Kick Italy and Scotland out of the Six Nations?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Let's try this again so.

England 'shipped' 35 points on the day.  More than their Welsh rivals, who shipped 20.  Or their Irish rivals that shipped 10

So the only real truth of the day is the sides that shipped most points are in descending order:
Italy
France
Scotland
England
Wales
Ireland.

In short - had England only shipped 6 less points on the day, they'd have won (superior try number).
Indeed, had Wales shipped 11 less points on the day, I think they'd have won.

The 'shipping' of points didn't rely on other sides playing in far away grounds.  All it required was a team playing a little less ambitiously and a little more defensively.  The Title was there for England on a plate.  But they themselves decided to be one of the final day points 'shipping' sides.  They let in far too many French points in their all out attempts to get theirs.

Total Love sacks, but yeah

catchweight wrote: If they are going to keep them in they should look at revising how the tournament is won. Having a tournament that will be as often as not decided upon which of the top 4 teams hammers the bottom two by more points, or who gets to play an uninterested Italy on the last day and puts 50 or 60 points past them is a pretty unsatisfying end to a championship, regardless of what Nations ends up winning up.

This year the title probably just about went to the right Nation and the exciting finale overlooked two abject surrenders by by the whipping boys so no big deal will be made of it. But in future years there will be championships decided on the last day by teams tonking Italy or Scotland by 40/50/60 points.

Have Scotland and Italy really been the whipping boys that allow teams to win the Championship all the time? And will they be in the future?

Let's look at the history, cos facts are always useful in these kind of debates.

2000
England win outright with notable high score wins posting 50 points against Ireland and 46 against Wales.
2001
England won it by a landslide +149 PD over Ireland's 40. Along the way, they thrashed Wales, Italy, Scotland and France with 40 plus points against all of them.
2002 - Grand Slam
2003 - Grand Slam
2004 - Grand Slam
2005 - Grand Slam
2006 - France win on points difference over Ireland. France wallop England 31-6 and Italy 37-12 (both 25 point margins) Ireland wallop Wales 31-5 with Wales conceding most points that year.
2007 - France beat Ireland again on points difference. Ireland tried their best to set a target in the final match but allowed Italy back into the match finishing 51-24. France won it by 4 points beating Scotland 46-19. France had already hammered Italy that year 39-3 in the opening round and Ireland hammered England 43-13. Oh and Scotland beat Wales handsomely 21-9 and Italy thrashed Scotland 37-17. Wales avoided the wooden spoon on points difference.
2008 - Welsh GS with everyone else losing 2 or more matches.
2009 - Irish GS with England beating France 34-10 and Italy taking four hammerings. Wales just got over the line against them.
2010 - France won it outright, thrashing Ireland 33-10, with England just scraping past Italy 17-12, Ireland losing to Scotland 20-23 in the final match, and France narrowly beating England 12-10.
2011 - England win it outright over the chasing pack of Irl, Fra and Wales. Ireland just won at the death 13-11 against Italy, who then got hammered 59-13 by England, and Italy then famously turned over France 22-21 in Rome, England come to Dublin looking for the GS and get tonked 24-8, whilst France tonk Wales 28-9.
2012 - Welsh Grand Slam with England just getting past Italy 19-15, but thrashing Ireland 33-10.
2013 - Wales win it on points difference over England due to Ireland and France deciding to compete for the wooden spoon that year. Ireland managed to whack Wales in the opening round, and then promptly lost to England, Scotland, drew with France and lost decisively to Italy. Italy also took France's scalp. Wales and England go into the final match on level points and Wales promptly thrash England 30-3.
2014 - Ireland win on Points difference over England. Eng could only score 41 points margin over Italy but didn't overtake Ireland's PD. Ireland beat France in the final match, having beaten Scotland 28-6, Wales 26-3 and and Italy 46-7. Wales got their wish that year and played Italy first winning 23-15.
2015 - well we all know how that went....
2016 - will see a repeat of the final round of matches with just home/away reversed - will there be lots of points chasing once again?
2017 - Scot play Italy, Wales play France and Ireland play Eng in Dublin on Paddy's weekend - that should be interesting.

PH

These discussions tend to forget that at the turn of the century Wales and Ireland were both being routinely turned over by England by scores of over 40 and points. Move forward to today and instead of having one ridiculously talented team we in fact have three who on any given day can turn the other teams over. Are Italy and Scotland actually that bad or are Ireland, England and Wales currently just too good?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:PH

These discussions tend to forget that at the turn of the century Wales and Ireland were both being routinely turned over by England by scores of over 40 and points. Move forward to today and instead of having one ridiculously talented team we in fact have three who on any given day can turn the other teams over. Are Italy and Scotland actually that bad or are Ireland, England and Wales currently just too good?

I remember there were serious discussions about France and England going it alone because they were getting too good.

Italy and Scotland are actually improving. People might find that strange but it looked to me like Italy ran out of gas and gave up after leading coming up to half time. Scotlandhad a few close games and led England at half time. So they're no pushovers. The other teams are getting better and are more ruthless these days. So Italy and Scotland have a moving target to reach.

The Six Nations should stay as it is although I did suggest somewhere else that they should replace the Six Nations once every four years, in between World Cups, with a European Championship to give the other European nations games with the bigger nations.

Ideally I would have 16 teams in four groups of four then QF, SF and the final or possibly a 10 team tournament with two groups of five then SF and final. Either way both formats would take up six weekends.

At the very least I think there should be proper European wide World Cup qualifiers, like football, featuring the Six Nations teams.

All nationalistic bias aside.

England have improved drastically in the past 3 years, we might only have three runners up places to show for it but an expansive attacking game combined with a strong back has the potential to run up big scores against teams.

Wales have been a top class team for many years now who don't tend to wilt so when it clicks against a team tiring again they're going to score big.

Ireland are the more pragmatic of the three but can relentlessly punish teams for any slight mistake and in Sexton have the best 10 in the NH capable of dominating any game.

Saturdays results were a freak that would need a very specific set of unlikley circumstances to occur for it to replicated, four teams decided that all out attacking rugby was in order and led to rather ridiculous and anomalous scores.

These competitions only ever get bigger.

was originally the Home Nations - 4 teams.

then the 5 Nations when france joined.

then the 6 Nations since 2000 with Italy.

why bigger?  money. revenue for the Unions to re-invest in their domestic games.

twas ever thus and ever will be.

Fortunately though, club rugby and its importance (and independence) in France and England will prevent the 6Nations becoming the 8Nations or anything rubbish and irrelevant like that.

Scotland should defiintely be part of the competition. unquestionably.

but if the top team in the tier below is better than one of the teams in the 6Ns then they deserve their chance at taking part in the 6 Nations.

profitius wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:PH

These discussions tend to forget that at the turn of the century Wales and Ireland were both being routinely turned over by England by scores of over 40 and points. Move forward to today and instead of having one ridiculously talented team we in fact have three who on any given day can turn the other teams over. Are Italy and Scotland actually that bad or are Ireland, England and Wales currently just too good?

I remember there were serious discussions about France and England going it alone because they were getting too good.

Italy and Scotland are actually improving. People might find that strange but it looked to me like Italy ran out of gas and gave up after leading coming up to half time. Scotlandhad a few close games and led England at half time. So they're no pushovers. The other teams are getting better and are more ruthless these days. So Italy and Scotland have a moving target to reach.

You remember it wrong

what to say? as usual should I excuse for my time baggering the moral guardians of the game to let us into 6N? No, I'll not do it. Am I ashamed for saturday's second half? of course I am. Was a mental thing? sure thing, and the different motivations made the rest. As the last try proves, we never meant to gift Wales with the title. No comment about France, and I mean France, conceding 55 points to England... but you know, there are so many strange people around. until a couple of years ago we were "charged" with the acuuse of playing 10 man rugby..ok, 7 tries last year and 8 this one. so it's the turn we lost by 40 so we have to be kicked out. I don't care actually, all I can see it's a beautiful bunch of young italian players growing, a Young backline who, for the first time, it's a threat ball in hand for major teams. all we need is finding 2/3 really good players in the key roles,confidence will grow once we'll start winning, and we can't win without such a under-par SH or FH, for instance.
For the rest, the memory of France and ireland and Wales with sad faces for having lost to us, or England players puffing and grunting, flying over rucks, slowing professionally the ball, and throwing the last ball out embracing each other for a couple of undeserved wins (home and way) is still too fresh to keep in real considerations the usual words of people who, since their team had a good Championship, want to kick us a and Scotland out.Did't hear such comemnts from Englishmen for two years in a row, neither from irishmen after they lost in Rome.
C'est la vie...
God save 6N, best sport tournment in the world, indeed

aqualung71 wrote:Did't hear such comemnts from Englishmen for two years in a row, neither from irishmen after they lost in Rome.
C'est la vie...
God save 6N, best sport tournment in the world, indeed

You're still not hearing it from too many Irishmen, aqualung.

HammerofThunor wrote:

profitius wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:PH

These discussions tend to forget that at the turn of the century Wales and Ireland were both being routinely turned over by England by scores of over 40 and points. Move forward to today and instead of having one ridiculously talented team we in fact have three who on any given day can turn the other teams over. Are Italy and Scotland actually that bad or are Ireland, England and Wales currently just too good?

I remember there were serious discussions about France and England going it alone because they were getting too good.

Italy and Scotland are actually improving. People might find that strange but it looked to me like Italy ran out of gas and gave up after leading coming up to half time. Scotlandhad a few close games and led England at half time. So they're no pushovers. The other teams are getting better and are more ruthless these days. So Italy and Scotland have a moving target to reach.

You remember it wrong

You sure? I though I heard something along the lines of England and France wanting in on the Tri-Nations action around the time that England had sold their home games to Sky.

Pretty sure that was News International talk with no directly quotable material from any one actually involved with English or French rugby.

Murdoch in his never ending bid for world domination.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:You sure? I though I heard something along the lines of England and France wanting in on the Tri-Nations action around the time that England had sold their home games to Sky..

Yes I hered that as well, but it might have just been media hype, but it was definatley spoken about.

Anyone.....and I mean anyone, who suggests any team get kicked out of the 6N are the 'supporters' who watch the occasional match at home or in the pub and who have never ever gone to a live match in any of the 6 host cities.

When you're having a few beers around the ground, joining in with banter and pi$$ taking with opposition fans, then in the pubs and bars afterwards, arm in arm singing and congratulating each other, dancing to whatever classic the DJ puts on, then that my friends, is the REAL reason why no team should be kicked out of the tournament.

The game is for us....the fans.

And it's the fans that make the incredible atmosphere throughout the 6N that further cements the tournament as the best rugby competition on the planet.

Even if you do get humped by 30 points.

In short, leave it the feic alone.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Anyone.....and I mean anyone, who suggests any team get kicked out of the 6N are the 'supporters' who watch the occasional match at home or in the pub and who have never ever gone to a live match in any of the 6 host cities.

When you're having a few beers around the ground, joining in with banter and pi$$ taking with opposition fans, then in the pubs and bars afterwards, arm in arm singing and congratulating each other, dancing to whatever classic the DJ puts on, then that my friends, is the REAL reason why no team should be kicked out of the tournament.

The game is for us....the fans.

And it's the fans that make the incredible atmosphere throughout the 6N that further cements the tournament as the best rugby competition on the planet.

Even if you do get humped by 30 points.

In short, leave it the feic alone.

Let the biz buz boyz from more-bucks land keep their hands off something that is much more cultural than simply sport.

catchweight wrote:People are happy skew these rubbish stats like Ireland being bad in the 90s. Yes they were bad but they also played in a tournament that didnt have Italy there to be beaten every year.

What percentage of games have Scotland and Italy won excluding each other since the Six Nations began?

What real progress have they made? Scotland are falling further behind and Italy are and will remain pretty dreadful.

If they are going to keep them in they should look at revising how the tournament is won. Having a tournament that will be as often as not decided upon which of the top 4 teams hammers the bottom two by more points, or who gets to play an uninterested Italy on the last day and puts 50 or 60 points past them is a pretty unsatisfying end to a championship, regardless of what Nations ends up winning up.

This year the title probably just about went to the right Nation and the exciting finale overlooked two abject surrenders by by the whipping boys so no big deal will be made of it. But in future years there will be championships decided on the last day by teams tonking Italy or Scotland by 40/50/60 points.

mate, in the 90's italy beat Ireland most of the times....

aqualung71 wrote:

catchweight wrote:People are happy skew these rubbish stats like Ireland being bad in the 90s. Yes they were bad but they also played in a tournament that didnt have Italy there to be beaten every year.

What percentage of games have Scotland and Italy won excluding each other since the Six Nations began?

What real progress have they made? Scotland are falling further behind and Italy are and will remain pretty dreadful.

If they are going to keep them in they should look at revising how the tournament is won. Having a tournament that will be as often as not decided upon which of the top 4 teams hammers the bottom two by more points, or who gets to play an uninterested Italy on the last day and puts 50 or 60 points past them is a pretty unsatisfying end to a championship, regardless of what Nations ends up winning up.

This year the title probably just about went to the right Nation and the exciting finale overlooked two abject surrenders by by the whipping boys so no big deal will be made of it. But in future years there will be championships decided on the last day by teams tonking Italy or Scotland by 40/50/60 points.

mate, in the 90's italy beat Ireland most of the times....

I had to look it up, but aqualung is right - 3 out of 4 wins for Italy over Ireland in the 90s.

Catchweight - I'm sorry but you still haven't responded to a number of the points above.

This notion that we must discount 5 nations comparable team records because Italy was not part of the competition does not make any sense. The whole crux of your apparent dissatisfaction is that there are currently 2 traditionally weaker teams. If Italy joined during the 5 Nations, then you would be in precisely the same analogy, albeit that the weaker teams would be Ireland and Italy (5 Nations) rather than Scotland and Italy (6 Nations).

I think more should be done to get a side like Georgia on board. Maybe if every country had an A-Team you could run an A-Team seven nations which includes the georgian national team. Have that run for a few years to test georgia's infrastructure, performances etc and then look to expand the six nations to seven.

I also think the six nations should move to the end of the season.

gcBlues wrote:I think more should be done to get a side like Georgia on board. Maybe if every country had an A-Team you could run an A-Team seven nations which includes the georgian national team. Have that run for a few years to test georgia's infrastructure, performances etc and then look to expand the six nations to seven.

I also think the six nations should move to the end of the season.

listen guys, sincerely it's this Georgia affair that I don't catch. In the 90's we built our admission into the 5N on results, we have been invited into the 5N not because Ireland was crap but because we beat several times Ireland and Scotland, France, lost by 1 in Wales and Australia and so on. Has Georgia ever beat one of 6N teams lately? when, and if this should occur on regular basis, then I'm in, let Georgia or whoever into.
I think they gotta earn their spot, and they didn't yet IMHO, ranking is worth nothing.

The thing is aqua, unlike Italy in the 90's Georgia have had very limited opportunities against the current 6N side. I remember well the run of fine wins Italy had which made their case to join the tournament impossible to argue against, but Georgia just don't have that sort of run of games. Having said that, they did push Scotland close at the last World Cup, and Ireland at the one before that (both lost by less than a score I believe?) so they're signs they could be competitive.

I would certainly like to see them given a chance against the 6N teams on a fairly regular basis, if only to assess where exactly they're at. We know they're better than the next best European teams, they deserve at least a chance to show they belong with the Elite?

Also Ireland were kinda crap bhut lets not forget Italy back up the hype by winning their first ever 6 nations game by beating a pretty decent Scotland side in Rome. Dominguez masterclass. Since then they have defeated every team bar England.

Why anyone would want to get rid of Italy is really strange.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:The thing is aqua, unlike Italy in the 90's Georgia have had very limited opportunities against the current 6N side. I remember well the run of fine wins Italy had which made their case to join the tournament impossible to argue against, but Georgia just don't have that sort of run of games. Having said that, they did push Scotland close at the last World Cup, and Ireland at the one before that (both lost by less than a score I believe?) so they're signs they could be competitive.

I would certainly like to see them given a chance against the 6N teams on a fairly regular basis, if only to assess where exactly they're at. We know they're better than the next best European teams, they deserve at least a chance to show they belong with the Elite?

yes you're right, and I completely agree. They deserve to test themselves against major teams. Let's give all of them many more chances to prove what they're Worth, and THEN we should talk about letting someone else in.

GunsGerms wrote:Also Ireland were kinda crap bhut lets not forget Italy back up the hype by winning their first ever 6 nations game by beating a pretty decent Scotland side in Rome. Dominguez masterclass. Since then they have defeated every team bar England.

Why anyone would want to get rid of Italy is really strange.

because sometimes some people fell like their team is too strong to play vs Italy or Scotland...until the next time they will lose to us, then it'll be someone else's turn. As I said, it's life

aqualung71, Italy and Scotland need more than two pro sides to supplement the national team, Italy and Scotland are not poor nations, and you have more than enough of a population to cover the extra teams, until you have more pro teams Italy and Scotland will keep on being the whipping boys, there is no coincidence that it is always between you two for the wooden spoon, you only have two pro side each, and even in those two sides you have non qualified players, come on, how long are we going to see half your national sides speaking with South African, New Zealand and Australian accents ? There should be no excuse, you need more player playing at a higher level, both Italy and Scotland, until you do, you will always be whipping boys.

Why were Italy admitted in 2000, when Romania were not in the 80s despite Romania having a much setter set of results than Italy?

Money. Italy is a huge potential market and brought a lot of dosh to the table. Thus the 5 nations bent over backwards to let them in.

Georgia do not stand a chance of ever being able to either play 6Ns teams on a regular basis or participate in the 6Ns via a promo/relegation method. Why?


Money. The countries at the top table do not give a flying feck about anyone else.

LordDowlais wrote:aqualung71, Italy and Scotland need more than two pro sides to supplement the national team, Italy and Scotland are not poor nations, and you have more than enough of a population to cover the extra teams, until you have more pro teams Italy and Scotland will keep on being the whipping boys, there is no coincidence that it is always between you two for the wooden spoon, you only have two pro side each, and even in those two sides you have non qualified players, come on, how long are we going to see half your national sides speaking with South African, New Zealand and Australian accents ? There should be no excuse, you need more player playing at a higher level, both Italy and Scotland, until you do, you will always be whipping boys.

funny, I'd love to listen to all the accents of NZ players...it's the global game, the best team in the world is the top poaching country as well. And all this is more ridiculous than ever now. Last 6N: Morisi, Sarto, Campagnaro, Masi, Visentin, Bacchin, Venditti, Gori, Minto, Allan (sorry), Furno, Biagi, Favaro, Zanni, Parisse, De marchi, Rizzo, Ghiraldini, Chistolini, Manici, Palazzani all italian stuff.
poaches: Mclean, Haimona (still asking myself why BTW), Vunipola, Castro (he's been playing for Italy for ever now, but still a poach.) What the hell you're talking about? we need a wider players base? sure we do.
The point is: where this obsession for Italy and Scotland come from? Just enjoy your wins, they'll not last for ever

LondonTiger wrote:Why were Italy admitted in 2000, when Romania were not in the 80s despite Romania having a much setter set of results than Italy?

Money. Italy is a huge potential market and brought a lot of dosh to the table. Thus the 5 nations bent over backwards to let them in.

Georgia do not stand a chance of ever being able to either play 6Ns teams on a regular basis or participate in the 6Ns via a promo/relegation method. Why?


Money. The countries at the top table do not give a flying feck about anyone else.

ehmmm...first: the rugby world is way too far conservative still today, can you imagine in the 80's? second: you wanted to let in a communist country in the 80's? c'mon...

England are the only side in the 6 nations never to lose to Italy but doesn't mean I want Italy to leave.

We need a strong Italy and Scotland in international rugby to improve the strength in depth of international rugby.

I want rugby union to grow in Italy - I would love the day when I can go to Italy and see Italians really embracing rugby union. It will never be as popular as football but if it can have it's strongholds like France does then that would be nice.

Obviously at the moment their two primary teams are in the Veneto region and Emilia Romagna region. Would love to see them grow more - very large catchment areas.

Guess the issue with anywhere is you need to build the long term culture. Start with the youngsters at grassroot levels and develop some talented youngsters.

I am sure if Zebre and Treviso were performing better then getting Italian youngsters engaged would be easier.

Chicken vs Egg - can't get better without stronger Italians, can't develop talented Italians without the interest.


Italian and Scottish players simply aren't as good as their English,Welsh,Irish and French counterparts. Of course there are notable exceptions like Parisse and Hogg.

Need to catch up at grassroot levels.

On the development side I am confident that in the end, England will surpass Ireland and Wales - not because our coaches are superior they aren't. It's because our strength in depth and player development will eventually make it's mark. The sheer amount of players that Lancaster has capped will eventually reap dividends.

Whilst a side like Wales is scraping the barrell at tight head for example, England can continue to churn out players in numerous positions to fill in the gaps.

Ireland seem to rely so much on Sexton that a long term injury to him could well and truly scupper Irish chances in the RWC.

England have so many players that other teams like Wales and Scotland have been inclined to cap Englishman to bolster their own depth.

Even now the Welsh are eyeing up an English tighthead prop because of a lack of Welsh options.

aqualung71 wrote:The point is: where this obsession for Italy and Scotland come from? Just enjoy your wins, they'll not last for ever

But that is the point though isn't it ? Well for me it is anyway, I do not want to see Italy or Scotland kicked out, now way, I want Italy and Scotland to contribute more, I want them to aspire to win the 6N, I want them to influence the 6N differently, not on how many points difference they actualy give the winners, there is no excuse, you should be providing more than what you are, you need extra pro sides, and you need them sooner rather than later.

I'm sure aqualung is glad to have you as the voice of reason LD..

LondonTiger wrote:Why were Italy admitted in 2000, when Romania were not in the 80s despite Romania having a much setter set of results than Italy?

Money. Italy is a huge potential market and brought a lot of dosh to the table. Thus the 5 nations bent over backwards to let them in.

Georgia do not stand a chance of ever being able to either play 6Ns teams on a regular basis or participate in the 6Ns via a promo/relegation method. Why?


Money. The countries at the top table do not give a flying feck about anyone else.

Logistically Italy made a lot more sense too. I dont think the decision was completely about money. Itlay had won a good few games v Ireland as Aqua said. I dont think they would have been accepted if they hadnt shown how decent they were.

beshocked wrote:England are the only side in the 6 nations never to lose to Italy but doesn't mean I want Italy to leave.

We need a strong Italy and Scotland in international rugby to improve the strength in depth of international rugby.

I want rugby union to grow in Italy - I would love the day when I can go to Italy and see Italians really embracing rugby union. It will never be as popular as football but if it can have it's strongholds like France does then that would be nice.

Obviously at the moment their two primary teams are in the Veneto region and Emilia Romagna region. Would love to see them grow more - very large catchment areas.

Guess the issue with anywhere is you need to build the long term culture. Start with the youngsters at grassroot levels and develop some talented youngsters.

I am sure if Zebre and Treviso were performing better then getting Italian youngsters engaged would be easier.

Chicken vs Egg - can't get better without stronger Italians, can't develop talented Italians without the interest.


Italian and Scottish players simply aren't as good as their English,Welsh,Irish and French counterparts. Of course there are notable exceptions like Parisse and Hogg.

Need to catch up at grassroot levels.

On the development side I am confident that in the end, England will surpass Ireland and Wales - not because our coaches are superior they aren't. It's because our strength in depth and player development will eventually make it's mark. The sheer amount of players that Lancaster has capped will eventually reap dividends.

Whilst a side like Wales is scraping the barrell at tight head for example, England can continue to churn out players in numerous positions to fill in the gaps.

Ireland seem to rely so much on Sexton that a long term injury to him could well and truly scupper Irish chances in the RWC.

England have so many players that other teams like Wales and Scotland have been inclined to cap Englishman to bolster their own depth.

Even now the Welsh are eyeing up an English tighthead prop because of a lack of Welsh options.

God knows why more than half of our team play in England and France..Do you buy crap then?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm sure aqualung is glad to have you as the voice of reason LD..

So you reckon that they are doing fine as they are do you ?

Would you not rather see a better Italy and Scotland ?

Or do you want them kicked out of the 6N ?

All I am trying to tell him is that not everybody feels the same way as the OP, some of us, me, would be quite devastated if they were ever to leave the 6N, but at the moment they are not realy offering anything, I think having extra pro sides would make the difference, but as I am often told on here, I talk rubbish and I am always wrong, so therefore I could be well wide of the mark.

aqualung71 wrote:

Even now the Welsh are eyeing up an English tighthead prop because of a lack of Welsh options.

God knows why more than half of our team play in England and France..Do you buy crap then?
[/quote]

Personally I think the Italian players are just as good as any other countryu in Europe. The problem is there isnt enough of them so Italy have to rely on a much smaller bunch, too small to compete at the highest level.

GunsGerms wrote:Personally I think the Italian players are just as good as any other countryu in Europe. The problem is there isnt enough of them so Italy have to rely on a much smaller bunch, too small to compete at the highest level..

I agree.

LordDowlais wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm sure aqualung is glad to have you as the voice of reason LD..

So you reckon that they are doing fine as they are do you ?

Would you not rather see a better Italy and Scotland ?

Or do you want them kicked out of the 6N ?

All I am trying to tell him is that not everybody feels the same way as the OP, some of us, me, would be quite devastated if they were ever to leave the 6N, but at the moment they are not realy offering anything, I think having extra pro sides would make the difference, but as I am often told on here, I talk rubbish and I am always wrong, so therefore I could be well wide of the mark.

no, it's just senseless since a larger players' base or more pro sides are connected and far targets, so out of question now. I just say to enjoy this beautiful Championship as it is, some year we offer more, some other year less, but we have passion, sold out stadium, and we win some game here and there. It's the most beautiful rugby (and not only) event in the world, but a few of you people have staff to complain about, and I don't know why.
Just, without Scotland and Italy, England would have won this one because of France shipping 55 points for the first or second time in the world and playing a 7's game at Twicks, and would have been more unfair of what it was.
So why we don't kick England out of Football World Cup? at the end, it's the same old affair between us, Brazil, Argentina, Germany and few Others, and England national team, in spite of having everything, it's a losing team who add nothing to this competition...what a cowpat.

We have three of the Italian Squad at Leicester. Ghiraldini is a good player and backup to Youngs. Barbieri has been a bit of a disappointment and became an LV player. Rizzo has been a decent 3rd choice LH prop.

We have two other Italians at the club, both been here since they were 16.


I have no interest in kicking any one out of the 6Ns. I would like there to be an established route for other teams to challenge those at the Top Table.

GunsGerms wrote:

aqualung71 wrote:

Even now the Welsh are eyeing up an English tighthead prop because of a lack of Welsh options.

God knows why more than half of our team play in England and France..Do you buy crap then?

Personally I think the Italian players are just as good as any other countryu in Europe. The problem is there isnt enough of them so Italy have to rely on a much smaller bunch, too small to compete at the highest level.[/quote]
this. but as I said, few years ago we could only dream of a young generation of competitive, born-and-bred italian players like the one we are starting to have now. just let us the time to grow 4/5 more and we'll definitely be more competitive. Mental attitude will come along with wins

aqualung71 not saying Italian players are crap because they are worse than their English,French and Irish counterparts. Just not as good as the English,French and Irish.

You really think Mclean would get ahead of the likes of Kearney,Brown and Halfpenny? Of course not!

There's a reason Mclean is playing for Sale and not a top 4 side - he's an average player but not the best.

Compare English,Irish and Welsh locks compared to Italian ones.....

Parisse for example is very good indeed and would get into any 6 nations side.

Let's be honest your half backs are completely sub par. Italy do not have a quality international goal kicker - it's a massive weakness.

You honestly think the halfbacks of Italy can match the likes of England,Ireland and Wales. No of course not.

Let's say this is the fly half pecking order in England with everyone fully fit and in form:

1.Ford
2.Farrell
3.Cipriani
4.Myler
5.Slade
6.Burns
7.Alex Goode (his goal kicking is far superior to any Italian and most Englishman to be honest)
8.Hodgson
9. Andy Goode

Any of these 10s would be an improvement to Italy.

You might not believe this but I like Italy. They are the team I cheer on after England but seriously your halfbacks aren't great.

Dowlais - on the Scotland issue, nobody is saying that you're wrong to suggest the country needs a 3rd pro side and that this would improve the quality of the national side. The point is that the SRU cannot afford to do this and won't until its debt is fully amortised (couple of years still to go on that).

Also worth saying that this option (costing in the region of £5m a year for a competitive side) would be a short term sticking plaster but would not address the deeper deficiencies in our school and age grade systems that have an over-emphasis on a handful of private schools and which are far too late in offering intensive age-grade competition.

There is quite a good argument that the money should be directed to school teachers to coach teams on a Saturday instead and re-haul the facilities of every amateur club in the country. 5 million nicker would make heavy inroads into doing that.

So it's not that you're wrong at all. It's just that if the fix was simple, even a clown car as inept and backwards as the SRU would have done it by now.

Yes GC, I agree with you school and amateur set-ups, but the thing is, when you sort that out, with only two pro sides the spaces are limited and any half decent player could be lost forever as he has nowhere to go, at the moment here in Wales we have four regions, ok they are not pulling up trees, but at least the youngsters have twice the chance to make it here than they would in Scotland or Italy, for my liking Scotland and Italy should be doing what we are doing with North Wales RGC, the WRU have set a side up in Colwyn Bay, they are driving up the interest by staging the U20's there and they are building an infrastructure to go with the team, they have academies and they are getting all the clubs up there involved, they are currently playing in the first division and are looking to get into the Welsh Prem and build into a region from there, why aren't Italy and Scotland looking down this route, if a half baked union in Wales can organise this then surely others can to.

beshocked wrote:aqualung71 not saying Italian players are crap because they are worse than their English,French and Irish counterparts. Just not as good as the English,French and Irish.

You really think Mclean would get ahead of the likes of Kearney,Brown and Halfpenny? Of course not!

There's a reason Mclean is playing for Sale and not a top 4 side - he's an average player but not the best.

Compare English,Irish and Welsh locks compared to Italian ones.....

Parisse for example is very good indeed and would get into any 6 nations side.

Let's be honest your half backs are completely sub par. Italy do not have a quality international goal kicker - it's a massive weakness.

You honestly think the halfbacks of Italy can match the likes of England,Ireland and Wales. No of course not.

Let's say this is the fly half pecking order in England with everyone fully fit and in form:

1.Ford
2.Farrell
3.Cipriani
4.Myler
5.Slade
6.Burns
7.Alex Goode (his goal kicking is far superior to any Italian and most Englishman to be honest)
8.Hodgson
9. Andy Goode

Any of these 10s would be an improvement to Italy.

You might not believe this but I like Italy. They are the team I cheer on after England but seriously your halfbacks aren't great.

I said it too. Can't we poach one of them???

aqualung71

Quite clearly the English clubs don't see the Italians as crap, I don't think they are either but in my opinion they are not the best.

Parisse is though.

My club Saracens have signed Vunisa quite clearly they see potential there.

Good thing for Italy is that Saracens should improve Vunisa. Everyone can see the improvement to Billy's fitness and workrate since his move to Saracens (though who knows he might have done the same at Wasps). Vunisa could well make a similar development - giving Italy a strong option in the backrow alongside Parisse.

You also get into a winning mentality if you play for a club which is winning matches.


I should add I think Scotland has similar problems to Italy at halfback - Laidlaw and Russell is not a strong 9-10 combo. They desperately need to find a 9 and 10 who can give them the much needed control they crave.

Look at the gulf in halfback quality - Wales have Webb and Biggar, Youngs and Ford for England, Murray and Sexton for Ireland.

The contrast is stark.

beshocked wrote:aqualung71

Quite clearly the English clubs don't see the Italians as crap, I don't think they are either but in my opinion they are not the best.

Parisse is though.

My club Saracens have signed Vunisa quite clearly they see potential there.

Good thing for Italy is that Saracens should improve Vunisa. Everyone can see the improvement to Billy's fitness and workrate since his move to Saracens (though who knows he might have done the same at Wasps). Vunisa could well make a similar development - giving Italy a strong option in the backrow alongside Parisse.

You also get into a winning mentality if you play for a club which is winning matches.


I should add I think Scotland has similar problems to Italy at halfback - Laidlaw and Russell is not a strong 9-10 combo. They desperately need to find a 9 and 10 who can give them the much needed control they crave.

Look at the gulf in halfback quality - Wales have Webb and Biggar, Youngs and Ford for England, Murray and Sexton for Ireland.

The contrast is stark.

never even thought they are the best, I just meant players who are bought and payed in a first rank Championship like AVIVA can't be that bad. so we do have several good players but unfortunately not a large base to choose from, a some awful crap, above all at SH and FH, I can't wait for the moment to get rid of.

George Carlin wrote:

There is quite a good argument that the money should be directed to school teachers to coach teams on a Saturday instead and re-haul the facilities of every amateur club in the country. 5 million nicker would make heavy inroads into doing that.

But the school route - that's very long term.  And in a sense that's money down a hole for the foreseeable future as money going in there doesn't come out for decades (when kids have grown, have become professionals and then add to coffers by putting bums on paying seats)

So - a third Pro side.  Instant home for a batch of mature players with no access to improving through professional levels.  More opportunity in a more immediate time to start repaying some of the outlays in potential match going crowds and merchandising/sponsorship etc.

Schools; very long term with cold money.
Another Team; shorter term potential gains and potentially then more funding to provide to schools but on a more sustainable basis - with three Pro clubs funding Scottish development/success not only two.

LordDowlais wrote:Yes GC, I agree with you school and amateur set-ups, but the thing is, when you sort that out, with only two pro sides the spaces are limited and any half decent player could be lost forever as he has nowhere to go, at the moment here in Wales we have four regions, ok they are not pulling up trees, but at least the youngsters have twice the chance to make it here than they would in Scotland or Italy, for my liking Scotland and Italy should be doing what we are doing with North Wales RGC, the WRU have set a side up in Colwyn Bay, they are driving up the interest by staging the U20's there and they are building an infrastructure to go with the team, they have academies and they are getting all the clubs up there involved, they are currently playing in the first division and are looking to get into the Welsh Prem and build into a region from there, why aren't Italy and Scotland looking down this route, if a half baked union in Wales can organise this then surely others can to.

To be fair, the SRU will open the remaining number of its 4 new regional academies next year (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Borders and Caledonia). They have already appointed some well credentialled guys to run these (especially Bruce Frame) and the link between pre-professional set up and clubs is already starting to look more coherent. BT Sport punts £1.2m each year into these academies, so there is some real skin in the game. The pieces are moving - it will just take time to see the results.

Italy have a serious, serious problem at FH that's for sure. Think Gori is OK at SH really, not great, but OK. At FH they've never replaced Dominguez, either as a goal-kicker (Mi. Bergamasco went alright for a bit), or as someone to direct play. Haimona and Allan are not the answer, or even close, though I see a bit of potential with Haimona (first half of the England game, where I thought he directed play pretty well). Didn't MacLean used to kick goals? Surely can't be worse than Haimona/Allan, for whom a 50% success rate seems a minor miracle.

I also agree with LD that two pro teams simply isn't enough for Scotland to compete on a regular basis IMO. I know they both have players playing abroad, but Ireland and more recently England have clearly shown the value of having your players play at home, if you can get some agreements with the clubs. Ideally, four professional teams should really be a minimum, with the vast majority of those teams made up of home-grown players. Otherwise, your player-pool is too small.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Italy have a serious, serious problem at FH that's for sure. Think Gori is OK at SH really, not great, but OK. At FH they've never replaced Dominguez, either as a goal-kicker (Mi. Bergamasco went alright for a bit), or as someone to direct play. Haimona and Allan are not the answer, or even close, though I see a bit of potential with Haimona (first half of the England game, where I thought he directed play pretty well). Didn't MacLean used to kick goals? Surely can't be worse than Haimona/Allan, for whom a 50% success rate seems a minor miracle.

I also agree with LD that two pro teams simply isn't enough for Scotland to compete on a regular basis IMO. I know they both have players playing abroad, but Ireland and more recently England have clearly shown the value of having your players play at home, if you can get some agreements with the clubs. Ideally, four professional teams should really be a minimum, with the vast majority of those teams made up of home-grown players. Otherwise, your player-pool is too small.

You've convinced me, Chelsea. Please can you make your cheque for £5 million payable to Mark Dodson, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 5PJ.