Richard Loe: Nice idea Aussies, but a World Series looks like a money-making exercise

There are some good points to the World Series of Rugby idea being floated by the Australians right now and, while I like the thinking, I would say the idea needs to be approached with some caution.

The Aussies are proposing a two-year series, where test matches played would earn points towards a World Series grand final, played at a neutral venue outside World Cup year and for a big cash prize.

Their argument is that too many test matches outside the Tri Nations and Six Nations are devalued these days, what with some Northern Hemisphere sides coming down to this part of the world with weakened sides because their best players are not included and vice versa when the southern sides go north.

It's a fair point and I'd concede that a four-year World Cup cycle is a long time. I mean, that's probably the length of career for many international players, so having the extra focus within that four years might be welcomed by some.

But I wonder about the effectiveness of the idea from the point of view of improving test rugby. You see, I don't think it would change much.

First point: The World Cup would still remain the major prize. If you accept that, then all other considerations become secondary. In other words, Graham Henry and Co have spent the last 12-18 months developing 30 test-capable All Blacks. Other countries are now following that lead, like the French and the South Africans.

In the All Black teams chosen over that period, there have been some players selected whom you'd call 'development' players.

Let's say the World Series of Rugby got off the ground. The All Blacks and other countries will still develop towards the World Cup, trying new players and combinations, resting key players and the like. I can't see that changing. So one of the key concepts behind the World Series may not be valid.

I'd also have to say that the Northern Hemisphere situation will not change. In other words, the clubs own the players now and they'd still own them whether or not there was a World Series. So availability would still be a problem - another key issue which might not be addressed.

Actually, I don't know that availability of players and selection of players other than the first XV is quite the issue it used to be. People have got used to 'development' teams and rotation and I think understand the pressures of professional rugby better these days - whether it be injuries, burnout, depth or club issues.

Perhaps we have come to like the continuing emergence of new players on the scene.

I think a lot of people, for example, took pleasure in the selection of Jason Eaton, of Taranaki, in the end-of-season All Black tour.

It gave everyone a real buzz when he did well. Not just as a justification of his selection but it was a bit like the 'bolter' syndrome from years gone by - a player plucked from nowhere by the selectors who does good. I reckon everyone enjoys that.

The other thing is that the Aussies have been a bit sparse with the details so we can't work out how the scoring system will work in the proposed World Series.

The points are gathered on a win/loss basis and, while that is fine, you can't help but feel that this will just end up being a benefit for the 'big' teams again, with the smaller rugby powers just making up the numbers.

Also, you wonder if there would be some acknowledgement built in for the upset win.

I mean, the All Blacks beating Tonga would not be worth as many points in my book if, for example, Tonga were to beat the All Blacks.

So, while it's a good thought I can't really see this World Series doing the job they say it will.

If I was being cynical, I'd say it was a chance for one of the big five - New Zealand, Australia, France, South Africa and England - to feather their nests some more.

Cast your minds back to the Lions tour. That was a full-strength tour (even if Sir Clive and his mates didn't always select the right guys) and it created huge interest here in New Zealand and Britain, just as Henry's Lions did when they went to Australia.

Maybe the answer is right in front of us - more Lions tours, more often and more Grand Slam tours by the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks.

-HERALD ON SUNDAY