Stagnant 6 Nations

Stuart Barnes:

"The sport has to find more nations emerging at a rate to galvanise the next World Cup. Argentina benefited from its introduction to the Championship, is it not time Georgia, Russia, Romania or whoever wins the FIRA championship had a shot at the Six Nations? At the very least a play- off against the bottom team to give them a chance to raise their game and standards. Scotland's record of two wins in their last 15 games is hardly the record that demands automatic inclusion at the top table. The old boys' brigade needs a good kick up the rear in the interests of the game at international level."

A playoff is a good idea, an incentive for smaller rugby nations to grow and more competition should drive up standards. Current 6 nations sides would be strong favourites to win any playoff game so they should have nothing to fear, the likes of Russia, Romania, Georgia would have to improve massively to compete at 6 nations level but if they do improve then surely they deserve the chance to compete at that higher level. The problem is the short term financial risk, particularly to unions with smaller budgets, but really to all the 6 nations sides that are currently guaranteed a place.

'The old boys brigade'. Unions well established in the IRB and other governing bodies of the game are unlikely to risk the position of their teams in the 6 nations. The powers that be should be able to realise that the long term benefits of developing the game internationally (outside of the established nations) outweigh the short term financial impact. Long term you could expect more quality players certainly and eventually even a more competitive world cup. The game as a whole would benefit financially from a wider audience, it is difficult to see any reason not to have a playoff game other than self preservation.

The problem with the playoff is the fact that someone could get relegated. I've no problem with this in principle as that would prove that a team below you is better. However, just as playing in a competition with teams higher ranked than you can make you raise your game and drag you up (like with Argentina and arguably Italy), I think that leaving a competition and competing at a lower level could mean a team become that level and would find it hard to get back to the top table. Just a theory, so open to criticism, but something that I've thought about in the past.

I often wonder if South Africa, for example, joined the 6N whether, after a few years of being awesome and winning a lot, would they then fall down slightly to the level of the other teams. All of their analysis would be on the other 6N teams and maybe over time you only learn how to compete with teams at that 4-10 world ranking level. After a while they may struggle against NZ and OZ in the AIs???! So, if the bottom team fell out of the 6N I think they may struggle to come back if they didn't do it straight away. Also, loss of funding may be the final nail in the coffin for the game in that country. I don't think a governing body would vote for a two tiered system for that reason.

We have seen this time and time again, there is another championship in Europe featuring the next level of teams maybe it just needs more publicity and marketing.

I am not sure if or how it would work but how about maybe putting say a Russia Romania game on as a curtain raiser before a 6 Nations game.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I am not sure if or how it would work but how about maybe putting say a Russia Romania game on as a curtain raiser before a 6 Nations game.

I would definitely go to see that.

£10 a ticket/free ticket for ticket holders of the first 6N match, and rotate it around the national stadia of the six nations.

IanBru wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I am not sure if or how it would work but how about maybe putting say a Russia Romania game on as a curtain raiser before a 6 Nations game.

I would definitely go to see that.

£10 a ticket/free ticket for ticket holders of the first 6N match, and rotate it around the national stadia of the six nations.

I have wondered about it for sometime but like said unsure about the logistics though in principle I think the idea could work with the the lower tier temas getting a decent whack of gate and tv revenue to help promote the game back home etc.

I think the 6N is great and should be kept as it is, the quality of rugby isn't as good as the Rugby Championship but the rivalry and tradition makes it, in my opinion, the greatest rugby competition in the world. The short nature of the tournament means that injuries and a loss of form can lead to a team slipping down the table and losing the competition. For example if Tuilagi, Ashton and Youngs were off form and Robshaw, Hartley, Barritt, Foden and Youngs were injured England may end up in the lower tier despite having a very good team.
I also believe the smaller nations deserve a competition with the bigger teams, so I think there should be a European championship every four years, it would allow the 6N to be exposed to knock-out rugby and the smaller nations to a higher standard of rugby. The tournament could be hosted in a country with stadiums and infrastructure that doesn't get top class rugby such as Holland, Spain or Portugal

6 Groups of four and the top team and two best runners up qualify for the knock-out stages, the 6N qualify automatically as does the host and the ENC 1A, 1B, and 2A if the host qualifies then the winner of 2B gets to participate. If the tournament was to be held today there could be groups of:
pool 1:
France
Georgia
Germany
Lithuania
pool 2:
England
Romania
Ukraine
Switzerland
pool 3:
Scotland
Russia
Czech Republic
Malta
pool 4:
Italy
Belgium
Sweden
Croatia
pool 5:
Wales
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
pool 6:
Ireland
Portugal
Moldova
Host Nation


This system would benefit many nations, especially the host, and if a team did consistently well in World cups and European cups then by all means create a 7N. Another idea would be six nations warm up games or tournaments in January, it would allow the teams time to work on moves and partnerships and spend time together thus raising the standard of the 6N, for example Scotland could host a small mini tournament in January with Georgia and Romania at smaller stadiums for example Netherdale and Pittodrie raising support and, hopefully, confidence before the tournament starts.

bedfordwelsh wrote:We have seen this time and time again, there is another championship in Europe featuring the next level of teams maybe it just needs more publicity and marketing.

I am not sure if or how it would work but how about maybe putting say a Russia Romania game on as a curtain raiser before a 6 Nations game.

Did you miss the bit where Barnes said the winner of the FIRA should step up to a playoff. It's acknowledged that there is a second tier. And third tier. And these allow promotion/relegation. It's the 6 nations that is closed off. There should be some sort of logical progression.

However, a season without 6 nations money would quite possibly kill Scottish professional rugby completely. IF there was relegation then there would have to have some funding agreement that says the relegated team has the same funding for at least (some number) of years so that if they bounce right back they aren't effected. Of course this would then be slated for 'protecting the top'. There are two 'feasible' options.

1) A European competition to judge the capabilities of these European sides (more than once every 4 years in the WC). Played during the Lions (for fans like me, perhaps even a stepping stone to getting rid). The problem with this is that SH teams (especially Australia and New Zealand) would miss out of tours that make them money. They'd go ape-Poopie.

2) Add a team to the 6 nations to make it 7. Introduce a 2 year cycle like the current European Nations Cup thing. After two years if Scotland have performed worse than Georgia then they deserve to be relegated. This would stop one off poor season crippling a union. It would give a team a good two years to benefit. But we'd have 7 teams, so an extra game in the 6N. But currently the 6 nations lasts for 7 weekends so one of the rest periods could be dropped. Umm, iffy but I'd prefer to give it a chance.

Let's face it the SRU will never ever agree to system with promotion or relegation if there's a good chance they'd go.

Hammer,

If I am honest as soon as I read Stuart Barnes I skimmed over most of it as the blokes a fool, the one thing against it is I cant see the likes of the SRFU WRU or Italians agreeing to it for fear of relegation and losing money

That's why I suggested adding a 7th team who would in theory provide a cushion for the Scots...did you not read that? Why would you skim over my post......oh

HammerofThunor wrote:That's why I suggested adding a 7th team who would in theory provide a cushion for the Scots...did you not read that? Why would you skim over my post......oh

A seventh team would just extend the problem, how does Georgia competing in the 6/7 Nations help Romania or Portugal? A tournament would help lots of team and the likes of Georgia would have major opposition every two years. Also the pacific Islanders complain about teams not touring them but when no 6N team tours why don't they invite the Georgians and Romanians. Also why is it always the role of 6N teams to help out lesser rugby nations? It is us they expect to tour the Pacific Islands and now we're expected to include "lesser" rugby nations in the 6N? When was the last time one of the big southern hemisphere teams played Georgia or Romania outside of the World cup, yes they'd thrash them but about 5 years ago Scotland A beat Tonga by 40 points.

Well after two years a team would be relegated from the 7 nations and be replaced with another. So if Georgia go up first then in two years they would be replaced by Russia (or whoever won the Cup).

Why should we help out? Same reason we include Scotland in competitions even though they don't bring any more than Georgia, etc to the table. Because we want the game to grow and expand. Not stay isolated and secluded.

I don't think you could do it as in the long term I don't think anyone is good enough. Georgia are decent but they take a lot of French raised Georgians and rely on them to build their side... They have very few player numbers domestically from what I recall.

Once the ex pats go they will be left with very little unless the game grows significantly in the country,

I like the idea of playing curtain raisers... I.e. Russia vs Georgia before the main event.

We see double headers in the uk... Can it not happen in test rugby...major stadiums host whole 7s tournaments with many games in a given weekend... It shouldn't tear the pitch apart?

It would raise the profile of the players and wouldn't cost much.

HammerofThunor wrote:Well after two years a team would be relegated from the 7 nations and be replaced with another. So if Georgia go up first then in two years they would be replaced by Russia (or whoever won the Cup).

Why should we help out? Same reason we include Scotland in competitions even though they don't bring any more than Georgia, etc to the table. Because we want the game to grow and expand. Not stay isolated and secluded.

The six nations is cyclical, teams have peaks and troughs. Obviously some have more peaks than troughs and vice versa, Scotland are currently in a trough which I think they'll soon be out of. Scotland aren't "included" to grow the game, Scotland are included because they were one of the founding members and have a right to be there, yes the recent record isn't great but Scotland lost to England by four points and seven points in games that they should have won whereas Georgia lost by 31 points, Scotland have beaten every six nations team in the last six tournaments except France. In the world cup Scotland's second team played dreadfully against a fired up Georgia and still won convincingly, as I said I'm in favour of helping out I just feel all teams should be helped and all the tier one teams should be helping not just the 6N. I want a European competition and maybe when we have that the tri-nations teams could play the Islanders and Argentina could play the USA, Canada or Japan. Maybe they could also have a tournament with the likes of Canada, the USA, Argentina, Uraguay, NZ, Australia, SA, Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya, yes the Rugby championship teams would walk it but it would mean that teams like Namibia would be exposed to top rugby every two years.
The four year cycle could be:

year 1: Traditional tours
year 2: Lions tour and Southern hemisphere and European tournaments
year 3: Traditional tours (Georgia and Romania could go to the USA or Canada or the Pacific islands if they're not being toured)
year 4: World cup

If we added in six nations warm up games (instead of rest weekends which aren't rests because players play for their clubs), the Rugby Championship teams have tours which allows them time together to develop partnerships beforehand, and maybe some tour games to "lesser European nations" in November then most, if not every year, many teams will be playing top class rugby most, if not every year. Currently we have "rest weekends" in the 6N which are pointless, why not have the second half of January set aside for the national sides to work together and to have warm up games then start the six nations later.

I think we need to look at a European championship every two years or so HOWEVER less of the 1st teams and much more at Saxons and other A teams level.....
So Senior nations developing teams get decent games...and the minor nations get a good competition...but maybe not the cricket scores that could potentially come about...

Pool 1:
France "A", Georgia, Germany, Lithuania

Pool 2:
England Saxons, Romania, Ukraine, Switzerland

Pool 3:
Scotland 'A', Russia, Czech Republic, Malta

Pool 4:
Italy 'A', Belgium, , Sweden, Croatia

Pool 5:
Wales 'A', Spain, Poland, Netherlands

Pool 6:
Ireland Wolfhounds, Portugal, Moldova. Host Nation

How about planning for an 8 nations in say.. 5 years time. There would be one team relegated/promoted per season and the number of autumn internationals is reduced.

The carrot of being able to compete with the top teams could kick start rugby in many countries.

Griff wrote:
I often wonder if South Africa, for example, joined the 6N whether, after a few years of being awesome and winning a lot, would they then fall down slightly to the level of the other teams. All of their analysis would be on the other 6N teams and maybe over time you only learn how to compete with teams at that 4-10 world ranking level. After a while they may struggle against NZ and OZ in the AIs???! So, if the bottom team fell out of the 6N I think they may struggle to come back if they didn't do it straight away. Also, loss of funding may be the final nail in the coffin for the game in that country. I don't think a governing body would vote for a two tiered system for that reason.

Often the NH sides will play NZ/SA/AUS just as much as they play each other in a given year. England have played them six times this year, for example. I would say that the structure of the season and the weather conditions play a much bigger role than a lack of experience against the top sides.

A 7 Nations is surely a nonstarter, having to add another international game to the middle of the domestic season.

Then regarding the playoff option there is the issue that most internationals are scheduled a year or so in advance, but you wouldn't know who the bottom/top teams were until the end of March, and the only sensible & available time to hold a playoff would be early July, tacked on to the end of the summer tours of the lucky/unlucky sides, eating another couple of weeks into international players' already depleted rest periods before heading back to their clubs. Certainly not impossible, but pretty messy, and if as I expect it would be a fair few years before the playoff actually saw a team come close to moving up, something that we be considered a questionable hardship by the team and players that finished bottom.

Like I always add to these discussions - nice idea until it becomes less of a good one! And then the idea would be dropped and the structures changed again. In other words, English rugby feels safe - rarely out of the top 3 in 6N; so it's easy to be magnanimous to the little sides wanting in...and offer places to them at the expense of the risks lesser 6N sides would have to take.

Always visualise how it might be for you before you go giving away the privileges of others - because it's the privileges of 'others' Barnes is on about when he talks about the 'old boy's brigade' - he intends that England would stay very much part of that brigade. He would have no intention of abdicating England's membership.
So if the fates interceded and suddenly England's form collapsed dramatically right after the introduction of the trapdoor 6N, if England found itself close to the bottom a few times, I wonder would he be feeling so generous? It would be time for a renegotiation methinks

It's nice to want risks for others when you don't believe you're going to have to risk much yourself.

I would be happy for England to drop into the second tier if they failed in the top level. I really would......honest

History is cetainly important to the popularity of the Six Nations but I wonder whether anyone would really worry too much if Italy were relegated in rejigged competition.

The main concern is probably that the home unions might stop meeting on the pitch so regularly. We have to ask ourselves whether historic fixtures are more important to the sport than expanding its base and giving more meaningful Tests to up-and-coming nations.

Football faced this question and answered it quickly. For a variety of reasons, the 100 year history of Home Internationals ended in the early eighties.

Rugby Fan wrote:History is cetainly important to the popularity of the Six Nations but I wonder whether anyone would really worry too much if Italy were relegated in rejigged competition.

The main concern is probably that the home unions might stop meeting on the pitch so regularly. We have to ask ourselves whether historic fixtures are more important to the sport than expanding its base and giving more meaningful Tests to up-and-coming nations.

Football faced this question and answered it quickly. For a variety of reasons, the 100 year history of Home Internationals ended in the early eighties.

To me personally I don't care about the history. England v Scotland is the oldest international but most of the recent games have been Poopie (IMO). I still watch them and will continue to watch them as England are playing. Games against Wales are a bit more interesting and so have been really good game but I still wouldn't worry if we didn't play them for 2/4 years. Ireland I'd be more than happy to be away from as they generally beat us, so they can just bugger off! France we've actually managed a pretty decent record against in recent times (in the 6 nation) and are probably my favourite team for England to play but I still wouldn't care if that fixture was lost.

One of the reasons I wouldn't be against a 2 league conference type thing that gets mixed up every 2 years. More 'smaller' games that might not make as much money but I'd prefer it even if some of the games are hammerings (at first at least).

fa0019 wrote:Georgia are decent but they take a lot of French raised Georgians and rely on them to build their side... They have very few player numbers domestically from what I recall.

Well they an 8 team professional league so they have more professional players than Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Were those players actually raised in France or do they just play in France?

Once the ex pats go they will be left with very little unless the game grows significantly in the country,

I like the idea of playing curtain raisers... I.e. Russia vs Georgia before the main event.

We see double headers in the uk... Can it not happen in test rugby...major stadiums host whole 7s tournaments with many games in a given weekend... It shouldn't tear the pitch apart?

It would raise the profile of the players and wouldn't cost much.

No, they should play their games in their own countries. Televise their games is the first start. Most people (I imagine, I'm certainly one) don't have a clue about the standard of Georgian/Russian domestic rugby simply because none of us have ever seen it (since they're not included from European competitions). But if they did ever get involved something about the season structure would have to happen as they already struggle to get released for competitions.

I really do think the Six Nations should be played every second year, an the year there is no six nations or world cup, there should be a NH and SH tournament.

Imagine you could have a tournament whereby the Six nations team invite another 6 NH teams to a tournament with two pools of six, they play a round robin, have semi finals and final.

You split them into pools with seeds.

Take the Six Nations of the previous year as the placing for seedings.

Pool 1
Wales
Ireland
Italy
Canada
Spain
Russia

Pool 2
France
England
Scotland
USA
Georgia
Romania

That'll be a great tournamnet.


I would like to see te same things in the SH.


NZ
ARG
Samoa
Tonga
SA
OZ
Fiji
Japan

We have less teams so we can do a single round robin.

Space out a 'Euro' competition much the same as Wendyball. Every 4 years, this time gives developing countries a good time for growth and improvement, rotated between RWC's.

Should this affect the 6N every 4 years though? If it did and the 6N was called off once in this time, then ALL home nations would be doing their bit to help develop the sport with no risk to their place in the competition, as Secretfly said, it's all well and good risking other people's place, not so good when your metaphorical head is approaching the block. As such this would be an all-or-nothing for all of 'the old boy's brigade'.

The reason i'd say knock the 6N on the head for a Euro competition is for player purproses, RWC years put players through the ringer, and doing that every other year would just be too much.

Yeah lets just bankrupt the few Unions that fund the global game. Great idea guys.

What we want to see is more non comeptitive games and tedious group stages.

Thatll be far better than having a competition thats produced 4 winners in 4 years and the intense rivalries in wiorld rugby.


If we enter the world of fantasy where econmics dont matter then there would be some rugby merit in having teams like Samoa and curently Tonga (although their comeptitiveness may only be a blip) play with the 6 nations teams ...but the likes of Georgia, (currently Fiji), Romania, Leictenstein and Um Bongo are so ffar behind its ridiculous.
England and France aspire to comepte with the SANZARs, and frnakly the paying public are arrogant enough to not be @rsed about seeing a load of semi pro thugs come and try and red card their way to a low scoring loss in a 16 week tournament that gets in the way of the club seaosn every 4 years.

The 6 nations is comeptitive, exciteing, economicaly succesful and full of rivalry.
If tsaying liek that is stagnant surely tahts a good thing?

You do realises that Barnes, like his mate Jones, is payed to talk cr@p

PSW i was mainly talking timing, not structure. Bilt's structure is great and certainly wouldn't be a 16 week affair. There would of course have to be a certain amount of developmental criteria to be met so said Um Bongo team wouldn't get rolled by everyone in a stadium with 3 people in it.

I for one am quite keen for the developement of the Euro game, it can only be a good thing.

This is one of those "good ideas on paper", however:
The clubs, in particular the Aviva/Top 14 will not agreee to extra games.
The "home" unions will not want to risk the income that the 6Ns brings in.
There would have to be less visits for the SAZAR teams to the detriment of the finances of both Home and SANZAR.
A drop out of the 6Ns would probably signal the end for Scottish and Italian professional rugby.
I don't think the public will be that interested in games like England V Romania or Wales V Georgia on a long term basis - certainly the RFUs could not charge top prices for tickets or corporates for these games so less income for the same matchday outlay.
IMHO let's see how the Pool games between the lower tier nations in the RWC2015 sell as that might be an indicator of how well this would work in practice.

Why would there be extra games?

If you look at the structure I suggest it is 7 test matches. Instead of having two international in November for AI's and then again in FEB & March for the six nations, you can have February and March (9 weeks) to conclude the whole thing.

It is only once every four years, and you miss out on one AI in the four year schedule.

The SH same thing.

To be fair how many of the 6N teams welcomed either Georgia, Romania or Portugal to play in an autumn test with us?

You can't blame the 6N for holding back the lower teir European countries. The RFU, SRU, WRU and IRFU are all guilty of it.

All the home nations, france and Italy could have played one of these teams in the Autumn test window.

I understand the teams want to test themselves against NZ, Australia and South Africa, but looking at Wales and Scotland in particular this Autumn, I firmly believe teams like Georgia would have posed a test in themselves.

The 6N is all about the whole experience, mingling with the opposition fans, meeting up with friends from Ireland, Wales etc from last season and having a banter. The tournament is also rich in history. People find it strange but If I was offered the RWC win in 2015 or a 6N Grand Slam, I would take the grandslam every time.

I would love to be able to experience Murrayfield on a Grand Slam winning day decider........

My opinion is we have to give them a chance in the Autumn before we consider radically changing the 6N (my favourite tournament by a mile).

A Euro competition in lieu of 6N once every 4 years is feasible. It could be completed within the period of the 6N's and there should be sufficient interest to generate equivalent cash, especially if there are Plate, Bowl and Shield competitions on-going into the knockout stages.

The attractiveness of games between tier 2 nations can be gauged by the recent IRB series at Colwyn Bay. Crowds were less than 3,000, games weren't televised as far as I could find, and you have to look pretty hard to find the results. This despite contestants including USA, Russia, Tonga, Samoa and Canada, all heavy hitters amongst Tier 2 (are Samoa still Tier 2?), and the combined marketing might of IRB and WRU.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:To be fair how many of the 6N teams welcomed either Georgia, Romania or Portugal to play in an autumn test with us?

You can't blame the 6N for holding back the lower teir European countries. The RFU, SRU, WRU and IRFU are all guilty of it.

All the home nations, france and Italy could have played one of these teams in the Autumn test window.

I understand the teams want to test themselves against NZ, Australia and South Africa, but looking at Wales and Scotland in particular this Autumn, I firmly believe teams like Georgia would have posed a test in themselves.

The 6N is all about the whole experience, mingling with the opposition fans, meeting up with friends from Ireland, Wales etc from last season and having a banter. The tournament is also rich in history. People find it strange but If I was offered the RWC win in 2015 or a 6N Grand Slam, I would take the grandslam every time.

I would love to be able to experience Murrayfield on a Grand Slam winning day decider........

My opinion is we have to give them a chance in the Autumn before we consider radically changing the 6N (my favourite tournament by a mile).

I dont think the Six Nations should be touched. It is wonderful in the way it is.

But it would be great to see a secondary level tournament below including the likes of the emerging second tier nations.


Current tournament for the next two years as arranged and sanctified by the IRB.

Division 1A
Belgium
Georgia
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain

Division 1B
Czech Republic
Germany
Moldova
Poland
Sweden
Ukraine


France were playing in the European Tier two tournament with a representative team up until 2000 as far as I know.

Perhaps they could look at entering the England womens team in that

Personally I don't think the 6 nations structure should change.

On the other hand I do believe that the top tier nations need to do more to help. Give the lower tier nations more game time.

What's happened to the Churchill Cup these days?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:To be fair how many of the 6N teams welcomed either Georgia, Romania or Portugal to play in an autumn test with us?

You can't blame the 6N for holding back the lower teir European countries. The RFU, SRU, WRU and IRFU are all guilty of it.

All the home nations, france and Italy could have played one of these teams in the Autumn test window.

I understand the teams want to test themselves against NZ, Australia and South Africa, but looking at Wales and Scotland in particular this Autumn, I firmly believe teams like Georgia would have posed a test in themselves.

The 6N is all about the whole experience, mingling with the opposition fans, meeting up with friends from Ireland, Wales etc from last season and having a banter. The tournament is also rich in history. People find it strange but If I was offered the RWC win in 2015 or a 6N Grand Slam, I would take the grandslam every time.

I would love to be able to experience Murrayfield on a Grand Slam winning day decider........

My opinion is we have to give them a chance in the Autumn before we consider radically changing the 6N (my favourite tournament by a mile).

I agree, Romania, Georgia and Russia are more than ready to play the Home nations every year in the AI's, they would offer a good challenge before we take on the big teams like AUS, SA and NZ.

Dont think they could afford the insurance.

The USA and Canada stepped up when they ditched the Tier system and changed world cup qualifying, they now play in regional tournamenst and are included in the tours schedule....in theory they should get summer visits and toured Europe this AI season instead.
No room for both with enforced player release.

I assume this is why Lancaster ditched the Saxons as a team.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
If we enter the world of fantasy where econmics dont matter then there would be some rugby merit in having teams like Samoa and curently Tonga (although their comeptitiveness may only be a blip) play with the 6 nations teams ...but the likes of Georgia, (currently Fiji), Romania, Leictenstein and Um Bongo are so ffar behind its ridiculous.
England and France aspire to comepte with the SANZARs, and frnakly the paying public are arrogant enough to not be @rsed about seeing a load of semi pro thugs come and try and red card their way to a low scoring loss in a 16 week tournament that gets in the way of the club seaosn every 4 years.

The 6 nations is comeptitive, exciteing, economicaly succesful and full of rivalry.
If tsaying liek that is stagnant surely tahts a good thing?

Thats true but what if rugby in Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Russia or Belgium etc took off. Financially it would give the game a massive boost. Thats why we should be helping develop rugby in these countries more.

Georgia, Romania etc might not bring much money to the table but they do offer variety and they make the game more interesting having more competitive teams. Theres nothing worse than the same teams playing each other over and over again. Thats the biggest problem facing the international game. Wales and Australia played each other about 6 times in 14 months. Thats a bit over the top.

It used to be the 4 nations but then they accepted France. France for decades were like Italy nowadays. If the 4 nation unions didn't break with tradition who know where France would be by now. Same with Italy. They're a poor team compared to the top teams but rugby would have gone backwards in Italy if they were not accepted into the 6 nations.

From a club/player point of view there is already too much rugby to be played. You can't keep adding to the schedule, it is already as much as can be accommodated. With the growth of the game in the wealthier western European countries there will be incentive to expand competition for this new wave of national sides but that will be outside the 6 Nations for the forseeable future. There are too few European national sides that are of a high enough standard right now but once countries like Germany, Holland and one or two others with money get their act together this wider European group will, I am sure, look to create an alternative competition. In th emeantime, the 6 nations could play maybe one each of the emerging nations once a year at a venue which could produce income and exposure for the emerging nation. As this likely to be made up of 2nd string 6 Nations players the extra burden might not be felt too much.

profitius wrote:
It used to be the 4 nations but then they accepted France. France for decades were like Italy nowadays. If the 4 nation unions didn't break with tradition who know where France would be by now. Same with Italy. They're a poor team compared to the top teams but rugby would have gone backwards in Italy if they were not accepted into the 6 nations.

Italy gained inclusionon merit by Beating teams that were in the 5N. Teams like Georgia and Romania are yet at that level. They should be given the chance in the Autumn internationals though.

Guys i think we're missing the whole opportunity to utilize the 'A' teams..ie Saxons, Wolfhounds...and maybe even an u23 side for the top tier teams in a competition.

I wouldnt change the 6n...but by giving the 2nd tiers nations etc a game against the A sides they get good competition...as do our A sides.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

profitius wrote:
It used to be the 4 nations but then they accepted France. France for decades were like Italy nowadays. If the 4 nation unions didn't break with tradition who know where France would be by now. Same with Italy. They're a poor team compared to the top teams but rugby would have gone backwards in Italy if they were not accepted into the 6 nations.

Italy gained inclusionon merit by Beating teams that were in the 5N. Teams like Georgia and Romania are yet at that level. They should be given the chance in the Autumn internationals though.

And Tonga rose to be able to comepte against the best of Europe ( Im being kind their Radge ) without access to regaulr tests rugby against the top 10, instea dthey play in their own regional comeptition against teams of a similar level. Part funded of course by IRB money taken form the rich Unions....and ther players getting access to professional rugby and facilities in european/sanzar clubs.
As is the case for the Euopean tournament.

Would that be helped by having it won by France A every year?

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think we need to look at a European championship every two years or so HOWEVER less of the 1st teams and much more at Saxons and other A teams level.....
So Senior nations developing teams get decent games...and the minor nations get a good competition...but maybe not the cricket scores that could potentially come about...

Pool 1:
France "A", Georgia, Germany, Lithuania

Pool 2:
England Saxons, Romania, Ukraine, Switzerland

Pool 3:
Scotland 'A', Russia, Czech Republic, Malta

Pool 4:
Italy 'A', Belgium, , Sweden, Croatia

Pool 5:
Wales 'A', Spain, Poland, Netherlands

Pool 6:
Ireland Wolfhounds, Portugal, Moldova. Host Nation

The best idea so far methinks. I'd watch it, it would have closer score lines, is good development for EVERY team, brings extra money in for developing nations and it doesn't make more games for the very top players.

The AI are for the SH to tour the NH (Europe really) not for the NH to tour the NH. The IRB organise the internationals (that's why Samoa played Russia in Wales). The summer tours are for Europe to tour the rest of the world, not within itself. The 6 nations slot is for European sides to play each other and that is blocked by the 6 nations. So if you want/expect European unions to play others the 6 nations has to change. Otherwise it's out of our hands.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:And Tonga rose to be able to comepte against the best of Europe ( Im being kind their Radge ) without access to regaulr tests rugby against the top 10, instea dthey play in their own regional comeptition against teams of a similar level.

Fully agree.

Had it been Georgia that beat Scotland I would be fully supporting looking at changing the 6N format. If next year they scalped one of the other 6N teams then they would have a compelling case for involvement in the tournament.

I can't justify changing the format untill they consistently challenge the incumbent 6N teams.

They only play other European nations during the World Cup. Other than that it's 'friendlies' against A side with none of their foreign based players (it was the same when they were in the Churchill Cup). At least the PI team tour European most years and have a few of games.

Two options, include them in the current 6 nations window or it's up to the SH during the AI/Summer

profitius wrote:

Thats true but what if rugby in Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Russia or Belgium etc took off. Financially it would give the game a massive boost. Thats why we should be helping develop rugby in these countries more.

Georgia, Romania etc might not bring much money to the table but they do offer variety and they make the game more interesting having more competitive teams. Theres nothing worse than the same teams playing each other over and over again. Thats the biggest problem facing the international game. Wales and Australia played each other about 6 times in 14 months. Thats a bit over the top.

Profitius, what if it did? How long would we wait for it to be competitive with the 6N sides? At the moment those Nations are probably competitive with each other and therefore the competition between them is exciting and perhaps (I haven't seen any of them) even look good on TV. But it's like comparing schoolboy rugby to Provincial/club rugby... not in a demeaning way! But in saying competitveness will be just as keen amongst schools rugby as it is at Professional club level. The crowds will enjoy the schools stuff to the same degree in looking at the one on ones and the passion of the players to chase for tries. But they're still two very different products in terms of skill and physical ability.

So including a few more lesser European sides in an enlarged Nations Cup...how many of those games would be embarrassing slaughters? Yes, bit by bit they'd improve. Year by year we'd be all talking about how much some of them are improving. They'd get the odd win. But the intensity of 6N would be watered down significantly... it's already accused by many as being a glorified sludge-fest a lot of the time with only brief moments of true grandeur on display.

Recent results

Spain (Ranked 18) 47 - 14 Zimbabwe (R 30) Good result for Spain.
USA (R 16) 13 - 22 Tonga (R 11)
Tonga (R 16) 22 - 28 Italy (R 10)

Germany is ranked 29th, Netherlands 38th, Russia 20th, Georgia 17th, Belguim 23rd.

It would be a long time before they became real challengers on a consistent basis when you look at how long Italy languishes in and around bottom after 13 years of participation. I can actually now see real beginnings of Italy actually rising up a rung or two in consistent ability through the next decade...but before the tree bears fruit, some have already lost patience with them and want them replaced.

But Georgia lost to Ireland 5 years ago. They're ready!

it would only work if the elite players were available for the clubs when the A/Saxon/Wolfhound players were away playing this euro cup thingy.

Yep..Zimbabwe would have closely lost to us back then in that bad old month or two of meltdown.