No prospect of eastern Europe joining in 6 Nations

First topic message reminder :

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-2016-no-prospect-of-eastern-europe-joining-in-best-tournament-a6840196.html#commentsDiv

Way to crush all hope for other nations in Europe. Whats the point in even developing rugby in other European countries?

I knew I was having a blonde moment. Autumn Internationals - of course! Thank you, Hammer.

Well, I've already mentioned there that I think the Rugby Championship teams should at least be stopping in for one-off tests v Georgia and Romania - something that actually used to happen more during the amateur era. But I think the pre-season is the time for the 6 Nations to be playing their Eastern European neighbors. Italy could perhaps take on the likes of Spain or Portugal. Perfect opportunity to blow out the cobwebs before the 6 Nations. I can't believe the countries (the 6N) just want to keep playing each other again and again ad infinitum - even if it is good for the coffers...

Rowanbi wrote:I knew I was having a blonde moment. Autumn Internationals - of course! Thank you, Hammer.

Well, I've already mentioned there that I think the Rugby Championship teams should at least be stopping in for one-off tests v Georgia and Romania - something that actually used to happen more during the amateur era. But I think the pre-season is the time for the 6 Nations to be playing their Eastern European neighbors. Italy could perhaps take on the likes of Spain or Portugal. Perfect opportunity to blow out the cobwebs before the 6 Nations. I can't believe the countries (the 6N) just want to keep playing each other again and again ad infinitum - even if it is good for the coffers...

What benefits does it have for either side if the SH sides play either of those teams once a year?

Are you kidding me? It would be of huge benefit to Georgia and Romania to host Rugby Championship teams annually. But add to this an annual match or two against a 6 Nations team, and they might well begin to truly challenge the established heirarchy on the not-too-distant future. That's how things went for Argentina & Italy . . .

LordDowlais wrote:We should start off by sending development sides to tour each summer, then if these countries can show that they have the beating of the development sides then we can look at sending out more meaningful sides. 

The 6N countries should be responsible  for the European sides, and the RC should be responsible  for the Pacific Island sides.

Ireland has been sending development sides to the Tiblisi cup and Romania for years. The other nations never have their players available and instead use their own development sides. It's either all or nothing for these nations, they either get the big games or they don't get to play their best players.

It's high time the B&I Lions stopped the pointless tours to the SH sides and started touring the countries that would benefit from a visit. The home nations could send players with no more than say two caps, so the full Test sides wouldn't be affected and the games would be more competitive.

Rowanbi wrote:Are you kidding me? It would be of huge benefit to Georgia and Romania to host Rugby Championship teams annually. But add to this an annual match or two against a 6 Nations team, and they might well begin to truly challenge the established heirarchy on the not-too-distant future. That's how things went for Argentina & Italy . . .

I asked what benefits it would have and you say 'huge benefits', is that your way of saying you don't really know?

The Great Aukster wrote:It's high time the B&I Lions stopped the pointless tours to the SH sides and started touring the countries that would benefit from a visit. The home nations could send players with no more than say two caps, so the full Test sides wouldn't be affected and the games would be more competitive.

I think the economies of SA, NZ and Oz would see a point to those tours, they generate huge incomes and are highlights of careers for some players so I'd say they are far from pointless

It's high time the B&I Lions stopped the pointless tours to the SH sides and started touring the countries that would benefit from a visit. The home nations could send players with no more than say two caps, so the full Test sides wouldn't be affected and the games would be more competitive.

Hear, hear! Time to put the future before tradition.

I asked what benefits it would have and you say 'huge benefits', is that your way of saying you don't really know?

No, it's my way of saying this is perfectly obvious: Full stadiums, presumably, and experience against the best teams in the world. A one-off test on its own might not have any long-term benefit, agreed, but if we're talking about an annual fixture then the benefits are fairly cogent.

It's doubtful they'd get the best players on the pitch from the big teams. You'd also be hard pressed to get the big unions to give up a bigger pay day, or if an additional game were added, hard pressed for getting agreement from clubs.

Rowanbi wrote:It's high time the B&I Lions stopped the pointless tours to the SH sides and started touring the countries that would benefit from a visit. The home nations could send players with no more than say two caps, so the full Test sides wouldn't be affected and the games would be more competitive.

Hear, hear! Time to put the future before tradition.

I asked what benefits it would have and you say 'huge benefits', is that your way of saying you don't really know?

No, it's my way of saying this is perfectly obvious: Full stadiums, presumably, and experience against the best teams in the world. A one-off test on its own might not have any long-term benefit, agreed, but if we're talking about an annual fixture then the benefits are fairly cogent.

Your approach is short sighted

The Lions and AIs are how some of the SH teams pay their bills, if the ABs can't afford to keep their top players what does it do rugby to see a weaker AB team?

If Georgia want to play the likes of the ABs, they can pay the required fees that everyone else has to pay, after all they are being financed by a billionaire

Georgia and Romania minus a core group of their top players are playing scratch sides from Ireland, Italy and SA in recent years and being blown away by them so there is a way to go.

Playing top sides more regularly might have limited benefits but when you don't have access to al your players your ability to improve as a team is not what it should be, if there is no supply of players to create the depth required to be consistent then the odd good game is irrelevant, if you don't have good coaches or facilities then you are at a disadvantage to the rest and theres no point focusing on a few countries because then you are doing what you are accusing others of doing.

There should be a more comprehensive plan to grow the game across the world.

If Georgia want to play the likes of the ABs, they can pay the required fees that everyone else has to pay, after all they are being financed by a billionaire

Is there any reason to assume they wouldn't? Have Georgia or Romania ever invited any of the Rugby Championship teams to stop in during the Autumn tours, I wonder? If not, why not?

They wouldn't generate the income those teams want.

Rowanbi wrote:If Georgia want to play the likes of the ABs, they can pay the required fees that everyone else has to pay, after all they are being financed by a billionaire

Is there any reason to assume they wouldn't? Have Georgia or Romania ever invited any of the Rugby Championship teams to stop in during the Autumn tours, I wonder? If not, why not?

Well if they won't pay it, then they are the reason they are not playing the ABs . If Im not mistaken Ireland wanted to play them in the 2014 AIs but wouldn't pay the required fees.

Before arriving in Europe the ABs went and played in the US, who aren't exactly a tier 1 nation and they visited Samoa last year too and Japan in 2013

marty2086 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:It's high time the B&I Lions stopped the pointless tours to the SH sides and started touring the countries that would benefit from a visit. The home nations could send players with no more than say two caps, so the full Test sides wouldn't be affected and the games would be more competitive.

I think the economies of SA, NZ and Oz would see a point to those tours, they generate huge incomes and are highlights of careers for some players so I'd say they are far from pointless

The Lions are pointless in the rugby sense, but obviously far from it to the money grabbers. Everyone wants to see rugby grow but no one is prepared to give up anything to make it happen. Would Australian rugby fold if they didn't get a Lions cash injection once every 12 years (or the ABs) - unlikely!

Considering the sensitivities of players who judge the Lions to be their career highlight ahead of his country, must be close to the definition of pointless itself.

The Great Aukster wrote:
The Lions are pointless in the rugby sense, but obviously far from it to the money grabbers. Everyone wants to see rugby grow but no one is prepared to give up anything to make it happen. Would Australian rugby fold if they didn't get a Lions cash injection once every 12 years (or the ABs) - unlikely!

Considering the sensitivities of players who judge the Lions to be their career highlight ahead of his country, must be close to the definition of pointless itself.

Why should anyone have to give something up? Why should the Tier 1 nations forego cash to boost others? These unions are ultimately businesses who have other stakeholders to look after, the money they generate from the tours doesn't just pay for test sides but rugby throughout their respective countries

As for Australian rugby maybe you should read this

http://en.espn.co.uk/australia/rugby/story/227115.html

After recording combined losses upwards of Aus$20 million over the previous two years, the executive has cut costs across the board to reduce the deficit. However, a major contributor to finishing the year in the black was the lucrative British & Irish Lions tour which generated an incremental surplus of Aus$35 million.

marty2086 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:
The Lions are pointless in the rugby sense, but obviously far from it to the money grabbers. Everyone wants to see rugby grow but no one is prepared to give up anything to make it happen. Would Australian rugby fold if they didn't get a Lions cash injection once every 12 years (or the ABs) - unlikely!

Considering the sensitivities of players who judge the Lions to be their career highlight ahead of his country, must be close to the definition of pointless itself.

Why should anyone have to give something up? Why should the Tier 1 nations forego cash to boost others? These unions are ultimately businesses who have other stakeholders to look after, the money they generate from the tours doesn't just pay for test sides but rugby throughout their respective countries

As for Australian rugby maybe you should read this

http://en.espn.co.uk/australia/rugby/story/227115.html

After recording combined losses upwards of Aus$20 million over the previous two years, the executive has cut costs across the board to reduce the deficit. However, a major contributor to finishing the year in the black was the lucrative British & Irish Lions tour which generated an incremental surplus of Aus$35 million.

The rugby calendar is already full, so if more tests are to be played against developing nations, then some other fixtures will have to be given up for either club or country. Rugby is competing against different sports for air time money, if they don't grow their market it will stagnate. In the article you refer to, Chairman Michael Hawker understands they need to grow their game without relying on "windfalls".

But the Lions tour wasn't the sole reason for the financial turnaround, with the ARU also boasting increased participation, the influence of Ewen McKenzie as coach of the Wallabies and a new strategy to grow the game overall.

Hawker said building a sustainable financial model, regardless of which teams visit Australia to play the Wallabies, was the challenge that still remains for the ARU board.
"Our efforts to reduce Australian Rugby's cost base and unlock new sources of revenue will continue in 2014 as we work to develop a business model that is less reliant on one-off windfalls," Hawker said.

I don't disagree with growing the game, I just don't believe that you have to sacrifice the Lions or other tours to make it happen

I don't give a fig for growing the game. Am I alone?

No question the Lions tours have huge financial benefits for the Southern Hemsiphere nations, but it's a little ridiculous rugby hasn't moved on from that in the 21st century and developed less exclusive ways to generate income, more befitting the modern age.

Rowanbi wrote:No question the Lions tours have huge financial benefits for the Southern Hemsiphere nations, but it's a little ridiculous rugby hasn't moved on from that in the 21st century and developed less exclusive ways to generate income, more befitting the modern age.

So be more capitalist and socialist all at the same time?

Cyril wrote:I don't give a fig for growing the game. Am I alone?

No, not really. This self righteous attitude from some posters really grinds my gears up. If you care so much about Georgia and Romania, sacrifice your tours to Argentina, Australia or NZ and tour Romania and Georgia instead.

Don't try and take away one of my highlights of the rugby calendar.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Cyril wrote:I don't give a fig for growing the game. Am I alone?

No, not really. This self righteous attitude from some posters really grinds my gears up. If you care so much about Georgia and Romania, sacrifice your tours to Argentina, Australia or NZ and tour Romania and Georgia instead.

Don't try and take away one of my highlights of the rugby calendar.

It's not 'self righteous' to express a different viewpoint. But the claim rugby is becoming a 'global' sport is incompatible with a fixtures list which sees an entirely self-ingulgent established heirarchy playing among themselves time and time again ad infinitum. In addition to Lions tours, we've got an increasing number of spring & autumn fixtures - 'friendlies,' basically - and although a few other nations have begun to get involved in this, their fixtures against tier 1 opponents are few and far between. & in some respects the 'established heirarchy' does not even include the best nations in the world. The Lions don't got to Argentina, for instance? Ok, so it's more of a cultural exercise with a lot of tradition, but in a truly global sport it would not dominate the agenda and the headlines to one fraction of the extend it does in rugby. & if the established heirarchy cannot find time to engage the lower tier nations on a more regular basis there is no chance of them becoming more competitive at World Cups. In fact, no tier 2 nation has reached the quarter-finals now since 2007. Sure, there are fewer blowouts (no centuries since 2003, I believe), but the ability of the fringe nations to overcome tier 1 opposition at the big event appears to have diminished, and that may well be due to the lack of expose they are getting to that level of competition in between RWCs. It's like asking someone to take an exam without having given them the lessons necessary to prepare. So basically it's an unfair playing field and the RWC is a farce. If World Rugby is happy with that state of affairs they should drop their 'global' pretentions. Having 100 affiliated members doesn't make rugby a truly global sport if the vast majority are not even deemed worthy of taking the same pitch as the All Blacks or Wallabies. Truth is, rugby is only the number 1 team sport in NZ a few Pacific Islands in terms of registered playing numbers. I suspect the small nations which comprise half of World Rugby's core committee may well be happy with this state of affairs. But they're big fish in a small pond; that's all, and until there is a genuine commitment to globalize rugby and create a much more competitive World Cup, the next 8 installments will be much the same as the past 8, with more or less the same teams appearing in the quarters and semi-finals - and half of them STILL won't have beaten New Zealand . . .

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:We should start off by sending development sides to tour each summer, then if these countries can show that they have the beating of the development sides then we can look at sending out more meaningful sides. 

The 6N countries should be responsible  for the European sides, and the RC should be responsible  for the Pacific Island sides.

Ireland has been sending development sides to the Tiblisi cup and Romania for years. The other nations never have their players available and instead use their own development sides. It's either all or nothing for these nations, they either get the big games or they don't get to play their best players.

It's because the release period doesn't cover non-full cap internationals. Therefore their players don't have to be released. The IRB have been supposedly trying to move away from this model to have more full cap internationals instead (which is [I think] why they stopped the Churchill Cup, they wanted Canada and US in the PNC instead).

So the Tier 1 nations are self serving but the Tier 2 nations would rather play club teams and chase the odd game with Tier 1 sides than the Tier 3 nations who never get a look in anywhere they are....?

Tier 1 sides are playing more games against Tier 2 sides than before, especially the ABs but then again they are World Champions and pretty much guaranteed top ranking going into the next RWC, the other teams need as many ranking points as they can get to get a better draw for Japan. You get more points playing the higher ranked sides.

marty2086 wrote:So the Tier 1 nations are self serving but the Tier 2 nations would rather play club teams and chase the odd game with Tier 1 sides than the Tier 3 nations who never get a look in anywhere they are....?

Tier 1 sides are playing more games against Tier 2 sides than before, especially the ABs but then again they are World Champions and pretty much guaranteed top ranking going into the next RWC, the other teams need as many ranking points as they can get to get a better draw for Japan. You get more points playing the higher ranked sides.

Point is, the 6 Nations would rather traverse the globe to play NZ & Australia than just pop over to Eastern Europe for a frinedly match against Georgia or Romania. Similarly, NZ & Australia would rather traverse the globe to take on Celtic nations rather than engage their Pacific neighbors, even though the standard of opposition is not so different (just a little more bruising).

Rowanbi wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So the Tier 1 nations are self serving but the Tier 2 nations would rather play club teams and chase the odd game with Tier 1 sides than the Tier 3 nations who never get a look in anywhere they are....?

Tier 1 sides are playing more games against Tier 2 sides than before, especially the ABs but then again they are World Champions and pretty much guaranteed top ranking going into the next RWC, the other teams need as many ranking points as they can get to get a better draw for Japan. You get more points playing the higher ranked sides.

Point is, the 6 Nations would rather traverse the globe to play NZ & Australia than just pop over to Eastern Europe for a frinedly match against Georgia or Romania. Similarly, NZ & Australia would rather traverse the globe to take on Celtic nations rather than engage their Pacific neighbors, even though the standard of opposition is not so different (just a little more bruising).

Just pop over? Like its round the corner, your choice of language is very telling. Firstly there are no friendlies in rugby, secondly if the standards between the PI and Tier 1 NH teams aren't that different then why do the SH teams need to play them? Was the argument not that they need to play them to improve them?

It seems your argument changes slightly every now and then but lacks anything substantive to show how exactly it will improve the game and grow it, it also seems to ignore what is actually happening. Given that the Super rugby franchises are struggling to keep players at home the ABs probably could do with the injection of cash that the Lions will bring next year to stay strong at Test and club level but it seems some don't mind that if it means they can do their bit internationally, its not like they haven't played Samoa last year, the US the year before or Japan before that, that they aren't a business, that they don't have a primary duty to serve rugby in their own country or that there isn't a governing body to look after it all.

All true marty, which is why the IRB needs to step in to make it happen. The 6 nations be disbanded the unions told if they want a cross border competition they need to do it through Rugby Europe.

Yeah sure that would go down great with the public etc! Viva la revolution.

World Rugby have already introduced different measures to grow the game in Tier 2 nations, though more probably needs to be done at Tier 3 level.

I think the opposite is true to your suggestion, while theres an argument to Georgia being included in the mix of the 6 Nations, there isn't one for breaking up a great tournament because others are banging down the door because they aren't. Georgia have pretty much dominated the ENC/6NB and Romania haven't beaten them in 6 years. Promotion/relegation is probably the next step for the 6Ns which would allow a team to step up and probably light a fire under the FIR to do more.

The game should be strengthened up not down, theres investment in infrastructure in tier 2 and 3 nations, if you grow the sport in countries and have more competitive domestic competitions you grow the available pools of players and the competition for places at higher levels. In Europe the smaller countries should be brought to the top table of the ERCC, even if its just the one place that takes away the play off the currently exists.

Some are growing the game thanks to 7s joining the Olympics, so the powerhouses like Russia and US will begin to see growth of the game in the coming years that some hope will filter in the XVs game. There are moves to set up a league in the States too.

Just pop over? Like its round the corner, your choice of language is very telling. Firstly there are no friendlies in rugby, secondly if the standards between the PI and Tier 1 NH teams aren't that different then why do the SH teams need to play them? Was the argument not that they need to play them to improve them?


There are friendlies in rugby. The term is frequently used to describe non-competition matches. You can imagine there are no friendlies, if that suits you, but the term is frequently used in rugby circles and in the media.

The standard between the Pacific Islands and the Celtic teams is not that different. Don't twist words. There is a vast gulf between the SANZAR nations and the Celtic nations. For example, 2 of the Celtic nations have NEVER beaten NZ, the third hasn't done so for over 60 years - and NEVER actually in NZ. Needless to add no Celtic nation has ever made a RWC final. So you're comparing apples to pears there, and I suspect that you knew that.


It seems your argument changes slightly every now and then but lacks anything substantive to show how exactly it will improve the game and grow it, it also seems to ignore what is actually happening. Given that the Super rugby franchises are struggling to keep players at home the ABs probably could do with the injection of cash that the Lions will bring next year to stay strong at Test and club level but it seems some don't mind that if it means they can do their bit internationally, its not like they haven't played Samoa last year, the US the year before or Japan before that, that they aren't a business, that they don't have a primary duty to serve rugby in their own country or that there isn't a governing body to look after it all

It's not my view that changes and lacks substance. I've actually presented quite a few ideas for the development of international rugby on the '2023 (expanded) World Cup for South Africa' thread. Go take a look. I simply place more emphasis on the developing nations than I do on the long-established self-indulgent hierarchy. Do you really want to see an eternity of NZ domination, with only SA & Australia (occasionally England & France) ever really challenging that? Or do you want to see more teams like Argentina coming through - and at a rate of more than one per century? Where are we going to be if the All Blacks win the next 5 World Cups in a row (conceivable given their overwhelming domination of all other nations in the pro era)? The game would end up looking as mickey mouse as Australian-dominated league...

It constantly amuses me when people use results to demonstrate competitiveness. Check the NZ Ireland game and Aus Wales for examples.

Rowanbi wrote:There are friendlies in rugby. The term is frequently used to describe non-competition matches. You can imagine there are no friendlies, if that suits you, but the term is frequently used in rugby circles and in the media.

Im not the one doing the imagining because I think your travelling in football circles as even in the media test matches are referred to as such and if their not its usually referred to along the lines of uncapped match etc as the consensus in rugby circles' is there is no such thing as a friendly game of rugby

Rowanbi wrote:
The standard between the Pacific Islands and the Celtic teams is not that different. Don't twist words. There is a vast gulf between the SANZAR nations and the Celtic nations. For example, 2 of the Celtic nations have NEVER beaten NZ, the third hasn't done so for over 60 years - and NEVER actually in NZ. Needless to add no Celtic nation has ever made a RWC final. So you're comparing apples to pears there, and I suspect that you knew that.

Your own argument kills your own argument, the Celtic nations have a better win percentage against NZ than Fiji or Tonga have against the Celtic nations and that's including full tests and against XV sides or without them because the end result is the same

Rowanbi wrote:
It's not my view that changes and lacks substance. I've actually presented quite a few ideas for the development of international rugby on the '2023 (expanded) World Cup for South Africa' thread. Go take a look. I simply place more emphasis on the developing nations than I do on the long-established self-indulgent hierarchy. Do you really want to see an eternity of NZ domination, with only SA & Australia (occasionally England & France) ever really challenging that? Or do you want to see more teams like Argentina coming through - and at a rate of more than one per century? Where are we going to be if the All Blacks win the next 5 World Cups in a row (conceivable given their overwhelming domination of all other nations in the pro era)? The game would end up looking as mickey mouse as Australian-dominated league...

Theres no point developing international rugby if everything underneath is left to stagnate, the pipeline to the top level needs to be built up but many 6 nations blow ins forget about the rest of the game and given that France, Argentina and Italy have come to the top table in the last half century alone your figures are a little dodgy, also Japan are moving closer and the RWC there in 2023 along with them joining Super rugby should help them move forward.

Given that the England RWC winning team saw beating the ABs as a watermark and foundation to go on and win the trophy that is what other teams aspire to rather than playing weaker opposition, weakening themselves in the process and the game overall to help build others rather than building others to play at their level.

Friendly International http://www.flashscore.com/rugby-union/world/friendly-international/

That's just one. I could bring up hundreds more.

the Celtic nations have a better win percentage against NZ than Fiji or Tonga have against the Celtic nations

What are you talking about? The Celtic nations have a collective 3 wins against NZ all time - all of them by Wales in Wales.

Theres no point developing international rugby if everything underneath is left to stagnate

Don't get confused now. This is my point, not yours.

Also, I just remembered by first post on this thread had some ideas about how to go about developing the next tier (or two)...

Rowanbi wrote:Friendly International  http://www.flashscore.com/rugby-union/world/friendly-international/

That's just one. I could bring up hundreds more.

Yet you didn't and brought up an obscure website?

Rowanbi wrote:the Celtic nations have a better win percentage against NZ than Fiji or Tonga have against the Celtic nations

What are you talking about? The Celtic nations have a collective 3 wins against NZ all time - all of them by Wales in Wales.

Rowanbi wrote:Theres no point developing international rugby if everything underneath is left to stagnate

Don't get confused now. This is my point, not yours.

Also, I just remembered by first post on this thread had some ideas about how to go about developing the next tier (or two)...

Im not talking international rugby, Im talking clubs, that's where players play when the 6 Nations isn't on. Its all well and good talking about cancelling tours to get Tier 2 teams games but that's pointless when they have 10 players playing quality rugby week in and week out.

Yet you didn't and brought up an obscure website?

Well, here's another Pre-season Friendly http://www.ultimaterugby.com/pre-season-friendly If you want any more, just google it yourself. Anyway, it's a fairly pointless argument, terminology is subjective, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.

Im not talking international rugby, Im talking clubs, that's where players play when the 6 Nations isn't on. Its all well and good talking about cancelling tours to get Tier 2 teams games but that's pointless when they have 10 players playing quality rugby week in and week out.




But I haven't been talking about cancelling tours. I've supported the theory of doing away with Lions tours, and also questioned why rugby hasn't moved on and created less exclusive, more all-embracing cash cows for the 21st century. But that doesn't mean I want Lions tours canceled pronto to making way for Georgia v Scotland or a Romanian tour of Britain. In fact, 'replace' isn't even the right word. International rugby should be evolving in a way that reflects its ever-expanding global community. Yes, there are over 100 nations affiliated to World Rugby, but for the vast majority of them the sport has little more than novelty status and their national teams could not even dream of taking on any of the tier 1 nations (or tier 2, for that matter). That's not moving forward very quickly, is it? Argentina's come through, yes, and Georgia shows great promise (but can't go any further because it's stuck in ENC). Meanwhile Canada and Romania have declined markedly since the amateur era. That's not to say they've gone backward. But they have woefully failed to keep up with the pack. All this is the fault of international rugby's hierarchial structure, exclusive internatinal competitions and elitist scheduling. That's what's got to change.

Rowanbi wrote:Yet you didn't and brought up an obscure website?

Well, here's another Pre-season Friendly http://www.ultimaterugby.com/pre-season-friendly If you want any more, just google it yourself. Anyway, it's a fairly pointless argument, terminology is subjective, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.

Maybe you should read the links you post before posting, that refers to club sides not international rugby

Rowanbi wrote: Im not talking international rugby, Im talking clubs, that's where players play when the 6 Nations isn't on. Its all well and good talking about cancelling tours to get Tier 2 teams games but that's pointless when they have 10 players playing quality rugby week in and week out.

But I haven't been talking about cancelling tours. I've supported the theory of doing away with Lions tours, and also questioned why rugby hasn't moved on and created less exclusive, more all-embracing cash cows for the 21st century. But that doesn't mean I want Lions tours canceled pronto to making way for Georgia v Scotland or a Romanian tour of Britain. In fact, 'replace' isn't even the right word. International rugby should be evolving in a way that reflects its ever-expanding global community. Yes, there are over 100 nations affiliated to World Rugby, but for the vast majority of them the sport has little more than novelty status and their national teams could not even dream of taking on any of the tier 1 nations (or tier 2, for that matter). That's not moving forward very quickly, is it? Argentina's come through, yes, and Georgia shows great promise (but can't go any further because it's stuck in ENC). Meanwhile Canada and Romania have declined markedly since the amateur era. That's not to say they've gone backward. But they have woefully failed to keep up with the pack. All this is the fault of international rugby's hierarchial structure, exclusive internatinal competitions and elitist scheduling. That's what's got to change.

If Im not mistaken Georgia haven't asked to leave the ENC just yet, John Feehan was asked about them joining and from what I understand anyone involved with Georgia rugby understand that things are set until 2019 and are actually focusing on the under age groups to develop their players and have ambitions to win there and see these groups move up with a winning mentality.

You call the international competitions exclusive yet a fifth of teams who are part of World Rugby took part last year, that's compared to 32 of 209 associations for FIFA. The 6 Nations was set up by the 4 home nations, who then added France and eventually Italy to them, the Rugby Championship (originally the Tri Nations) was set up by SANZAR and added Argentina. World Rugby itself also has the U20 competitions every year, Sevens rugby which is now an Olympic sport and sees 15 core teams take part in the World Series every year, including teams like Kenya. They has established summer tournaments in BOTH Romania and Georgia and fund this, they are also seeing the RWC going to Japan in 2019. So where is this exclusivity?

You talk about creating cash cows yet the RWC going to Japan will tap into a huge market not just in Japan but the whole Asian market, work in taking place to establish the sport further in America another huge market with potential, the ABs played them there last year and sold out Soldier Field, the Wallabies too I think. A new sport called Sevens was developed and is generating revenue and attracting amazing athletes from around the world and its inclusion at Rio this summer will draw more interest to the sport as a whole.

You talk about more modern cash cows too yet in the Lions and Barbarians too there are unique cash cows that are important to the fabric, history and traditions of the game. They set rugby apart from other sports.

Maybe you should read the links you post before posting, that refers to club sides not international rugby

I believe you said there was no such thing as a friendly rugby match. But that term is oft-used to describe non-competition games, the links show.

You call the international competitions exclusive yet a fifth of teams who are part of World Rugby took part last yea

I was referring to the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship, which are exclusive by virtue of the fact they are closed shop. That's actually the definition of exclusive, and this exclusivity is precisely what prevents teams like Georgia, Romania, Canada & the Pacific Islands from going forward.

A new sport called Sevens was developed

In 1883. Not so new. It took them a century to wake up to its considerable potential and suitability for Olympic competition.

ou talk about more modern cash cows too yet in the Lions and Barbarians too there are unique cash cows that are important to the fabric, history and traditions of the game. They set rugby apart from other sports.

They're exclusive by nature and set rugby apart from other sports only in this respect. A so-called global sport still revolves around its 8 foundation members, and it does so in terms of its administration, its elite championships and its major tours. That's why more or less the same 8 nations have played in the RWC quarter-finals for the past 3 decades, and without changes we can be pretty sure more or less the same 8 nations will be playing in the RWC quarter-finals for the next few decades as well.

That's not to say a lot of work hasn't being going on below the surface. But we are discussing a specific issue here which relates to the exclusion of Georgia and Romania from the 6 Nations.

It would be very hard to get agreement from clubs to extend the 6 nations to 7 or 8 and may have unintended consequences of weakening Romania and Georgia if teams try to 'buy' retirements.

Rowanbi wrote:
You call the international competitions exclusive yet a fifth of teams who are part of World Rugby took part last yea

I was referring to the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship, which are exclusive by virtue of the fact they are closed shop. That's actually the definition of exclusive, and this exclusivity is precisely what prevents teams like Georgia, Romania, Canada & the Pacific Islands from going forward.

Then why didn't you say that and why did you cut out my quote referring to them and the fact exclusive as Argentina are new to the Rugby Championship hence its name change from the TRI-nations and the growth of the Home Nations tournament to the 5 Nations then the 6 Nations. They aren't in fact closed shops as they have shown and can you tell me when any of those nations asked to be a part of the competitions you mentions? Were you also aware that the Pacific Islands, Canada and America also have their own tournaments? Or that Australia A, NZ Maori and Junior ABs have all taken part in the competition and the Kiwis won it every year they were a part of it?

Rowanbi wrote:A new sport called Sevens was developed

In 1883. Not so new. It took them a century to wake up to its considerable potential and suitability for Olympic competition.

I said new sport and should have said Series for Sevens which has been going for about 25 years, rugby has also been entered for possible inclusion BACK into the Olympics for a long time but 7s offered the most acceptable format and has been put forward for the last 20 years or so but kept missing out until Rio so for your slating of World Rugby it seems they were way ahead of where you think they are.

Rowanbi wrote:ou talk about more modern cash cows too yet in the Lions and Barbarians too there are unique cash cows that are important to the fabric, history and traditions of the game. They set rugby apart from other sports.

They're exclusive by nature and set rugby apart from other sports only in this respect. A so-called global sport still revolves around its 8 foundation members, and it does so in terms of its administration, its elite championships and its major tours. That's why more or less the same 8 nations have played in the RWC quarter-finals for the past 3 decades, and without changes we can be pretty sure more or less the same 8 nations will be playing in the RWC quarter-finals for the next few decades as well.

That's not to say a lot of work hasn't being going on below the surface. But we are discussing a specific issue here which relates to the exclusion of Georgia and Romania from the 6 Nations.

You talk about their exclusion but Italy and France asked to join, yet have either asked to join the group? And what case do they offer for enhancing it? Romania certainly haven't given any reason for them to be included

I thought Georgia, at least, had officially approached the 6 Nations on the issue. Their coach was certainly quoted in the press about it. Romania were first considered as a possible addition way back in the 1980s, during which they beat France several times, Wales home & away, and Scotland when they were 5 Nations champions. Since then they've regressed a great deal, partly through exclusion, but may just have started to regain lost ground through their regular encounters with Georgia, whose national team has clearly overtaken them. That's the key to it, of course - regular exposure to a higher level of competition.

Rowanbi wrote:I thought Georgia, at least, had officially approached the 6 Nations on the issue. Their coach was certainly quoted in the press about it. Romania were first considered as a possible addition way back in the 1980s, during which they beat France several times, Wales home & away, and Scotland when they were 5 Nations champions. Since then they've regressed a great deal, partly through exclusion, but may just have started to regain lost ground through their regular encounters with Georgia, whose national team has clearly overtaken them. That's the key to it, of course - regular exposure to a higher level of competition.

There has been nothing publically said about Georgia asking to be included in the 6 Nations, in fact the billionaire former president who is funding the game n the country indicates that its a long term goal but they are focused short term on academies and growing the game at underage level and being competitive there. They are in this years competition and hosting next years and hope to pick up some good results to build on.

With Romania you are missing some key points, Romania was a communist country in the 80s and their top players were essentially professionals in the amateur era, after the regime fell in the late 80s the country as a whole declined and with the introduction of professionalism it was a further blow to them because they then fell further behind.

Teams like Italy and France at different times were playing against the same level of opposition to the likes of Georgia and Romania yet were able to kick on, a strong domestic league helped France and Italy were added to the then Celtic League because it was acknowledged that they needed a higher level of domestic rugby to progress the game in the country.

There has been nothing publically said about Georgia asking to be included in the 6 Nations

Not by the administration. But certainly by the coach. This is what I was referring to:

CARDIFF: Proud Georgia coach Milton Haig called for the Six Nations championship to be expanded after his tough-tackling underdogs frustrated favourites New Zealand during a 43-10 Rugby World Cup defeat on Friday.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/rugby-world-cup-2015-georgia-deserve-seven-nations-spot-says-proud-coach-20151002-gk0fyk.html#ixzz3zx8Blc18
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

With Romania you are missing some key points, Romania was a communist country in the 80s and their top players were essentially professionals in the amateur era, after the regime fell in the late 80s the country as a whole declined and with the introduction of professionalism it was a further blow to them because they then fell further behind.


Very true. I said exclusion was just partly responsible for their decline, by no means the major reason. They even lost their regular fixtures against France 'A' at the turn of the century when the old FIRA competition was transformed into the (Franceless) ENC. Still, who knows what might have happened if they had been added to the 5 Nations back in the 80s? They were certainly good and might just have been able to consolidate on that status in spite of the political turbulence at the end of that decade.

So Romania thrashed Russia 30-0 at the weekend. That's basically the second best team in ENC 1 against the third. The Lelos and Oaks are so far ahead of the pack this competition's got to be one of the most predictable in all of international sports.

Rowanbi wrote:So Romania thrashed Russia 30-0 at the weekend. That's basically the second best team in ENC 1 against the third. The Lelos and Oaks are so far ahead of the pack this competition's got to be one of the most predictable in all of international sports.

Good for them.

Until they start thrashing Ireland, Italy, Wales, France, England or Scotland things will stay as they are.

Yes, that's the classic international rugby Catch 22 situation. In order to compete with the best you must be given opportunities to play them, but until you are able to compete with them you will not be given that opportunity - at least, very rarely.

Btw, I didn't see Georgia receiving a swarm of test matches against tier 1 teams after almost beating Ireland at the 2007 World Cup, while Japan isn't showing up on any of the big guns' schedules following last year's stunning upset over the Springboks - not even South Africas

Rowanbi wrote:Yes, that's the classic international rugby Catch 22 situation. In order to compete with the best you must be given opportunities to play them, but until you are able to compete with them you will not be given that opportunity - at least, very rarely.

Btw, I didn't see Georgia receiving a swarm of test matches against tier 1 teams after almost beating Ireland at the 2007 World Cup, while Japan isn't showing up on any of the big guns' schedules following last year's stunning upset over the Springboks - not even South Africas

We're playing them twice in the summer. We are either big guns or we aren't. Some people need to start making their minds up.

You're not. Definitely not. You are however feeding off the big guns and using that money to prop up the game.

Yes, beat South Africa and you get rewarded with a test or two against . . . Scotland. I'm sure the Japanese rugby community can hardly contain its excitement

Scotland are a good team. Good team to watch as well.

Rowanbi wrote:Yes, beat South Africa and you get rewarded with a test or two against  . . . Scotland. I'm sure the Japanese rugby community can hardly contain its excitement

At least we are playing these teams. What are the big guns up to? Are they going out of there way to bring on the game eh?

Answers on a post card.