Would you like to see the fixture go ahead?

This debate is now closed.

A north-south clash has been set up by the International Rugby Board for 30 November with the aim to raise money for developing rugby countries.

But Farr-Jones believes the rugby calendar is already too congested and that players should concentrate on internationals rather than "this meaningless clash".

Premier Rugby, which represent England's 12 top-flight clubs, has already refused to release any Premiership players for the match, while the International Rugby Players Association is also against the fixture.

If combined Great Britain (with the help of the Irish) cannot beat Australia alone, how can anyone expect that the addition of a few (even several) Frenchmen would enable Europe to beat Australia, plus NZ, plus RSA. Get real. The proposal is a farce.
Biffo, Australia

The arrogance of Mr Pollendine and Bob - I well remember the same arrogance from Wales in the 70s as well. England have yet to complete a Grand Slam over these minnow countries they so quickly dimiss as having no place at the 'big table'.

As for the north-South game, I would like to see it take place, but only as a part of structured season.
Japro, IoM

Sorry Mr Farr-Jones, but personally I don't feel that this proposed match is pointless. It would be a fantastic spectacle for any keen rugby fan, and I for one wouldn't mind actually seeing this game take place.

Saying that, player burn-out is pretty high on national coaches' agendas at the moment I presume and therefore, I wouldn't expect to see the world's leading stars take part in the game.

Also, since the northern and southern hemisphere countries play at different times during the year, actually setting a date when all countries would agree would be awkward to say the least. Conclusion: I can't see this game happening at all.
Pete, Wales

It is sad to see such a good cause subjected to such poor organisation. As a Premiership season ticket-holder, it is galling enough to lose players to England's friendlies. To lose them to this is too much. We pay good cash to watch the top players play for our clubs.

On another subject. The season is now four matches old and no sight of Rugby Special. WHY NOT.
Tim, England

Just a quick question.....are the South African and Australian supporters who are predicting a southern hemisphere blow-out (not that the game will happen anyway), supporters of the same South Africa and Australia that between them haven't beaten England at all in their past, what, five? six? attempts?
Paul, England

It's not a mouth-watering prospect at all really, north v south doesn't really mean anything to me, I'd rather see a match between the Premiership Champions (of course thanks to this stupid play-off idea they might not be the same team who win the Premiership!) and the Super12 Champions.

The only good idea is raising money for the other nations. Though I totally agree with John from Leamington Spa regarding that!
Charlotte, England

Any chance to see two top teams playing against each other is wonderful. I am sure the players can manage with an extra tournament. Are they not near-perfectly trained sportsmen?

As an U-20, some players can play anything up to 40 or 50 matches a season for club, county and university, plus study. I am sure they can manage.
Martin Ampomah, UK

Even though the English and French (who would comprise all but two of the team) would run rings round the dull southern hemisphere trio, it would be a pointless exercise.

If there was a global rugby calendar, it would work. At the moment one of the two would always complain of being tired at the end of the season, as Australia do every time England beat them in the November test.

Although plenty of countries stretch into both hemispheres, including those who may benefit, like Brazil and Papua New Guinea. For the principal nations, the divide is significant, but for those in Africa and South America the hemisphere divide is largely irrelevant.
Mark, England

Considering that the players' unions of England and NZ have branded the match an unnecessary addition to a packed fixture list and refused to release players, it's going to be a farce.

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, Australia and SA probably also have packed weekends of rugby then as well. It will end up being Romania v Tonga (which would probably be a cracking match!)

Also, it's not really a match that the supporters can get fired up about either. Are you going to stand and chant "Come on northern hemisphere"? A far better proposition would be to have a charity match between the British Lions and the Barbarians immediately before each Lions series, at Twickenham or the Millennium Stadium.

It would give the Lions a chance to gel, the fans who can't afford to go to NZ a chance to see the Lions, and a game of rugby that would be meaningful and exciting.
Ben, UK

Mike Miller the head of the IRB was quoted as saying that that "there is tremendous support for the game". Er, hello, earth to Mike. None of the fans I know are interested in this game.

The game has been poorly oragnised. How could you schedule the game on the same day as a full Premiership program, after three consecutive international weekends?? Did you really expect the clubs to release their top players?? This is exactly the sort of fixture we need to cut out. The IRB has shown how out of touch it really is.
JM, UK

I tend to agree on congestion grounds, though the aim of injecting funds into emerging nations is a good one. Surely the way forward would be to play these teams once in a while! I can't remember when any of the home nations played Fiji, Samoa or Spain other than in World Cup fixtures.

Room should be made in the autumn internationals for one match against emerging countries. If they were guaranteed regular games against the world's top nations and some funds from it, we would not be resorting to these charity matches.

We should tour in these countries, maybe not as a full international side but certainly as emerging England, where are younger players might learn the habit of winning away from home as well as at Twickenham.
Ham, England

The concept is admirable, but in practice it is a ridiculous idea. There is too much rugby already and this match between two 'thrown together' teams will do nothing to excite rugby fans.

There will be some great players on view, for sure, but they will be playing with people they don't know. I do not blame the Premiership clubs for pulling their players. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose (i.e. injured players). Is this really going to competitive???
Mike, UK

It's all about sacrifice. I see the need to raise funds for developing rugger countries. If it comes through a sacrifice in this nature it will mean a lot.

I am not happy with the competition that exists in the world today. Get over it and spread the game globally. It will be much better for the sport in the long run. I want to see a bigger World Cup and stronger developing nations.
Raphael, USA

Maybe I am mistaken, but doesn't something similar take place every four years when the Lions tour? I seem to remember the last one in Australia. If that was the best a four-nation northern hemisphere side could do against one southern hemisphere side, then really a north vs south match is really a waste of time.
Paul, Australia

I fully agree with Nick Farr-Jones as it appears that the match has been organised by the media long ago. The continual comparison of the Tri-nations and Five Nations was always going to lead us to this senseless match. Please scrap it and let the next World Cup decide the results of the proposed match.
Mbulelo, South Africa

Farr-Jones? More like Farr-out! In my opinion, it is inevitable that a north-south series will be eventually be instigated, the Six Nations is already devalued as a tournament and England need constant high class opposition. Australia and New Zealand provide that, and to a lesser extent so do SA.

Set up a north-south Five/Six Nations, with England, France, Aus, NZ, SA. It is in the best interests of the game. Also, how about this being open to both codes, so that some of the promising RL players get a chance.
Bruce Pollendine, UK

What a pointless waste of time to force players who are already saturated with games to play this "spectacle". I suppose the biggest winners will be the IRB, who clearly put pounds ahead of players. Don't want it, don't need it, don't do it.
Paul Hodgson, UK

As much as I hate to say this, I actually agree with the Australian on this! If players and their coaches are boycotting the fixture, coupled with the obvious lack of enthusiasm, what possible value does the game bring.

I would like to see something more sensible to raise money, such as percentages of ticket sales for certain internationals to go to charity. Just look at the success of the Saracens community fundraising projects.

I wonder how many of the members of various boards actually sanctioning this game were around in the amateur days...the smell of 'old farts' again I think....
Mark, Italy

The aims of generating more money for the poorer rugby playing nations are laudable. I also think the game would generate a great deal of interest if all countries supported it.

As an Englishman, it would be great to finally counter the arrogance of the southern hemisphere big three, albeit with the aid of a couple of Irishmen and a few French.

It would also be far more interesting to watch than an England international against anyone other than New Zealand, Australia or France. The others just can't compete any more.
Bob, England

I agree with Farr-Jones: let the others develop their own rugby skills. If they are determined, they'll get there anyway.
Ronald Macdonald, Australia

I seriously believe it would be a good thing. For one, just reading the comments on this site, there is already a lot of conjecture as to who would win. Rather than make it an annual affair, the one off game could be held once every four years, and used as a means to monitor the difference in standards between both hemispheres.
Ali Evans, Australia

Given that the purpose here is to raise money to develop the sport elsewhere why don't all the major nations commit to giving a percentage of their revenues for the year? They could even add an optional amount to the ticket prices for a game so that the supporters from all over, not just the UK, could show their commitment to the idea.
Ian Stevens, UK

What a pointless waste of time. Don't want it, don't need it, don't do it.
Paul Hodgson, UK

With England and France playing Tests against New Zealand, Australia and South Africa this winter, isn't there already a northern hemisphere versus southern hemisphere serie?
Malcolm, UK

I believe that this fixture would have the potential of being something quite special. But I also believe the proposed timing of the fixture is rather poor. To have what is essentially a charity match at such an important time of the English Premiership season seems to be a bit ridiculous.
James Sparrow, England

Nobody possesses a sense of belonging to the northern hemisphere. This is not a term that anyone chooses to identify with - it defines no-one. And not a single person north of the equator could possibly care less whether a team calling itself Northern Hemisphere wins or loses a rugby match against what the IRB supposes to be our arch enemies - the southern hemisphere.
David, Sweden

Unless all the main rugby countries participate the match will be worthless as a contest. I would be happy to see it cancelled anyway - this match will now bring four consecutive Saturdays of major disruption in the Twickenham area this November.
Frank, Twickenham, England

In essence the idea is a good one - North v South (which the North would win at a canter). However, there are too many matches, not to mention all the autumn activity. Scrap the plans.
Paul Cullen, England

The six home nations each get �150k from the IRU to develop the game in their respective counties. If this �900k was used for the developing counties instead of subsiding the top countries, then we would not need this tournament. As it is, this tournament is a waste of time, effort and most of all money.
John, Leamington Spa, UK

It would be fun to run over the English but then again, who wants to side with the Aussies or Kiwis? The North stand no chance. Spare them the humiliation. "Soccer Geeks".
James, South Africa

I totally agree with Nick Farr-Jones and others who say this match is ill-conceived. On the other hand, I also agree that, in principle, the idea is a good one. But trying to organise this at short notice is clearly nonsense - particularly as it contradicts the widely stated need of reducing the amount of games that top players are asked to take part in.
Tim La Touche, UK

We've all known for quite a while that the three best southern hemisphere teams are all probably more capable than the best northern hemisphere team. So no, I don't quite see the logic in wasting so much energy in a match which will most probably be one sided anyway.
Adrian Hathorn, Australia

The only good reason for this game is the revenue to the "lesser" teams. Apart from that it's totally uncalled for. Every country is up in arms over players playing too much top class rugby, then the IRB goes and arranges this game. It's not like the spectators are short of top class rugby.
Ryan, UK

Do the people who come up with these ridiculous ideas realise that we are building up to a World Cup? We should be playing less Michael Mouse type fixtures - not more. And you can include the worthless play-offs at the end of the season in that list as well.
Simon Sterling, England

At the risk of being branded an arrogant England supporter, the withdrawal of the Premiership players from this game renders it pointless. Assuming, of course, there was a point to it in the first place.
Jon R, UK