Boring Six Nations Needs a Good Kick In The Bottom

well after a flying start in the opening weekend the six nations has already fizzled out into a predictable romp by england against insipid and uninspiring opposition that casts the whole competition in a poor light. ireland have shown some form but only 20 minutes at a time in a game. wales problems in recapturing any form or adventure behind a reasonable pack continue and the finger of blame must so evidently be pointed at the ineffective rob howley and the egos of some of the so called welsh superstars that it barely condescends conversation. italy at first looked like they might have found some gumption but it turned out merely to be that the pretournament favourites france turn out to be just as erratic as ever and the coaches still seem unable to identify the obvious best players in the country and get them into a jersey. scotlands new simple and mechanical game plan augmented by the arrival of a kiwi winger seems the most interesting talking point in this tournament if you set aside englands inevtiable romp to a grandslam bearing breaking a sweat. all this aside my main gripe is the rest weekends. for a tournament struggling to find a spark having the continuous off weekends just spoil any momentum. contrast a dull and disappointing weekend of six nations bookended by two rest weekends with the kind of zippy excitement we can enjoy if we get out of bed early enough to witness the southern hemispheres offering in super rugby and its apparent why england aside the northern hemisphere cannot compete on a perrennial basis.

the whole tournament needs a shake up. i want to see the club competitions compressed with european and club tournaments finalised in febrary and the six nations moved a month into the better weather of march/april and perhaps switched to a two tier format with the top 4 runners playing off in a finals round robin with the single winner of an under competition. I suggest it should be england, france, wales, ireland against the winner of scotland, italy, and two european contenders from the next tier of rugby.

the whole tournament needs a shake up. i want to see the club competitions compressed with european and club tournaments finalised in febrary and the six nations moved a month into the better weather of march/april and perhaps switched to a two tier format with the top 4 runners playing off in a finals round robin with the single winner of an under competition. I suggest it should be england, france, wales, ireland against the winner of scotland, italy, and two european contenders from the next tier of rugby.

I couldn't agree with you more here. As for the tournament structure itself, they could do with a relegation system, or at least trial it. Wooden spooner gets relegated to the tier 2 Six Nations, with the winner of that obviously getting promoted. But trying to be totally honest here, it's going to be a yo-yo for a good decade or more.

Whom do you support Glorious?

Can a mod merge with this to avoid having to repost the same tired arguments? https://www.606v2.com/t40009-discuss-the-following

I think most people agree that a restructured season based more along the Sanzar model would make sense, but is practically impossible to bring about. We cant even decide who should televise the HC FFS.

As for the tournie itself and the make up, its massively popular and grows year on year. Its meaningful and competitive. Its generates money, rivalries, passion and excitement.
It really aint broken.

Promotion/relegation and tiers is just a good way of the busting the Unions who are barely hanging onto a proper professional game anyway. Noone gives a Tuppenny fluff about Gerogia vs Italy. It took a decade to make Italy a worthwhile addition and its taken over a decade for Scotland to get back to the point they can win two games. Bringing in a team worse than these guys for one year so they cant properly invest long term is just pointless other than the novelty factor.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I think most people agree that a restructured season based more along the Sanzar model would make sense, but is practically impossible to bring about. We cant even decide who should televise the HC FFS.

Most of the competitors agreed. They wanted the company that offered the least money to get the contract. I am sure it had nothing to do with them funding the shindig in California for the executives making the decision. Because that would be a bad thing, and NewsCorp do not do bad things.

PSW - Scotland won 3 games in 2006.

The competition is fine, even though some of the games have left something to be desired. The weather is often a factor, as is the fact that the teams don't play each other home and away.

A 'slam' is therefore always earned.

Personally I love the atmosphere and banter watching the games in a pub with the fans of all the teams.

Depends a great deal on who you support and what it does to you. I found Scotland Italy very boring as it was repetitive and a little bit sad. (Italy attack attack attack just badly, turn the ball over, Scotland scores) - where as some might say that was a really exciting game. On the other hand I found England France fantastic, not least because of the intensity of the first 60 minutes - which was just a level above any of the other games that weekend. and of the tempo and adaptability of England for the full 80. It wasnt pretty but the tension was exceptional.

I don't think the tournament itself needs to be tinkered with. No relegation system or even bonus points for that matter, the current format is imo the most accurate in reflecting who's been best and worst in any given year. No need to complicate things by throwing in factors that don't need to be there.

Moving the tournament to another part of the year is fairly reasonable and open to discussion imo. But in a way that presupposes discussions on a completely modified calendar between the two hemispheres, based on what time's best for both etc. Unless that were on the horizon, I couldn't see them discussing the possibility of moving the 6N by itself.

There are two main things that stick out for me:-

1) That the domestic game continues on the same weekends. If anything needs a shake up, it is the domestic/ clubs game first.

2) I feel the Six Nations tournament would roll along much better over five consecutive weeks rather than having free weeks in between.

I definitely wouldn't touch the bonus point system. It made the World Cup a little bit of a laughing stock, in my opinion, that it allowed France to get out of the group stages ahead of Tonga (who could have gone through instead on head-to-heads) and meant Georgia had nothing to play for in their final group game against Argentina. With bonus points a team could, theoretically, win the Grand Slam but not the Six Nations tournament.

I don't think there is/ will be a lot you can do to the Six Nations unless you look at restructuring the whole sport.

International rugby is a bit like American sports where there are some many franchises.

sportsville wrote:There are two main things that stick out for me:-

1) That the domestic game continues on the same weekends. If anything needs a shake up, it is the domestic/ clubs game first.

2) I feel the Six Nations tournament would roll along much better over five consecutive weeks rather than having free weeks in between.

I definitely wouldn't touch the bonus point system. It made the World Cup a little bit of a laughing stock, in my opinion, that it allowed France to get out of the group stages ahead of Tonga (who could have gone through instead on head-to-heads) and meant Georgia had nothing to play for in their final group game against Argentina. With bonus points a team could, theoretically, win the Grand Slam but not the Six Nations tournament.

I don't think there is/ will be a lot you can do to the Six Nations unless you look at restructuring the whole sport.

International rugby is a bit like American sports where there are some many franchises.

flash barstud

From the south...
Why doesn't 6 nations get played a little closer together with fewer breaks?
eg
week 1
week 2
break
week 3
week 4
break
week 5
Would that help in getting players back to their clubs without smashing them to bits?

I agree with eliminating the breaks in the tournament. Five consecutive weeks. I think having the breaks actually damages the club game a bit by keeping the best players out of the squads longer. And once the Six Nations gets rolling, I look forwards to each weekend. These break weeks have always felt a bit annoying.

My question is what to do during those 5 weeks? My preference is to have no Premiership (or Pro 12) matches during the Six Nations. Perhaps that's the home of the LV= matches? Not sure that works with the overall season schedule, however.

I would prefer to move the start of the Six Nations back by those two weeks we are eliminating, but keep the final round of matches about the same time as current. I don't want to impact the end of the club seasons. It is really great for the club game to have Heineken Cup and Premiership/Pro 12 finals in the big stadia in nice May weather.

GloriousEmpire wrote:well after a flying start in the opening weekend the six nations has already fizzled out into a predictable romp by england against insipid and uninspiring opposition that casts the whole competition in a poor light. ireland have shown some form but only 20 minutes at a time in a game. wales problems in recapturing any form or adventure behind a reasonable pack continue and the finger of blame must so evidently be pointed at the ineffective rob howley and the egos of some of the so called welsh superstars that it barely condescends conversation. italy at first looked like they might have found some gumption but it turned out merely to be that the pretournament favourites france turn out to be just as erratic as ever and the coaches still seem unable to identify the obvious best players in the country and get them into a jersey. scotlands new simple and mechanical game plan augmented by the arrival of a kiwi winger seems the most interesting talking point in this tournament if you set aside englands inevtiable romp to a grandslam bearing breaking a sweat. all this aside my main gripe is the rest weekends. for a tournament struggling to find a spark having the continuous off weekends just spoil any momentum. contrast a dull and disappointing weekend of six nations bookended by two rest weekends with the kind of zippy excitement we can enjoy if we get out of bed early enough to witness the southern hemispheres offering in super rugby and its apparent why england aside the northern hemisphere cannot compete on a perrennial basis.

the whole tournament needs a shake up. i want to see the club competitions compressed with european and club tournaments finalised in febrary and the six nations moved a month into the better weather of march/april and perhaps switched to a two tier format with the top 4 runners playing off in a finals round robin with the single winner of an under competition. I suggest it should be england, france, wales, ireland against the winner of scotland, italy, and two european contenders from the next tier of rugby.

Grey Ghost.... is that you?

Ye I'd agree with Grey, theres no reason the breaks can't be illiminated, and the toruny shuffled 2 weeks later.

Within the 5 weeks you could run near all the LV tourny, the Rabo is full of squad men enough to not be able to select any int's for 7 weeks (third of the season), let the LV comp run to it's end during the 6N.

No reason to change the format of the best and most loved tournament on the planet

nganboy wrote:From the south...
Why doesn't 6 nations get played a little closer together with fewer breaks?
eg
week 1
week 2
break
week 3
week 4
break
week 5
Would that help in getting players back to their clubs without smashing them to bits?

Looking at that I'm sure that's pretty much what we have already. The only difference is the final break goes between week 3 and 4 at the moment, rather than between week 4 and 5 as you have it. Apart from that it's what we have.

I'm all for squishing it together into consecutive weeks. The players are away from their teams for too long, as others have said. The club games become a bit of a joke. Yes, it's a chance to give youth a run out, but the fans lose interest a bit and the games then become a bit of a training run, which makes a mockery of the league. However, is there an injury aspect to consider in terms of intensity?

Am I imagining it, but when it was the 5 Nations didn't you sometimes have one side having a month off because of a two week break and then being the sad, lonely one missing out on a fixture?

Or was it just two weeks? Or three?

Hmmm.

Can't remember it being a month off Cyril! But definitely a week off when the other 4 were playing.

Cyril, I was wrong, so wrong! Just looked it up, and yes the 1999 5 nations shows Wales play on the 6th of March and then their next game was on the 11th of April. Ridiculous. How did I manage?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Five_Nations_Championship

Heh, cheers Griff.

Yeah, the whole momentum used to get knocked out of the tournament with breaks like that. Luckily we've got even numbers now. I knew there was a reason for including Italy

5 consecutive weeks would favour the stronger unions with deeper resources but could be acceptable if it was used to make the season more sense - Playing the 6N later would be better IMO

Simple solution - play the 6 Nations in Australia! Better weather!

Scrap the Lions.

Players wanting to do enough to impress (a non-National coach) while being held back mentally lest they pick up an injury that kills their chances completely. The head going one way, the mind ticking in another way. The will I/won't I battles of the subconscious.

The Lions destroys the attitude that Nation comes first and that 6N is the Prime Event in European International Rugby.

Okay...so that doesn't explain France ...but who the hell can explain those guys?

the Lions will never be scrapped

It is the pinnacle

And it is also extremely popular in the host nations, the last bastion of touring rugby

I have been lucky enough to follow a Lions side on tour and it is the best rugby or even sporting experience you can ever have

Nation is the pinnacle for me, Beefy. By a long shot...and the 6N would be a meaner dog if all Nations subscribed to that idea

And of course the host nations love it, they keep winning

SecretFly wrote:Scrap the Lions.
Players wanting to do enough to impress (a non-National coach) while being held back mentally lest they pick up an injury that kills their chances completely. The head going one way, the mind ticking in another way. The will I/won't I battles of the subconscious.

The Lions destroys the attitude that Nation comes first and that 6N is the Prime Event in European International Rugby.

Completely agree. Anachronistic rubbish.

To get a call up for the Lions is a massive achievemnent for any player and the combination of British and Irish players into one touring squad is a great symbol of the ability of our game to unite players and supporters over national interests, both political and sporting. Long may it last.

Firstly the two tier system is a non-starter, the unions wouldn't allow it, the SRU would never forego the attention the Calcutta cup brings to the sport when the game's at Murrayfield let alone the revenue. Another factor is that it's useless, would the introduction of Georgia and Romania make it interesting or more skilled, why should Scotland be placed with that dross when we have the same amount of victories as Italy, France and Ireland put together, yes over the last few years we have been worse than terrible but is your only solution to a lack of tries to create a tournament with more games and worse teams?
Secondly, has the tournament been boring? Scotand vs Ireland was hardly an exhibition of skill or running rugby but it was engrossing nevertheless.
Thirdly, scrapping the Lions is a load of crap, the Lions are a fantastic idea which is the pinnacle for many players, do you honestly think it's a suprise that the top four teams in a Lions year are from the British Isles?

123456789 wrote:
Thirdly, scrapping the Lions is a load of crap, the Lions are a fantastic idea which is the pinnacle for many players, do you honestly think it's a suprise that the top four teams in a Lions year are from the British Isles?

Yes... It is very much a surprise. And mostly because it isn't true.

...certainly if the top four refers to 6N positioning.

2013 - wait for it, wait for it!!! It ain't over till the fat Lady sings. Italy might have something to say about top 4 still.
2009 - top four was Ireland, England, France and Wales.
2005 - top four was Wales, France, Ireland and England.
2001 - top four was England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.


So what's that? Your theory was proven right once so far in 13 years of Six Nations History.

Plus, since there are only two other sides in a six nation championship that are outside the British and Irish sphere, and given one of those sides has been Italy (habitual underdogs)...the odds on having at least three British or Irish sides in the top four of the 6N in any given year is quite high...and has been proven so by the truth being there in black and white in the records.

It's nice that you love the Lions. Good man. Some of us thinks it thows up too many conflicts of interest for supposed National players. The fork in the road means you'll go your way, and I'll go mine

Without any question, the Lions are an artifact of times gone by. An antiquated concept. Completely out of date with the current professional game. But, despite all that, it's a damn glorious event. Hopefully never goes away.

SecretFly wrote:Plus, since there are only two other sides in a six nation championship that are outside the British and Irish sphere...

At least with France, we can fix that. We did it before at Crécy, Agincourt, and Normandy.......

SecretFly wrote:

123456789 wrote:
Thirdly, scrapping the Lions is a load of crap, the Lions are a fantastic idea which is the pinnacle for many players, do you honestly think it's a suprise that the top four teams in a Lions year are from the British Isles?

Yes... It is very much a surprise. And mostly because it isn't true.

...certainly if the top four refers to 6N positioning.

2013 - wait for it, wait for it!!! It ain't over till the fat Lady sings. Italy might have something to say about top 4 still.
2009 - top four was Ireland, England, France and Wales.
2005 - top four was Wales, France, Ireland and England.
2001 - top four was England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.


So what's that? Your theory was proven right once so far in 13 years of Six Nations History.

Plus, since there are only two other sides in a six nation championship that are outside the British and Irish sphere, and given one of those sides has been Italy (habitual underdogs)...the odds on having at least three British or Irish sides in the top four of the 6N in any given year is quite high...and has been proven so by the truth being there in black and white in the records.

It's nice that you love the Lions. Good man. Some of us thinks it thows up too many conflicts of interest for supposed National players. The fork in the road means you'll go your way, and I'll go mine

indeed! italy 4th!

GloriousEmpire wrote:well after a flying start in the opening weekend the six nations has already fizzled out into a predictable romp by england against insipid and uninspiring opposition that casts the whole competition in a poor light. ireland have shown some form but only 20 minutes at a time in a game. wales problems in recapturing any form or adventure behind a reasonable pack continue and the finger of blame must so evidently be pointed at the ineffective rob howley and the egos of some of the so called welsh superstars that it barely condescends conversation. italy at first looked like they might have found some gumption but it turned out merely to be that the pretournament favourites france turn out to be just as erratic as ever and the coaches still seem unable to identify the obvious best players in the country and get them into a jersey. scotlands new simple and mechanical game plan augmented by the arrival of a kiwi winger seems the most interesting talking point in this tournament if you set aside englands inevtiable romp to a grandslam bearing breaking a sweat. all this aside my main gripe is the rest weekends. for a tournament struggling to find a spark having the continuous off weekends just spoil any momentum. contrast a dull and disappointing weekend of six nations bookended by two rest weekends with the kind of zippy excitement we can enjoy if we get out of bed early enough to witness the southern hemispheres offering in super rugby and its apparent why england aside the northern hemisphere cannot compete on a perrennial basis.


the whole tournament needs a shake up. i want to see the club competitions compressed with european and club tournaments finalised in febrary and the six nations moved a month into the better weather of march/april and perhaps switched to a two tier format with the top 4 runners playing off in a finals round robin with the single winner of an under competition. I suggest it should be england, france, wales, ireland against the winner of scotland, italy, and two european contenders from the next tier of rugby.

Couldn't agree more. If teams like England played decent attacking rugby then the tournament would have been much more entertaining.

No tries in 3 games is appalling.
England must change their attack coach.

100%beefy wrote:the Lions will never be scrapped

It is the pinnacle

And it is also extremely popular in the host nations, the last bastion of touring rugby

I have been lucky enough to follow a Lions side on tour and it is the best rugby or even sporting experience you can ever have

Right and Wrong, it will never be scrapped because each of the 4 Home Unions made several million £ off it last time. Look at the WRU accounts the Lions is the only time that Wales actually makes money from touring. It's a wonderful little boon into the coffers of each country, and money is what's important in modern day rugby.