Should Georgia join the 6 nations?

First topic message reminder :

There has been a bit of discussion on the future on club rugby in Europe in the club section and one of the things that came out of it and was a point that I raised was that with the expanding leagues in European rugby, Georgia is most likely going to get left behind as for political reasons as the nearest and most viable league, the Russia league, is not possible because of the war between the two. This leaves them which no choice on that front.

This made me think that the only way for them to go forward is to join the 6 Nations and make it 7. This would cause them to go down the Argentina road and have their main players playing in France mainly and some in England until they can sustain their own clubs or/and a league. Georgia are clearly the strongest of the second tier of European rugby and are well ahead of Russia for example in terms of their national team, giving Scotland a very close match in the World Cup. Their backs aren't the best but are Italy's or Scotland's that much better? They have the ability to compete in the forwards which is the key for me as Russia could not compete in the scrums to any degree at all, Georgia can, in fact they have one of the better scrums in the world.

They could compete in the Six Nations and are now in a better state then Italy were after their golden generation retired. At home in Tbilisi they could beat Italy or Scotland or even a lazy performance by one of the other teams, albeit at a stretch. The country is rugby mad with rugby as its national sport. The Six Nations would be better with them and would help them become a major rugby force.

I'm not sure what kind of response this will get on here but I believe this should happen, not sure how many will argee though. Please give you're thoughts.

I don't think anyones saying Scotland are the same level as Georgia and Russia, just that if your going to have pools you couldn't have pools of 5 or 6 in a competition as it would be unworkable - as such if we introduce the comp anytime soon the cut off would be with Scotland Italy in pool 2, but in a few years it could well be Wales or Ireland, or even England in pool 2.

And why would you dismiss a whole possible competition and arguement on the grounds of one relatively minor point?

How would you improve the 2nd tier nations so they can compete?

It's not minor if you're a scot tho' is it? It would be pretty much the death knell for scottish rugby.

I like the idea of a 2nd division, (for want of a better term), 6n. Set it away, give it some tradition and then if....and personally I think its a big if, the nations involved can prove that, after time, they've got more than just a small, fanatical fan/player base - that they have developed the game in their own countries themselves - then we should look at re-organising. Doing so now at the detriment of established teams is just taking an awfully big gamble. A bit like spending all your money on educating one child because your other is clever enough already!

Why would it be a death knell - Scotlands bread and butter would be the 6N which would still be going, they'd be expected to beat the tier 3 teams and on their day could beat Wales, Ireland and England (remember this would be a long term thing going on every 4 years or so), and form changes and I see quite a few positives for Scotland especially when Visser qualifies, as such there is a strong likelihood of Scotland being ranked 3rd/4tg nation in the 6N.


I'm also not so sure at how well the game in these countries will develop without some of the big names in the game playing against them. I mean these teams have been playing each other for 20 years and nothing has improved (and there is a 2nd tier comp in Europe, isn't it called the European Cup or something), but it gets so little coverage/recognition that I doubt the people in these countries even know their going on.

As said it wouldn't be a case of taking any funding away from Scotland as they'd still have the 6N and AI's

Its a difficult thing really but these 2nd tier teams do have to start playing the bigger teams on a more regular basis in order to raise the profile of the game and raise their skill levels.

I would love to see Holland play some bigger teams as the game is starting to kick off here and they have some very decent young players.

You could be right. Personally I'd love to see the game expand and grow exponentially maybe I'm just a bit cynical when it comes to 2nd tier rugby. For all the huff and puff of the RWC and talk of gaps closing etc etc I just didn't see it myself. Most top flight british clubs would turn over the majority of the teams waxed lyrically over during the cup.
If Georgia can't fill a stadium and create revenue playing Russia, I'm not sure adding Italy or Scotland to the list will make much difference. Could be wrong tho' of course.....my concern would be more for scotland. Group them with this lot and you'll see an empty murryfield as well as an empty (insert Georgia's ground name here).
If they struggle to sell a game against south africa to the scottish public how are they going to push russia?

But if they were in the same seeding they wouldn't be playing Scotland and Italy, but England/France/Ireland/Wales and one of Portugal/Spain/Romania/Holland. And you could say the same about Scotland (and Wales) fair enough our national stadiums are packed when we play the big teams (as I'm sure Georgia's would, which is the point) but we can't fill the regions stadiums and how full are the stadiums when we play USA or Canada?

"If they struggle to sell a game against south africa to the scottish public how are they going to push russia?"

its a good point- however the truth is its all about growing the game not staying in the past to help out a nation that is becoming lacklusture,

Stumbled upon this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010-2012_European_Nations_Cup_First_Division. Runs at the same time as the 6N. I had no idea this even existed.

I thought there was a european competition though suprised holland arnt in it. But shows how poor it is as a comp if fans in a rugby mad country as the uk dont know hardly anything about this competition

Give it time. I would like to see it played and televised midweek during the 6N. That would get some interest going in it.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I thought there was a european competition though suprised holland arnt in it. But shows how poor it is as a comp if fans in a rugby mad country as the uk dont know hardly anything about this competition

Holland are in it, they're in Division 1B and came bottom with 5 losses last time round.

Glas a du wrote:Give it time. I would like to see it played and televised midweek during the 6N. That would get some interest going in it.

Yeah, or the A teams of the 6 nations teams could play a tier 2 side instead of the 6 nations fixture.

Scot Abroad wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I thought there was a european competition though suprised holland arnt in it. But shows how poor it is as a comp if fans in a rugby mad country as the uk dont know hardly anything about this competition

Holland are in it, they're in Division 1B and came bottom with 5 losses last time round.

th eproblem isnt that we dont know about it- the problem is the way its structured. there is no promoting or relegation, its just closed shops, if there was interlinking them we would all know about it and in the long run better

Afaik Wales beat Fiji 66-0 at the RWC, yet four years ago were beaten 34-38. So where is the evidence that lower tier teams simply playing higher tier ones makes them any better over time!

It is obvious that lower tier teams rise and fall dependent on the number of quality players they have and how lucky they are with injuries. Lower tier nations simply don’t have the numbers to pick from to make them consistently competitive and getting the inevitable good thrashing every now and then from a tier one team is hardly the poster draw to get new fans interested.

Growth happens through getting the game into schools and that means funding coaching programmes - money that has to come from the IRB. So for those who wish to see the game grow in small rugby nations it is especially galling when the biggest nations complain they aren’t getting a big enough slice of the pie and funds have to be redirected to them instead.

Even though there's no evidence to support the notion that playing better teams grows the game or improves standards, I still like the suggestion by Kingjohn7. Four or five T2 nations could tour the 6N countries playing A-sides during the 6N window. This would guarantee at least some revenue from the gates and a fair degree of tv coverage. There could be a 6N ’A team champion’ decided by the conference league results and similarly a European touring champion based on whomever did best in the series of matches.