Should the 6 Nations be expanded to become the 8 Nations?

I've long held the view that the arguments around promotion/relegation too and from the 6 Nations are a Red Herring and that what should actually happen is that the two rest weeks should be given over to including Georgia and Romania.

The main argument against would be player welfare, specifically in terms of the number of games our top players are required to play. There are ways around this especially for the better sides to use the opportunities the games provide to develop their coming players.

Ofcourse the clubs would be against further expansion of the international game, however since Italy's inclusion we have failed to provide the development opportunity for the lesser nations and so they go from World cup to World cup with little or no real progress being made. Anyway I am certain the clubs could be paid off from the extra gate receipts and media contracts.

The positives would be huge for the international game in Europe and the northern hemisphere as a whole. Obviously it would offer Georgia and Romania a pathway to expand, promote and develop their games. Regular competition is a must if they are to be able to challenge the status quo in the future.

As for the fans it would be fantastic to travel to the games and even if this was not an option it would enable more fans the chance to attend games at either Twickerham, Paris, Dublin, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Rome.

It is now 20 years since the game became officially open/professional and as far as I can see the opportunities for expansion and development beyond the historic structures must be realised. I believe European Rugby should take the step.

http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings

If there's money to be made by a World rugby in it, it'll happen anyway, regardless of whether you want it or not.

Two more cricket score teams to add to the Six Nations so?

Hmmmm.... I'll think about it  

I really do think Try fatigue could set in    over the first seven or eight years.... or maybe more, considering how long Italy have been 'in'.

No absolutely not.

Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

I'm sure playing these sides in competition (as opposed to one off friendly's) away from home will be a lot harder than you might initially assume.

Italy for example have beaten all othe 6 nations sides at home, excepting England.

I really do not think it would be a good idea at the moment. Italy have been in the 6ns now for ?( about 10)years. and have seldom if ever been in the top 3 of the tournament.

They are normaly fighting it out with Scotland for the wooden spoon.

So al though i would like to see other teams getting a shot at international rugby.

I really do not think that the 6ns is the place for them at this moment.

majesticimperialman wrote:I really do not think it would be a good idea at the moment. Italy have been in the 6ns now for ?( about 10)years. and have seldom if ever been in the top 3 of the tournament.

They are normaly fighting it out with Scotland for the wooden spoon.

So al though i would like to see other teams getting a shot at international rugby.

I really do not think that the 6ns is the place for them at this moment.

This is just self interest, by your logic therefore Italy and Scotland should be removed and we should play a 4 Nations competition.

It's not so long ago that Wales lost to Fiji and Italy. I think everyone should try to look beyond their own national self interest and try and think about the greater needs of the International game. As I mentioned we are 20 years since the game went open and the game is ripe for expansion and development. We've seen this in the Club game and the need is equally there at international level.

Come the world cup this topic will recieve its usual airing but we should actually realise the landscape has changed and the game needs to reflect this.

Relegation should be brought in - Scotland might win the odd game in Tier 2 as long as Hamilton Laidlaw, Ford and co. are given the heave -ho !

I keep asking why not just a Rival Six Nations in Continental Europe?  What gets played right now?

Six sides - same rules - chase for internal European sponsorship and TV rights and together, as a unit of Six, try to bring each other's quality up and become a real rival in competitiveness and exposure to the old Six Nations.

Europe has a massive population.  I think it can easily handle simply another rival contest.  Then - when they're goading that they are actually even better than us - then we invite them in to something bigger

But also - why should some of us 'smaller' Nations commit hara kiri for 'the good of rugby' anyway????  
We're back to an idea of letting some Big nations (in terms of population and potential) 'grow' by joining 'US' only to eventually kick some of 'US' out or down as a consequence  
Why should Six Nations smaller rugby nations so easily give that leg up  (that might ultimately prove our own downfall) to some pretty wealthy Nations in their own right?  I don't exactly see why we'd be asked to begin that trip to potential self-destruction.  We don't owe any of these sides with enough wealth to develop between themselves a bridge into a competition that might chop our own heads off.

No, there is no obligation in any moral context for smaller Six Nations sides to willingly take the risk.  Again, England can afford to be 'generous' because they know their size will always keep them in anything BIG happening.  It's easier to be generous with the prospect of someone else's demise.

kingelderfield wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I really do not think it would be a good idea at the moment. Italy have been in the 6ns now for ?( about 10)years. and have seldom if ever been in the top 3 of the tournament.

They are normaly fighting it out with Scotland for the wooden spoon.

So al though i would like to see other teams getting a shot at international rugby.

I really do not think that the 6ns is the place for them at this moment.

This is just self interest, by your logic therefore Italy and Scotland should be removed and we should play a 4 Nations competition.

It's not so long ago that Wales lost to Fiji and Italy. I think everyone should try to look beyond their own national self interest and try and think about the greater needs of the International game. As I mentioned we are 20 years since the game went open and the game is ripe for expansion and development. We've seen this in the Club game and the need is equally there at international level.

Come the world cup this topic will recieve its usual airing but we should actually realise the landscape has changed and the game needs to reflect this.

Woah, woah, woah! It's been 8 years in both instances. That's a pretty long time! Ireland have lost to Italy much more recently (2 years)!

Griff wrote: Ireland have lost to Italy much more recently (2 years)!

Relegation should have been brought in rapidly when we were down there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I say the relegation argument is a Red Herring, I'm talking about expanding the current competition by simply removing the rest weekends.

Add to that it should be noted that Rugby Union is the 3rd Georgia (after soccer and Wrestling!) &
4th Romania most popular sports in these respective countries. It not like Rugby is the new kid on the block or somthing, both these countries have long and in the Romania's case, successful histories.

Debates like this make you think that perhaps sides are actually scared of the competition (of change) from the emerging teams, where as in reality it is a fantastic opportunity to develop the game both home abroad.

No. ridiculous to suggest that test matches against Georgia are anywhere near as important as the ordinary course of AP matches.

Now if you were to suggest that we go back down to a 5Nations, and set up a second tier 5Nations, with annual relegation and promotion, then yes i think that would be a great idea.

as most 6Ns are decided by points difference, what would be the benefit of teams attempting to score maximums against georgia or romania or whomever? zero. less than zero. would make a total mockery of who actually wins the 6Ns if its all decided by whether you score 80 or 100 points vs romania.

Two sets of 4Ns competitions played home and away. then a one off play-off between the 4th team in D1 and top of D2 played tyhe first week in June, and between 4th in D2 and top of Fira for promotion/relegation.

Griff wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

It's not so long ago that Wales lost to Fiji

Woah, woah, woah! It's been 8 years in both instances. That's a pretty long time! Ireland have lost to Italy much more recently (2 years)!

Have Wales played fiji since that defeat in RWC 07?

LondonTiger wrote:

Griff wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

It's not so long ago that Wales lost to Fiji

Woah, woah, woah! It's been 8 years in both instances. That's a pretty long time! Ireland have lost to Italy much more recently (2 years)!

Have Wales played fiji since that defeat in RWC 07?

2011 RWC, group D.

I heard Romania were pretty awesome before the advent of professionalism. I prefer this idea to the proposed 4 Nations Tournament. We could have extra games instead of having those silly 3 weeks off, with perhaps just a one-week gap halfway through.

I'd be for a 2nd tier with promotion/relegation. But I think player welfare is important and wouldn't want to sacrifice the rest weekends. Equally I think the competition is long enough as is, so don't want it extended. So I'm not in favour of an 8 nation. Or a 4 come to that.

I don't know how you will fit two extra games into a club dominated season.

LondonTiger wrote:

Griff wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

It's not so long ago that Wales lost to Fiji

Woah, woah, woah! It's been 8 years in both instances. That's a pretty long time! Ireland have lost to Italy much more recently (2 years)!

Have Wales played fiji since that defeat in RWC 07?

Yes, thrice. But we haven't lost to them.

LondonTiger wrote:

Griff wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

It's not so long ago that Wales lost to Fiji

Woah, woah, woah! It's been 8 years in both instances. That's a pretty long time! Ireland have lost to Italy much more recently (2 years)!

Have Wales played fiji since that defeat in RWC 07?

We played them in the autumn and ground out a narrow win, awful performance and a terrible refereee

Drew with them in the 2010 autumn series, and smashed them by 60 points in the 2011 RWC

The Saint wrote:I heard Romania were pretty awesome before the advent of professionalism. I prefer this idea to the proposed 4 Nations Tournament. We could have extra games instead of having those silly 3 weeks off, with perhaps just a one-week gap halfway through.

They were, but im sure that was because the president at the time was a massive rugby fan and made it compulsory in all the army etc.
So that Romanian team was built of some huge military players.

Im sure they took NZ exceptionally close one game as well.

The problem is the time and games top European players are playing.

Do we have the time to add two more teams in. Now don't confuse that with me saying they shouldn't come in. Romania / Russia / Georgia all have very strong claims.

I can see it becoming a European Cup style tournament in the future though. Every 2 or four years maybe.

England, Wales, Ireland, Italy, France
Georgia, Romania, Russia, Germany, Spain, Portugal
etc etc

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Im sure they took NZ exceptionally close one game as well.

http://www.espn.co.uk/statsguru/rugby/match/21431.html

Interesting NZ lineup. A mix of legends, people I have never heard of and Jamie Salmon

Romania have beaten Wales I think. But then most teams have at some point I think!

Romania had:

8 wins and 2 draws in 55 fixtures against France
16 wins and 3 draws in 41 fixtures against Italy
2 wins in 13 fixtures against Scotland
2 wins in 9 fixtures against Wales XV (not the strongest available Welsh teams put out, and uncapped - both defeats had some Lions in the teams - but also Eddie Butler in one)

Wow, didn't realise they were this good! Before my time. From Wiki:

"In the 1980s the country boasted more than 12,000 players in 110 clubs. Home nations sides began to award international caps for matches against Romania in 1981; Scotland were the first to do so when Romania visited them on their 1981 tour, Scotland winning the international by 12 points to 6.[3] Wales travelled to Bucharest in November 1983 and were totally overwhelmed, falling to a 24–6 defeat. Romania's first win over Scotland came in Bucharest in 1984 and their first away win against Five Nations opposition came in 1988 against Wales; 15–9 at Cardiff Arms Park.

Their national side beat Wales (twice – 1983: 24 – 6 in Romania, 1988: 15–9 in Wales), Scotland (the 1984 Grand Slam side 28 – 22 in Romania), France (twice 1980: 15 – 0 in Romania, 1982: 13 – 9 in Romania) and drew with Ireland (13–13, in 1980, at Dublin). In 1981, they lost to the All Blacks 14–6 but had two tries disallowed. Many felt it was wrong for the rugby union powers to fail to bring them into top-flight competition. There are even rumours that the Oaks were invited to join but refused because the championship took place during their winter break. Romanian beat Zimbabwe 21–20 in their first ever Rugby World Cup match in 1987 but did not win any other games and failed to progress beyond the group stage."

I posted something similar in the "drop to 4 teams" threat but...

The whole European international structure is set up with competitions of 6 teams. Ideally for me would be to link up all the European competitions into one linked structure. So relegation and promotion between the leagues.

So a normal annual competition but with a winner and loser every 2 years (so full home and away). The loser would switch places with the winner below them. Perhaps start out with a playoff (if it can be fitted in somewhere) to ensure the gap between the bottom and top isn't there. Ideally this too would be home and away.

But it would also require a massive shake up of the finances, and that simply isn't going to happen because the unions depend on it.

In a 15 year period, how often might you think England would fall into relegation Hammer?

Be honest.  Even stretch it to 20.  How often would England be threatened with relegation?

Like the other debates on any of these Let's Mix Up Things Now debates, one thing remains consistent - England and its fans will never have to worry about relegation.  Therefore the debate is always moot for them.  "So we don't change it? So be it.  So we all agree to change it?  So be it - It won't affect us anyway so 'change' wouldn't matter."

That's not the best platform to be on when campaigning for 'Change'. If 'Change' doesn't have a real potential impact for all parties then the concept merely becomes a method of watering down the bottom and consolidating the top.

Fair enough. I won't bother commenting anymore.

No, that's not the reaction, Hammer.

That's evading the truth and being dismissive of the point that few English people ever want to admit.  

No matter what the new adventure planned for world rugby, either at International level or club, English fans will Always be at the top table - Always - so the debates themselves become abstract for them.
When others debate these big shifts, they are doing so in a climate of fear that one wrong move could prove extremely costly for the sport of rugby in their country.

I'm simply always pointing out that dichotomy between English/French fans and the rest of us. It's an important one.

I would like to see them given games against the Saxons or Wolfhounds to see how they compete, if they can take them close then there is a case for breaking up the "old boys club" and either expanding or modifying the format of the 6N.

The 6N is supposed to be the premier international competition in the world, if it can be shown that the 6 sides that compete are not the best 6 sides in the NH, it devalues the tournament massively.

But it doesn't.

I'm almost certain more millions, stretched out across the world, watched (either live or on any of the replay options) more Six Nations games than ever watch the SH Championship, where allegedly the full cream rugby gets played each and every game.

It's the Tradition that sells it - both to expats and even amongst the vast majority of the 'watchers' who are Not die-hard rugby fans.  The Six Nations is a sporting institution - a time when people who never watch rugby come to cheer on the close-quarters rivalries of the participants.

Notch wrote:Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

Yeah agreed when you think that in the Autumn games most of us play one or two of either Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc why not stick Georgia or Romania in there instead.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Notch wrote:Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

Yeah agreed when you think that in the Autumn games most of us play one or two of either Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc why not stick Georgia or Romania in there instead.

We are playing our part:

Sun 16 Nov 2014 - Ireland 49 - 7 Georgia

To all those people on multiple threads looking for Georgia/Romania/Luxembourg/Vatican City to be added to the 6 nations, have your team put their money where their mouth is, and give those teams a game once a year... Pretty sure when there are 40-60 point drubbings in those games, those calls for their inclusion will rapidly be silenced.

SecretFly wrote:No, that's not the reaction, Hammer.

That's evading the truth and being dismissive of the point that few English people ever want to admit.  

No matter what the new adventure planned for world rugby, either at International level or club, English fans will Always be at the top table - Always - so the debates themselves become abstract for them.
When others debate these big shifts, they are doing so in a climate of fear that one wrong move could prove extremely costly for the sport of rugby in their country.

I'm simply always pointing out that dichotomy between English/French fans and the rest of us.  It's an important one.

Evading what truth? England are unlikely to be relegated and therefore an Englishman can't comment on relegation? So then I say no more comments and I'm hiding away. What would you like me to say? I'd give control of the 6 nations to European Rugby and let them decide whats best.

wolfball wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Notch wrote:Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

Yeah agreed when you think that in the Autumn games most of us play one or two of either Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc why not stick Georgia or Romania in there instead.

We are playing our part:

Sun 16 Nov 2014 -   Ireland 49 - 7 Georgia

To all those people on multiple threads looking for Georgia/Romania/Luxembourg/Vatican City to be added to the 6 nations, have your team put their money where their mouth is, and give those teams a game once a year... Pretty sure when there are 40-60 point drubbings in those games, those calls for their inclusion will rapidly be silenced.

Did you receive a Pacific Island nation that year? Or USA, Canada or Japan? They're the ones that missed out playing Ireland by you playing Georgia. That's the way the whole rugby season is set up.

wolfball wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Notch wrote:Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

Yeah agreed when you think that in the Autumn games most of us play one or two of either Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc why not stick Georgia or Romania in there instead.

We are playing our part:

Sun 16 Nov 2014 -   Ireland 49 - 7 Georgia

To all those people on multiple threads looking for Georgia/Romania/Luxembourg/Vatican City to be added to the 6 nations, have your team put their money where their mouth is, and give those teams a game once a year... Pretty sure when there are 40-60 point drubbings in those games, those calls for their inclusion will rapidly be silenced.

Luxembourg deserve their shot. Highest ranking climbers in 2014!

HammerofThunor wrote:

wolfball wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Notch wrote:Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

Yeah agreed when you think that in the Autumn games most of us play one or two of either Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc why not stick Georgia or Romania in there instead.

We are playing our part:

Sun 16 Nov 2014 -   Ireland 49 - 7 Georgia

To all those people on multiple threads looking for Georgia/Romania/Luxembourg/Vatican City to be added to the 6 nations, have your team put their money where their mouth is, and give those teams a game once a year... Pretty sure when there are 40-60 point drubbings in those games, those calls for their inclusion will rapidly be silenced.

Did you receive a Pacific Island nation that year? Or USA, Canada or Japan?  They're the ones that missed out playing Ireland by you playing Georgia.  That's the way the whole rugby season is set up.

I hadn't realised there were people posting for inclusion of non-European countries to enter the 6 Nations...

I'll tell you what.  If we want to make these competitions more 'competitive' , why not force 6th ranked side Australia into the Six Nations, and we'll go down south for a few seasons in the SH Championship???

After all I'm sure the ABs and SA will be getting snotty about having a 6th ranked side and a 8th ranked side in their High Calibre Super Slick SH event???  Bad for biz.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Evading what truth? England are unlikely to be relegated and therefore an Englishman can't comment on relegation? So then I say no more comments and I'm hiding away. What would you like me to say? I'd give control of the 6 nations to European Rugby and let them decide whats best.

No, you'll say what you like of course but I'd 'like' you to admit the truth that the issues around the suggestion of a 'relegation' concept will hardly ever affect you and yours - yet it is mostly you and yours that always bring up the discussion of including 'more' by kicking out 'some'.  It's easy to propose these concepts when the 'some' will never be you.

By all means continue arguing whatever point you want Hammer - but if I'm around I'll always throw in the counter argument that such proposal only affect the lower classes....as always.

I do think Georgia need to be given a chance like Italy were, even if it's a playoff between the wooden spoon team and the tier two winners every other year but having a system where there is no chance of real progression is archaic.

I make the points again;

Relegation/promotion are non starters - the 6 nations sides cannopt be seriously expected to forsake their positions at the top table.

Playing either Georgia or Romania away will not be the easy fixture many believe they would be

and to add source to the argument, here's SCrums comment

http://www.espn.co.uk/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/260251.html

wolfball wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

wolfball wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Notch wrote:Not right now, no. What needs to be done is making sure that Georgia and Romania get a couple of test matches every year against Tier 1 opponents. If and when they are able to compete, thats when we have the conversation.

Yeah agreed when you think that in the Autumn games most of us play one or two of either Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc why not stick Georgia or Romania in there instead.

We are playing our part:

Sun 16 Nov 2014 -   Ireland 49 - 7 Georgia

To all those people on multiple threads looking for Georgia/Romania/Luxembourg/Vatican City to be added to the 6 nations, have your team put their money where their mouth is, and give those teams a game once a year... Pretty sure when there are 40-60 point drubbings in those games, those calls for their inclusion will rapidly be silenced.

Did you receive a Pacific Island nation that year? Or USA, Canada or Japan?  They're the ones that missed out playing Ireland by you playing Georgia.  That's the way the whole rugby season is set up.

I hadn't realised there were people posting for inclusion of non-European countries to enter the 6 Nations...

???

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Evading what truth? England are unlikely to be relegated and therefore an Englishman can't comment on relegation? So then I say no more comments and I'm hiding away. What would you like me to say? I'd give control of the 6 nations to European Rugby and let them decide whats best.

No, you'll say what you like of course but I'd 'like' you to admit the truth that the issues around the suggestion of a 'relegation' concept will hardly ever affect you and yours - yet it is mostly you and yours that always bring up the discussion of including 'more' by kicking out 'some'.  It's easy to propose these concepts when the 'some' will never be you.

By all means continue arguing whatever point you want Hammer - but if I'm around I'll always throw in the counter argument that such proposal only affect the lower classes....as always.

As things stand now England are highly unlikely to get relegated. They're unlikely to get relegated in the future (although France have been bottom recently so who knows). mis that something that's been hidden? And Scotland and Italy are the lower classes? What are Georgia and Romanian? The under class? I would welcome the money from the 6 nations being shared with the next tier to reduce/remove any financial lose. That would effect England. Is that an allowed opinion?

Say anything you want. I repeat, I'll continue reminding people that some of the deciders don't have to worry about consequences. England wouldn't care whether they played an Underclass or a Lower class. They'd remain Ruling Class. It's easy to pronounce on the future of others when none of the risks attach themselves to England.

As to your proposal for 'financial' compensation being shared out to the unfortunate 'traditional' sides that would have to fall.................. They want Involvement - not pay-off money.

Anyway, it's all abstract as it's just ideas being thrown around but that idea that some are more equal than others persists in all these threads.

Look, nothing will change. The bigger countries need to find a way of helping the smaller ones more or we will never see proper rugby become a genuine global sport. Instead the inexorable rise of Sevens will continue apace.

Irish fans will point out that they played Georgia - once. English fans will highlight how much was spent supporting the Churchill Cup, including monies paid to IRFU and NZRU. Some may even talk about how a portion of the gate receipts for the Samoa game was given to the visitors (neglecting to indicate just how small a share it was.)

The fact is though we merely pay lip service to the concept of spreading the game.

In the meantime self appointed guardians to the dispossessed decide who is allowed to express an opinion.

SecretFly wrote:Say anything you want.  I repeat, I'll continue reminding people that some of the deciders don't have to worry about consequences.  England wouldn't care whether they played an Underclass or a Lower class.  They'd remain Ruling Class.  It's easy to pronounce on the future of others when none of the risks attach themselves to England.

As to your proposal for 'financial' compensation being shared out to the unfortunate 'traditional' sides that would have to fall..................  They want Involvement - not pay-off money.

Anyway, it's all abstract as it's just ideas being thrown around but that idea that some are more equal than others persists in all these threads.

At this point I'd be more than happy to have England leave the 6 nations and join the European Rugby competition structure. Not going to happen, just as nothing is going to happen.