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?

Everyone else is short sighted and you are the genius we should all bow down to

No, I'm just a guy making a suggestion on a chat board that Tier 1 nations ought to commit to a solitary game against a non-tier 1 nation within their regional association per year in order to give those teams more exposure to top level rugby and thereby assist their progress - rather than shutting them out in between World Cups, as is largely the case now. This would help created a bigger, more competitive international rugby circuit at the top level, making World Cup expansion and a possible 6 Nations-ENC amalgamation more viable prospects. That would seem to be the way forward. However, you have your fingers stuck in your ears whilst screaming loudly again and again that this will never ever ever be possible because teams can not possibly play one more game and neither can they sacrifice one of their less meaningful current games or squeeze the hypothetical fixture into the Autumn or Spring tours because rugby schedules are set in stone for the next zillion years and any attempt to interfere with that would bring certain death and destruction to the planet and must not even be considered under any circumstances whatsoever and that's final...

And teams and unions are already doing their bit to help Tier 2 teams, they are actually doing more for Tier 2 teams than Tier 2 teams are doing for Tier 3 teams

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that comment.

In terms of on field interaction tier 1 teams are engaged in their own exclusive competitions and play relatively few friendlies against tier 2 teams.

Tier 2 teams in Europe compete annually with tier 3 teams in the ENC, while Japan competes with tier 3 Asian teams.

The Pacific and North American teams have been engaged in their own exclusive competition, because it was set up for them by World Rugby. However there is no indication that this has benefited the majority of the teams overall - with the notable exception of former whipping boys Japan. For certain this tournament must be running at a huge cost, as teams travel thousands of kilometres to play in front of crowds sometimes numbering only in the hundreds. As far as friendlies with their tier 3 regional association neighbors go, they don't really have the funds for this.

There are no tier 2 teams on the African or South American continents, so interaction there is impossible.

Cyril wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:They should just make it a rule that all tier 1 teams have to play a minimum of one test a year against a non-tier 1 nation within their regional association.

Why? It's not what the unions, fans, players coaches, sponsors or tv companies want. Big games against the big sides is the main draw.

Send the Saxons, Wolfhounds etc to play the minnows. They need more games anyway and at least it (probably) won't be a pointless thrashing.

I don't think you believe most of what you're typing but enjoy thinking up unworkable scenarios in a dream world

This is the crux of it for me, I have no interest in watching England thrash Georgia or even playing Italy, we need to be playing matches that progress OUR team not meaningless games to help another team progress.

Then why have a World Cup?

I'll tell you why: It is the biggest money-spinner in the game, and the tier 2 teams you wish to ignore in between, deeming them unworthy, are necessary to that end. But they will always be at a disadvantage so long as they are receiving so little exposure to top level of rugby in between World Cups. Thus we have a relatively stagnant world order, and that does not bode well for the future.

It's the way it's always been in Rugby so it won't have any long term effect on the game, the tier 2 teams are involved in the world to beef it out a bit but bring no money to table.

They bring money to the table by participating in the game's biggest money-spinner. A 10-team World Cup wouldn't be taken seriously. But it might as well be 10 teams if everyone else is going to be ignored in between tournaments and therefore placed at a significant disadvantage.

However, if they are engaged in regular friendly games with tier 1 teams, even under the very modest circumstances I have suggested, that would be an investent in the future, and a decade from now we might have half a dozen or so more heavyweights on the international scene.

& I'm pretty sure not everyone would share your disinterest in tier 1 v tier 2 encounters. Neither do I think they would necessarily result in thrashings. Georgia might very well surprise one or two of them in Tbilisi, if given enough opportunities.

A ten team world cup would be taken as seriously as the 6 Nations and the Rugby Championship, sell outs every single game so that argument makes no sense.

As for Georgia performing better than expected, I seriously doubt it; England, Ireland and Wales would all give them a serious thrashing.

I don't agree with you on either count, sorry. A 10-team RWC would not be taken very seriously by anyone but the hard core fans. World Rugby opted for a 16-team tournament in 1987 and chose to expand that after just 3 installments. There were very good reasons for that, mostly to do with advertising, sponsorship and TV contract. So they required not only the tier 2 teams, but a couple of the tier 3 nations, to take part. Suggesting they ought to be ignored the rest of the time is a pretty clear case of having your cake and eating it too.

Ireland, Wales and Scotland have all fallen to tier 2 teams before. The only reason Georgia isn't among them is because they haven't received as many opportunities as teams did in the pre-tier days, notably the last two decades of the previous century. Nonetheless, the Lelos did get close to stunning Ireland at the 2007 RWC. And thus your viewpoint crumbles to dust.

Rowanbi wrote:Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that comment.

In terms of on field interaction tier 1 teams are engaged in their own exclusive competitions and play relatively few friendlies against tier 2 teams.

Tier 2 teams in Europe compete annually with tier 3 teams in the ENC, while Japan competes with tier 3 Asian teams.

The Pacific and North American teams have been engaged in their own exclusive competition, because it was set up for them by World Rugby. However there is no indication that this has benefited the majority of the teams overall - with the notable exception of former whipping boys Japan. For certain this tournament must be running at a huge cost, as teams travel thousands of kilometres to play in front of crowds sometimes numbering only in the hundreds. As far as friendlies with their tier 3 regional association neighbors go, they don't really have the funds for this.

There are no tier 2 teams on the African or South American continents, so interaction there is impossible.

Firstly Tier 1 teams are sending teams to compete in the likes of the Tbilisi Cup.

Tier 2 teams are playing Tier 3 teams in organised competitions, not outside of them.

You say some teams don't have the funds to play Tests against other team,s yet a lot of Tier 1 nations don't have the funds and you expect them to forego some of their biggest income streams when they are just about breaking even to play teams who on't do the same for others?

Meaningful competition is actually more meaningful than unmeaningful competition which is why it is referred to as meaningful. Tier Two 1 Tier One 0

I don't expect tier 1 teams to forego some of their biggest income streams at all. I'm suggesting they include one tier 2 team in their annual schedules. They already do this sometimes. It's actually not a problem. I'm just suggesting it become routine, thereby giving the tier 2 nations a more solid platform for development and consistency.

Yes you are suggesting that, those schedules are their income streams, if those games are so meaningless then why do you want the Tier 2 teams to be included?

It seems like you're tripping yourself up trying to keep track of what exactly it is your saying

Marty, if it were left to you, we'd still be in the stone age. This is a very very simple suggestion, and you have posted about a million times stating again and again that it cannot possibly be possible because there is no way the schedule will ever be able to fit that one single game per team in. That is a completely backward perspective. It is also total nonsense. You've got Barbarians games and fixtures against World XVs, meaningless tours and World Cup warm-ups between 6 Nations teams who have already played each other that season in the 6 Nations itself. Of course there are fixtures that could be replaced. If you don't think so, fine. I get that. I got that after you wrote it the first, second, third and fourth times. You don't need to keep repeating the same point ad infinitum because you personally don't think it can happen.

I think it would work best if they had their targeted nations, so that those nations would receive regular tests against tier 1 nations (at least 1 a year). Argentina had been receiving regular competition against tier 1 opposition (relatively speaking) since the 1960s before beginning to emerge as a genuine heavyweight in the early 80s. Similarly, Italy was clearly being targeted for development by the 5 Nations from the 80s onward, and finally started to catch up with them about a decade later - by which point they were meeting tier 1 opposition several times a year, in one form or another.

So, with Argentina involved in the Americas 6 Nations, Canada and the US already have their annual test against a tier 1 nation. If they get more, as they undoubtedly will, all the better.

South Africa ought to engage Namibia in an annual test given their close poximity and cultural ties. Obviously this would be lopsided to begin with, but so too was the Bledisloe Cup series at times. However, increasing contacts with the All Blacks eventually paid dividends, and from the late 70s onward the Wallabies have been regarded not only as one of the game's heavyweights, but as one of its 3 major super powers.

As for NZ & Australia themselves, if they committed to one test against Japan or a Pacific Island nation a year, that would be a significant improvement on the current situation.

That would leave Europe, seemingly one of the easier puzzles to solve due to the close proximity of the countries involved. If 6 Nations teams were required to play just one game per season against a non-tier 1 side within their own geographical region, I imagine most would opt to meet Georgia or Romania. However, Russia at home might prove a pretty solid workout, while Italy could also consider Spain or Portugal.

If they can play them at World Cups, why not in between?

Rowanbi wrote:Marty, if it were left to you, we'd still be in the stone age. This is a very very simple suggestion, and you have posted about a million times stating again and again that it cannot possibly be possible because there is no way the schedule will ever be able to fit that one single game per team in. That is a completely backward perspective. It is also total nonsense. You've got Barbarians games and fixtures against World XVs, meaningless tours and World Cup warm-ups between 6 Nations teams who have already played each other that season in the 6 Nations itself. Of course there are fixtures that could be replaced. If you don't think so, fine. I get that. I got that after you wrote it the first, second, third and fourth times. You don't need to keep repeating the same point ad infinitum because you personally don't think it can happen.

In the stone age if you ignore the fact that I have made suggestions throughout this thread that you ignore because...well I don't know why

The warm up games are that, warm ups for the big tests they will face in the RWC you think that if Romania, Georgia etc provided the required test prior to the RWC that the big teams wouldn't be playing them? You're delusional, its because they are not good enough to test the big boys

A lot of the Barbarians and World XVs game involve new caps and players trying to get back into the first XV and is not much different than the likes of the Tblisi Cup except in their marketing but you keep telling yourself you have the answers

You have an interesting set of priorities ...

It'll just be the B teams anyway then. Bring back the Saxons etc.

Saxons are back, and headed for SA. Couldn't squeeze a test in against perennial World Cup qualifier Namibia, however, even though they just had their best tournament to date (finishing 18th instead of 19th or 20th). Ah, yes, Stalin would have been proud of the rigidity of international rugby scheduling.

So SA can't fit a game in tut tut. tbf its a stupid time for saxons. Needless game when a serious thought does need to be put on game time.

Rowanbi wrote:You have an interesting set of priorities ...

So it shouldnt be a priority for unions to be able to afford to keep the lights on?

So I guess it might work out something like this:

Year 1
Argentina v Canada, USA (Americas 6 Nations)
SA v Namibia (annual Jan Ellis Cup fixture)
NZ v Fiji
Japan v Australia
England v Georgia
Scotland v Romania
Italy v Spain
Russia v Wales
Georgia v Ireland
Romania v France

Year 2
Argentina v Canada, USA
Namibia v SA
NZ v Samoa
Australia v Tonga
France v Georgia
Wales v Romania
Ireland v Russia
Portugal v Italy
Romania v England
Georgia v Wales

As the 4th games in the AIs? Have you given any thought to the idea that clubs may start to drop some players as they start to pick up more games for their country?

Finally you've presumably done just one weekend there as you said that Georgia etc would end up with more than 1 game?

No 7&1/2 wrote:As the 4th games in the AIs? Have you given any thought to the idea that clubs may start to drop some players as they start to pick up more games for their country?

Finally you've presumably done just one weekend there as you said that Georgia etc would end up with more than 1 game?

I think we are best leaving him to his little fantasy world

The thoughts right, but it isn't practical or affordable really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The thoughts right, but it isn't practical or affordable really.

I agree but if you disagree with him you are accused of burying your head in the sand and being stuck in the stone age as I was even though I have repeatedly told him like you have his ideas are impractical and there are better ways

No 7&1/2 wrote:As the 4th games in the AIs? Have you given any thought to the idea that clubs may start to drop some players as they start to pick up more games for their country?

Finally you've presumably done just one weekend there as you said that Georgia etc would end up with more than 1 game?

Regarding your first point, some of these games could be staged during the AIs, sure, but it's really a question of when the most convenient time could be found for each tier 1 nation to play their one game per season against a non-tier 1 nation within their own geographical region (you will note that I have combined the Americas and Asia-Oceania in this respect).

As for your second comment, Georgia and Romania actually feature twice in the hypothetical program I presented. Ideally I'd like to see them get a home game during the spring tours, and perhaps play their away game as part of the autumn tours, but again the tier 1 nations would only be committed to one game each as their part in this project.

I agree but if you disagree with him you are accused of burying your head in the sand and being stuck in the stone age as I was even though I have repeatedly told him like you have his ideas are impractical and there are better ways

It's not that you disagree at all. I consider debate to be both healthy and constructive, which is one of the main reasons I use this forum. But you have simply presented the same argument over and over again, and I have already responded several times that I'm aware of your viewpoint but don't share it. There comes a time when the debate reaches an impasse, and at that stage you simply have to agree to disagree, rather than banging away on the same old point in an obvious attempt to stifle any further discussion on the issue.

Ah didn't see the second games.

So just the loss of income and additional pressure on players to not turn up. How would you try to work that out? Those are the sticking points for me.

As stated on a number of occasions already, tier 1 unions need not necessarily add a fixture at all. This only requires a slight adjustment in prioritization. You have a window in the fixtures list, who do you choose: a Barbarians selection or World XV slapped together for a one-off match, or a test against Georgia or Romania in order to help them develop? You tour a Southern Hemisphere nation for five or six games, why not make one of them against a Pacific Island nation, Namibia or Uruguay, instead of a club, state or provincial side? Just try to think outside the box a little. There a plenty of possibilities.

Rowanbi wrote:
I agree but if you disagree with him you are accused of burying your head in the sand and being stuck in the stone age as I was even though I have repeatedly told him like you have his ideas are impractical and there are better ways

It's not that you disagree at all. I consider debate to be both healthy and constructive, which is one of the main reasons I use this forum. But you have simply presented the same argument over and over again, and I have already responded several times that I'm aware of your viewpoint but don't share it. There comes a time when the debate reaches an impasse, and at that stage you simply have to agree to disagree, rather than banging away on the same old point in an obvious attempt to stifle any further discussion on the issue.

And you have done what? Presented new ideas daily?

You accused me of not wanting to see change and progress because I disagreed with your approach, that's hardly healthy and constructive debate or showing an understanding of a different viewpoint

Rowanbi wrote:As stated on a number of occasions already, tier 1 unions need not necessarily add a fixture at all. This only requires a slight adjustment in prioritization. You have a window in the fixtures list, who do you choose: a Barbarians selection or World XV slapped together for a one-off match, or a test against Georgia or Romania in order to help them develop? You tour a Southern Hemisphere nation for five or six games, why not make one of them against a Pacific Island nation, Namibia or Uruguay, instead of a club, state or provincial side? Just try to think outside the box a little. There a plenty of possibilities.  

As I said the pitfalls are the increased pressure from clubs and money.

You accused me of not wanting to see change and progress because I disagreed with your approach, that's hardly healthy and constructive debate or showing an understanding of a different viewpoint

That was my viewpoint on your viewpoint, yes. It doesn't mean you're not entitled to your viewpoint, nor even than you are necessarily wrong, of course. But you don't need to keep repeating it, because I am entitled to my viewpoint too.

What is your viewpoint on the club and money issue though. Those are the barriers in this surely?

I wish Rowanbi would learn how to use the quote button. It's difficult to see who he's currently disagreeing with.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What is your viewpoint on the club and money issue though. Those are the barriers in this surely?

Already explained numerous times. Go back to the parts where I referred to prioritizing and replacing less meaningful fixtures as an option to necessarily adding a test.

Doesn't answer those points.

Year 3
Argentina v Canada, USA (Americas 6 Nations)
SA v Namibia (annual Jan Ellis Cup fixture)
Australia v Fiji
Japan v NZ
England v Romania
Scotland v Georgia
Russia v Italy
Georgia v Wales
Romania v Ireland
France v Georgia

Year 4
Argentina v Canada, USA
Namibia v SA
NZ v Tonga
Australia v Samoa
France v Romania
Wales v Georgia
Russia v Ireland
Italy v Spain
Georgia v Scotland
Romania v England

So just ignoring that? Money, clubs and player fatigue. You're just ignoring them really aren't you?

I remember before such successful innovations as the Rugby World Cup, Super Rugby and an expanded 6 Nations how the Flat Earth Society were convinced they were impacticable, doomed to failure, and that there were insurmountable obstacles. Of course, the obstacles were never really insurmountable, it was simply a case of prioritizing and reorganizing. Similarly, if World Rugby and its established fold really wanted to engage the 'lower classes' on a more regular basis, this could be achieved with relative ease. If we merely take a glance at this year's international fixtures list, we might ask ourselves why Italy doesn't send a full-strength team to the Nations Cup, so that its fixtures against Romania and Spain would be official test matches and therefore taken much more seriously by all concerned, rather than just being used as a glorified training run. We might also ask why NZ & Australia are scheduled to play a friendly straight after the Rugby Championship in October when they might instead give one of the tier 2 regional neighbours a shot instead. & then if we look at the autumn tours we have Australia playing five tests against tier 1 opposition, I believe, while France and England are playing Pacific Island teams when they might have met Georgia and/or Romania instead, leaving NZ and Australia to meet their Pacific Island neighbours instead of meeting each other in a meaningless fixture and/or playing 5  tier 1 nations on a single tour of Europe (in Australia's case) and/or meeting Italy in Rome (in NZ's). However, we can see that Scotland has found room for a test against Georgia , so these things are certainly not difficult to arrange where there is the intention.

Rowanbi wrote:I remember before such successful innovations as the Rugby World Cup, Super Rugby and an expanded 6 Nations how the Flat Earth Society were convinced they were impacticable, doomed to failure, and that there were insurmountable obstacles. Of course, the obstacles were never really insurmountable, it was simply a case of prioritizing and reorganizing. Similarly, if World Rugby and its established fold really wanted to engage the 'lower classes' on a more regular basis, this could be achieved with relative ease. If we merely take a glance at this year's international fixtures list, we might ask ourselves why Italy doesn't send a full-strength team to the Nations Cup, so that its fixtures against Romania and Spain would be official test matches and therefore taken much more seriously by all concerned, rather than just being used as a glorified training run. We might also ask why NZ & Australia are scheduled to play a friendly straight after the Rugby Championship in October when they might instead give one of the tier 2 regional neighbours a shot instead. & then if we look at the autumn tours we have Australia playing five tests against tier 1 opposition, I believe, while France and England are playing Pacific Island teams when they might have met Georgia and/or Romania instead, leaving NZ and Australia to meet their Pacific Island neighbours instead of meeting each other in a meaningless fixture and/or playing 5  tier 1 nations on a single tour of Europe (in Australia's case) and/or meeting Italy in Rome (in NZ's). However, we can see that Scotland has found room for a test against Georgia , so these things are certainly not difficult to arrange where there is the intention.

Why would Georgia and Romania get priority over the PI's in rugby? Not only have the PI's given more to European rugby in terms of players, they are better to watch and have the results over tier 1 nations to back it up. Also when the PI's play in Europe they get to actually pick most of their best players, so these tests are crucial for them. The SH need the big games to fill out stadiums to try their best to keep up with the European teams financially.

The only way for them to get more rugby is to be allowed compete in the big comps but again that throws up the money issue with the earnings being split between more teams. This is why the ICC wanted to get rid of the associate nations in cricket world cups despite the fact they cause an upset in every world cup they play in.

You continue to ignore the sticking points though.

Firstly, I believe what we are discussing on this thread is the issue of Georgian and Romanian involvement in a tier 1 competition, presumably by way of expansion. So if that is not possible, which appears to be the case right now, I am suggesting the 6 Nations could make friendly matches against these two nations more of a priority, as an investment in the future, and possibly with a vew to a promotion-relegation fixture at some stage.

Now, the point has been made repeatedly that there is absolutely no room for the Eastern Europeans on the 6 Nations teams annual schedules - not even for one game per (tier 1) union. However, we can see that Scotland has found room for Georgia this season. Obviously Scotland decided to make this a priority. Just imagine if their 6 Nations counterparts did the same...

So I'm a little surprised at your surprise that I have suggested Georgia and Romania should get priority over the PIs in terms of 6 Nations teams' friendly schedules. Neither have I suggested the PIs be left out in the cold. Conversely, I recommened the PIs own regional tier 1 neighbors, Australia & NZ, take up the slack and play them instead of meeting each other - yet again - in a friendly encounter straight after the Rugby Championship, in which they will have already met twice.

The SH needs the big games to keep up financially, yes. But does Australia really need to play France plus all four of the Home Unions when NZ & SA are content to play just 3 internationals on their autumn tours? Surely discrepancies like this suggests there is some leeway. Claiming otherwise indicates a stubborn resistance to regular games with steadily improving Georgia and perennial RWC contender Romania outside World Cups under any possible circumstances - in other words, you want to leave them out in the cold.

However, we can see that Scotland has found room for Georgia this season. Obviously Scotland decided to make this a priority. Just imagine if their 6 Nations counterparts did the same...

I would love if there was room for more matches with Georgia and Romania but Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, USA, Japan and Canada are all trying to get games against the tier 1 nations and the likes of Ireland, Wales and Scotland use the international game to fund the club game so they need to be selling out matches in November. Ireland have certainly struggled to sell tickets for tier 2 nations matches even with huge discounts in tickets. There is simply no room for more friendly's for Georgia and Romania as those nations mentioned above are just as deserving of game time and I along with many, many others want to see the PI's and Japan play in Europe.

But does Australia really need to play France plus all four of the Home Unions when NZ & SA are content to play just 3 internationals on their autumn tours?

Well their union thinks so. I'm sure the Aussies are looking at various ways to try get more money into the game there.

Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, USA, Japan and Canada are all trying to get games against the tier 1 nations

Covered this already. Aussies and Kiwis to take up the slack instead of playing friendlies with each other in addition to the Rugby Championship and Bledisloe Cup series.


There is simply no room for more friendly's for Georgia and Romania

So you shut them out in between World Cups, then wonder why rugby is still struggling to become a world game in the 21st century? Georgia is the rising star of World Rugby, the most likely candidate to emulate Argentina's success in breaking into the heavyweight ranks, but you're suggesting their own tier 1 neighbours don't have time for them? Well, they certainly found time for plenty of friendlies against Italy in the decade or so before admitting them to the expanded 6 Nations.

I'm sure the Aussies are looking at various ways to try get more money into the game there.


No doubt. But if they can play 5 tests against tier 1 opposition on the same tour, while NZ & SA only play 3, doesn't that suggest that there might be room on the latter nations' schedules for a test against a tier 2 regional neighbour while the Aussies are still in action in Europe?

That might not help Georgia and Romania, but it does indicate there are opportunities for additional fixtures here and there if you are prepared to look closely enough.

Rowanbi wrote:Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, USA, Japan and Canada are all trying to get games against the tier 1 nations

Covered this already. Aussies and Kiwis to take up the slack instead of playing friendlies with each other in addition to the Rugby Championship and Bledisloe Cup series.


There is simply no room for more friendly's for Georgia and Romania

So you shut them out in between World Cups, then wonder why rugby is still struggling to become a world game in the 21st century? Georgia is the rising star of World Rugby, the most likely candidate to emulate Argentina's success in breaking into the heavyweight ranks, but you're suggesting their own tier 1 neighbours don't have time for them? Well, they certainly found time for plenty of friendlies against Italy in the decade or so before admitting them to the expanded 6 Nations.

I'm sure the Aussies are looking at various ways to try get more money into the game there.


No doubt. But if they can play 5 tests against tier 1 opposition on the same tour, while NZ & SA only play 3, doesn't that suggest that there might be room on the latter nations schedules for a test against a tier 2 regional neighbour while the Aussies are still in action in Europe?

That might not help Georgia and Romania, but it does indicate there are opportunities for additional fixtures here and there if you are prepared to look closely enough.

So you shut them out in between World Cups, then wonder why rugby is still struggling to become a world game in the 21st century?

I'm not advocating shutting anyone out; I want to see a playoff game in the 6 nations. I don't need to see them get the odd friendly at the cost of the PI's or any tier 2 nation to want them in the 6 nations. Anyone who follows rugby can see that Georgia will ,if they aren't already be a much better team that Italy. They are producing Top 14 quality players for fun now (just look at the amount of their u20 players that have already been snapped up by french clubs).

No doubt. But if they can play 5 tests against tier 1 opposition on the same tour, while NZ & SA only play 3, doesn't that suggest that there might be room on the latter nations schedules for a test against a tier 2 regional neighbour while the Aussies are still in action in Europe?

No, it's not the space in the calendar that is the issue it's how can we sell out games for full price tickets. According to the Samoan Prime minister the country lost 1 million dollars for the game they hosted against the AB's. Poorly run unions with insufficient facilities to host the big 3 means they can't even travel to these places for a game.

I'm not advocating shutting anyone out

Yet you say there is no room for them...

I don't need to see them get the odd friendly at the cost of the PI's

Again, you missed the part where I advocated regionalizing inter-tier fixtures. So ultimately it's not at anyone's expense. It's simply a matter of adjusting the schedule, getting the SANZAR nations to do their bit, and thereby making room for Georgia and Romania in the NH.

Georgia will ,if they aren't already be a much better team that Italy

Not without regular exposure to top level rugby, they won't be. Even Argentina needed that. So too did France, come to think of it.

According to the Samoan Prime minister the country lost 1 million dollars for the game they hosted against the AB's.

That's because they played at home and their national stadium has a capacity of 15K. Georgia just drew 55K to a home test with Romania, while Romania itself once held the world record for a test match attendance.

Rowanbi wrote:I'm not advocating shutting anyone out

Yet you say there is no room for them...

I don't need to see them get the odd friendly at the cost of the PI's

Again, you missed the part where I advocated regionalizing inter-tier fixtures. So ultimately it's not at anyone's expense. It's simply a matter of adjusting the schedule, getting the SANZAR nations to do their bit, and thereby making room for Georgia and Romania in the NH.

Georgia will ,if they aren't already be a much better team that Italy

Not without regular exposure to top level rugby, they won't be. Even Argentina needed that. So too did France, come to think of it.

According to the Samoan Prime minister the country lost 1 million dollars for the game they hosted against the AB's.

That's because they played at home and their national stadium has a capacity of 15K. Georgia just drew 55K to a home test with Romania, while Romania itself once held the world record for a test match attendance.

Again, you missed the part where I advocated regionalizing inter-tier fixtures. So ultimately it's not at anyone's expense. It's simply a matter of adjusting the schedule, getting the SANZAR nations to do their bit, and thereby making room for Georgia and Romania in the NH.

I've already explained why the SANZAR nations won't play against tier 2 nations unless there is a nice chunk of money involved, ala the ABs playing in the USA. You can continue advocating unrealistic fixtures all you want it won't help the tier 2 cause.

Not without regular exposure to top level rugby, they won't be. Even Argentina needed that. So too did France, come to think of it.

Argentina was a great team without getting special treatment with European nations when it came to fixtures. They improved immensely when they joined a yearly top tier competition which is what I'm advocating for Georgia get the chance to do.

That's because they played at home and their national stadium has a capacity of 15K. Georgia just drew 55K to a home test with Romania, while Romania itself once held the world record for a test match attendance.

I brought that up to show how tough it is for the PI's to get games against the SANZAR nations. They can't host them and are unattractive to host because they won't draw the crowds for the Aussies and South Africa.

I've already explained why the SANZAR nations won't play against tier 2 nations unless there is a nice chunk of money involved,

Any reason they couldn't fill a stadium for a home test? I seem to recall they did it in the past, or almost.

Argentina was a great team without getting special treatment with European nations when it came to fixtures.

In fact, their increasing success coincided with their increasing exposure to top level opposition. Prior to the 60s this was only sporadic, and they were invariably outclassed, losing their first five encounters with British opposition by a combined 6 points to around 190. They were also thrashed by the Junior Boks in the 1930s, failed to score in a two test series with France in the 1940s, failed to win any of their four tests against top level opposition in the 1950s, and were whitewashed by the French again in 1960. Their success against top level opposition did not actually begin until the late 60s, by which time they were receiving on average more than a test a year against top level opposition, plus fairly regular fixtures with the Junior Boks. So that's a pretty good demonstration of the benefits - and necessity - of regular exposure to the top teams.

They can't host them and are unattractive to host because they won't draw the crowds for the Aussies and South Africa.

Why would they not draw crowds for the SANZAR nations when you're telling me they do for the 6 Nations? You didn't mention NZ there, but I seem to recall Samoa packing the stadium for a test with the All Blacks there once. After all, Auckland's the world's biggest Polynesian city. Surely that holds better prospects for a sell-out than Dublin or Edinburgh . . .

Rowanbi wrote:I've already explained why the SANZAR nations won't play against tier 2 nations unless there is a nice chunk of money involved,

Any reason they couldn't fill a stadium for a home test? I seem to recall they did it in the past, or almost.

Argentina was a great team without getting special treatment with European nations when it came to fixtures.

In fact, their increasing success coincided with their increasing exposure to top level opposition. Prior to the 60s this was only sporadic, and they were invariably outclassed, losing their first five encounters with British opposition by a combined 6 points to around 190. They were also thrashed by the Junior Boks in the 1930s, failed to score in a two test series with France in the 1940s, failed to win any of their four tests against top level opposition in the 1950s, and were whitewashed by the French again in 1960. Their success against top level opposition did not actually begin until the late 60s, by which time they were receiving on average more than a test a year against top level opposition, plus fairly regular fixtures with the Junior Boks. So that's a pretty good demonstration of the benefits - and necessity - of regular exposure to the top teams.

They can't host them and are unattractive to host because they won't draw the crowds for the Aussies and South Africa.

Why would they not draw crowds for the SANZAR nations when you're telling me they do for the 6 Nations? You didn't mention NZ there, but I seem to recall Samoa packing the stadium for a test with the All Blacks there once. After all, Auckland's the world's biggest Polynesian city. Surely that holds better prospects for a sell-out than Dublin or Edinburgh . . .

I never said they drew crowds for Europe... in fact I have said the exact opposite earlier which shows you aren't reading what I'm typing. Ireland has always struggled to sell tickets against tier 2 nations and even games against Argentina can't reach 40k even with a massive reduction in the price of tickets. This is one of the reasons why Ireland only plays one game in the november tests against a tier 2 nation.

Does this stadium look "near full" to you? skip to 1:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRPW4bqTKQ

It would make things a lot simpler if Georgia and Romania just went and played the Pacific Islanders.