Changes to the six nations, Rugby Championship and maybe the RWC too?

First topic message reminder :

Having watched some superb rugby played by teams like Georgia and Romania should the sixth spot in the six nations tournament become a relegation position? 

Similarly with the rugby championship. Chould a fifth team and a relegation position add to the tournament...? Bringing in Samoa, Tonga, Fiji or Japan...?

Could making qualification for the RWC tougher increase the likelihood of tier one teams playing lower ranked sides outside of the RWC more frequent...? 

What if automatic RWC qualification was only guaranteed for semi finalists...?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think the Calcutta Cup should be melted down and turned into tankards. First two given to John Jeffrey and Dean Richards.

The associated bans from the anecdote show how much the game means to both unions...

Wikipedia wrote:In 1988 the cup was damaged by the antics of some drunken players, including England number eight Dean Richards and Scotland flanker John Jeffrey who played football with the Calcutta Cup along Princes Street in Edinburgh. Jeffrey received a six-month ban from the SRU, whilst Richards was given a one-match sentence from England.

Not the first or the last time that happened either.

I agree with your points above about the amount of damage that losing the six nations would do to Scotland. Despite things looking better every year for Scotland at regional and a national level. So far you have had a good RWC and hopefully will pull off a fantastic win over the Australians this weekend, I'm sure heaven and earth will be behind you.

I like the idea of increasing the competitiveness of rugby throughout all the nations. The hardest thing to change about the six nations is tradition, it is a highlight of the dark months that keep us fans on the edges of our seats.

But expansion or promotion/relegation would help spread the game. Not necesarily at the expense of a nation to the rugby wilderness.

In the nineties, Italy were gradually integrated, at one point they played the fifth nation who had a weekend off whilst the others all competed. By the time they were accepted into the six nations it seemed a mere formality, time wears down opposition...

If countries such as Romania and Georgia were to integrate into the top tier of NH rugby, and I very much hope they do in the next decade, then a managed and gradual plan needs to evolve.

Promotion/relegation as opposed to expansion could soften the blow on the relegated nation if more was also done to promote the competition that the team was relegated too.

I’d be in favour of promotion/ relegation. However, I would prefer to see a two legged playoff between the bottom side in the 6N and the top side in the European Nation’s Cup each season. To me it will prove that Georgia/ Romania etc are ready to step up. If they get pumped by the bottom team in the 6N, you can assume that they will probably get doubly pumped by everybody else.

How about 2 groups of five.

Top four goes in to semis and finals.

Bottom two have a play off and the loser will play against the winner of the Euro A

Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain? That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

ME-109 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

If we are to form Britain we'll take Ulster with us

look on the bright side, we wouldn't have to hear 2 national Anthems for one "country" at the Aviva stadium anymore

Cumbrian wrote:I’d be in favour of promotion/ relegation. However, I would prefer to see a two legged playoff between the bottom side in the 6N and the top side in the European Nation’s Cup each season.  To me it will prove that Georgia/ Romania etc are ready to step up.  If they get pumped by the bottom team in the 6N, you can assume that they will probably get doubly pumped  by everybody else.

Yes certainly a good way forward would be not to start with Promition/Relegation but to start with friendly play offs. 

If the leading teams in the ENC continue to prove superior introducing more internationals against the other six nations teams will help find where they are at.

British person in "not knowing the difference between  Britain and the uk" shocker.  

Clue.... One is an island

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

If we are to form Britain we'll take Ulster with us

look on the bright side, we wouldn't have to hear 2 national Anthems for one "country" at the Aviva stadium anymore

Ulster is a Province, Rugger...not a Political Entity.  In other words, three of Ulster's nine counties aren't in Northern Ireland.  So....  that would be back to the auld war if you claimed the Province.

I still think the all island Rugby Union idea for Britain (as it is in Ireland) is a good way of offering two places to other sides

SecretFly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

If we are to form Britain we'll take Ulster with us

look on the bright side, we wouldn't have to hear 2 national Anthems for one "country" at the Aviva stadium anymore

Ulster is a Province, Rugger...not a Political Entity.  In other words, three of Ulster's nine counties aren't in Northern Ireland.  So....  that would be back to the auld war if you claimed the Province.

I still think the all island Rugby Union idea for Britain (as it is in Ireland) is a good way of offering two places to other sides

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

I hear the Welsh are mad keen to join forces with England.

profitius wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

I hear the Welsh are mad keen to join forces with England.

but only half of Scotland.....

profitius wrote:

I hear the Welsh are mad keen to join forces with England.

Can you imagine the bickering related to selection if this became a reality? It's bad enough during Lions season

St John The Enforcer wrote:British person in "not knowing the difference between  Britain and the uk" shocker.  

Clue....  One is an island

Not quite. The island is Great Britain. No such place, political or geographical, as Britain any more.

I'd like to see the RWC played every 5 years
I'd like to see the 4N played every 2 years
I'd like to see more tours
I'd like to see ANZACs vs Lions every 8 years
I'd like to see top country A teams playing regularly against tier 2 sides
I'd like to see no touching the jumper in the lineout (both teams), putting the ball in straight into scrums, ball being used when its available from a ruck or scrum, players being bound with both hands in a maul (except the ball carrier)
I'd like to see no players talking to the ref at all except the captain

I'd love to see refs not blowing a whistle every 3 minutes, and above all can't stand they award penalties on penalties for tackler not rolling away after 2 seconds from the tackle, as well as they are turning rolling Mauls into something of unstoppable without foul play. Sometimes we shouldn't forgetrugby is a contact game, this hysteria for attacking rugby is ruining it a bit, IMHO

or just allow everyone else to fly over rucks to slow down the ball not just NZ...

and, last but not least, I'd love to see Eddie Jones coaching Italy

I don't know why we should be looking to protect the status quo. There is no reason why Italy are more entitled than Georgia. Opening the 6 Nations up to promotion/relegation could hurt Italy but there loss will be another's gain. At least the system would be meritocratic rather than rewarding teams on an arbitrary basis.

My preferred solution would be a global season based on the Southern Hemisphere season. Franchised (inter-)continental tournament running from Feburary to June (end), July test window, "regional" international competition, October/November test window (in non-World Cup years) - and warm-ups, World Cup and possibly post cup friendlies in the World Cup years. You can obviously tour wherever you want in the two test windows, bilateral, 3-game series are preferred, but it would also be nice to see tier 1 countries play a tier 2 country on the way to or back from their destination. You could even do a Lions tour if the unions were interested.

In terms of regional competition, I'd have a home-and-away, promotion/relegation 4/5/6 (pick based on how many games you want in this window) Nations for Europe and a Hemisphere Championship in the "middle" year (4 pools with knock-out games).

So your regional competitions could be a fully integrated European league, Rugby Championship (as is), Pacific Nations Cup (as is), and then competitions in Asia, Africa and Americas. If tier 2 rugby picked up dramatically in Asia, Africa and the Americas, the Rugby Championship could eventually be disbanded and the teams could play in their continental tournaments. That could be helped, or at least gauged by the Hemisphere Championships every other year.

So in the NH Championship (based on this World Cup) you could go with 4 pools of 4 and end up with: Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland as pot 1, England, Japan, Georgia, Italy as pot 2, USA, Canada and Romania in Pot 3 with 5 other qualifiers. In the SH Championship, you might have to cut the number to go with 3 pools of 3 or 4 to start with as there aren't as many countries (and good countries at that). So you could have NZ, SA and Aus as pot 1, Arg, Sam, Fij as pot 2, Tonga (or regional qualifier), Namibia (or regional qualifier) and Uruguay (or regional qualifier) as pot 3. This could eventually be expanded to a 4th pot and then to a 4x4 tournament.

Only then have you truly opened up international rugby to all countries.

profitius wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why don't Scotland, Wales and England combine into Britain?  That would free up two spots for Georgia and Romania?

I hear the Welsh are mad keen to join forces with England.

Actually years ago I heard a story that in 1950's there was a game to open a flood lights at one of the unions stadiums and the 4 unions had to pair up, sadly the Irish and Scottish refused point blank to team with England, so Wales had too! So it was Wales and England Vs Ireland and Scotland, I think Wales and england won.

Wi11 wrote:Here is the wall of shame. 2011-2015 vs Tier 2.

Aus 1
SA 1
Eng 2
NZ 3
Fra 3
Ire 4
Wal 5
Arg 5 (and 6 vs Tier 3)
Ita 9
Sco 9

I'd suggest in addition to mandating a certain number of games, there should also be a certain number away from home, so the Tier 2 nations can build the game at home (or at least pick up a fair share of the gate receipts if they choose to play it in a big Tier 1 stadium).

Of course getting such a measure passed would likely require the support of two of the eight foundation members (5N + Tri-N). Hard to see which those would be

I agree that the 'lower tiers' should get more games against the top teams. I don't like the fact that they are called tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 teams in the first place.

I stated this four years ago and nothing much has changed. I don't so much mind the 6N and RC but the fact that these teams play each other multiple times a year. England played France home and away before the World Cup and NH teams.play the same SH team two or three times in the summer. Why not mix it up?

The media and pundits have claimed Argentina have improved because they are in the RC so why not give the lower tiers more top tier exposure?

Ways of doing this would be to have proper qualifying for the World Cup like football has. Let only the hosts and holders qualify for the next World Cup.

Also introduce NH and SH (including Japan) championships every four years inbetween the World Cup.

How about a 16 team NH Championship with England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France, Italy, Georgia, Romania, USA and Canada plus 6 others.

And a SH Championship with New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, Uruguay, Namibia.

I also think the Rugby World Cup should expand ASAP. Not necessarily to add more teams but for a fairer schedule. 24 teams.would equal six groups of four. You can then have two games a day for the first 18 days with each group taking it in turns. That would give each team five rest days between group games and making it alot fairer. At most even with an extra knock-out. ound the World Cup would only take 47 days.

What about increasing the size of the World Cup to 8 pools of 4 teams, so 32 teams.
Instead of 4 pools of 5 teams.
Basically have a second round instead of the extra pool game, before the quarter finals.
Final (last 2) > Semi Finals (last 4) > Quarter Finals (last 8) > Second round (last 16) > Pool stage
This would also eliminate the 4 days turnaround for games as were not cramming the extra pool game in.

Then scrap the Lions and have the World Cup every 2 years instead.  Do qualification off the IRB (World Rugby) rankings.

Europe 12 teams (6 nations , and 6 Nations B)
Pacific 6 teams (NZ, Aus, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Cook Islands)
Americas 6 teams (Argentina, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil)
Asia 4 teams (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka)
Africa 4 teams (South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya)

sportform wrote:I don't like the fact that they are called tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 teams in the first place.

That classification was officially dropped almost a decade ago. World rugby classes all the world cup teams as "High Performance". All those Unions are treated equally

Gooseberry wrote:

sportform wrote:I don't like the fact that they are called tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 teams in the first place.

That classification was officially dropped almost a decade ago. World rugby classes all the world cup teams as "High Performance". All those Unions are treated equally

Other than voting rights.

Shifty wrote:What about increasing the size of the World Cup to 8 pools of 4 teams, so 32 teams.
Instead of 4 pools of 5 teams.
Basically have a second round instead of the extra pool game, before the quarter finals.
Final (last 2) > Semi Finals (last 4) > Quarter Finals (last 8) > Second round (last 16) > Pool stage
This would also eliminate the 4 days turnaround for games as were not cramming the extra pool game in.

Then scrap the Lions and have the World Cup every 2 years instead.  Do qualification off the IRB (World Rugby) rankings.

Europe 12 teams (6 nations , and 6 Nations B)
Pacific 6 teams (NZ, Aus, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Cook Islands)
Americas 6 teams (Argentina, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil)
Asia 4 teams (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka)
Africa 4 teams (South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya)

Good example of what could be achieved to truly spread the games growth.

robbo277 wrote:I don't know why we should be looking to protect the status quo. There is no reason why Italy are more entitled than Georgia. Opening the 6 Nations up to promotion/relegation could hurt Italy but there loss will be another's gain. At least the system would be meritocratic rather than rewarding teams on an arbitrary basis.

My preferred solution would be a global season based on the Southern Hemisphere season. Franchised (inter-)continental tournament running from Feburary to June (end), July test window, "regional" international competition, October/November test window (in non-World Cup years) - and warm-ups, World Cup and possibly post cup friendlies in the World Cup years. You can obviously tour wherever you want in the two test windows, bilateral, 3-game series are preferred, but it would also be nice to see tier 1 countries play a tier 2 country on the way to or back from their destination. You could even do a Lions tour if the unions were interested.

In terms of regional competition, I'd have a home-and-away, promotion/relegation 4/5/6 (pick based on how many games you want in this window) Nations for Europe and a Hemisphere Championship in the "middle" year (4 pools with knock-out games).

So your regional competitions could be a fully integrated European league, Rugby Championship (as is), Pacific Nations Cup (as is), and then competitions in Asia, Africa and Americas. If tier 2 rugby picked up dramatically in Asia, Africa and the Americas, the Rugby Championship could eventually be disbanded and the teams could play in their continental tournaments. That could be helped, or at least gauged by the Hemisphere Championships every other year.

So in the NH Championship (based on this World Cup) you could go with 4 pools of 4 and end up with: Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland as pot 1, England, Japan, Georgia, Italy as pot 2, USA, Canada and Romania in Pot 3 with 5 other qualifiers. In the SH Championship, you might have to cut the number to go with 3 pools of 3 or 4 to start with as there aren't as many countries (and good countries at that). So you could have NZ, SA and Aus as pot 1, Arg, Sam, Fij as pot 2, Tonga (or regional qualifier), Namibia (or regional qualifier) and Uruguay (or regional qualifier) as pot 3. This could eventually be expanded to a 4th pot and then to a 4x4 tournament.

Only then have you truly opened up international rugby to all countries.

correct me if I'm wrong, but 2 of the last 4 6N's we didn't came last right? so why it should hurt only us?

The SH majors are pretty happy with the way things are going. To them, why change it. They have incorporated Argentina into the RC and SR. They have added a Japanese SR team from next year. The only issue will be what to do with the PI teams. I still think it would be good for them to come together as one for the RC but only if they could get a PI team in SR which will be difficult, perhaps based in Auckland. But where is the financial incentive and how much would NZ lose from having a PI side based in their country... could they potentially lose players?
The SH teams love Lions tours because a) they're financially very lucrative, b) every 12 years they get to (generally) send them packing back to blighty and c) having a lions tour victory under their belt stands tall especially for future club contracts once test career has ended.

In reality the change if anything needs to occur in Europe. However I don't think Ireland, Wales or Scotland can get anymore out of their players. They have class units and the strides forward particularly Ireland and Wales have made in the last 4 years have been decent.
France and England have to seriously question themsevlves but that's more to do with their club setup and I don't think that will change.
I mean Jean De Villiers, why oh why have Leicester given him a contract? He's literally on the slagheap physicality wise and only toured with the boks because his captaincy was so important to the boks prior to the return of FDP & Schalk. Same with Matfield and Northampton... they have Lawes for FS! Comng in and coaching these guys sure, but denying guys starting places? Thats redonk.

[quote="RuggerRadge2611"][quote="ME-109"]

SecretFly wrote:

look on the bright side, we wouldn't have to hear 2 national Anthems for one "country" at the Aviva stadium anymore

Shots fired

Am I the only one who's slightly scared at the thought of Germany starting to take rugby seriously? It surely wouldn't take them long to become a ruthless error-free team possibly a little short on flair but almost certainly long on results.

SimonofSurrey wrote:Am I the only one who's slightly scared at the thought of Germany starting to take rugby seriously? It surely wouldn't take them long to become a ruthless error-free team possibly a little short on flair but almost certainly long on results.

In all seriousness I doubt there will be new name on the RWC trophy come 50 years time.

SimonofSurrey wrote:Am I the only one who's slightly scared at the thought of Germany starting to take rugby seriously? It surely wouldn't take them long to become a ruthless error-free team possibly a little short on flair but almost certainly long on results.

They only stopped taking it seriously because of World War 2, if that hadn't of happened it's possible Germany would of joined the 4 nations instead of France or even Germany AND France might of joined. It's mostly played in southern Germany on the border with France. Last time I took an interest in reading up on German rugby I think Heidelberger were winning everything, and had nearly all the national team.

they often have massive interest after World Cup, then it dies down because there isn't the resources to snare and harness the interest the competition.

Octavian Morariu, the president of Rugby Europe, has called for more fixtures for the likes of Georgia and Romania following the World Cup.

The former Romania international flanker and International Olympic Committee member is pushing for Tier Two sides in Europe to play more games against the Six Nations sides.

Georgia impressed with a win over Tonga while Romania defeated Canada in this year's competition.

Citing the progress made by Argentina in the Rugby Championship, Morariu stated that providing more matches for those ambitious teams in Europe could be the true legacy of this World Cup.

"Teams like Georgia and Romania proved themselves able to compete at the World Cup and need regular fixtures against top European teams," Morariu said.

"We can all see the progress Argentina have made since entering the Rugby Championship.

"Argentina have added value to the game and we believe Georgia and Romania could do the same if they get more games.

"The greatest legacy of this World Cup could be opening the game up to more countries.

"It's not just about promotion and relegation to the Six Nations, it's about opening the competition to more countries, so the competition could become a seven or eight nations.

"We need to see how this can be done because we don't want to damage the Six Nations. The idea is to make it more interesting, competitive and productive."