One Venue for International Tests: Good or Bad

First topic message reminder :

So I was thinking: England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland each have a single stadium at which they play all their international tests (Whereas the SANZAR nations spread their test matches around several venues). Do you think this is a good thing or not? Venues like Twickenam, Murrayfield et al have built up quite a history but does this exclusive approach limit the spread of Rugby in those nations? Opinions please: as a Saffa I can only speculate, but I know I'd be pretty annoyed if all Bok matches were only played at, say, Newlands...

The home of rugbyis Loftus....no wait....Ellispark....no wait.......newlands....no wait... Kingspark....no wait



Agh, you pick.

mystiroakey wrote:I know What you were refering to. But i think them toliets were filled up with fans crapping there pants in prepartaion from the ribbing there were gonna get monday moring in there nice london offices and puking up with sickness after that result!!

I think you'll find we took that on the chin pretty well and even felt in a strange way more positive about our future given that loss than if we had won.

The Hillary Shield is in England's home but like Edmund Hillary, we'll claim it back not for the glory of Britain but for NZ!