Argentina shocked the world when they defeated France at their home stadium in the ceremonial opener, then cruised on to handily defeat Namibia and Georgia and then showing Ireland the door. Argentina has been on a role before the World Cup began and they have been a good team for several years now. Their biggest problem in terms of being mentioned in the world’s elite is that there is little competition for them in the southern hemisphere and certainly even less in North America. Argentina has been making a case publicly for their inclusion in the world stage, that being the Six Nations Tournament which includes, Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, Italy, France and the Tri-Nations Tournament which includes New Zealand, Australlia and South Africa. Felipe Contempomi, one of Argentina’s standout players has suggested that the Six Nations would be good for the short term, but that the Tr-Nations is where they belong.

Contempomi seemed to suggest that the Tri-Nations would suit them better because they are in the southern hemisphere along with the other Tri-Nations teams. But at the same time, many of their players play their club rugby in Europe.

In my opinion, I think the Tr-Nations would be too much for them to handle and that the Six Nations would be a better fit. One could argue that Argentina’s defeat at the hands of the Springboks showed they are not ready for the Tri-Nations. Or maybe fatigue and pressure just got to them. Judging from the actual match, I think they were simply out-played and over their heads. Argentina barely escaped defeat from Scotland in the quarterfinals, a match I personaly believe Scotland lost rather than Argentina won. But then again Argentina did defeat France and Ireland giving them three wins out of six of the Six Nations teams. Contempomi believes the Tri-Nations will help Argentina rugby grow, but are they really ready to compete with the three powerhouses of the world? I think not.

The Tri-Nations would be too big of step for Argentina to make and I think would only discourage them in their quest for international recognition. The Six Nations would be a much better fit for them, a tournament they can actually compete in. Perhaps if the Tri-Nations also allowed Fiji and Tonga to compete it would be better and also make for a more interesting tournament. It seems most people in New Zealand believe Argentina can compete, or is it that they just want another team to liven things up?

It’s my opinion based on what I’ve read that there are alterior motives in allowing Argentina into the Tri-Nations. Things like TV contracts, money and fans simply wanting more teams seem to be of more importance rather than competition and the fostering of an up and coming nation. Argentina has proven they can compete with the best in Europe and unless the Tri-Nations expands beyond just including Argentina in the tournament, the Six Nations would be a much better fit.

As I noted previously

Of course, with two Wallabies having the combined test match experience of the entire South African team, it is not surprising that cool heads prevailed. With tries before and after half-time, Australia brought the score-line level. A South African professional foul gave the home side a 1-man advantage and their opponents quickly took the lead and eventually the match, 25-17.

Despite the win, Australia again showed their major weaknesses: lack of focus early in the match and an underpowered scrum. Both of these deficiencies require solid solutions if the Wallabies are to have any chance at hoisting the Web Ellis Cup at RWC 2007.

In addition, an 8-point margin over the Springbok so-called ‘second-string’ line is hardly anything to get excited about and is a testament to the depth of the rugby program in South Africa. If you remember that post-apartheid South Africa came out of almost 30 years of international sporting isolation to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the depth of the their rugby program doesn’t actually seem that surprising.

New Zealand, the other member of SANZAR (the partnership body of the South African Rugby Union, the New Zealand Rugby Football Union and the Australian Rugby Union which jointly owns the rights to the Super 14 and Tri Nations) have joined Australia in their demand for an explanation and, presumably, a change in the roster. New Zealand Rugby Union chairman Jock Hobbs summed up their position very clearly.

“We’re talking about the integrity and meaningfulness of international rugby. It’s critical; it’s the very heart and soul of our game…”

Now, from a player’s perspective, I think we can all empathize with the disappointment of being sent a second-string side. However, in the grand scheme of things, Australia and all the other Tier 1 and Tier 2 national rugby teams have had this coming and you know what they say, ‘What goes around comes around’.

If you’re new to international rugby, I should first say that Tier 1 teams are essentially New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. Occasionally you might consider England and/or France in Tier 1. Historically however, the UK teams and France have been Tier 2…’the best of the Northern hemisphere’ as it were. Tier 3 teams and below usually fill out the world rankings outside the top 10 on the planet.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 unions have been sending second-string development teams to the rugby paupers of the world for years. For instance, those of us living in the New World are well used to seeing domestic advertisements for USA v. England ‘A’, Canada v. Australia ‘Gold’ or some other such non-sense to vaguely indicate that the players we see on Setanta would not be appearing at out local venue…we would only be seeing the understudies.

Just a few weeks ago Australia had planned to rest their most influential players for a pre-Tri-Nations clash with Fiji (ironically, this was in preparation for the first Tri-Nations clash with South Africa on June 16, 2007; the July 7 match will be the second test between Australia and South Africa in the championship). For the 2006 Fall tours, veteran Australian captain and scrum-half George Greegan decided to take a rest to prepare for the 2007 World Cup which was at the time 10 months away.

Tier 2 teams are also engaging in such low class tactics, but not just with Tier 3 teams. In the 2007 Spring tours, England, France and Wales all sent under-powered teams to the Southern Hemisphere. Surprising how there was barley any complaint from SANZAR.

Even in domestic SANZAR competition, this concept of resting the stars prior to the World Cup is pervasive with Australia being very vocal about sitting Greegan and other stars such as Lote Tuqiri, Stirling Mortlock and Stephen Larkham.

So, my advice to the SANZAR unions and to all rugby nations is as follows:

1. Put up or shut up. If you send under-powered teams overseas or anywhere, expect the same in kind. I would appreciate quiet acceptance of such insult. Take all the test caps and put them on your mantle and be happy.

2. Show your might, always. If you are the best rugby nation, I expect you to showcase it at the highest level at every opportunity. Sending an underpowered team insults the host union and does nothing to promote the sport in the host country. This is particularly true in Tier 3 nations where rugby is not usually listed on the evening sports shows or in the newspapers as other sports are much more popular. Thus, the primary draw for the match will be the chance to see the best players on the planet (not the U23 players you are grooming for stardom 5 years from now).

While the Tier 3 team may not appreciate getting walloped, in the long run you are doing more to promote the sport. If you send your best and crush the opposition, the defeated team has a realistic view of where they are on the oval planet. However, a narrow loss to your ‘second XV’ sends the message that the status quo in the Tier 3 team is ‘almost good enough’. I’ve watched the rugby chiefs in Canada and the USA pride themselves on such small victories and all it does is breed complacency.

So don’t be polite, don’t send a development squad. If you truly want this glorious sport to be developed around the planet, bring your full game every time and pretty soon the tide of rugby power will spread more evenly across all the rugby nations. Like I said earlier, ‘What goes around comes around’.