Tidus_Raider said:
griff said:
How is a Lions Tour meaningless one-off matches?
Lucky no-one told that to the 6,000 British fans that came down here for the last classic 3 test Ashes series in 1992 or the millions that watched on TV (which were among the highest rating programs EVER in Sydney and Brisbane, up there with the Royal Wedding, the Final Episode of MASH and the Sydney Olympics).
What are they playing for? The Ashes? How does this benefit NZ? The unofficial second ranked team in International RL.
In any given year only 2 of the top 3 teams would be playing in a major series, but over the longer term they would all play each other in the same number of matches as if they played a Tri-Nations every year.
Over say a 4 year period, you could have Aus/NZ/GB play a Tri-Nations every single year or you could have a system of tours set up so that each team plays a series against each other over the cycle. And because each nation would only tour the other one every 4 years, there would be greater anticipation and pent up demand. In the longer term there would be the same number of matches as an annual tri-series but more media and fan attention and bigger crowds.
As with most people who have a deep appreciation of our codes great international history, I want to see the Ashes, World Cup and other traditional competitions maintained. But is isn't just about the history, it is better for the game.
How does France benefit from playing one-off matches? They need to be exposed to an elite level on a consistent basis. If GB are coming all the way for a tour why not just have a Tr-series co-hosted in Australia and NZ.
How does France benefit from being shut out of the only major international tournament, the Tri-Nations? In a system of tours they can be included in the international program as warmup games, just as in a Tri-Nations system.
But the Tour System also gives Australia and New Zealand one vacant year every four years in which to play proper series against the second tier nations like France, PNG, Russia or the Pacific Nations. A Tri-Nations every year does not allow time to do this.
I presume it will be a best of 3 series matches or at the very least 2 with some lead up games. Why not just include NZ and have the series again. Include France and PNG in some warm up games. Heck get Lebanon and Russia to play in some curtain raisers against some local sides. I'm thinking both these teams will be available.
If you have pretty much every nation here playing matches, then you may as well have a World Cup and let every nation benefit from playing with the big boys rather than have the smaller nations on the outer and Aus/GB/NZ playing with themselves.
Tours are great but when there is only 3, almost 4 top tier teams playing the game at an elite level then tying two teams yp on a tour is pointless.
They aren't really tied up, as they can also play warm up matches against other nations just as in a Tri-Nations. While one series is going on, the other top tier nation/s would be developing the game by playing series against other nations that would miss out if the big 3 were restricted to playing each other every single year.
For example, say in 2007 when NZ are making their Centenary Tour of GB, Australia could tour the Pacific, playing tests in PNG, Tonga, Fiji and Samoa. Imagine the boost this would give to RL in the islands. This wouldn't be possible if Aus had to play in a Tri-Nations.
Although I think tours are in the long term best interests of both major and minor nations, I would still be absolutely delighted if Aus and NZ hosted a Tri-Nations in 2005.
