Article & Journal Resources

By MARC HINTON - RugbyHeaven

Much ado about nothing. That might be the cynical view to take of the IRB's heavily-trumpeted conference in Woking that attracted a who's who of the game's stakeholders.

While the IRB must be applauded (now there's a statement I never thought I'd make) for the initiative shown in addressing such an urgent issue, and for the commitment of spending so much of their hard-earned World Cup profits on such a comprehensive gathering, it's hard to shake the feeling that for all the talking, we're really none the better off.

Really, what's changed?

There is a commitment to get something up and running in Argentina so as they might one day be in a position to join the Tri-Nations. All very well and good, but given that the Argies have first to establish a fully-fledged professional domestic competition and persuade the 100% of their leading players who currently ply their trade in the north that it's worth turning down all those Euros and sterling to stay local, nothing is going to happen.

We may well see George Bush and Osama Bin Laden sit down for coffee together before that happens.

There's also been a pledge from the leading club competitions in France and England to finish their seasons by May 31 so as players can be available for the June tours to the southern hemisphere. Big deal. That's still not going to fully address the key issue of under-strength touring outfits effectively cheapening test match rugby.

Players are still going to be injured and tired at the end of their impossibly long seasons, and this premium test window is still going to be viewed as an opportunity by the sides in the north to rest key players rather than run them into the ground.

There's also the so-called agreement on a 10-week "off-season" for players. Yippee. We've actually had that in New Zealand since the new Collective Bargaining Agreement was introduced.

Otherwise? Sweet flippin' all, despite the acolytes returning with swashbuckling declarations of "robust" debate, "significant" progress and "recognition" of the game's key issues. It's amazing what a business class flight, a nice set of digs and a few free beers can achieve in terms of unbridled enthusiasm.

Essentially international rugby post the Great IRB Forum of '07 is exactly the same as international rugby prior to it. Thanks for nothing, guys.

There will still be a month of rather meaningless internationals in June between sub-par northern outfits and sub-interested southern ones, and another three or four weeks of vice-versa in November.

There's a vague intent that something should really be instituted to give all these matches some validity, but nothing more than that. And the forecast for change is not exactly brimming with prospect.

Still, we shouldn't really be surprised.

Once again it's a case of northern might winning the day. They're quite happy up in their part of the world, thank-you very much. The Six Nations is going gangbusters, their club competitions are growing into a major concern and they positively coin it anyway in November when we bring our attractive sides north, so why change?

As for June? It's an obligation for them, nothing more. A quid-pro-quo to enable them to fill their stadiums, and coffers, in November.

It was the south that wanted to push all inter-hemisphere rugby into a September-November time-frame, but it was a fanciful hope, with so much compromise required by the north that it was never going to happen.

Chopping and changing between competitions is an ingrained part of northern hemisphere rugby. In fact they thrive on it. Six Nations one weekend, Heineken Cup the next, Guinness Premiership the one after. And if we're lucky the Anglo-Welsh Cup the one after that.

Streamlining the season into a sensible flow from one competition to another was something that appealed greatly to southern hemisphere unions, but sadly not to the north. Nor to the "economic" people who, if you read the reports submitted to the forum, cautioned greatly against tinkering with established playing patterns.

All in all it's a bit disappointing for someone hoping that test rugby might have gotten the shakeup it appears to be desperately in need of.

But don't take my word for it. This is the view of Tony Dempsey who's head of the Australian players' association.

"We were hoping for something far more substantial," Dempsey told The Australian newspaper. He called the forum a "talkfest" from which Australian rugby "do not derive any comfort".

But he wasn't finished there, describing the decision to leave test rugby as the piecemeal status quo it is as "like saying there is no need to worry about global warming".

He added: "This was a rare opportunity to do something substantial and meaningful that would bring some clarity to the convoluted global season. Instead we have just got more of the same."

He's right. But it's hard to see what can be done, despite the good intentions of the IRB. They can't force change; only encourage it.

Right now the north holds all the cards. And that's a worrying thing for test match rugby.