Tri-Nations should be scrapped in a World Cup year

As we approach the first Tri-Nations Test of 2011, there is a nagging feeling moving beneath the media hype surrounding Saturday’s clash between South Africa and Australia in Sydney. While any match-up between the Wallabies and the Springboks is always worth a gander, it is almost as if this is merely the first step to a much more important event that lies ahead. That important event, as we have been incessantly told by all and sundry, is the World Cup. And this year that is all that really matters.

But here we are, readying ourselves for the 16th edition of a competition that began way back in 1996 on the back of rugby turning professional after South Africa’s triumph at the 1995 World Cup. The advent of the tournament was the death knell to tours between the Sanzar partners, with an extended series being replaced by a round robin format that sees Australia, South Africa and New Zealand face each other every year.

There have been some thrilling Tests between the Sanzar nations since then, but whenever the World Cup rolls round, the Tri-Nations appears to be more of a nuisance or laboratory than a priority for the respective teams. Such an attitude is obvious, since who will care if, for example, the All Blacks win the Tri-Nations but don’t secure World Cup glory?

Peter de Villiers decision — as has been said in a previous post on this platform — to bring a rather green side to Australia is based solely on preparing for the World Cup. After watching Samoa smash Australia in Sydney (a rather fun match to watch for non-Australians), his decision has been vindicated. Samoa are going to pose a serious physical challenge in New Zealand, as are Fiji who take on the All Blacks on Friday. Having his players physically ready is of the utmost importance for the World Cup, as is allowing the next layer of players to scrap it out for the remaining World Cup squad places. The Springbok team for Sydney might not necessarily be at its strongest, but expect a committed and lively performance and who knows, maybe an upset?

Saturday’s Test aside, if Sanzar (and Argentina, whose inclusion in the tournament next year will morph it into the Four Nations) were clever about ensuring the viability of their annual cash cow would cancel it every World Cup year. The actual chances of this happening any time soon are non-existent, since the bottom line is far more important in the union’s eyes than the actual merit of the tournament itself but there is method in what they would see as madness.

If the Tri-Nations were skipped every World Cup year, it would make the competition more prestigious since as basic economics dictates, if there is less of X available, its value rises accordingly. Added to this, the quality of the three years the Four Nations does take place would be improved overall since fans and administrators wouldn’t have to deal with the nasty complication of preparing for a World Cup every four years. The fact the World Cup only takes place every four years is an example of making prestige work for the organisers. Players and coaches would be more enthusiastic about winning a tournament that they can’t win every year, versus the current situation where a bad season can just be scratched off in preparation for the next.

As such, Sanzar and the Argentina Rugby Union would be able to market the tournament to broadcasters in that vain, and while they could possibly lose some money in the short term, long term losses wouldn’t be as dramatic with the right deal penned. Maybe an improved offer is even possible.

A gap in the international calendar in a World Cup year would also give players more time to recover from the Super 15, which as we have seen this year, has increased injury rates across all the franchises dramatically. Fitter players mean better rugby which translates into a better product that can be sold to the rugby public and the suits that live in the corporate world.

Test matches between the All Blacks, Wallabies and the Springboks before the Tri-Nations arrived were more special then they are now because the public and the players didn’t have the opportunity to face their rivals every year. Now, with the Super 15 and the Tri-Nations, we are digesting a Sanzar rugby diet continuously, with the British Lions tours a wanted change of scenery every four years. The Lions tours are also an example of what can be achieved if all involved are willing to wait for the rose to reach full bloom.

The current dispensation won’t change any time soon, but wouldn’t it be a pleasant change to see rugby bosses on both sides of the Indian Ocean thinking out the box? More is not necessarily better and less is often more.