Comments on: Tri-Nations v. Six Nations: Where Does Argentina Fit?

By: Vic Drover

Vic Drover — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:22:00 +0000

ya, it does seem like a belated answer to the 5-6 Nations expansion.

By: Josh Houston

Josh Houston — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:46:29 +0000

This doesn’t make any sense. Argentina is going to get
murdered by RSA, NZ, and AUS. Just look at how Argentina fared in
the fall test matches this past year. They may have made some
noise in the RWC 2007, but that seems like ages ago. Argentina in
an expanded “7 Nations” tournament makes much more sense given
that’s where most, if not all of their key players play their
domestic rugby. This is a money move, nothing more. Probably a
desperate reach to make the Tri-Nations more interesting too.

By: Vic Drover

Vic Drover — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:17:10 +0000

Looks like I'll be able to see New Zealand in Buenos Aires pretty soon.

By: Dan D

Dan D — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:02:00 +0000

Argentina can definatley compete with any side in the world, they beat France twice in their own world cup, they bottled it against South Africa, but if they played in the tri nations they would soon fit in very comfortabley and i’m sure have the quality to win it.

By: Josh Houston

Josh Houston — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:55:59 +0000

Yeah I just read that. Better for them. They all play in Europe and they have a very realistic shot to win. Plus some good matchups between Argentina, France, Ireland and Scotland. You know France wants pay back and I’m sure Ireland and Scotland would like another crack at them.

By: Vic

Vic — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:43:59 +0000

Looks like it's the 6 Nations for now.

By: Omar

Omar — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:17:53 +0000

Yes Josh, spot on. If these smaller rugby nations are ever to mount a serious challenge then we need to strengthen now. It will take much time and effort and we probably wouldn’t see solid results until the 2015 World Cup, but we need to get the ball roling now. The great thing about world rugby is that every nation has their own unique style of play which has served a tradition, like South Africa with their power, the French with their unpredictability, the Welsh with their flair and so on. The Pacific Islanders played some superb rugby, but lacked both the fitness and experience to take them further than Fiji’s last 8 showing. Argentina were the closest, but despite their brave efforts, it was quite evident that they just lacked that experience and edge which they could have gained from regular competitive matches prior to the world cup.

The gap is big, but 10 years ago it was bigger. The next 10 years will be critical in the development of rugby – how much longer will it be before we can finally go into a world cup without predicting the same 2 or 3 winners? Let’s see.

By: Josh Houston

Josh Houston — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:13:30 +0000

I agree with you Omar that the goal should be to make the World Cup more competetive. Both the 6 Nations and Tri Nations should be opened up to other teams so that teams like Fiji, Somoa, Tonga, Portugal, Romania and Georgia will become better through fierce competition with better rugby nations.

This way in the 2011 World Cup yu won’t have one “pool of death” where there are 3 very good teams in one pool and only 2 in the other 3. I’m all for competition and I love seeing small nations like the ones above grow into contenders. After a boring WC final, I think we need more competition. I thought the Pacific Island nations played some of the most exciting matches in the pool stages.

By: Omar

Omar — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:04:57 +0000

Hmm, interesting points you make there Gabby, however, I don’t think that mini tours and stand-alone games will be enough to keep the Argentines satisfied. I think they deserve to be as part of a major tournement as a mark of respect for a nation that has come such a long way. They may have the ability to beat France, Australia and England in one off games, but Argentina want to be at a level where they are competing with these teams consistantly year after year. Look at how Italy have progressed – quite something really, considering they were the whipping boys just 5 years ago, now they pose a real threat to whoever they meet. If we want to grow rugby as a global game, then surely my suggestion of the 7 Nations and a newly formed European cup makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? European teams have the interest, they just need the competition – the pacific Islands have the will, but they don’t get supplied with the opposition on a regular basis, meaning that these ‘minnows’ of world rugby are in for a shock every 4 years, and to be honest, it’s not fun seeing NZ beat Portugal by over 100 points – this isn’t cricket. Imagine if Tonga, Samoa, Argentina and Fiji were on a closer level to the ‘big three’ of the south. And also imagine if nations such as Georgia, Portugal and Romania were on a similar par to Wales and Scotland. The Rugby World cup would be a real spectacle, harder to predict and more competitive. The only teams that were capable of winning the 2007 world cup were NZ (who choked, AGAIN), France (only because they were the hosts) and SA, who peaked perfectly in time. The Soccer world cup has 10 different teams that are capable of winning it every 4 years – why? because it’s global.

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:49:26 +0000

The strange thing is, Argentina seem to have improved without the need to compete in one of these tounaments. And when you see the lack of quality play involved in both hemispheres supposed top competitions, you wonder what kind of effect they have on the gameplay itself. Having stand-alone games and mini tours seems to be doing ok by the Pumas, so maybe there is something that everyone – and most notably the IRB – is missing…