Am I alone in preferring the 6Ns to the RWC? Intertwined with a convoluted debate

Rugby in its nature of physicality and its limited professionalism cannot dream to rival the footy WC in terms of popularity and the chance of a real upset on the way to the finals. In football there is a remote but realistic chance of Morocco beating Brazil - but that type of scenario is absolutely impossible in an equivalent RWC contest.

So that's one downer on the RWC - there are too many teams. There should be no more than sixteen. I suggest that the fourth seeds should play the fifth home and away to decide the qualifier to each group.

I prefer the 6Ns not only because of its magnificent history, but there are no foregone conclusions. Even though Italy's progress has been painfully slow - not to say practically undetectable. (As will Argentina's progress be in the 4Ns for at least two decades)

Actually I'd really prefer a 5Ns div 1 and div 2 with a one team promoted/relegated - but that is not going to happen as no country would vote for it.

Similarly once the 4Ns becomes established, then they should introduce 2 divisions.

But in the meantime I'll stick to preferring the 6Ns as a contest which gives each country an equal chance and nobody gets slaughtered.

I think the 6 Nations is probably the least entertaining Rugby tournament that I watch. I'll still watch it and cheer it on Ireland all the way but I find it overly familiar, its only selliong point is that its very old and I haven't though much of the standard of play in recent years.



Having said England are strong again and Italy and Scotland look to be improving. Maybe that will stoke my interest again and we could truly have all 6 Nations highly competitive.

Well switch off the radio, televison, close the curtains,and don't read any newpapers............... for ahem a couple more weeks.

It'll all be ok for you then

No i enjoy seeing all the other teams such as Georgia, Japan etc...teams i dont see all the time.

What makes it bad is the timing. When its held up here in the NH we can watch all the games etc, but when its down there we cant so we lose a little bit of enthusiasm for it.

Its still great though. And the more teams the better...

And as for slim chances of smaller teams winning - i think this WC if any has shown that smaller teams are closing the gap...

Georgia and Romania have donw well....Samoa beat Aus in the warm ups etc.

red_stag wrote:I think the 6 Nations is probably the least entertaining Rugby tournament that I watch. I'll still watch it and cheer it on Ireland all the way but I find it overly familiar, its only selliong point is that its very old and I haven't though much of the standard of play in recent years.



Having said England are strong again and Italy and Scotland look to be improving. Maybe that will stoke my interest again and we could truly have all 6 Nations highly competitive.

I know your view point Staggy - and I know that we differ on the 6Ns.

I wonder if you prefer the HEC to the RWC (?).

No I prefer the World Cup and also the Lions tours to the Heineken Cup.



Varierty is the spice of life. I think that there is a sense of occasion and pagentry and I always feel its a highly cultural occasion.



The fact that its a competition and we are trying to figure out who will get drawn with who, is it worth it for such a team to lose, which side of draw is the best etc is part of the fun.



I also love the elation in victory and despair at a loss. Its FOUR years before you can avegne that.

Portnoy I actually would normally agree with you but I have to say this tournament has been a cracker so far and thats even without the Ireland result against Australia.

There's a real feeling that there's a lot of teams who can beat each other and there's plenty of drama to come.

The 6N is the greatest tournament in the world though!

I am actually looking forward to future 6 Nations. I think in recent years we've had a poor Italy and poor Scotland, poor England (by their standards 2003-2008) an hot and cold Wales and a horribly predictable 1st and 2nd place thing with France and Ireland.



But I am open to idea of bumping the Six Nations up my list. All teams have talented young squads and I think the next few Six Nations will be very enjoyable.

I prefer the World Cup. But you have a point about the minnows. A lot of the games are no contest. They're non-games which isn't ideal. But there's a bit of that in all sport World Cups. Cricket, soccer, elephant polo; they all have no hopers involved. But its the World Cup, so they have to have their chance to play on the world stage.

I love everything about the Six Nations except the actual quality of the rugby that's on display. It's been dire for years now. 2007 is the last time I remember two teams playing great rugby worthy of winning the tournament, when France pipped Ireland to the title on points difference. Wales played great in '08 but nobody else did. Ireland were the most consistent in '09 but the general standard of play from all teams was rubbish. France have won numerous titles by just being the least crap team.

All the home nations actually look to be improving now and France are getting a new coach so hopefully over the next four year cycle we'll get a golden age of 6 Nations rugby. Because in terms of quality it hasn't been good enough over the last four. The Heineken Cup really has been much better.

Its a wonder any of you watch rugby at all...whinging sods.

The now four nations and six nations are to often, it should be reduced to bi annual tournaments, it will have a lot more interest then.

Bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours. etc.

biltongbek wrote:The now four nations and six nations are to often, it should be reduced to bi annual tournaments, it will have a lot more interest then.

Bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours. etc.

AGREE AGREE



I'm REALLY looking forward to Irelands first ever proper tour to NZ - 3 tests and midweek games, Summer 2012.

biltongbek wrote:
Bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours. etc.

I know your game Biltong, you want us all to come to your back yard so you can beat us up, literally!

If the 4n goes to 2 divisions then isnt that just 1 game home and away. A bit boring!

The 6nations is ok, the standard has been rubbish in recent years. The HC is far more exciting. The world cup is always epic though. Even in the relatively boring 07 comp you had France v NZ which was a real classic.

roddersm wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours. etc.

I know your game Biltong, you want us all to come to your back yard so you can beat us up, literally!

Please will you, I promise we will behave, even Bakkies will retire.

The best thing they can do with the four nations is to host it it one country and rotate the hosting nation, play two matches each, and we will have a wonderful event every 8 years. lots of tourists, something to look forward to.

biltongbek wrote:

roddersm wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours, bring back tours. etc.

I know your game Biltong, you want us all to come to your back yard so you can beat us up, literally!

Please will you, I promise we will behave, even Bakkies will retire.

Will he have gotten justice by then?

No, a retirement bonus.

biltongbek wrote:The best thing they can do with the four nations is to host it it one country and rotate the hosting nation, play two matches each, and we will have a wonderful event every 8 years. lots of tourists, something to look forward to.

I can see that working. Except you might find that it will be only four years between rotations.

What's the betting that Argentina would be lumped with it in RWC years?

red_stag wrote:I think the 6 Nations is probably the least entertaining Rugby tournament that I watch. I'll still watch it and cheer it on Ireland all the way but I find it overly familiar, its only selliong point is that its very old and I haven't though much of the standard of play in recent years.



Having said England are strong again and Italy and Scotland look to be improving. Maybe that will stoke my interest again and we could truly have all 6 Nations highly competitive.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Portnoy wrote:

biltongbek wrote:The best thing they can do with the four nations is to host it it one country and rotate the hosting nation, play two matches each, and we will have a wonderful event every 8 years. lots of tourists, something to look forward to.

I can see that working. Except you might find that it will be only four years between rotations.

What's the betting that Argentina would be lumped with it in RWC years?

sorry, Portnoy, i was aluding to it earlier that it should only be a bi annual tournament, hence the 8 year cycle for hosting.

I think and always have done that the 6 Nations isn't just about the rugby though.

Its about the whole weekend and away trips every other year. I love the atmosphere and yes some of the games are dull but sorry but I love it.

Also love the WC to and can't wait until its back in the NH to save me all these early mornings

I love all rugby competitions, every day, all the time, every morning, every weekend ( particularly on Sundays). Can't get enough of it. Rugby 24/7. Non stop tournaments.

You can't have enough rugby. Too much is not enough!

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its about the whole weekend and away trips every other year. I love the atmosphere and yes some of the games are dull but sorry but I love it.

Portnoy wrote:Rugby in its nature of physicality and its limited professionalism cannot dream to rival the footy WC in terms of popularity and the chance of a real upset on the way to the finals. In football there is a remote but realistic chance of Morocco beating Brazil - but that type of scenario is absolutely impossible in an equivalent RWC contest.

So that's one downer on the RWC - there are too many teams. There should be no more than sixteen. I suggest that the fourth seeds should play the fifth home and away to decide the qualifier to each group.

I prefer the 6Ns not only because of its magnificent history, but there are no foregone conclusions. Even though Italy's progress has been painfully slow - not to say practically undetectable. (As will Argentina's progress be in the 4Ns for at least two decades)

Actually I'd really prefer a 5Ns div 1 and div 2 with a one team promoted/relegated - but that is not going to happen as no country would vote for it.

Similarly once the 4Ns becomes established, then they should introduce 2 divisions.

But in the meantime I'll stick to preferring the 6Ns as a contest which gives each country an equal chance and nobody gets slaughtered.

For once Im with you Portnoy on everything except the promotion relgation from the 6 nations ( thats been delat with so many times now), which sounds pretty in theory but would be destructive an regressive in reality.
The other advantage of trimming the no hopers is that you would then do away with the midweek games the 3rd/4th seeds are whinging about without lengthening the torunament

To be fair Seabuscuit, I did say that the two-tier five nations is a non-starter. Too many vested interests (turkeys voting for Chistmas etc.).

But I am convinced that more flexibility to the elite level is essential if rugby is going to thrive internationally.

With Ireland beating Oz in the pools - if all other results go to plan then we could be seeing a mini 6N on one side of the WC knock-out stages.

Everyone is a winner.

I think that the IRB should consider expanding the world cup from 20 to 32 teams.

More minnows meaning more exposure. The only way you get good is by playing the best.

The IRB should limit the top ten nations from playing each other so often. Invite more minnow to tour. And tour more lower ranked nations.

Take the stars of the game to the masses.

The competitions we need are the ones like the Churchill cup. Top tier A teams vs lower tier test teams.

Or an A team six nations that is actually ten nations including the first teams of the top four non six nations teams.

maestegmafia wrote:I think that the IRB should consider expanding the world cup from 20 to 32 teams.

More minnows meaning more exposure. The only way you get good is by playing the best.

The IRB should limit the top ten nations from playing each other so often. Invite more minnow to tour. And tour more lower ranked nations.

Take the stars of the game to the masses.

The competitions we need are the ones like the Churchill cup. Top tier A teams vs lower tier test teams.

Or an A team six nations that is actually ten nations including the first teams of the top four non six nations teams.

So how do you propose to salvage the careers of amateur players?

Your concept is a total pipe-dream.

A fantasy...

Agree with you Portnoy.

I love everything about the 6 nations, the rwc gets better once we get to the knock out games, but I've never been a fan of the pool games.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:I love everything about the 6 nations, the rwc gets better once we get to the knock out games, but I've never been a fan of the pool games.

That is the nub of it.

Frankly the majority of pool games are a waste of time. What is the point?

I'm currently watching Oz v USA. How many v2 SG punters predicted an unsuspected turnaround? None.

The building blocks have to be put in via the NH/SH elite international competitions through a promotion/relegation system.

Frankly these unbalanced games are an embarrassment.

Saying that Portnoy I think we've seen some great minnows games this year.



Tonga v Canada

Tonga v Japan

France v Japan

Scotland v Romania

New Zealand v Tonga

Fiji v Namibia



have all been excellent games to watch so far due to good minnow performances.

red_stag wrote:Saying that Portnoy I think we've seen some great minnows games this year.



Tonga v Canada

Tonga v Japan

France v Japan

Scotland v Romania

New Zealand v Tonga

Fiji v Namibia



have all been excellent games to watch so far due to good minnow performances.

You cannot dispute that equally contested matches at any level are entertaining.

What I'm saying that promotion/relegation through the hemispheres' championships would be better.

And sixteen teams in the RWC groups is more than ample.

I love it all - and in all honesty we're splitting hairs here - The history of the 6 nations however does give me more of an adrennalin rush but then again it looks like a Wales v England semi-final so in essence just another 6 nations match

I agree the World Cup could be just as good or even better with 16 teams - Nambia, Russia, Canada and Romania would have lost out. Personally I thought the latter two really brought something but I wouldn't kick up a fuss if they hadn't featured.



But I don't see why promotion/relegation would be a good thing.

red_stag wrote:I agree the World Cup could be just as good or even better with 16 teams - Nambia, Russia, Canada and Romania would have lost out. Personally I thought the latter two really brought something but I wouldn't kick up a fuss if they hadn't featured.



But I don't see why promotion/relegation would be a good thing.

Why the eff not Stag?

You have always been an advocate of the advancement of the world game - yet you now want to retain double-glazed glass ceilings?

[ed - Especially as your are not a particular fan of the 6Ns.

No,I enjoy the 6Ns and 3Ns[4Ns?}as well,BUT tho there has been less one sided matches this time.Seeing teams used as opposed training runs does not sit right with me.
Prior to 2007 pre RWC was straight forward more or less since then for various reasons.
Not least player workload,it has become commonplace to field weaker sides
in 3Ns and 6ns to reduce injuries for the RWC squads.
Further more this has been excerbated by tier 2 teams having only a 4 day turn around.
This has effected there squad selections and overall game,example Georgia v England .Georgia were well in it until the last 20 then faded.
The truth is that it is a rich boys club,the same teams in the Final,same teams given the tournament.
With the current seeding system it is almost impossible for other than the 5 current sides EVER to win a RWC.
RWC is the pinnacle supposedly of a players and teams career,usually it is a mass exedous for Sh sides to Cash pensions in the NH or Japan.
The then World Champions struggle to keep there title,only one side has defended it for any time.
The arch chokers for nearly 4 years,the same side who has nearly twice as many wins than the reigning champs of each era.
Now we are getting tales of pool fixing,weakened teams etc.THE ultimate prize.OR A Cheats Charter which?

I love the Six Nations and everything that goes with it. The away trips to Scotland and Ireland are great. It seems to have a unique match atmosphere. Although it may not be as good a rugby as 3 nations, it is much more enjoyable.

I find the world cup completely different. It is special and it is what each team has geared towards for four years. You findout whether the different stragies used by each team, such as resting and blooding certain players have worked or not. The pressure on the teams as it gets to the knockout stage is awesome.

Both tournaments are great.

I have to admit if it were a Wal v Eng or Ire v Eng Semi I don't think I could watch it if I was sober, might have to check to make sure I've got some Brandy in the house or maybe get the Rhubarb wine out!

emack2 wrote:No,I enjoy the 6Ns and 3Ns[4Ns?}as well,BUT tho there has been less one sided matches this time.Seeing teams used as opposed training runs does not sit right with me.

I was prepared and waiting for this post.

What has changed? 80-odd wins over 100-odd wins. Only the rottenness of the results has slightly ameliorated.

The number of one-sided games has not reduced.

And the sham of the 'global' World Cup is further exposed.

Only NH and SH Nations' championships in league structures will change the status quo.

But of course you'd have to accept incomers into the fold at your(my) expense.

Football went global before economic globalism.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:I have to admit if it were a Wal v Eng or Ire v Eng Semi I don't think I could watch it if I was sober, might have to check to make sure I've got some Brandy in the house or maybe get the Rhubarb wine out!

Haha that is true. I can't imagine the pain if Wales lose a game like that.