Italy

Does anyone have any idea what is going on with Italy at the moment? What squad have they picked? Have they had any high profile retirements after the world cup. I've searched and can find nothing. They do seem a rather poor team from what I remember of the world cup and the league positions of Treviso and Zebre, if they are as poor as everyone seems to think they are what will it take to revert to the five nations?

From RBS Six Nations website


http://www.rbs6nations.com/mobile/en/news/28912.php#JIuYVHI4MmPQ5K3I.99

Jacques Brunel has mixed things up in his Italy squad


Jacques Brunel has selected ten uncapped players in his 30-man squad for the first two games of the RBS 6
Nations including Zebre No.8 Andries van Schalkwyk.
The Azzurri are hoping to improve on last year's fifth-place finish and will kick off their tournament against France in Paris on February 6 before taking on England in Rome.

Up front the good form of Zebre prop Andrea Lovotti and Treviso counterpart Matteo Zanusso has been rewarded, while hooker Ornel Gega also makes the cut.

Van Schalkwyk, a standout for Zebre in recent seasons, is included for the first time along with club colleague Jacopo Sarto, the younger brother of winger Leonardo who is also in the squad.

The final uncapped forward is Treviso back rower Abraham Steyn, but there is also plenty of experience in that position in the shape of skipper Sergio Parisse and veteran Alessandro Zanni.

At fly-half youngster Carlo Canna will hope to build on a promising World Cup but Zebre teammate Edoardo Padovani will hope to push him in order to win a first cap.

Finally in the outside backs there are call-ups for three players plying their trade in the Eccellenza championship, Padova's Mattia Bellini, Calvisano's Tommaso Castello and Mogliano's David Odiete.

"The camps this winter allowed us to see a number of players and evaluate some interesting alternatives to all the injuries we are currently dealing with," said Brunel.

"We have some important players coming back, like (George) Biagi, (Giulio) Bisegni and (Kelly) Haimona, who had a big impact in the last Six Nations before getting injured.

"There are also lots of new players and three who have come from the Eccellenza championship and shown they deserve a place in the squad to prepare for the first two games of the tournament."

Italy squad for the RBS 6 Nations:

Forwards

Martin Castrogiovanni (Racing 92)
Dario Chistolini (Zebre Rugby)
Lorenzo Cittadini (Wasps)
Andrea Lovotti (Zebre Rugby)
Matteo Zanusso (Benetton Treviso)
Ornel Gega (Benetton Treviso)
Leonardo Ghiraldini (Leicester Tigers)
Valerio Bernabo (Zebre Rugby)
George Fabio Biagi (Zebre Rugby)
Marco Fuser (Benetton Treviso)
Francesco Minto (Benetton Treviso)
Sergio Parisse (Stade Francais) (c)
Jacopo Sarto (Zebre Rugby)
Abraham Steyn (Benetton Treviso)
Andries Van Schalkwyk (Zebre Rugby)
Alessandro Zanni (Benetton Treviso)

Backs

Edoardo Gori (Benetton Treviso)
Guglielmo Palazzani (Zebre Rugby)
Carlo Canna (Zebre Rugby)
Edoardo Padovani (Zebre Rugby)
Mattia Bellini (Petrarca Padova)
Giulio Bisegni (Zebre Rugby)
Michele Campagnaro (Exeter Chiefs)
Tommaso Castello (Rugby Calvisano)
Gonzalo Garcia (Zebre Rugby)
Kelly Haimona (Zebre Rugby)
Luke McLean (Benetton Treviso)
David Odiete (Marchiol Mogliano)
Andrea Pratichetti (Benetton Treviso)
Leonardo Sarto (Zebre Rugby)

That squad really looks dreadful. From a competitive point of view I'm not sure much of an argument can be made for keeping them in the competition. Of course the tournament is about more than rugby, Italy is a wonderful country and Rome a wonderful part of the competition. That being said from a rugby point of view I'm not sure how you we can continue to ringfence the tournament with Italy inside and Georgia and Romania outside. How that works I'm not sure, from a Scottish point of view our results aren't enough better than theirs to warrant such a negative attitude however Scotland have qualified in every world cup but one, Italy have never. Scottish clubs compete, Italian ones do not, the national team competes against the World's best in a way that Italy simply do not.
I understand that it could be argued that perhaps this conversation should only be had after this six nations, feasibly they could beat Scotland and maybe Ireland or France or even Wales, perhaps they might beat England but we all know that more than one, or even just one, victory is highly unlikely.

That Italian squad is pretty much set up to try and counter other teams. Its pretty much their best chance of not being totally overwhelmed. They have their place in the 6N and it would be a sad day if they were removed.

It'll not go back to the 5 nations until we have added 10 teams. As for Italy dropping out, well they've done better than Scotland over the last World Cup cycle (4 wins to 3) and did better than Scotland last year. Until Scotland start performing at the level we all think they're capable of (and showed glimpses of in the World Cup) they're bottom of the pile. I expect that to continue to change this year, but I thought that last year, and previously.

I would say that Italy seem to occasional punch above their weight, whereas Scotland seem to play below it, which Cotter may well be the guy to sort out.

HT have Italy been ahead of Scotland much in the world Rugby rankings in the last RWC cycle...?

123456789 wrote:That squad really looks dreadful. From a competitive point of view I'm not sure much of an argument can be made for keeping them in the competition. Of course the tournament is about more than rugby, Italy is a wonderful country and Rome a wonderful part of the competition. That being said from a rugby point of view I'm not sure how you we can continue to ringfence the tournament with Italy inside and Georgia and Romania outside. How that works I'm not sure, from a Scottish point of view our results aren't enough better than theirs to warrant such a negative attitude however Scotland have qualified in every world cup but one, Italy have never. Scottish clubs compete, Italian ones do not, the national team competes against the World's best in a way that Italy simply do not.  
I understand that it could be argued that perhaps this conversation should only be had after this six nations, feasibly they could beat Scotland and maybe Ireland or France or even Wales, perhaps they might beat England but we all know that more than one, or even just one, victory is highly unlikely.

Won't do anyone justice by simply saying, have a good year.. you can stay, have a bad year... you are out.

How would that have faired for Wales in the late 80s/early 90s when they were beaten by Romania, beaten by Canada, beaten by Samoa as they lost many players to league and also suffered from a blip in talent from those who stayed.
Italy in the last 10 odd years have beaten Wales, France, Ireland and Scotland. The only team they haven't beaten is England and they have got pretty close on occasions. France didn't win the 5 nations title for nearly 40 years (although they were barred for a few of those). It takes time.

Georgia are good but they depend a lot on expats in French leagues. Their potential is limited beyond that. Itlay have benefitted a lot from Argentinian players defecting such as Dominguez, Castrogiovanni, Parisse etc. However they do have potential to become genuine players in the world game but you have to give them time.

maestegmafia wrote:HT have Italy been ahead of Scotland much in the world Rugby rankings in the last RWC cycle...?

No idea. I don't really worry about them too much. But if you're talking about chunking a team out of the 6 nations (which the OP was), wouldn't that be the worst performing team? (which in the last 4 years has been Scotland).

I'm generally for the idea of merging the European international competitions to have promotion and relegation. But not based on rankings.

Fair point, I certainly do not agree that any team should currently be dropped. After the excellent rugby played by Georgia and Romania at the RWC I agree that we should hope for a greater European competition in the near future.

I am very much I favour of rugby being an embracing sport rather than one run be pure financial gain.

I'm not keen on throwing any teams out if they're going through a tough time. It's not like they're getting annihilated each 6N fixture. Yes, some big losses (we've all had those) but also some pretty close games and wins in recent times.

But kicking teams out when they're down? So we go to 5. And then what if a team out of that 5 does poorly? Goodbye team number 5 and we go to 4? And then 3???

I was similarly against the reduction in numbers in the Heineken Cup. The reason often given was that there was some 'dross' in there. But we've dropped the numbers and now we've still got some dross (generally pro 12 teams this year) so for consistency we should, technically, look to cut the dross again. And again. And again. And before you know it in a few years we'll have a boring 8 team euro club comp with no diversity and little interest outside of the 8 teams represented.

Keep Italy in. They're good for the tournament and the tournament is good for them IMO.

Just to add: I know this wouldn't be great for global rugby and IRB directives but I'd prefer we dropped an Autumn international and added someone like Georgia to the 6N (7N). Probably the only way we could really do it without increasing the number of international teams played as the players are flogged enough as it is. The World Cup showed that Georgia are not a bad team. Probably the best of the rest in Europe. Or maybe a start would be making sure they get 1 or 2 AI fixtures every year (like Italy did to start with I think).

It would be easy for Wales - just drop the 4th AI. Not sure how the others would see it though?

its shocking really…look who Argentina have come on after just a few seasons of RC, yet italy have never got out of the starting blocks.

There is talent but they are still so far behind.

Wait, Jacques Brunel is still coach?

Nil points for them again this season you fear. I'm going to see them in Dublin too.

maestegmafia wrote:I am very much I favour of rugby being an embracing sport rather than one run be pure financial gain.

Gwlad wrote:its shocking really…look who Argentina have come on after just a few seasons of RC, yet italy have never got out of the starting blocks.

There is talent but they are still so far behind.

Rugby is a far more popular sport in Argentina than in Italy. Italy still struggle to find an identity with the sport. The Italians are not big drinkers, where as most rugby nations are, one Minnie factor maybe???

Maybe we should be encouraging the Russians or Germans a bit more..?

The French aren't heavy drinkers either, at least not in UK terms.

Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Remember less than 2 years ago many were arguing for Scotland to be kicked out the 6 nations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/10627088/Six-Nations-2014-Scotland-should-be-told-to-shape-up-or-ship-out.html

Followed by really should have made the semi final wc 2015

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Because the AI are designed for European teams to host teams from the rest of the world. What should be happening is Georgia should be getting to host more games to the bigger nations from outside Europe. In the same way the PI nations should be getting to host more games. That is how the international calendar is set up. Three slots: Europe host rest of the world (AI), rest of the world hosts Europe (SI), local games (6N, ENC, RC, PNC, etc)

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Because the AI are designed for European teams to host teams from the rest of the world. What should be happening is Georgia should be getting to host more games to the bigger nations from outside Europe. In the same way the PI nations should be getting to host more games.  That is how the international calendar is set up.  Three slots: Europe host rest of the world (AI), rest of the world hosts Europe (SI), local games (6N, ENC, RC, PNC, etc)

but the annual European tournament AKA the 6N, is not all encompassing.

If people are determined to include Georgia, Romania etc more needs to be done to include them. However throwing the baby out with the bath water is a distinct possibility when people consider meddling with the 6N format.

I'm suggesting an alternative where the "top tier" of Europe play the "lower tier" of Europe on a more regular basis. The only suitable window is the Autumn.

maestegmafia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:its shocking really…look who Argentina have come on after just a few seasons of RC, yet italy have never got out of the starting blocks.

There is talent but they are still so far behind.

Rugby is a far more popular sport in Argentina than in Italy. Italy still struggle to find an identity with the sport. The Italians are not big drinkers, where as most rugby nations are, one Minnie factor maybe???

Maybe we should be encouraging the Russians or Germans a bit more..?

Can't be that Scotland have been as bad as Italy in 6N and there are no shortage of drinkers here.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Because the AI are designed for European teams to host teams from the rest of the world. What should be happening is Georgia should be getting to host more games to the bigger nations from outside Europe. In the same way the PI nations should be getting to host more games.  That is how the international calendar is set up.  Three slots: Europe host rest of the world (AI), rest of the world hosts Europe (SI), local games (6N, ENC, RC, PNC, etc)

but the annual European tournament AKA the 6N, is not all encompassing.

If people are determined to include Georgia, Romania etc more needs to be done to include them. However throwing the baby out with the bath water is a distinct possibility when people consider meddling with the 6N format.

I'm suggesting an alternative where the "top tier" of Europe play the "lower tier" of Europe on a more regular basis. The only suitable window is the Autumn.

You are aware that the 6 nations isn't the only annual European competition, aren't you? If you want us to play teams like Georgia more often then it's during the slot during the six nations. But people don't want that because they don't want to lose money.

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Because the AI are designed for European teams to host teams from the rest of the world. What should be happening is Georgia should be getting to host more games to the bigger nations from outside Europe. In the same way the PI nations should be getting to host more games.  That is how the international calendar is set up.  Three slots: Europe host rest of the world (AI), rest of the world hosts Europe (SI), local games (6N, ENC, RC, PNC, etc)

but the annual European tournament AKA the 6N, is not all encompassing.

If people are determined to include Georgia, Romania etc more needs to be done to include them. However throwing the baby out with the bath water is a distinct possibility when people consider meddling with the 6N format.

I'm suggesting an alternative where the "top tier" of Europe play the "lower tier" of Europe on a more regular basis. The only suitable window is the Autumn.

You are aware that the 6 nations isn't the only annual European competition, aren't you? If you want us to play teams like Georgia more often then it's during the slot during the six nations. But people don't want that because they don't want to lose money.

I probably haven't through it through long enough, but why would they lose money? An extra 6N game at the millennium stadium, while maybe not a sell out, would probably still be a money maker. Or would the TV monies be split 7 ways instead of 6? Is that it?

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Because the AI are designed for European teams to host teams from the rest of the world. What should be happening is Georgia should be getting to host more games to the bigger nations from outside Europe. In the same way the PI nations should be getting to host more games.  That is how the international calendar is set up.  Three slots: Europe host rest of the world (AI), rest of the world hosts Europe (SI), local games (6N, ENC, RC, PNC, etc)

but the annual European tournament AKA the 6N, is not all encompassing.

If people are determined to include Georgia, Romania etc more needs to be done to include them. However throwing the baby out with the bath water is a distinct possibility when people consider meddling with the 6N format.

I'm suggesting an alternative where the "top tier" of Europe play the "lower tier" of Europe on a more regular basis. The only suitable window is the Autumn.

You are aware that the 6 nations isn't the only annual European competition, aren't you? If you want us to play teams like Georgia more often then it's during the slot during the six nations. But people don't want that because they don't want to lose money.

It's the only one I care about.

How would Georgia and Romania compare to Italy and Scotland? How did they do in the WC ? ( I can't remember)- I thought they were really a level lower yet? NO point in bringing motre teams in if they haven't got the quality.

Italy played the home nations in the AIs for about ten years IIRC until they showed they were worthy of inclusion. I think Georgia and Romania should do the same

Looking at the rankings Georgia are a bit behind italy in the rankings, Romania a lot behind

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why not just force the 6N teams to play either Russia, Romania or Georgia in at least one of their AI's?

These teams cannot be included until they prove they can turn over teams like Scotland, Ireland or England on a regular basis.

Italy did that in the late 90s and Argentina famously did it in the 2007 RWC.

It's moments like these that can catapult a team forward and they can force their inclusion.

Japan have a great opportunity to solidify their position in their upcoming summer tests against us (Scotland). Should they win the series or at least one of the matches they can truly say their performance in the RWC was more than a blip.

Here here

TJ wrote:How would Georgia and Romania compare to Italy and Scotland?  How did they do in the WC ? ( I can't remember)- I thought they were really a level lower yet?  NO point in bringing motre teams in if they haven't got the quality.

Italy played the home nations in the AIs for about ten years IIRC until they showed they were worthy of inclusion.  I think Georgia and Romania should do the same

Looking at the rankings Georgia are a bit behind italy in the rankings, Romania a lot behind

Georgia came 3rd in their pool above Tonga and Namibia (both of whom they beat). Lost to NZ, but gave them a really good 1st half before falling away towards the end. Lost to Argentina convincingly too. From what I saw they looked pretty good. Perhaps about the level of Italy of late. Maybe a bit below. But not far off.

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:How would Georgia and Romania compare to Italy and Scotland?  How did they do in the WC ? ( I can't remember)- I thought they were really a level lower yet?  NO point in bringing motre teams in if they haven't got the quality.

Italy played the home nations in the AIs for about ten years IIRC until they showed they were worthy of inclusion.  I think Georgia and Romania should do the same

Looking at the rankings Georgia are a bit behind italy in the rankings, Romania a lot behind

Georgia came 3rd in their pool above Tonga and Namibia (both of whom they beat).  Lost to NZ, but gave them a really good 1st half before falling away towards the end.  Lost to Argentina convincingly too.  From what I saw they looked pretty good.  Perhaps about the level of Italy of late.  Maybe a bit below.  But not far off.

Maybe, Maybe not. They need to start taking 6N scalps regularly before anyone can consider tinkering with the system, and the only way that will happen is if the 6N teams invite them for a test match in the Autumn which appears to be the only viable window outside of RWC warm ups.

Italy weren't regularly beating 6 Nations sides before they were admitted though, were they?

While Italy have a better recent record in the 6 Nations than Scotland, I think Scotland will be safe (for the time being, at least) because of their long standing in the championship.

Italy recorded two consecutive victories over Ireland in 1997; 37–29 on 4 January, at Lansdowne Road, and 37–22 on 20 December, in Bologna

On 22 March 1997 they recorded their first win over France, 40–32, (in Grenoble).

In January 1998, Scotland were the victims with Italy winning 25–21 (in Treviso); in the same year in the Rugby World Cup Qualifiers, they narrowly lost 23–15 against England at Huddersfield, but they argued for a try by Alessandro Troncon disallowed by the referee.

So yeah they were beating 5N teams fairly regularly.

Scotland's form has been poor but our record is marginally better than Italy's. However it has to be taken in context. It's the same as saying it's better to lose your arm at the elbow rather than losing it at the shoulder.

Cyril wrote:Italy weren't regularly beating 6 Nations sides before they were admitted though, were they?

The reason Italy were admitted is because they beat Ireland numerous times in tests.

Can you imagine if we had decided we must kick out Ireland before admitting Italy? Ireland were the bottom team but if we were kicked out there would never have been any Brian O'Driscoll or Paul O'Connell because there would have been no money to pay them to play rugby. BOD probably would have been a GAA player and O'Connell probably would have been a swimmer.

Can you imagine if Italy weren't allowed in? No Sergio Parisse in the Six Nations, no Castrogiovanni, no Andrea Masi, no Diego Dominguez... no wild celebrations when Italy beat France, no Mauro Bergamasco at scrum-half, no away trips to Rome and no crazy wildcard results.

Finally, can you imagine how much louder the clamour for Georgia would be if Scotland and Italy agreed to play them and lost? And how much better the Georgian players would be recognised as?

France took about 20 or 30 years to start becoming competitive in the Five Nations. The only team that has always been competitive is England. Everyone else has had long periods of failure. Let's not use that as a barometer of who should be in or out of the competition.

I don't think they were looking to kick anyone out at that point that Ireland were the bottom side. There was a push to increase the competition to six so there was an equal number of sides, making scheduling more balanced.

You could argue that taking several of those players out of the Italy side would have brought on Argentina more quickly.

What would you use as a barometer of who should be in/out of the competition? Surely it has to be some form of meritocracy? You can't practically add any more sides without another leaving (even if just temporarily).

Cyril wrote:I don't think they were looking to kick anyone out at that point that Ireland were the bottom side. There was a push to increase the competition to six so there was an equal number of sides, making scheduling more balanced.

You could argue that taking several of those players out of the Italy side would have brought on Argentina more quickly.

What would you use as a barometer of who should be in/out of the competition? Surely it has to be some form of meritocracy? You can't practically add any more sides without another leaving (even if just temporarily).

Ok. The winners sit out for a year.

They are clearly the strongest and need the least development. During the 6N they can carry the flag for the NH and tour South Africa, Australia and NZ.

The bottom side should never drop out. Reason being if the guise of inviting Georgia and Romania et al in is based purely on developing rugby in these areas surely the relegated country would suffer as well, whoever that relegated country may be?

I have my doubts the professional game in Scotland would survive even one year if "relegated" from the 6N.

So, there's a ceiling to the ambitions of European rugby nations if they're not already in the 6N?

Why is one nation more important than another, just because they got in there first?

That idea about the winners representing the 6Ns the SH is actually quite interesting. You could have that instead of the Lions (with a bit of re-jigging)

Cyril wrote:So, there's a ceiling to the ambitions of European rugby nations if they're not already in the 6N?

Why is one nation more important than another, just because they got in there first?

That idea about the winners representing the 6Ns the SH is actually quite interesting. You could have that instead of the Lions (with a bit of re-jigging)

It's not just a sport though is it?

It's a bit like setting up a convenience shop right next to Asda or Tesco and saying it's not fair that they got in there first!

Rugby is a professional sport now with a lot of money involved. No 6N union would be happy to see their power, wealth or influence eroded.

I agree that smaller European countries need to be developed however not at the expense of those already established.

I agree with you that there are a lot of vested interests (and I was simplifying things a fair bit!).

There's definitely a conflict of interests in terms of keeping tradition and developing 'newer' nations.

Given that there's only a finite number of spaces at the elite level of sport I'm not sure it's ever going to be possible to keep everybody happy. Sport is like most things in the world, trying to find equilibrium. If you make changes to improve the lot of some nations it will often be to the detriment of others.

Having said that, there are plenty of areas that could be improved. I'm not sure that offering Georgia/Romania or whoever the odd Test is going to improve them significantly. Argentina (a much more established rugby nation, admittedly with a poor domestic game until more recently) only started to really crack on once they joined the RC.

Hmmm, I don't know the answer...

Cyril wrote:I agree with you that there are a lot of vested interests (and I was simplifying things a fair bit!).

There's definitely a conflict of interests in terms of keeping tradition and developing 'newer' nations.

Given that there's only a finite number of spaces at the elite level of sport I'm not sure it's ever going to be possible to keep everybody happy. Sport is like most things in the world, trying to find equilibrium. If you make changes to improve the lot of some nations it will often be to the detriment of others.

Having said that, there are plenty of areas that could be improved. I'm not sure that offering Georgia/Romania or whoever the odd Test is going to improve them significantly. Argentina (a much more established rugby nation, admittedly with a poor domestic game until more recently) only started to really crack on once they joined the RC.

Hmmm, I don't know the answer...

I think it would improve them, it would also get them more exposure, potentially more sponsorship and give them a better chance of making a good account of themselves in RWC's.

All the Pumas did was set the world on fire in one RWC and look where they are now. Mullering the 6N champions in a world cup quarter final and playing the Bokke, Wallabies and All blacks twice every year and developing their own club franchise.

The difference between Argentina and Italy is that Argentina a) always had a good stable of home grown talent and in fact have lost chaps like Dominguez, Parisse, Castrogiovanni to other nations and b) they took scalps from literally everyone in the game every now and again despite their many difficulties vs. other sides.

Italy rely heavily on parachuting in talent from abroad. That's not a long term model to be happy with.