stay at home for they wouldn't get 'stolen' by New Zealand and Australia. Now this argument omits the point that most of those 'Stolen' by other countries were born, bred and coached there. It is also worth noting the positions these players tend to gravitate towards. Having played in Samoa it is easy to see thier love of throwing the ball around and having a go. While this is very entertaining(see Fiji at any sevens tournament) it genreally produces players who are suited to back and loose forward positions. You don't win many games no matter how talented your backs, if your forwards can't get the ball. Furthermore with three host nations, there are bound to be disagreements about who gets to host the games.
Generally the problems with introducing another team come down to travel, and this is based on the presumption that a new team would mean the same 'style' of tournament. Let's dispose of this assumption and add another team and see what we can come up with.
Why does everyone need to play home and away? Why not allow one or two teams to do all the hosting - teams travel the day after thier match anyway - so this doesn't lessen the time in preparation, just the travel. The tournament would be no longer with 4 teams, it would just remove the bye week.
If you look at this sort of tournament without presumptions that it must be the same as it is now, the possibilities are really endless.
Tom Scott is a die hard supporter of the All Blacks and maintains the site Life is a Game.
He looks forward to seeing New Zealand be the first team to retain a world cup in 2011.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tom_Scott
