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...?

aqualung wrote:Let's postpone this topic until those teams will get actual results vs 6N teams as Italy had to do during the 90's.
My view

I agree with that. But to give them the opportunity to do that, they need to be given more games in the Autumn Internationals against Six Nations teams.

what really makes me laugh is many fellas, mostly Irish and Brits, year after year talk about enlarging the 6N or kicking out Italy (or maybe Scotland) because we'are kak, including Georgia or Romania and then, everytime they thrash Georgia or Romania, or Italy indeed, they start to complain and want to come back to 5N's.... Meh!
If you add that everytime we occasionally beat some of 6N teams it's just because they have been bad or didn't turn up that day, not just because, maybe, we coul have been slightly better that day.
What kind of funny syndrome is that?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

EDIT: just to confirm, my position would be to have home and away playoff between the bottom of the 6 nations (over two years) and the winner of the ENC. I doubt anything would change for a while as the gap is still there but there should be a mechanism for change. It's that's not going to happen I'd rather England join the ENC instead of the 6 nations, even if it's a massive drop in revenue.

aqua...you'll find few Irish posters here who have ever advocated kicking out Scotland and Italy (can't speak for my Welsh colleagues on that score )

HammerofThunor wrote: the old boys club.

England, France and four others. The Old Boys club will always have decorated Oak chairs for those two.

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

EDIT: just to confirm, my position would be to have home and away playoff between the bottom of the 6 nations (over two years) and the winner of the ENC.  I doubt anything would change for a while as the gap is still there but there should be a mechanism for change.  It's that's not going to happen I'd rather England join the ENC instead of the 6 nations, even if it's a massive drop in revenue.

ok, let's put in this way: when and if Romania or Georgia or whoever, will start to beat at least once one of 6N teams we'll talk about it again..

Well the old boys are England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. France have always been a little on the outside with Italy being the new boys.

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

To be fair though... Scotland are in the KO stages of the most prestigious rugby competition in the world. England are not. Performance in a RWC surely supercedes the 6N?

You can talk about the group of death or whatever excuse. When the pool was drawn (right or wrong)

SA were 2nd, Samoa were 7th.
AUS were 3rd, Wales were 9th.

aqualung wrote:ok, let's put in this way: when and if Romania or Georgia or whoever, will start to beat at least once one of 6N teams we'll talk about it again..

And when will they play them? Mid week in the autumn? outside of the window so they don't have their players together? Who pays for the training time? The massive TV payout from the 6 nations? The current setup disadvantages the people on the outside for EXACTLY the same reasons given for not kicking Scotland or Italy out. Money, time and decent opposition. The whole structure of how rugby is run needs shaking up. It's still in structure of a colonial game giving a token voice to those on the outside. Italy may well be in the circle now but it wasn't that long ago they were as shafted as the others.

aqualung wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.
ok, let's put in this way: when and if Romania or Georgia or whoever, will start to beat at least once one of 6N teams we'll talk about it again..

Well, Romania had much better results through the 70s and 80s than Italy did in the 90s.

Italy were fortunate that they had Dominguez at the time 5Ns expanded to 6.

Now I would not want us to do something that destroyed rugby in a country - but something should also be done to address the inherent weakness in any 6Ns countries structures. I do though want us to do something to actually look to spread the game. Or we can be perfectly happy by it only being played in a tiny number of countries.

fa0019 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

To be fair though... Scotland are in the KO stages of the most prestigious rugby competition in the world. England are not. Performance in a RWC surely supercedes the 6N?

You can talk about the group of death or whatever excuse. When the pool was drawn (right or wrong)

SA were 2nd, Samoa were 7th.
AUS were 3rd, Wales were 9th.

The comment was about regularly beating RC or 6N opposition. Scotland didn't beat any. england didn't beat any. England managed 4 wins in the 6 nations. Scotland managed 0. I fail to see the relevance.

HammerofThunor wrote:

aqualung wrote:ok, let's put in this way: when and if Romania or Georgia or whoever, will start to beat at least once one of 6N teams we'll talk about it again..

And when will they play them? Mid week in the autumn? outside of the window so they don't have their players together? Who pays for the training time? The massive TV payout from the 6 nations?  The current setup disadvantages the people on the outside for EXACTLY the same reasons given for not kicking Scotland or Italy out. Money, time and decent opposition.  The whole structure of how rugby is run needs shaking up.  It's still in structure of a colonial game giving a token voice to those on the outside.  Italy may well be in the circle now but it wasn't that long ago they were as shafted as the others.

true. just, when, rarely, we have been given the chance, we exploited it

HammerofThunor wrote:Well the old boys are England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. France have always been a little on the outside with Italy being the new boys.

You know what I mean and I always repeat it when this topic always comes up.  Some people talk of the future as if they're willing to chance their luck in an ending of the Old Boys Club and to take their equal chances of falling down the ladder into Tier 2 gloom and misfortune for five, six or ten years.  
But the truth is some contributors know that the alleged 'sacrifices' and 'risks' of ending the Old Boy's Club would never materialise for them, as there is just way too much depth and numbers present.

Well I would be happy for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC as run by European Rugby. This will almost certainly mean the payments for the extra time with the players will have to be stopped but I'd rather that than carry on with the status quo.

But I'm sure you won't believe that.

HammerofThunor wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

To be fair though... Scotland are in the KO stages of the most prestigious rugby competition in the world. England are not. Performance in a RWC surely supercedes the 6N?

You can talk about the group of death or whatever excuse. When the pool was drawn (right or wrong)

SA were 2nd, Samoa were 7th.
AUS were 3rd, Wales were 9th.

The comment was about regularly beating RC or 6N opposition. Scotland didn't beat any. england didn't beat any.  England managed 4 wins in the 6 nations. Scotland managed 0.  I fail to see the relevance.

England have won only 3 times in the current RWC cycle vs. 3N sides in 15 matches, hardly prolific. Scotland have 1 in 9, Ireland 2 in 8 and Wales 1 in 13.

If a team deserves to be promoted and one deserves to be relegated then by all means. But relegation should only happen if it actually improves things. It won't.
Lets see Georgia actually beat a 6N side first and then do it regularly.

Well perhaps we change the whole thing completely.

Have two conferences of 4 teams (Celtic conference + special guests Georgia, Latin conference plus special guests England). Play each team in your conference onece in March. Then in May (after club season finished - and note February now clear of international matches) Then the playoffs - top two in each conference play for the Cup, bottom 2 a Plate. winners of each semi-final advance to respective final, losers meet in a 3/4 & 7/8 playoff.

no-one is dropped.

All countries get 5 fixtures (though some jiggery pokery is needed to ensure fair balance of home and away fixtures across the years) and we lose the guaranteed nausea induced by regular Anglo/Welsh matches.

aqualung wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

EDIT: just to confirm, my position would be to have home and away playoff between the bottom of the 6 nations (over two years) and the winner of the ENC.  I doubt anything would change for a while as the gap is still there but there should be a mechanism for change.  It's that's not going to happen I'd rather England join the ENC instead of the 6 nations, even if it's a massive drop in revenue.

ok, let's put in this way: when and if Romania or Georgia or whoever, will start to beat at least once one of 6N teams we'll talk about it again..

Boom, cheers aqualung.

Romania/Georgia or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Furthermore mate, to answer your poorly informed comment above. Scotland and Italy are 6N opponents. Unless you think we play in a different annual tournament?  

Just let's have more test-matches vs those teams. The rugby world will do the aftermaths basing on results and not on hysterical chatting. Just we have to give them the chances to prove what they're Worth, the we'll see

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

aqualung wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No No No No.

Untill these teams can beat the six nations teams and rugby championship teams on a regular basis there is absolutely no point.

Does that mean that Scotland and Italy should be kicked out until they're able to regularly beat 6 nations opposition.

The 'freak' results of the world cup happen to coincide with a period where they have their players and build for a long-ish term competition, partially funded by the IRB.

But of course things will stay the same because Scotland are part of the old boys club. And Italy were in the fortunate that they were on the edge when England pulled the Sky trick and were used as a threat which was followed through.

EDIT: just to confirm, my position would be to have home and away playoff between the bottom of the 6 nations (over two years) and the winner of the ENC.  I doubt anything would change for a while as the gap is still there but there should be a mechanism for change.  It's that's not going to happen I'd rather England join the ENC instead of the 6 nations, even if it's a massive drop in revenue.

ok, let's put in this way: when and if Romania or Georgia or whoever, will start to beat at least once one of 6N teams we'll talk about it again..

Boom, cheers aqualung.

Romania/Georgia or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Furthermore mate, to answer your poorly informed comment above. Scotland and Italy are 6N opponents. Unless you think we play in a different annual tournament?  

yeah, just a little fed up with same old comments about we and maybe Scots deserve to be kicked out.

LondonTiger wrote:Well perhaps we change the whole thing completely.

Have two conferences of 4 teams (Celtic conference + special guests Georgia, Latin conference plus special guests England). Play each team in your conference onece in March. Then in May (after club season finished - and note February now clear of international matches) Then the playoffs - top two in each conference play for the Cup, bottom 2 a Plate. winners of each semi-final advance to respective final, losers meet in a 3/4 & 7/8 playoff.

no-one is dropped.

All countries get 5 fixtures (though some jiggery pokery is needed to ensure fair balance of home and away fixtures across the years) and we lose the guaranteed nausea induced by regular Anglo/Welsh matches.

But who the hell wants to got to Bucharest or Tiblisi in February? Let's face it the cities aren't exactly tourist hotspots at the best of times.

Compare that with weekends in Rome, Paris, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Dublin?

These countries need developed but not at the expense of the highlight of NH rugby.

fa0019 wrote:England have won only 3 times in the current RWC cycle vs. 3N sides in 15 matches, hardly prolific. Scotland have 1 in 9, Ireland 2 in 8 and Wales 1 in 13.

If a team deserves to be promoted and one deserves to be relegated then by all means. But relegation should only happen if it actually improves things. It won't.
Lets see Georgia actually beat a 6N side first and then do it regularly.

Is there a reason you didn't include the 6 nations stats as well? In the same period:

England have won 16 out of 20
Scotland have won 3 out of 20
Ireland have won 11 out of 20
Wales have won 16 out of 20.

So in total against 6N or RC

England have won 54% of their games
Wales have won 51% of their games
Ireland have won 46% of their games
Scotland have won 14% of their games.

I really don't get your point. Currently Scotland are way way behind the other home nations in terms of results. You seem to be trying to suggest they aren't.

As for these teams beating the others, well when are they going to get the decent chance? And will they still be financially massively disadvantaged (to the point of funding training camps).

Currently the 6 nations is behind the PRL in terms of good practice (although they'll become level if the ring fencing comes in).

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Romania or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Are you really, really sure?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:But who the hell wants to got to Bucharest or Tiblisi in February? Let's face it the cities aren't exactly tourist hotspots at the best of times.

Compare that with weekends in Rome, Paris, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Dublin?

These countries need developed but not at the expense of the highlight of NH rugby.

That's a joke right?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well perhaps we change the whole thing completely.

Have two conferences of 4 teams (Celtic conference + special guests Georgia, Latin conference plus special guests England). Play each team in your conference onece in March. Then in May (after club season finished - and note February now clear of international matches) Then the playoffs - top two in each conference play for the Cup, bottom 2 a Plate. winners of each semi-final advance to respective final, losers meet in a 3/4 & 7/8 playoff.

no-one is dropped.

All countries get 5 fixtures (though some jiggery pokery is needed to ensure fair balance of home and away fixtures across the years) and we lose the guaranteed nausea induced by regular Anglo/Welsh matches.

But who the hell wants to got to Bucharest or Tiblisi in February? Let's face it the cities aren't exactly tourist hotspots at the best of times.

Compare that with weekends in Rome, Paris, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Dublin?

These countries need developed but not at the expense of the highlight of NH rugby.

sexual-travellers?

ok you convinced me. bring on the 8N's. At the end, I can watch some more italian wins...

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Romania or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Are you really, really sure?

Because if you are sure, you may wish to check your facts.

romania have 2 wins (from 13) against Scotland, 8 wins and 2 draws (from 55) against France and 16 wins and 3 draws (from 42) against Italy.

aqualung wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well perhaps we change the whole thing completely.

Have two conferences of 4 teams (Celtic conference + special guests Georgia, Latin conference plus special guests England). Play each team in your conference onece in March. Then in May (after club season finished - and note February now clear of international matches) Then the playoffs - top two in each conference play for the Cup, bottom 2 a Plate. winners of each semi-final advance to respective final, losers meet in a 3/4 & 7/8 playoff.

no-one is dropped.

All countries get 5 fixtures (though some jiggery pokery is needed to ensure fair balance of home and away fixtures across the years) and we lose the guaranteed nausea induced by regular Anglo/Welsh matches.

But who the hell wants to got to Bucharest or Tiblisi in February? Let's face it the cities aren't exactly tourist hotspots at the best of times.

Compare that with weekends in Rome, Paris, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Dublin?

These countries need developed but not at the expense of the highlight of NH rugby.

sexual-travellers?

What on earth?

HammerofThunor wrote:

fa0019 wrote:England have won only 3 times in the current RWC cycle vs. 3N sides in 15 matches, hardly prolific. Scotland have 1 in 9, Ireland 2 in 8 and Wales 1 in 13.

If a team deserves to be promoted and one deserves to be relegated then by all means. But relegation should only happen if it actually improves things. It won't.
Lets see Georgia actually beat a 6N side first and then do it regularly.

Is there a reason you didn't include the 6 nations stats as well?  In the same period:

England have won 16 out of 20
Scotland have won 3 out of 20
Ireland have won 11 out of 20
Wales have won 16 out of 20.

So in total against 6N or RC

England have won 54% of their games
Wales have won 51% of their games
Ireland have won 46% of their games
Scotland have won 14% of their games.

I really don't get your point. Currently Scotland are way way behind the other home nations in terms of results. You seem to be trying to suggest they aren't.

As for these teams beating the others, well when are they going to get the decent chance? And will they still be financially massively disadvantaged (to the point of funding training camps).

Currently the 6 nations is behind the PRL in terms of good practice (although they'll become level if the ring fencing comes in).

But that doesn't mean they will be in a few years time, Rugby within the home nations tends to be cyclical, you get good patches and bad patches. Scotland now with a young team and Stern Vern in charge seem to be coming good in this RWC. Comfortably seeing off an "improved" Japan side, hammering the USA and a gutsy display against Samoa. A pretty succesful showing in my book.

Furthemore Scotland have never lost to Georgia and lost a couple to Romania in the 90s despite being "way way behind" as you so trollingly eloquently put it.

yes it's true that (in recent history) Georgia and Romania haven't beaten any 6N teams, but how often do they get the chance to? Italy got into the 6N by beating France, Ireland, maybe another 5N team over a short-ish time period IIRC. The important thing is that they had that chance to play the top teams? Georgia have shown that they're a cut above the rest (I think they won the second tier comp the last five times, and 7 of the last 8?) so surely at least deserve a chance to show they belong in the next tier up? In this WC they beat Tonga (and Namibia) and lost to NZ and Argentina (though hardly more severely than say Scotland lost to Ireland this year, or Italy to Wales and England).

So every four years the likes of Georgia/Romania MIGHT get one or two games to prove their worth, and that's that??

As pointed out, all other tiers of European rugby have a promotion/relegation system, but in Georgia's case what more can they do?

At the very very least there should be guarantees of regular match-ups with the 6N sides, either during the autumn internationals (with guarantees of similar preparation time, we've seen how much it's helped them this WC).

Personally I'm all in favour of (on top of the previous paragraph) a promotion play-off between the winner of the EC and the wooden spoon of the 6N. Why not? If, as some suggest, Georgia and Romania are still a fair bit behind the likes of Scotland and Italy, then they won't win the play-offs, hence Scotland/Italy will stay in the comp the following year. If Georgia are good enough to win a play-off, surely they'll have earned their spot?

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:But who the hell wants to got to Bucharest or Tiblisi in February? Let's face it the cities aren't exactly tourist hotspots at the best of times.

Compare that with weekends in Rome, Paris, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Dublin?

These countries need developed but not at the expense of the highlight of NH rugby.

That's a joke right?

Why would it be a joke? I can imagine Mrs Radge's face when I tell her that we are going for a long weekend of rugby in Georgia or Romania instead of Rome or Paris?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:But that doesn't mean they will be in a few years time, Rugby within the home nations tends to be cyclical, you get good patches and bad patches. Scotland now with a young team and Stern Vern in charge seem to be coming good in this RWC. Comfortably seeing off an "improved" Japan side, hammering the USA and a gutsy display against Samoa. A pretty succesful showing in my book.

Furthemore Scotland have never lost to Georgia and lost a couple to Romania in the 90s despite being "way way behind" as you so trollingly eloquently put it.

The comment was made that no teams should be added until the regularly beat the 6 nations sides. I was pointing out that on that criteria Scotland and Italy wouldn't be allowed in the 6 nations either.

I take it we're not to talk about Japan's short turn around from beating the Boks?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:But who the hell wants to got to Bucharest or Tiblisi in February? Let's face it the cities aren't exactly tourist hotspots at the best of times.

Compare that with weekends in Rome, Paris, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Dublin?

These countries need developed but not at the expense of the highlight of NH rugby.

That's a joke right?

Why would it be a joke? I can imagine Mrs Radge's face when I tell her that we are going for a long weekend of rugby in Georgia or Romania instead of Rome or Paris?  

I was hoping that you were joking about basing who should be involved in international rugby competitions on where you would like a mini-break. still am.

LondonTiger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Romania or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Are you really, really sure?

Because if you are sure, you may wish to check your facts.

romania have 2 wins (from 13) against Scotland, 8 wins and 2 draws (from 55) against France and 16 wins and 3 draws (from 42) against Italy.

Well done on your use of the internet to counter my hyperbole. You win sir.

Still, not recently enough to merit inclusion.

If Georgia or Romania want included in the 6N they need to win games consistantly against that level of opposition. They haven't done it yet. Scotland are still reigning 5N champions so despite how rank we have been recently we have won the competition 15 years ago.

But they're not given the opportunity. That's why I'd suggest a 2 legged playoff.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

If Georgia or Romania want included in the 6N they need to win games consistantly against that level of opposition. They haven't done it yet. Scotland are still reigning 5N champions so despite how rank we have been recently we have won the competition 15 years ago.

But how are they going to win games consistently when they play (roughly) two games against tier 1 opponents every FOUR YEARS. If Georgia was playing two/three matches against tier 1 nations every year, with adequate prep time, etc. and losing them you'd have a point, but they don't. They're lucky if they can sneak in one game at the AI, and for that one they're even luckier if they can get their top players out on the field (with no chance of having proper preparation). The whole set-up is designed to ensure they don't even have a chance to show how good they are.

HammerofThunor wrote:

I was hoping that you were joking about basing who should be involved in international rugby competitions on where you would like a mini-break. still am.

I'm basing who should be involved by recent results. Georgia and Romania haven't done enough to merit inclusion yet. Pretty simple.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The comment was made that no teams should be added until the regularly beat the 6 nations sides. I was pointing out that on that criteria Scotland and Italy wouldn't be allowed in the 6 nations either.

We are a 6N side...

HammerofThunor wrote:But they're not given the opportunity.  That's why I'd suggest a 2 legged playoff.

perhaps but not forever. If they're getting beat by 20 points every game then it would have to be re-addressed. England like to play the baabaas pre summer tour so they could field a side vs. Georgia for example there. Its about giving Georgia opportunities outside of world cup each season to build on.

Used to happen. I recall the old days when Romania, Canada etc would all feature in the AIs.

Do Scotland often beat Scotland? Scotland have only won one game against one of the 'top four' teams in the 6 nations in the last 4 years. Italy have managed 2. That's out of 16 games, in a well funded competition with plenty of build up. Based on comments further up they shouldn't be in a competition with those 'top four' teams.

How many times have Georgia played these teams in that time frame? How often is it as an away team (and therefore zero income generation) and therefore struggling to pay for training costs?

fa0019 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:But they're not given the opportunity.  That's why I'd suggest a 2 legged playoff.

perhaps but not forever. If they're getting beat by 20 points every game then it would have to be re-addressed. England like to play the baabaas pre summer tour so they could field a side vs. Georgia for example there. Its about giving Georgia opportunities outside of world cup each season to build on.

Used to happen. I recall the old days when Romania, Canada etc would all feature in the AIs.

That game is outside the international window is not feasible for a proper international.  Especially if you're then going to use it to judge these teams.

EDIT: I would have the playoff forever. The only alternative for me is automatic promotion. The problem is where to fit it in. But it doesn't really matter anyway as nothing is going to change. World Rugby is run by the establishment who aren't going to change things that would see them disadvantaged.

HammerofThunor wrote:Do Scotland often beat Scotland? Scotland have only won one game against one of the 'top four' teams in the 6 nations in the last 4 years. Italy have managed 2.  That's out of 16 games, in a well funded competition with plenty of build up.  Based on comments further up they shouldn't be in a competition with those 'top four' teams.

How many times  have Georgia played these teams in that time frame? How often is it as an away team (and therefore zero income generation) and therefore struggling to pay for training costs?

Fine, Engurlund are amazing and rulers of all they survey. Scotland are pish and should be demoted out of the six nations.

Enjoy your trip to Georgia or Romania. I'm sure they will provide a stern test for Engurlund.

I'm done with this discussion now.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Fine, Engurlund are amazing and rulers of all they survey. Scotland are pish and should be demoted out of the six nations.

Enjoy your trip to Georgia or Romania. I'm sure they will provide a stern test for Engurlund.

I'm done with this discussion now.

I'm glad. You seem unable to follow it. I don't think I've ever even suggested England as anything other than an average side. It was purely in reaction to those saying Georgia don't deserve to be involved based on performance.

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Fine, Engurlund are amazing and rulers of all they survey. Scotland are pish and should be demoted out of the six nations.

Enjoy your trip to Georgia or Romania. I'm sure they will provide a stern test for Engurlund.

I'm done with this discussion now.

I'm glad. You seem unable to follow it. I don't think I've ever even suggested England as anything other than an average side.  It was purely in reaction to those saying Georgia don't deserve to be involved based on performance.

Do you honestly think Romania and/or Georgia would provide more difficult opposition for England, Wales, France or Ireland than Scotland or Italy?

Yes or No answer please.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Romania or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Are you really, really sure?

Because if you are sure, you may wish to check your facts.

romania have 2 wins (from 13) against Scotland, 8 wins and 2 draws (from 55) against France and 16 wins and 3 draws (from 42) against Italy.

Well done on your use of the internet to counter my hyperbole. You win sir.

Still, not recently enough to merit inclusion.

If Georgia or Romania want included in the 6N they need to win games consistantly against that level of opposition. They haven't done it yet. Scotland are still reigning 5N champions so despite how rank we have been recently we have won the competition 15 years ago.

Indeed Scotland are the reignng 5Ns champions.

I can understand why some fans feel more threatened by the threat of relegation - and would not want to see rugby suffer anywhere. I still believe all the stronger nations should be doing something, indeed anything, to help the growing ones. We will not however, because it would cost money. Italy were only admitted because of finances, nothing to do with their actual performances which were no better than Romanias had been - and have been pretty woeful in terms of results since.

amusing stat 9 of the 10 "most defeated" players are Italians - the odd one out is Gethin Jenkins

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Do you honestly think Romania and/or Georgia would provide more difficult opposition for England, Wales, France or Ireland than Scotland or Italy?

Yes or No answer please.

More difficult - no.

I do believe that the current Georgia team would be as competitive as Italy.

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Romania or whoever have never beaten Scotland, Italy or any other 6N team for that matter. Coming close just doesn't cut it. Since England and Italy aren't up to much next weekend perhaps they could have a wee tournament among themselves?

Are you really, really sure?

Because if you are sure, you may wish to check your facts.

romania have 2 wins (from 13) against Scotland, 8 wins and 2 draws (from 55) against France and 16 wins and 3 draws (from 42) against Italy.

Well done on your use of the internet to counter my hyperbole. You win sir.

Still, not recently enough to merit inclusion.

If Georgia or Romania want included in the 6N they need to win games consistantly against that level of opposition. They haven't done it yet. Scotland are still reigning 5N champions so despite how rank we have been recently we have won the competition 15 years ago.

Indeed Scotland are the reignng 5Ns champions.

I can understand why some fans feel more threatened by the threat of relegation - and would not want to see rugby suffer anywhere. I still believe all the stronger nations should be doing something, indeed anything, to help the growing ones. We will not however, because it would cost money. Italy were only admitted because of finances, nothing to do with their actual performances which were no better than Romanias had been - and have been pretty woeful in terms of results since.

amusing stat 9 of the 10 "most defeated" players are Italians - the odd one out is Gethin Jenkins

What a lot of you fail to realize is that Scotland are one of the growing nations. We took to the professional game very poorly and our results have reflected that for the last 15 years. Relegating Scotland from the 6N would be a blow I personally can't see Scotland recovering from. How does that help the game of Rugby to see one of the Stalwarts of the game since it's creation consigned to damnation?


Player numbers in Scotland are at an all time low, but to most it now feels Scottish rugby is turning the corner.

Edinburgh had a great run in the ERC a couple of seasons ago and were finalists in the Rugby challenge cup last season.

Glasgow have just won the pro 12.

Scotland with a new coach we have succeeded expectation in the RWC qualifying from the pool despite being the 3rd seeds.

We are improving. I'm keen to assist Georgia, Romania and other teams improve too but not at Scotland or by extension Italy or any other 6N's country's expense. Clearly some posters on here disagree.

By your definition Scotland are a declining nation.

No-one has really advocated relegation, other than in passing, but any suggestion that the 6Ns should be changed in some way always brings out knee-jerk reactions, then counter-reactions.

Really we are all a bunch of selfish reactionaries.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Fine, Engurlund are amazing and rulers of all they survey. Scotland are pish and should be demoted out of the six nations.

Enjoy your trip to Georgia or Romania. I'm sure they will provide a stern test for Engurlund.

I'm done with this discussion now.

I'm glad. You seem unable to follow it. I don't think I've ever even suggested England as anything other than an average side.  It was purely in reaction to those saying Georgia don't deserve to be involved based on performance.

Do you honestly think Romania and/or Georgia would provide more difficult opposition for England, Wales, France or Ireland than Scotland or Italy?

Yes or No answer please.

I have no idea because we rarely play them (especially in a proper competition where their training costs are comfortably covered). But then I'm not suggesting they just get shunted in. I'm suggesting a 2 legged playoff where the only way they would get in is if they managed to out due the Wooden Spoon over two games.

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Fine, Engurlund are amazing and rulers of all they survey. Scotland are pish and should be demoted out of the six nations.

Enjoy your trip to Georgia or Romania. I'm sure they will provide a stern test for Engurlund.

I'm done with this discussion now.

I'm glad. You seem unable to follow it. I don't think I've ever even suggested England as anything other than an average side.  It was purely in reaction to those saying Georgia don't deserve to be involved based on performance.

Do you honestly think Romania and/or Georgia would provide more difficult opposition for England, Wales, France or Ireland than Scotland or Italy?

Yes or No answer please.

I have no idea because we rarely play them (especially in a proper competition where their training costs are comfortably covered). But then I'm not suggesting they just get shunted in. I'm suggesting a 2 legged playoff where the only way they would get in is if they managed to out due the Wooden Spoon over two games.

I think we both know the answer to the question.

Personally if someone suggested that we play Romania or Georgia instead of the Calcutta cup match in the next 6N I think we both again know what the reaction from both camps would be

I have a novel idea. Leave the 6N alone and develop Georgia and Romania by other means.

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

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.