Kick Italy and Scotland out of the Six Nations?

Some suggestions:

1. Have a 4 Nations tournament with England, Ireland, Wales and France playing each other home and away. This lessens the chances of a tournament being decided on who puts the biggest scores on the whipping boys.

2. Put Italy and Scotland in with Georgia, Russia, Romania etc for a second tier competition. Gives the smaller nations in Europe more of a chance to develop.

Doubt this will be popular with the traditionalists but Scotland and Italy were so pathetic in rolling over at home that they deserve to have their place in the competition questioned. If the top teams didnt approach matches with them so conservatively they could run up massive scores against them all the time. Its not a great way for a competition to be decided.

The final day was thrilling in terms of where the competition would be decided but only the England v France game was a genuine thriller. The other two was just two pathetic teams offering no resistance and being put to the sword. They should be ashamed to have folded so meekly in front of their home fans.

Dont really have a problem with Scotland and Italy being perrenial losers but its bad for the competition when they are just their to act as a scoreboard and come the final day of the competition they dont even show up. Plus having a home and away system amongst the top 4 teams reduces the lottery element of it somewhat.

Mayne the bottom team in the top 4 Nations could play off against the winner of a tier two competition to keep incentives high. It might also encourage the Scots and Italians to get the finger out and give them something to play for.

Yawn...

No. It can't be helped if they don't have the resources of the others - but if they do build in that area (clubs, academies, etc) then eventually they will catch up. Scotland have a better U20s team this year, along with a good Glasgow team. In a couple years we may see that help their national team. Italy's record is something else at the moment, but they somehow got a win over Scotland so there's still life left in the Azzuri.

Well Mike Brown is already signed up to that petition.

I dont think lack of resources can be blamed for the white flag performances they put in at the weekend. If they play that, they deserve to have their status scrutinised.

I would rather see England, Ireland, France and Wales play each other twice than have Scotland and Italy involved and only contributing to points aggregates.

Maybe not good from a development point of view for Scotland and Italy, put Im sure the Georgians and Romanians would argue they deserve the same opportunity. And I struggle to have sympathy for Scotland and Italy who showed no pride whatsoever in getting turned over. Maybe giving them relegation to worry about might encourage them to actually go out and play for something.

catchweight... you're listening to too much Brown.  They didn't turn over - they were cooked.  They had no answers because they came up against 3rd and 5th ranked sides playing a full tempo.

Italy did look as if they'd surrendered. That's an internal thing, something that Brunel and the players need to deal with because it's unprofessional. Booting them out of the 6 Nations won't help, it will only worsen the situation. If they go down and Georgia get promoted, Georgia will go back down the following year with Italy propping back up, with the cycle continuing. That's not going to help and it's a reason why England are considering scrapping relegation for their premiership.

Scotland were alright in some games, and showed that they're capable of winning games in the autumn. And not so long ago, Italy were beating France and Ireland. I think and hope that they'll get back to being competitive soon.

Stupid topic! Same could have been said about ireland or Wales in the 90s. Both were very poor now look at them!

SecretFly wrote:catchweight... you're listening to too much Brown.  They didn't turn over - they were cooked.  They had no answers because they came up against 3rd and 5th ranked sides playing a full tempo.

There's certainly a gap between the top 6 ranked teams and the rest (forgetting about the contrasting levels of the top 6 teams atm), and while France remain the only real challengers to those, they can still be considered a bottom 3 team in the 6 Nations, as that's how it is these days. Top 3 and bottom 3. So maybe it might be considered a world rugby issues rather than a Scotland and Italy issue. What should world rugby do to help the minnows?

Scotland and Italy are to the detriment of the 6 Nations as a tournament. Thats my viewpoint. Tough luck on them. They have been using the development excuse for 15 years now - that is a long time. Italy have improved from where they came from - enough to justify their place in the competition? - Not for me. Scotland dont seem to progress at all. 15 years of dropping further and further behind the top 4 while pretending they are making progress.

Keeping them in and having them prop up the table every year without consequence might be good for Scotland and Italy, but I think it makes the 6 Nations a worse competition as a result and it will be often be decided now on points aggregrate against the whipping boys and whether or not they choose to turn up which is not a satisfying way for the tournament to be decided.

this was an amazing weekend of rugby.

but as i've said before, the 6nations format is not a good one. nice for fans to visit fun places for away matches. but a strange competition that has no knock-outs, yet doesnt compensate and have home and away to make it a true league format.

history and tradition and union greed in this professional era will ensure that there are zero changes to the composition of the tournament. whatever anyone might wish to the contrary.

League?

It isn't a League.  It's the Six Nations.  

This obsession with bloody Leagues.  Football has a lot to bloody answer for in the psyche of so many millions of people who grew up under its influence.

We have Leagues now and even they are bastardised when the actual side that wins most games in a season, works hardest and comes out on top - actually must then face the play-off challenge of a lazy bastard side, just doing enough to get in there at the end and then taking the crown of 'Best side of the Year'???

Before we League-alise Six Nations let's admit even Leagues chase f**king every penny at the expense of true League leaders taking their rightful crown at the end of a bloody long and hard season

Oh and PS - like I always say, when Six Nations is on, all fans seem to want to tinker with and make better the Six Nations - it's the greatest but could be better!!!.  Then when the fans all return to Club - f**K Six Nations, International is getting too much publicity and interest, my heart is with club, club is the future, clubs can't be letting players away to play in dumb International games......; let's do More to improve the Club game!!!

It's a circle I laugh at each and every year.

Next up:  Let's Improve the World Cup, coming to a cinema near you real soon.

SecretFly wrote:League?

It isn't a League.  It's the Six Nations.  

This obsession with bloody Leagues.  Football has a lot to bloody answer for in the psyche of so many millions of people who grew up under its influence.

We have Leagues now and even they are bastardised when the actual side that wins most games in a season, works hardest and comes out on top - actually must then face the play-off challenge of a lazy bastard side, just doing enough to get in there at the end and then taking the crown of 'Best side of the Year'???

Before we League-alise Six Nations let's admit even Leagues chase f**king every penny at the expense of true League leaders taking their rightful crown at the end of a bloody long and hard season

Oh and PS - like I always say, when Six Nations is on, all fans seem to want to tinker with and make better the Six Nations - it's the greatest but could be better!!!.  Then when the fans all return to Club - f**K Six Nations, International is getting too much publicity and interest, my heart is with club, club is the future, clubs can't be letting players away to play in dumb International games......; let's do More to improve the Club game!!!

It's a circle I laugh at each and every year.

Next up:  Let's Improve the World Cup, coming to a cinema near you real soon.

must be the after effect of the murphy's but couldnt agree more

Keep drinking ME...we're a stronger unit side by side...

Georgia

quinsforever wrote:this was an amazing weekend of rugby.

but as i've said before, the 6nations format is not a good one. nice for fans to visit fun places for away matches. but a strange competition that has no knock-outs, yet doesnt compensate and have home and away to make it a true league format.

history and tradition and union greed in this professional era will ensure that there are zero changes to the composition of the tournament. whatever anyone might wish to the contrary.

Correct.

The buck normally outbids the rationality.

Aye alright pal the whipping boys who should have won three games, and were admittedly awful in the second half of the last two games. We've been Poopie the last few years but go along to Edinburgh experience the atmosphere and the anthems and the city bouncing on game day. Fortunately there will be a time in the near to mid future when scotland are considered one of the leading contenders, look at Glasgow and the age grade sides, but until that point you ought to try to understand that the six nations is so much more than a rugby tournament and if you were a proper fan you'd realise that.
IF you don't believe me go up to one of the scotland games next year, stay in the city and go out in the evening and then, regardless of the result, tell me the tournament would be better without scotland. Or continue your life as a one eyed ignoramus who views six nations rugby in the short term and from the modern sporting point of view that it is all about the product on the pitch.
I doubt you could name the capital of Georgia without googling it and then factor in the cost of travelling, you can knock history and tradition all you want but it's what makes the six nations special. The Irish are the only decent European side and yet very few of their fans are calling for expulsion. It appears to be mainly the English and Welsh who want to prove to everyone that their elite despite, in England's case, a lack of six nations glory, and in Wales' case, a very poor record against the Southern Hemisphere elite.
Also I did love Mike brown's interview, and as a club player I love him, but he's not half the player of any of the other home nations full backs and that's why the closest he'll ever get to the lions is a trip to the zoo.

Mike Brown is a Tinkywinky and should concentrate on his own team!

He is the reason that we "HATE" England!!!!

As for kicking out Scotland and Italy, GET A GRIP!!

123456789 wrote:The Irish are the only decent British side and their fans are magnanimous and well rounded people who seem to understand the ups and downs of sport and for the most part the Welsh are the same.

It's bad enough describing the Irish as British but describing Welsh fans as, "magnanimous and well rounded"!?!?!?

Just some observations about Scotland and Italy and the sudden desire to dump them from the tournament after the weekend.

Wales chased a 25 point margin target from England. They finished the first half, barely ahead 13-14. Was anybody complaining when Italy scored and were ahead in the game? Italy had two players sin-binned in the second half. Wales racked up the points. This didn't stop Italy from scoring a last minute try to take their total to 20, and in the process reduce the target for Ireland to aim at from 28 to 21. Did anyone from Ireland or England complain about that or were they praising Italy for not giving up?

Wales beat Italy by a margin of 41, scoring eight tries and conceding two. England had gained much of their +37 points advantage by beating Italy in the second round by scoring 6 tries and conceding three. Did English fans complain about that at the time?

England had to play Italy in the final round last year to chase a margin of +49 from Ireland. They beat Italy by the same margin as Wales did - 52-11. Did anyone complain about that?

Scotland played England in Twickenham where they hadn't won for over 20 years. They lost 25-13. The only complaining from English fans that I read about was the amount of missed England chances to not rack up more scores - not about Scotland's efforts in preventing those.

Equally, Wales just managed to squeak past Scotland. If they had hammered them by 25 points, would they have complained about the Scots just giving up at that point?

Italy scored 7 tries last season, and conceded 21. They had a PD of -109

They scored 8 tries this season - same as Ireland - and conceded 19 - with a PD of -120.

I seem to recall a good few voices responding to England's commanding six-try win that they'd also let in three from Italy and this could come back to haunt them. And so it proved.

When Italy beat France and Ireland in previous seasons, there weren't too many complaints either from opposing fans.

Italy and Scotland folded, say the critics. They gave up. They didn't turn up.

Ireland let in one try.

Wales let in two.

Scotland let in four.

England let in five.

France let in seven.

Italy let in eight.

Was it attack or defence that won the day?

Have a 4 Nations tournament with England, Ireland, Wales and France playing each other home and away. This lessens the chances of a tournament being decided on who puts the biggest scores on the whipping boys.

presumably there is no demotion so basically you completely lock up all other nations forever ?

or do you mean demotion every season ?

if so sure lets see your team demoted and see how keen you are on the proposal

What a load of rubbish. The format as it stands gave us all one of the most exciting day's rugby we've ever watched and all you can do is bitch?

I can forgive Mike Brown - actually I'm glad to know it stings like that - but really...

Well, the question is do you want to make the Six Nations an elite competition?

What happens to Italian and Scottish rugby then?

catchweight wrote:Scotland and Italy are to the detriment of the 6 Nations as a tournament. Thats my viewpoint. Tough luck on them. They have been using the development excuse for 15 years now - that is a long time. Italy have improved from where they came from - enough to justify their place in the competition? - Not for me. Scotland dont seem to progress at all. 15 years of dropping further and further behind the top 4 while pretending they are making progress.

Keeping them in and having them prop up the table every year without consequence might be good for Scotland and Italy, but I think it makes the 6 Nations a worse competition as a result and it will be often be decided now on points aggregrate against the whipping boys and whether or not they choose to turn up which is not a satisfying way for the tournament to be decided.

Okay, I'll answer. In the last dozen championships the Scots have won 12 victories. In the dozen years from 1988 to 1999 Ireland won an even worse total of 10 matches. The strange thing is, despite watching all of those games over that period, it did not occur to me, not once, to suggest that Ireland leaves a tournament it has participated in since 1883.

I understand that it is fashionable to post these strange, graceless and rather condescending articles suggesting that weaker teams be ejected but I have never heard the point well argued. And I still haven't.

As an England fan I'd like to see both stay in and be supported. I think Scotland in particular can, with time, rebuild and challenge.

Its not right that the tournament can be won depending upon how big a score you can put on Italy on the last day. No one really respects Italy anymore. They are good for one or maybe even two games and then the wheels fall off. Until the italian sides can compete in the Celtic league they should go.

NO, no. No. No.

No.

And it's a no from me.

I really fear for Italy and Scotland, they have a bigger population than Wales, but they have half the pro sides, heck, Wales are even staking a claim for another side, something serious needs to be done in both these countries, otherwise they will fade away into obscurity in the rugby world. Italy, for me do not really worry me as they do not have as much of a history in our tournament, but to lose Scotland would be a disaster, they have been there since day one, how can a country the size of Scotland and Italy be so rubbish ? For Scotland it is not just the rugby either, their football sides are failing miserably compared to what they used to be.

The 6N needs these two countries to sort themselves out, they are doing nothing for the 6N, how can a country that has twice the population of Wales, and in Italy's case 100 times the population, be so far behind, it is just beggars belief.Unless they come up with something in these countries, then I only think that the auther of this topic has a point, and the longer it goes on, the stronger his point will be, at the moment, besides being a good away trip, they are not offering anything to the 6N except a healthy points difference.

Italy and Scotland did roll over for Wales and Ireland to rack up the points. They are both poor teams but they do have more limited resources.

Though that's the case - no they shouldn't be kicked out.

Let's be honest England had plenty of opportunities - should have scored more tries vs Scotland - butchering chance after chance, defence could and should have been better vs France.

Personally I am not bothered that England just got pipped to the post on points difference again. Scoring 55 points and 7 tries vs France is good on any day of the week.

There's not be much difference between Wales,Ireland and England - except we know which side quite clearly has the best attack.

I think it is a crying shame that a tournament with so much history and rivalries can be decided on how much points you can rack up against Italy and Scotland. That is now what the 6N is, put as much points on these two teams to give yourself a better chance of winning it.

Can't have this, I'm afraid. Should New Zealand not bother playing Wales, Ireland and Scotland at all and perhaps give England a fixture once a decade since that's the average expectancy of an England win against the All Blacks?

South Africa - aren't they now entitled to give up on England as suitable opposition, having owned their souls for about a decade? Hell, aren't Australia doing Wales a favour by fulfilling a World Cup fixture bearing in mind what has happened the last ten matches between the sides?

Obviously not. Italy have their problems just now, ones that won't be properly resolved until they unearth another Dominguez. It wasn't so long ago that they were beating Ireland and France inthe same year, though - just remember how long it took France to become a properly competitive side when they transformed the tournament into the 5 Nations.

As for Scotland, I can't say that I understand why their results remain as poor as they are. They have the players to make a proper impact - don't always select them, mind, but it is pitifully short-sighted to want them out because they've forgotten how to win. Only in the second half against Ireland did they properly capitulate this year - the rest of the time, they have been at least as competitive as Ireland were throughout the 1990s. Swings and roundabouts. I'm old enough to remember the dismal England side of the mid-1980s and you don't have to be Methuselah to recall Wales receiving a lick of whitewash and regularly shipping 40 and 50 point hidings against the powerhouses of the day.

Leave well alone - where's the joy in playing the same two or three sides year in year out, in any case?

beshocked wrote:Italy and Scotland did roll over for Wales and Ireland to rack up the points. They are both poor teams but they do have more limited resources.

Though that's the case - no they shouldn't be kicked out.

Let's be honest England had plenty of opportunities - should have scored more tries vs Scotland - butchering chance after chance, defence could and should have been better vs France.

Personally I am not bothered that England just got pipped to the post on points difference again. Scoring 55 points and 7 tries vs France is good on any day of the week.

There's not be much difference between Wales,Ireland and England - except we know which side quite clearly has the best attack.

Scotland didn't roll over for Wales. It could be argued that we were cheated by the game ending early. Even Gatland said that was the best Scotland team Wales have played.

I think he means those respective teams on the final day (Italy for Wales and Scotland for Ireland).

Scotland weren't far off winning 4 games and in a parallel universe would be mid table.

I think the last weekend was a tale of 3 teams with everything to play for and 3 with nothing to play for.

Both these teams managed to go to fortress HQ and put up a fair old resistance so maybe Mike Brown has had too many bumps in the head.  

There is clearly a gap between the top 3 and the rest but if anyone waved a white flag it was the French, to concede 55points is pretty disgraceful given what was at stake and the final game amounted to a glorified game of sevens, as entertaining as it was.

LordDowlais wrote:The 6N needs these two countries to sort themselves out, they are doing nothing for the 6N, how can a country that has twice the population of Wales, and in Italy's case 100 times the population, be so far behind, it is just beggars belief.

Hmmm. How large do you think Italy's population really is?!

God no, ridiculous suggestion

Keep them in, its an amazing competition the way it is, everyone knows the rules and the relative strength of the teams.

If England didn't know that there's a good chance they wouldn't get a grand slam (duh) then they should have defended better against Italy and tanked Scotland by a lot more than they did.

Griff that's what I meant yes.

captain carrantouhil did you know that England have inflicted the heaviest ever defeat on SA? That was only 13 years ago.

rodders that's same old Scotland though - hyped up as "dark horses" before the tournament but disappointing as usual.

The French scored 5 tries. They never gave up. The French scored more points than Italy and Scotland could manage between them.

You say it's disgraceful to concede 55 points - what about the Italians then?

No clearly Italy and Scotland are important to the 6N. Lets not forget how bad Ireland and Wales have been in the past and how bad France have been for a few years now.

I do, beshocked - and that's my point. Scotland crushed Ireland at Murrayfield the year before that huge England win over SA. Not long afterwards, Italy were beating Wales at home a couple of times and drawing in Cardiff. The thing is that history shows us that pre-eminence is cyclical (obviously the All Black hegemony over the NH is a rather longer cycle than most). Give thanks for the good times and hope that it's a long time before your side is at the bottom of the wheel.

Yes agree, it probably was the same old Scotland but if they'd won those first few games then things might have been different.

They seem to have lots of good individuals and bar the last game played good rugby - Hogg, Seymour, Gray and their openside(doh?) all stood up but probably the set piece let them down.

Well the Italians didn't concede 50 points at Twickenham did they?

With France's depth last day fatigue isn't an excuse, although they did have the 6 day turnaround - another sign of everything being stacked in England's favour.

Thankfully Ireland and Wales didn't read the script, even if France almost did.

The idea of dropping to 4 nations is ridiculous. The whole European international rugby format is based on competitions of 6 teams.

But Georgia are now (I believe) ranked above Italy. They've done this by being consistently better than their peers and Italy being consistently worse. So far they'll have been there for a couple of days so not really crying out for change, but how long would that have to happen before something changed?

Personally I'd have a playoff between the winner of the ENC and the loser of the 6 nations (following the same two year cycle as the ENC). Not sure when these game could be fit in but it would be a way of determining the gap between the two levels. Maybe even home and away legs and taking the aggregate (making the scheduling even harder). This would also require a change up in the distribution of finances to ensure no-one collapses completely for a one off.

If we say that we need to keep Scotland and Italy in to allow them to get stronger by making money and playing against higher level competition...what does that mean we're doing to the guys just below by not giving them the chance?

captain carrantouhil 32-10 is not the same as 53-3 though!

rodders no the Italians didn't but they didn't score as many tries as France.

Stacked in England's favour? France actually trying whilst Italy gave up at half time and Scotland didn't even try at all.

Also both Italy and Scotland were at home - you think in front of their home crowds they would have put up more of a fight.

England have the best attack in the 6 nations - it's not surprising they scored more tries than any other side throughout the tournament.

Beshocked, you force me to point out that among the soul-sapping series of defeats suffered by England against SA over the past decade or so have been results to the tune of 10-58, 22-55, 0-36 and 6-42 (the last of those at Twickenham). SA, however, have decided to keep the fixture going for the fairly evident reason that there's always a chance that it won't always be like that. As I say, swings and roundabouts.

beshocked wrote:captain carrantouhil 32-10 is not the same as 53-3 though!

rodders no the Italians didn't but they didn't score as many tries as France.

Stacked in England's favour? France actually trying whilst Italy gave up at half time and Scotland didn't even try at all.

Also both Italy and Scotland were at home - you think in front of their home crowds they would have put up more of a fight.

England have the best attack in the 6 nations - it's not surprising they scored more tries than any other side throughout the tournament.

What fight would they have put up, shocked?

Both Italy and Scotland were beaten.  France were beaten.  

Had England just kept things more... conventional (and they were magnificent in attack) but had they just held themselves in check more, they'd have won the Title, without any call back from the French, in the first half.

26 was never really that big a target against a mismanaged France.  But England kinda were too jumpy in the first half and let the French in.

England had the Best Attack of the Six Nations.  Undoubtedly.
Ireland had by far the Best Defence of the Six Nations.  Undoubtedly.

France had only conceeded 46 point in the 4 games prior to that. Yet 26 MARGIN wasn't a big target? As it happens the French decided to **** it and chuck it about, which opened up their defence.

Give it a rest & dry your eyes.
Disappointing Scotland perfromance yes. Especially in the 2nd half but worth rembering that Hogg was a baws hair width away / a superb Heaslip tackle away from scoring a try. The team didn't give up.

beshocked wrote:Stacked in England's favour? France actually trying whilst Italy gave up at half time and Scotland didn't even try at all.

Also both Italy and Scotland were at home - you think in front of their home crowds they would have put up more of a fight.

England have the best attack in the 6 nations - it's not surprising they scored more tries than any other side throughout the tournament.

Well thats what the tournament organisers would have been hoping. Drain France on the Sunday in Rome before sending as cannon fodder to Twickenham last up.... send Wales and Ireland on banana skin away days if they were still in it.

Sure any attack is going to look good if the opposition have no interest in defending. If Ireland and Wales had lost I think we'd have seen a much different game at twickenham. At least Italy and Scotland were playing to avoid the wooden spoon.

HammerofThunor wrote:The idea of dropping to 4 nations is ridiculous.  The whole European international rugby format is based on competitions of 6 teams.

But Georgia are now (I believe) ranked above Italy.  They've done this by being consistently better than their peers and Italy being consistently worse.  So far they'll have been there for a couple of days so not really crying out for change, but how long would that have to happen before something changed?

Personally I'd have a playoff between the winner of the ENC and the loser of the 6 nations (following the same two year cycle as the ENC).  Not sure when these game could be fit in but it would be a way of determining the gap between the two levels.  Maybe even home and away legs and taking the aggregate (making the scheduling even harder).  This would also require a change up in the distribution of finances to ensure no-one collapses completely for a one off.

If we say that we need to keep Scotland and Italy in to allow them to get stronger by making money and playing against higher level competition...what does that mean we're doing to the guys just below by not giving them the chance?

I agree with this, also if Georgia keep winning in the second tier and Italy keep losing then the gap will become wider, which is not out of the realms of possibility. How can Scotland and Italy be ranked as tier one sides when they are struggling to stay above tier two sides in the world ranking's ? If it was not for the Pro12 I do not think Scotland or Italy would have a fully professional rugby league within their set-ups, and before anybody says anything about Wales and Ireland, I think we would have the support from within our systems to at least have some sort of professional set-up.