Eng V NZ proposed November International

As much as I would love to see England take on the All Blacks, and whilst acknowledging that England's long unbeaten run is of course undermined by not playing the All Blacks in that time, I do think the RFU and the NZ governing boards are greedy grubby schmucks if they make this happen. Player welfare goes out the window, just because there is high box office demand. The England players will be knackered from the Lions tour and probably missing a few through injury.

This fixture should not happen.

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has confirmed it is looking into arranging an "out-of-window" match between England and New Zealand this year.

The top two sides in the world are not due to meet until the autumn of 2018.

However, the RFU are understood to be interested in a fixture between the two sides this November, despite the fact the fixture schedule has already been finalised.

England will play Argentina, Australia and Samoa in the international window.

The match could take place if various obstacles, such as the distribution of match-day revenues, can be overcome.

Meanwhile the All Blacks are pencilled in to face the Barbarians on 4 November.

"We are playing New Zealand in 2018," said an RFU spokesperson.

"If there is an opportunity for us to play NZ before then - ie this year - then we will pursue that opportunity."

Didn't see England trying to arrange extra matches against NZ a few years back when you were gash!

Griff wrote:Didn't see England trying to arrange extra matches against NZ a few years back when you were gash!

Who wants to see a thrashing?

It was a bit of banter, Huge. But in all seriousness I think you would easily sell out HQ for the all blacks even if you were rubbish. So I don't think the motivation for this will be the chance to make money. At least not from the RFU. Form wouldn't come into it, IMO.

No idea how the TV rights are done, but surely this fixture would command top dollar? I agree HQ would always be full for the All Blacks.

Ah, yes. I didn't consider tv. Yes, currently with the form of the two nations I think a lot more money would/could be on offer.

I'd love to see the two play this year, when both in form. Would be a great spectacle. Would a neutral venue be fairer though?!

I think it will all depend on how much the TV are will to spend.+  NZ will wan't at least half the money that England will get and with England not willing to agree with that  it will be a no starter.

It will also be against the RFU  rules of playing out side the Ai window. So as much as i would lke the see England play the All Blacks. I do not think it will be this year.

Dont think its a good idea for England actually.

It will be NZ at their peak performance coming off the RC and BC. It will also be England at their worst, their lions half crocked and still tired from only half a preseason and their non lions green from no games.  Forget ranking points.... a drilled NZ team would put an England team at 90% at best to the sword.

And then they have to give half their gate receipts because its outside of the AI window.

If Jones thinks it should go ahead then fine but he should have the final say and the 57 old fa**s should know their place. Player welfare should be paramount and if the RFU want to win the world cup then they should see this as their primary objective.

NZ are hardly at their peak in the AIs... 'tis the end of their season after all.

If that game was to happen it would be just another step towards boxing entertainment style with PPV channels and event managers all around.

whocares wrote:NZ are hardly at their peak in the AIs... 'tis the end of their season after all.

If that game was to happen it would be just another step towards boxing entertainment style with PPV channels and event managers all around.

They play their last RC in early Oct and a BC match in late Oct. The proposed date is the first week of Nov. It would be like England playing NZ in April.

Could perhaps schedule it instead of our last game in next years 6 Nations, as we are in a habit of winning a week early.

hugehandoff wrote:As much as I would love to see England take on the All Blacks, and whilst acknowledging that England's long unbeaten run is of course undermined by not playing the All Blacks in that time, I do think the RFU and the NZ governing boards are greedy grubby schmucks if they make this happen. Player welfare goes out the window, just because there is high box office demand. The England players will be knackered from the Lions tour and probably missing a few through injury.

No need to schedule a special additional match.  England will already have toured NZ with a few stragglers coming along.  I believe they are calling it a 'Lions' tour............

Fa ... it doesn't usually stop new Zealand and the other sanzars spanking the euros. Indeed it's usually the excuse.

In a Lions year though ... they will have been playing solid tests from July to December and possibly fitting in some super rugby around that.

It's hard to believe that player welfare is top of the agenda.

The Lions at least get a few weeks if they are from a rubbish club before the tour and all get a few after.
It's hard to believe PRL won't kick up a stink about this anyway ...as much as anything it's outside the window. They may have "the law" on their side but the RFU will play on popular opinion to force the game if it's economically advantageous.

And I guess in terms of continuing to build the profile and ride the wave of success ( disaster second saxons tour to Argentina ignored) of Team Engerland then it does make sense.

The timing though isn't quite right.

Can't they pay off Fiji or whatever losers they have that week to go play whoever the all blacks were supposed to face instead?

I would say that NZ will only play England if there's a substantial profit sharing from the game. Only because the additional cash could be used to retain players.

There is a question of burn out. My understanding is that an additional week is effectively a straw that breaks the camels back. Especially with a long Lions season this year. Historically, most teams struggle at the last game of the season, it's true for the AB's as well.

This year will see a turn over in players. It's a Lions tour year. It only comes once evry 12 years and once in a career opportunity for most players (Players like Cullen, Lomu and Wilson never played the Lions). There's a number of players who will leave following the June internationals, and there's aneed to develop younger players (a Barbarians is better for this).

Cash is an issue. Historically money earnt from the game goes to the home union. Under professionalism a portion goes back to the clubs and allows them to increase their offers to foreign players. NZ is hemorrhaging players to rugby league (under 18 level) and foreign rugby clubs. I think it's coming to the point where sustainability is becoming an issue. that would be the only reason I can see the NZRU agreeing to play. But the price would have to be substantial.

I agree with the bulk of what you say GG
Only real point to make is that there was an All Blacks game schedued that day anyway, so the impactotal isn't that big. Admittedly the barbarians would've allowed more experimentation and been less intense...but they can manage that by resting players for some of the lower key autumn tests.
I guess it's worth pointing out that the 4 nations isn't shaping up to be too competitive for them either this year.
All the same it's a ridiculous schedule but does give you ample opportunity to get your excuses in early.

Griff wrote:Didn't see England trying to arrange extra matches against NZ a few years back when you were gash!

We've played them 11 times in the last 10 years to be fair.

I'd rather we didn't play them this time around. First up in the autumn after the Lions tour doesn't seem like ideal preparation. Supposedly this is about building for the 2019 WC so I'm happy with playing them in 2018. Although it has to be said I don't know when that fixture falls, so that could well be first up too!

cascough wrote:

Griff wrote:Didn't see England trying to arrange extra matches against NZ a few years back when you were gash!

We've played them 11 times in the last 10 years to be fair.

In fact, we've only ever played the All Blacks 40 times over 112 years, so playing 11 times over the last 10, is a supercharged schedule by past standards.

Gooseberry wrote:I agree with the bulk of what you say GG
Only real point to make is that there was an All Blacks game schedued that day anyway, so the impactotal isn't that big. Admittedly the barbarians would've allowed more experimentation and been less intense...but they can manage that by resting players for some of the lower key autumn tests.
I guess it's worth pointing out that the 4 nations isn't shaping up to be too competitive for them either this year.
All the same it's a ridiculous schedule but does give you ample opportunity to get your excuses in early.

Generally speaking most of the first string side could expect to have the last week off and relax going into the barbarians game. IMO the AB's often have a hierarchy of games on the end of year tours. There's always the tension between winning and developing players and the team. They include full strength teams (e.g. generally, England, France and sometimes Ireland and Wales), half to near full strength Scotland and Italy and often Wales and Ireland. They also play largely a game against a second string side, e.g. clubs, 2nd tier nations or the barbarians. We've only played the Barbarians twice in the professional era. Both times they were largely second string sides (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/4068919.stm and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/6735752/Barbarians-25-New-Zealand-18-match-report.html).

I can wait, the All Blacks are overrated anyway.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:I agree with the bulk of what you say GG
Only real point to make is that there was an All Blacks game schedued that day anyway, so the impactotal isn't that big. Admittedly the barbarians would've allowed more experimentation and been less intense...but they can manage that by resting players for some of the lower key autumn tests.
I guess it's worth pointing out that the 4 nations isn't shaping up to be too competitive for them either this year.
All the same it's a ridiculous schedule but does give you ample opportunity to get your excuses in early.

Generally speaking most of the first string side could expect to have the last week off and relax going into the barbarians game. IMO the AB's often have a hierarchy of games on the end of year tours. There's always the tension between winning and developing players and the team. They include full strength teams (e.g. generally, England, France and sometimes Ireland and Wales), half to near full strength Scotland and Italy and often Wales and Ireland. They also play largely a game against a second string side, e.g. clubs, 2nd tier nations or the barbarians. We've only played the Barbarians twice in the professional era. Both times they were largely second string sides (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/4068919.stm and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/6735752/Barbarians-25-New-Zealand-18-match-report.html).

Yeah I understand that, what the England fixture would do is change the heirachy... the second string players would have to get their run outs elsewhere.
This year youve got Scotland France and Wales which gives you two other opportunities to put out a "squad" side against what amounts to Tier Two opposition.

Its doable, but Im not convinced its a great idea all the same. I suspect the biggest challenge will come from PRL waving the player welfare and compensation flags.

This whole suggestion just irritates me immensely. Why when Eddie Jones has already said he may rest players during the autumn after a Lions tour, are the RFU trying to organise an additional test?? I can only assume with an eye on the commercial potential, with two fingers shown to player welfare (unless they are planning to con the TV companies and fans and bill it as a big game to rake the money in then send out the seconds). It should be a non-starter and I hope Eddie and PRL tell them where to shove it.

Thought George North set a precedent for out of window games then getting sanctioned. Would Northampton get a refund if the RFU drive a coach and horses through the regs?

No, because the RFU would need to agree it with PRL or it won't happen, but in North's case it wasn't agreed with PRL. As much as I might dislike PRLs rules in many cases, Northampton aren't just signed up but they are part of the collective that decides what those rules are going to be - so if they have a seat at the table when deciding that player release can only be done outside international windows with agreement from PRL then they don't really have any excuse for not following that rule.

I'd have thought England would be too busy congratulating themselves to fit in the World Champions?

Maybe they should do a deal to take Wales' fixture against England in next year's 6 nations. There's not much point in playing Wales when they win every year, the all blacks would be far more interesting for the neutrals.

30-3! Say no more. Say no more!

Gooseberry wrote:Maybe they should do a deal to take Wales' fixture against England in next year's 6 nations.  There's not much point in playing Wales when they win every year, the all blacks would be far more interesting for the neutrals.  

Given the record between the two teams that's the shi**est WUM I've ever read. If you had said Italy or Scotland you would have had a point. Ah well, you don't watch much rugby I get it. Needless to say I'm looking forward to the idea of an Eng Vs NZ fixture - but it's one I expect NZ to win now that England have made it a big event and the All Blacks always rise to those occasions.

Gooseberry wrote:Maybe they should do a deal to take Wales' fixture against England in next year's 6 nations.  There's not much point in playing Wales when they win every year, the all blacks would be far more interesting for the neutrals.  

Someone has only started watching rugby over the last few years

30 -3…has there ever been a bigger margin…I recall that game as like watching Wales playing a bad pub side.

Gwlad wrote:30 -3…has there ever been a bigger margin…I recall that game as like watching Wales playing a bad pub side.

It is good that you have such a long memory.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Gwlad wrote:30 -3…has there ever been a bigger margin…I recall that game as like watching Wales playing a bad pub side.

It is good that you have such a long memory.

Likewise the Scots, 1999 was it?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Maybe they should do a deal to take Wales' fixture against England in next year's 6 nations.  There's not much point in playing Wales when they win every year, the all blacks would be far more interesting for the neutrals.  

Given the record between the two teams that's the shi**est WUM I've ever read. If you had said Italy or Scotland you would have had a point. Ah well, you don't watch much rugby I get it. Needless to say I'm looking forward to the idea of an Eng Vs NZ fixture - but it's one I expect NZ to win now that England have made it a big event and the All Blacks always rise to those occasions.

Where's that catching the fish emoji...

Next thing you know one of them will ask what updog is

yappysnap wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Maybe they should do a deal to take Wales' fixture against England in next year's 6 nations.  There's not much point in playing Wales when they win every year, the all blacks would be far more interesting for the neutrals.  

Given the record between the two teams that's the shi**est WUM I've ever read. If you had said Italy or Scotland you would have had a point. Ah well, you don't watch much rugby I get it. Needless to say I'm looking forward to the idea of an Eng Vs NZ fixture - but it's one I expect NZ to win now that England have made it a big event and the All Blacks always rise to those occasions.

Where's that catching the fish emoji...

Oh great yer come the prawn sandwich and champers brigade . No fish here, fam, as I merely stated what I thought of the 'comment'. My reasoning was fair and accurate so if you struggle with comprehension then that's your problem.

All Blacks will hammer the English whose own hubris is back in top form….unless they are sick and Tuiagi is playing. That simple.

I suppose that the Lions could just pitch up with an England side on a Saturday during the tour(?).

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I suppose that the Lions could just pitch up with an England side on a Saturday during the tour(?).

They tried that in 2005, didn't go so well. Can't see Gatland being so naive as Sir Power of Four.

"An English newspaper is claiming that England RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie is threatening to veto the All Blacks and Barbarians match at Twickenham in November"

Crikey, if this is true it's a bit petty isn't it? Talk about throwing ones toys out of the pram.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11820978

Depends if the bit about Australia is true in with it. Certainly seems like the rfu want the NZ game to go ahead which would normally give NZ a bit more power to demand the extra cash.

Outside of a pure cash play, I see no benefit to this match.

doctor_grey wrote:Outside of a pure cash play, I see no benefit to this match.  

 $5m NZD isnt much.

Gwlad wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I suppose that the Lions could just pitch up with an England side on a Saturday during the tour(?).

They tried that in 2005, didn't go so well. Can't see Gatland being so naive as Sir Power of Four.

Really ? Which match was that ?

At last England get the reality check they needed. Not quite the side they think they are.

Gwlad wrote:At last England get the reality check they needed. Not quite the side they think they are.

Could be worse we could have finished 5th.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:At last England get the reality check they needed. Not quite the side they think they are.

Could be worse we could have finished 5th.

I'll settle for beating the team that just beat England who choked on the big day.

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:At last England get the reality check they needed. Not quite the side they think they are.

Could be worse we could have finished 5th.

I'll settle for beating the team that just beat England who choked on the big day.

Ahh bless, isn't it cute that you have to vicariously enjoy others success.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:At last England get the reality check they needed. Not quite the side they think they are.

Could be worse we could have finished 5th.

I'll settle for beating the team that just beat England who choked on the big day.

Ahh bless, isn't it cute that you have to vicariously enjoy others success.

Unless you're actually playing for England that is exactly what you're doing fella.

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:At last England get the reality check they needed. Not quite the side they think they are.

Could be worse we could have finished 5th.

I'll settle for beating the team that just beat England who choked on the big day.

Did you beat them by yourself ?

The French are getting in on the act

https://www.midi-olympique.fr/article/29247-xv-france-double-ration-blacks-en-novembre

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11831424

Ridiculous proposal. Playing each other twice in the space of four days?

This is jut about the worst way to go about restructuring the Rugby season. If the NH teams want the November Internationals to include two or more Tests against a certain team- basically making it a mini series- that needs to be something that is bought into by everyone, and not just the welathiest NH nations trying to organise another guaranteed money spinner against the All Blacks when they finally think their side is capable of giving them a game.

As it is, I don't see hy you'd want to change the current model, in that the 6N teams typically play the SANZAR nations once, and then possibly another from the Pacific Islands, North American, Eastern Europe, Japan, or Argentina etc. It's great not having to wait years to All Blacks and Springboks come to town.

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but what is the point in this manouvering by the RFU and FFR? Is it purely for the money the All Blacks would bring? Or am I missing something?