South's big three reign on world stage but north is the king of clubs

THE Tri-Nations begins today, and Australia play what is really no more than France's A/B team in the last of this summer's north-south internationals. It's therefore an appropriate moment to reflect on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the game in the two hemispheres.

Northern ventures to South Africa, New Zealand and Australia have all resulted in home wins, mostly by convincing margins – and it's unlikely that this inexperienced French team will be able to redress the balance today. The only northern countries to have met with any success are Scotland and Italy, both of whom have beaten Argentina, third in last autumn's World Cup. Any Scots still bitter about our defeat in Rome back in March should take note of that Italian triumph.

These results emphasise that, on home territory at least, the Big Three of the southern hemisphere are still the bosses of the international game, even if one allows that France, England, Wales and, to a lesser extent Ireland, went down under with something well short of full-strength sides.

There will, of course, be a chance to secure revenge in the autumn – by which time it may be the Tri-Nations teams that are weary at the end of their season, and perhaps below strength. It makes one wonder whether – outside the World Cup – there will ever be a time when North and South meet on equal terms.

Yet it's quite likely that most of the autumn internationals will be won by the visitors – even though England have a pretty good record at Twickenham against southern hemisphere sides; France also, if to a lesser extent, especially when they stage a match in Marseilles rather than at the Stade de France.

At the same time, however, the club game is booming in the North, while the Super 14 has been losing popularity in the South. Players from New Zealand, South Africa and Australia are attracted to Europe, while there is almost no reverse movement. You may say this is because few northern players are good enough to be in demand in the south, but this is evident nonsense. There are lots of them who would strengthen Super 14 teams.

One reason for the attraction exercised by the North is of course financial. Clubs are richer, especially in England and France. But the other is that the northern leagues – especially the English Premiership and the French Top 14 – and the pan-European competition that is the Heineken Cup offer a greater variety and even intensity than the Super 14, and one reason for this is that the European clubs have an identity that the cobbled-together Super 14 outfits lack.

They have been put together with television and marketing in mind. When these interests dominate a sport, something is always lost, and that something is identity. Give teams names thought up by the marketing men – silly names like Cheetahs and Sharks and Hurricanes – and they never arouse the passion that a club like Munster or Toulouse can muster.

Now, because the club game is stuttering in the southern hemisphere, we have had demands – generated from television and the marketing men – that the laws must be changed so that the ball is in play for longer periods and the game is made more attractive to the uninitiated. Yet very few of us in the northern hemisphere believe that there is much wrong with the laws as they are. The club game is flourishing, drawing bigger and bigger crowds.

Nobody who watched last weekend's marvellous French final between Toulouse and Clermont-Auvergne will believe that rugby needs any major reform. It was a match that had everything; pace, rare skills, astonishing intensity, imagination and commitment. It was rugby at its best – incidentally it would be good to show the video of it all around Scotland to demonstrate just what we should be aiming at.

Meanwhile, back here, the decision that all our pro players should be attached to a Premier 1 club is very welcome. Most of the internationalists won't be likely to turn out for the clubs to which they have been drafted, but it is to be hoped all will value the association and make some contribution to the league clubs. The purpose of the scheme is two fold: first, to give the fringe members of the pro team more rugby than some have got in the past; second, and equally important, to bridge the gulf between the professional and amateur game. Finally, since I have been a sharp critic of some of what Gordon McKie has done as chief executive of the SRU, it's fair to say that the reduction in the Union's debt which he has achieved is greatly to his credit. The tight financial controls he has imposed will, one hopes, soon make it possible to plan for an ambitious future. Moreover, while the closure of the Borders is still regretted, one has to admit that the improved record of Glasgow and Edinburgh last season owed something to the fact that they were both strengthened by the recruitment of players from the disbanded club. Nevertheless one trusts that it will not be long before we can afford a third pro team in Scotland, either back in the Borders or in Aberdeen.