RWCs: Is the tail wagging the dog a bit?

Considering that the greatest economic drivers in the sport lie in the Northern Hemisphere, why is it that RWCs are perpetually played during the NH's league season?
Wouldn't it be more equitable to arrange it such that the competition is played out of season in the host nation?

Generally that would balance out the disruptions to the domestic leagues in the two hemispheres.

when do you suggest on this enormously busy schedule.

biltongbek wrote:when do you suggest on this enormously busy schedule.

What it says on the tin Biltong.

During the close season of the host nation.

It's highly disruptive to NH leagues in RWC years.

Portnoy wrote:

biltongbek wrote:when do you suggest on this enormously busy schedule.

What it says on the tin Biltong.

During the close season of the host nation.

It's highly disruptive to NH leagues in RWC years.

September/October is pretty close to the close season in NZ Portnoy for the 2011 edition. And moving it any later into the proper NZ close season (late Oct-Jan) would be even more disruptive to the NH leagues.

That doesn't matter Kiwi, its a SH RWC. The NH has to wear it by my definition.

What I'm suggesting is that the next RWC takes place squarely in the English off-season.

This year's RWC chomps up circa 30% of the NH domestic season.

When exactly is the NH off season?

biltongbek wrote:When exactly is the NH off season?

Roughly June-August

Now was that so difficult?

I wouldn't mind if there was a specific time of year, in this case, because it is our winter season which was traditionally always our rugby season before we started playing 10 months of the year.

But then the same would need to apply when the RWC is held in the NH.

Remeber the 1995 RWc was held dueirng the time you suggest, but schedules weren't as full as they are now.

biltongbek wrote:Now was that so difficult?

I wouldn't mind if there was a specific time of year, in this case, because it is our winter season which was traditionally always our rugby season before we started playing 10 months of the year.

But then the same would need to apply when the RWC is held in the NH.

Remeber the 1995 RWc was held dueirng the time you suggest, but schedules weren't as full as they are now.

Not a difficult question to answer if one knows what the question is.

As for the 10 months a year bit. I fully agree - in terms of player fatigue/injury, it's surprising that the top players last as long as they do.

With potentially 30% league time (depending on national performances) of NH clubs/sides exposed to RWC national duty and to injury dependent on game time exposure, it makes a lottery of a League.

And I'm not convinced it doesn't make a mockery of a system where the losers in the big two professional leagues in the NH where avoidance of relegation is paramount.blood flowing.

In the countries within which the financial and commercial blood keeps the oxygenated pumped.

As I've suggested before: the tail is potentially wagging the dog.

The 1987 tournament was held from late may to late June,the Northern hemisphere complained.

Sore losers, aren't they?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Sore losers, aren't they?

Which is a bit surprising given the amount of practice they've had

aucklandlaurie wrote: The 1987 tournament was held from late may to late June,the Northern hemisphere complained.

1987 would have been officially pre-professionalism.

Shamateurism was globally mixed.

But I recall the common comment that NZ were twenty years ahead of England.s the
I desperately want the ABs to win the RWC just to better represent their importance to World rugby.

When you look at the winners' list, it ain't representative.

Brazil's share of footy WCs if they had only won one or two.

Portnoy wrote:That doesn't matter Kiwi, its a SH RWC. The NH has to wear it by my definition.

What I'm suggesting is that the next RWC takes place squarely in the English off-season.

This year's RWC chomps up circa 30% of the NH domestic season.

When you say English ,do you mean British?Or stretching it a bit further,NH?

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Portnoy wrote:That doesn't matter Kiwi, its a SH RWC. The NH has to wear it by my definition.

What I'm suggesting is that the next RWC takes place squarely in the English off-season.

This year's RWC chomps up circa 30% of the NH domestic season.

When you say English ,do you mean British?Or stretching it a bit further,NH?

My OP specified home nation close season - because anomalies could arise like shared hosting - where Final host would take precedence.

The RWC is perceived to be the Premier event in world rugby Now.
Why devalue the 3Ns,Super rugby,or NH club events for it,MONEY thats why
It is up to the relative boards to sort out fixtures in a RWC year.BUT when you have the current "Mad Hatters Teaparty " at the RFU what can you expect?

Portnoy wrote:
I desperately want the AB's to win the RWC just to better represent their importance to World rugby.

When you look at the winners' list, it ain't representative.

Brazil's share of footy WC's if they had only won one or two.

So do we Portnoy, so do we. And its all our fault that the World cup is not part of our (recent) legacy.

And its worse, far worse than Brazil. They don't hold a near 85% win record against all comers- not even close- in fact I don't know a national team in any sport that does.

So 1 in 6 (16%) success rate at World cups is nothing short of embarrassing.

But we're hoping to rectify those numbers a little this time- just a little...

To be honest if WB was a football ref, Brazil's record might struggle similarly.