2006-12-09 00:14:52 · 12 answers · asked by crusader 2 in Sports ➔ Rugby
I think the countries that are in the top 20 rankings should all be in regular competion. There is a huge devide between the first few and the rest of the world. Unless the other teams begin to compete at that level regularly they will never really improve to that level and will simply be the wam up matches of the early rounds of the world cup every 4 years.
Yes I think they whould have been allowed to, but maybe it is time for some new competions where the best countries could compete with the countries that are close to their level for the advancement of the game.
2006-12-11 04:31:21 · answer #1 · answered by wadecrptrng 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be a great idea to give Argentina a better outlet for international competitions. they have been steadily improving so why not? May be they are not a good as the three nations already but it is only with decent competition that they will progress.
As for the distances involved-it is not as if SA is hugely near NZ or Australia no matter hat it's going to be a big undertaking.
The silliest objection above is that it is called the tri-nations-it is the easiest thing in the world to change the name of the competition. The 5 nations in Europe was quite easily changed to the 6 nations when Italy joined-see? Easy!!
2006-12-10 21:52:26 · answer #2 · answered by Charlotte C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your answer is even more laughable. There already is a "southern" 6 nations, with the islands, japan and the junior all blacks. The Tri-Nations compition is a very good one, and is fiercely competed. All though argentina may be able to get a win or two, it just wont be fun to watch. NZ/AUS/RSA have a strong rivalry, beating Either one of the other teams means more than beating all the rest of the countries in the rest of the world.
Plus with 4 teams, there is 6 matches each. so that is 12 matches, which is just too big for a small annual competion. Perhaps there could be a larger competion every 4 years or so, like a southern hemisphere world cup, but at the moment I would much rather see in played inbetween the 3 power houses of world rugby (well maybe except Ireland)
2006-12-09 13:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Travellin Bry is right about Argentina and the Six Nations. Earlier this year, Argentine officials made overtures about joining the Six Nations and said the team would be willing to set up a base in Europe for the duration of the competition.
Will it happen? Probably not, but it's a novel idea and playing home matches in Spain is an excellent suggestion.
2006-12-10 14:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Above answer is quite laughable.... Argentina have improved immensely.... I see no reason why they shouldn't mix up the tri nations a little.... South Africa are nowhere near the dominant force they were back in 1995..... and seeing as a diabolical england could beat them and a good Irish squad dessimated them.... Argentina could well come in and not hold the bottom spot..... 3 nations in a competition is not enough to create viable competition anyway... why are the Fijians not included.... or the pacific Islands as a whole...... a southern 6 nations as it were.... Now THAT would be interesting!!! Those nations like Fiji etc will not improve unless they get viable competition for their efforts!!! Look at the improvements with the Italians last year.... playing good sides regularly absolutely improves the team!!!
Rant now over!!!
Merry Christmas!
2006-12-09 11:23:52 · answer #5 · answered by greenbloomers 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I think the better option would be to have Argentina join the 6 Nations (given that most of their players play in Europe).
It would have been good to include the Pacific Islanders in the Tri-Nations. This would have allowed them to develop into a better team and prevent the poaching of their players when the money starts to come in. This would have been the better option for rugby as a whole.
It was stupid to expand the Tri-Nations to its current format where each team plays 6 games. (with one home game & two away games with one team and two home & 1 away game with the other team)
2006-12-11 17:18:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they should be in the 6 Nations, there has been talk of some time about them playing in it. Almost all the national team play in Europe so it makes sense, there has been suggestions that they play there home games in Spain, as they have loads of connections with the country, and rugby is a growing sport there. It's pretty disgraceful that one of the worlds best sides can't get regular competative games.
2006-12-10 07:01:53 · answer #7 · answered by Travellin Bry 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes the 6 nations is for the northern hemisphere countries and Argentina have shown their worth and should form part of a southern hemisphere competition. Why not have the winners of the north and south meeting in a one off challenge match.
2006-12-10 05:54:42 · answer #8 · answered by Closed Down 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it would be good. The only problem is related to the amount of time required to travel to argentina. From Australia it is over 18 hours. If you are doing flights like that and backing up again the next week it would be detrimental to the players. They are coming along nicely though, it is a pity for them that nobody is anywhere near them.
2006-12-09 18:42:54 · answer #9 · answered by Maverick off Top Gun 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
GO BIBADOPE!
listen to the name TRI-Nations
TRI=Three and the three nations practically hate each other so involving Argentina would just be stupid no-one cares about them. yes okay RSA have been down the past year but watch with the bulls coach coaching the south-african squad we'll be the best there ever was or will be.
just watch!
2006-12-10 00:27:10 · answer #10 · answered by X.MetalHead.X 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋