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'm quoting myself from another thread...

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.

You'd then probably see even less chance for the Tongans etc to get a game then. As above the established richer teams will still want the big games so you would have to have larger international windows and have more international games in a time where ideally we should be looking at less in general. Would the clubs like it no, as they have less time with the players they play for and may end up losing the georgians etc they pay as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You'd then probably see even less chance for the Tongans etc to get a game then. As above the established richer teams will still want the big games so you would have to have larger international windows and have more international games in a time where ideally we should be looking at less in general. Would the clubs like it no, as they have less time with the players they play for  and may end up losing the georgians etc they pay as well.

To be honest the SH need to try and find more time for the pacific Island teams.

If "we" as rugby fans/nations truly want to grow the game in the NH we'll politly tell NZ, SA, OZ and the pumas they can get a 2 to 3 games against NH opposition. We'll spend the rest of the time ensuring Georgia and Romania can get game time against us.

The truth is this will NEVER happen. Because too many people, including mysefl just don't care enough about rugby in Georgia.

Untill they can start beating NH teams often enough their lot in world rugby will remain unchanged. None of them have ever done "An Argentina in 07" or "A Japan in 15".

I too wouldn't want to see Tonga, Samoa and Fiji get less gametime against the top tier as they are far more deserving of getting games against the tier 1 nations.

We need a good competition to get them involved. Money and getting players available is always the issue though. Apparently Georgia had to strike a deal with the French clubs to get players for the WC where they can now not play in the ENC.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I too wouldn't want to see Tonga, Samoa and Fiji get less gametime against the top tier as they are far more deserving of getting games against the tier 1 nations.

We need a good competition to get them involved. Money and getting players available is always the issue though. Apparently Georgia had to strike a deal with the French clubs to get players for the WC where they can now not play in the ENC.

Impossible in an already crammed season. I was being slightly facetious when I said I don't care about rugby in Georgia.

However I care about the traditions and rivalries of the 6N more.

I don't really care about the traditions and rivalries of the 6N. I would much prefer a bit more variety.

But the unions are desperate for as much money as possible and don't give a Poopie about anyone but themselves. Just like everyone else. So it will never happen (until teams like Georgia can bring in some money and then they'll be welcomed with open arms).

Of course the hypocrisy over the whole European club argument is mildly amusing.

EDIT: The IRB should refuse to allow the 6N to carry on without opening up to the rest of Europe in some way.

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't really care about the traditions and rivalries of the 6N. I would much prefer a bit more variety.

But the unions are desperate for as much money as possible and don't give a Poopie about anyone but themselves. Just like everyone else. So it will never happen (until teams like Georgia can bring in some money and then they'll be welcomed with open arms).

Of course the hypocrisy over the whole European club argument is mildly amusing.

EDIT: The IRB should refuse to allow the 6N to carry on without opening up to the rest of Europe in some way.

How can this be done when one of the teams in Europe have done anything to merit inclusion yet? Georgia and Romania need to be developed outside the crucible of the 6N untill they can regularly challenge and defeat 6N opposition.

I appreciate regular games against Georgia and Romania are tricky to shoehorn into an already crammed season. The NH teams should shed one of their games against "the big" SH opposition to allow the likes of Georgia and Romania more exposure.

However then people will bleat that we can't catch up with the SH sides unless we play them more.

So do you care more about your own nation? Leading to more SH matches or do you want to sacrifice your game time with the big boys to help poor old Georgia or Romania out?

Scotland are touring Japan in the summer, like I said probably because NZ, SA and Oz don't want to play us because we are a bit pish. So Japan lept at the chance of a 3 test match series. It'll be a tough match for us and give Japan a chance to solidify their great world cup. It's a good test for us but make no mistake, playing one of the rugby championship sides would be much more beneficial for us IMO, and herein lies the problem.

No, I don't think we should sacrifice our time with the big southern hemisphere teams to play other European teams (we should do that to play US, Canada, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Namibia, Japan, etc). I would, however, sacrifice playing Scotland, etc. to play against the other European teams more often. What I would like to happen is for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC. If the other followed suit then great, we could have a proper European competition. If not, so be it.

HammerofThunor wrote: What I would like to happen is for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC

You might actually win that instead of coming second.

Ahh, poor old England, forever the bridesmaid, never the bride.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: What I would like to happen is for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC

You might actually win that instead of coming second.

Ahh, poor old England, forever the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Be careful, any entirely factual posts based on fact indicating England have in fact a) come 2nd a lot in the 6 Nations and b) not won it for ages are obviously WUMS.

post at your own risk

If these Georgians want to play 6 Nations rugby the solution is simple. Don't get capped for Georgia but rather move to Edinburgh/Glasgow, wait three years and play for Scotland.

Solves all problems, including a number of depth issues in our pack.

Most if not all major nations have 'A' teams that would give Romania/Georgia etc a game and those teams would offer a good challenge for players on the fringes and coming through. That should be the level they need to surpass before talking about forcing them on the tier 1 nations. It would be helpful to all nations of World Rugby were a bit more stringent when it comes to enforcing player call ups and clubs blocking players playing for their country or paying them extra not to.

Georgian rugby is being built from the ground up, they are hosting the JWC next year and have built two academies in the country to develop players. It is all being financed by a Georgian billionaire.

Also theres no point throwing them in at the top when the structures underneath don't provide the supply to maintain it, a whole plan across club and test levels needs to be drawn up so that it develops the sport across as many levels as possible.

I would agree. There's the great basis for an "A" tournament here. Based on World Cup showings I think Georgia would likely pump Scotland A!

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree. There's the great basis for an "A" tournament here. Based on World Cup showings I think Georgia would likely pump Scotland A!

A full strength Georgia maybe, rather than the watered down version that the Emerging Ireland hammered last year

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: What I would like to happen is for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC

You might actually win that instead of coming second.

Ahh, poor old England, forever the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Be careful, any entirely factual posts based on fact indicating England have in fact a) come 2nd a lot in the 6 Nations and b) not won it for ages are obviously WUMS.

post at your own risk

Gwlad is 2011 ages?

I think you'll find that England have won a 6 nations more recently than Wales have beaten the likes of Australia or NZ.....

Of course Gatland is a saviour because of the as long as we beat the English mentality.

Gatland has not yet proven he can raise Wales from a good side against NH but nearly men vs the best SH sides. The RWC was the same old story as the 2011 one, can take on the NH sides but simply can't beat the top SH sides.

beshocked wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: What I would like to happen is for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC

You might actually win that instead of coming second.

Ahh, poor old England, forever the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Be careful, any entirely factual posts based on fact indicating England have in fact a) come 2nd a lot in the 6 Nations and b) not won it for ages are obviously WUMS.

post at your own risk

Gwlad is 2011 ages?

I think you'll find that England have won a 6 nations more recently than Wales have beaten the likes of Australia or NZ.....

Of course Gatland is a saviour because of the as long as we beat the English mentality.

Gatland has not yet proven he can raise Wales from a good side against NH but nearly men vs the best SH sides. The RWC was the same old story as the 2011 one, can take on the NH sides but simply can't beat the top SH sides.

I stand corrected again. once since 2003. Thank you. 2nd the rest of the time is correct though yes?

As for the rest of your post, were i posting it i would just be called a WUM but of course rules are different for some.

There is no 'as longs we beat the english mentality' of note anymore, feeding off that fallacy is one of England's biggest problems and indicates just how much they rate themselves, still, in the face of rather damning contrary evidence. But that's not our problem.

We certainly aren't the only nation that has felt that way either-try all the home nations, Aus and NZ -and i guess the common denominator is England and a perceived attitudinal issue sometimes called arrogance.

We are way past that feeling of we must beat England now because it happens so frequently it just doesn't have the same effect. Though, nice when it happens as it will in a few weeks.

Our challenge is now as you say to go down below and beat Aus and NZ where we are the nearly men. Gatland has proved he is the best coach in Europe with the best side -even though Lnacaster won more games apparently but not a jot of silverware bar the Crown once.

At least we know where we are at. Not sure England have a clue.

The problem is the gap between the tier 2 nations only appears to close at World Cups when these teams have weeks to prepare, you throw those Tier 2 boys together for a quick November tour or a one off friedly and history proves things can get very messy.

Going back to the 2003 World Cup and after it people said Uruguay needed to play more games to build on their showing, South Africa gives them a one off game and wins 134-3!

Again after the 1999 world cup the IRB stated they wanted more games for Romania, England played them in a friendly and won 134-0, a few weeks earlier Wales thumped them 81-9.

Really these teams need more competitions to develop in, not one off games, one off friendlies home or away accomplish nothing.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree. There's the great basis for an "A" tournament here. Based on World Cup showings I think Georgia would likely pump Scotland A!

There is no way Georgia or Romania would send their first team to these tournaments. Just look at the Tiblisi cup and nations cup. It's all or nothing for these boys unfortunatley.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree. There's the great basis for an "A" tournament here. Based on World Cup showings I think Georgia would likely pump Scotland A!

There is no way Georgia or Romania would send their first team to these tournaments. Just look at the Tiblisi cup and nations cup. It's all or nothing for these boys unfortunatley.

I don't agree, Wales sent a team of their Premiership level players to play Georgia A in a tour and beat them twice.  We played them twice in 4 days and won with this squad:

Crawshay's WRU President's XV squad:
Gavin Dacey Pontypridd (Captain ), Geraint O'Driscoll (Newport), Jamie Davies (Neath), Elliot Frewen (Newport), Patrick Tapley (Bedford Blues), Llywarch Ap Myrddin (Newport), Dafydd Lockyer (Pontypridd), Matthew Jacobs (Llandovery), David Langdon (Ebbw Vale), Kieran Meek (Newbridge), Tom James (Neath), Justin James (Llanelli)
Forwards: Lewis Smout (Cardiff), John Lavender (Ebbw Vale), Richard Wilkes (Bedwas), Huw Dowden (Pontypridd), Ross Davies (Doncaster Knights), Kieron Jenkins (Pontypridd), Damien Hudd (Ebbw Vale), Adam Brown (Newport), Ashley Sweet (Ebbw Vale), Dan Godfrey (Pontypridd), Deri Mattravers (Bedwas), Shaun Miles (Llandovery), Edward Siggery (Moseley), Rhys Shellard (Pontypridd)

http://supporters.wru.co.uk/eng/club/principalitypremiership/33826.php#.VrD8U8aLSUk

Truth be told if their A teams can't beat a team of part timers, I don't think they can be ready for possible promotion to the 6 Nations.

Shifty wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree. There's the great basis for an "A" tournament here. Based on World Cup showings I think Georgia would likely pump Scotland A!

There is no way Georgia or Romania would send their first team to these tournaments. Just look at the Tiblisi cup and nations cup. It's all or nothing for these boys unfortunatley.

I don't agree, Wales sent a team of their Premiership level players to play Georgia A in a tour and beat them twice.  We played them twice in 4 days and won with this squad:

Crawshay's WRU President's XV squad:
Gavin Dacey Pontypridd (Captain ), Geraint O'Driscoll (Newport), Jamie Davies (Neath), Elliot Frewen (Newport), Patrick Tapley (Bedford Blues), Llywarch Ap Myrddin (Newport), Dafydd Lockyer (Pontypridd), Matthew Jacobs (Llandovery), David Langdon (Ebbw Vale), Kieran Meek (Newbridge), Tom James (Neath), Justin James (Llanelli)
Forwards: Lewis Smout (Cardiff), John Lavender (Ebbw Vale), Richard Wilkes (Bedwas), Huw Dowden (Pontypridd), Ross Davies (Doncaster Knights), Kieron Jenkins (Pontypridd), Damien Hudd (Ebbw Vale), Adam Brown (Newport), Ashley Sweet (Ebbw Vale), Dan Godfrey (Pontypridd), Deri Mattravers (Bedwas), Shaun Miles (Llandovery), Edward Siggery (Moseley), Rhys Shellard (Pontypridd)

http://supporters.wru.co.uk/eng/club/principalitypremiership/33826.php#.VrD8U8aLSUk

Truth be told if their A teams can't beat a team of part timers, I don't think they can be ready for possible promotion to the 6 Nations.

What? Those Georgian players would be almost fully amateur. There is a huge difference in quality between their first team which would be made up of a pack of players from the Top 14 and anything else given they don't have much of a domestic competition. They are only starting to invest heavily into rugby fairly recently.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Shifty wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree. There's the great basis for an "A" tournament here. Based on World Cup showings I think Georgia would likely pump Scotland A!

There is no way Georgia or Romania would send their first team to these tournaments. Just look at the Tiblisi cup and nations cup. It's all or nothing for these boys unfortunatley.

I don't agree, Wales sent a team of their Premiership level players to play Georgia A in a tour and beat them twice.  We played them twice in 4 days and won with this squad:

Crawshay's WRU President's XV squad:
Gavin Dacey Pontypridd (Captain ), Geraint O'Driscoll (Newport), Jamie Davies (Neath), Elliot Frewen (Newport), Patrick Tapley (Bedford Blues), Llywarch Ap Myrddin (Newport), Dafydd Lockyer (Pontypridd), Matthew Jacobs (Llandovery), David Langdon (Ebbw Vale), Kieran Meek (Newbridge), Tom James (Neath), Justin James (Llanelli)
Forwards: Lewis Smout (Cardiff), John Lavender (Ebbw Vale), Richard Wilkes (Bedwas), Huw Dowden (Pontypridd), Ross Davies (Doncaster Knights), Kieron Jenkins (Pontypridd), Damien Hudd (Ebbw Vale), Adam Brown (Newport), Ashley Sweet (Ebbw Vale), Dan Godfrey (Pontypridd), Deri Mattravers (Bedwas), Shaun Miles (Llandovery), Edward Siggery (Moseley), Rhys Shellard (Pontypridd)

http://supporters.wru.co.uk/eng/club/principalitypremiership/33826.php#.VrD8U8aLSUk

Truth be told if their A teams can't beat a team of part timers, I don't think they can be ready for possible promotion to the 6 Nations.

What? Those Georgian players would be almost fully amateur. There is a huge difference in quality between their first team which would be made up of a pack of players from the Top 14 and anything else given they don't have much of a domestic competition. They are only starting to invest heavily into rugby fairly recently.

Isn't that the point though?
Scotland and Italy have professional teams and a lot of professional players, Georgia have no professional teams and little chance of their players joining any kind of European league because the country is the far side of Russia.
Georgia have a front row and a decent young scrum half and thats about it.
To my mind Italy earned the right to join the 6 nations because they had a fantastic team and played well for a number of years, they pushed New Zealand very hard at the 1991 World cup. Played Australia away in 1994 and only lost by 3 points, kept England to within 7 points during the 1995 world cup. Beat Argentina in the same tournament. Beat Ireland 3 times in a row between 1995, and 1997, once and Landsdowne road, by a minimum margin of 8 points and a maximum of 15. They also beat France in France in 1997 before joining the 5 nations.
When Georgia play Ireland, Argentina or New Zealand their losing by 30-45 point margins.

That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

Just no

Its not the EU, we can't let anyone in because they want to

Its a tradition, a European tradition, that has gone back over a 100 years. Why does change always have to represent progress.

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

Just no

Its not the EU, we can't let anyone in because they want to

Its a tradition, a European tradition, that has gone back over a 100 years. Why does change always have to represent progress.

So long as tier 1 competitions remain closed shop, the next eight World Cups are probably going to differ little from the first eight; which is to say, more or less the same teams contesting the quarter finals every four years, only five teams really capable of winning it. Even the Pacific Islands haven't been able to make a breakthrough at the last two tournaments

Argentina's rise notwithstanding, rugby's world order has remained remarkably stagnant over the past few decades, and even if we go back an entire century the only real difference would have been that France and Australia weren't quite so competitive. There's a simple reason for this - the insular nature of the elite competitions.

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

Just no

Its not the EU, we can't let anyone in because they want to

Its a tradition, a European tradition, that has gone back over a 100 years. Why does change always have to represent progress.

Everybody wants different things I suppose. I've always wanted to see the game develop and love nothing more than watching the tier 2 nations putting it up the big boys.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

Just no

Its not the EU, we can't let anyone in because they want to

Its a tradition, a European tradition, that has gone back over a 100 years. Why does change always have to represent progress.

Everybody wants different things I suppose. I've always wanted to see the game develop and love nothing more than watching the tier 2 nations putting it up the big boys.

Great agreed.

So lets finance a 2nd tier annual comp

Simple.

Rownbi is partially right that annual competition elitism is dulling down RWC competition - Argentina's rise shows that after joining RC, but it goes much deeper and is simpler.

Its $$$$

Give Tonga, Fiji and Samoa the resources the rest of the world has and up north we'd all be hoping to qualify at RWC.

Rugby is a rich mans sport dominated by the rich unions.

Until the pro game starts to distribute wealth at club level and we have a USA pro league, then including the likes of Georgia in 6 Nations competition is piecemeal and will destroy great traditions.

Shame as i bet Georgia would have beaten Italy at the World Cup, Romania run them very close and those players barely get to play together.

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

Just no

Its not the EU, we can't let anyone in because they want to

Its a tradition, a European tradition, that has gone back over a 100 years. Why does change always have to represent progress.

Everybody wants different things I suppose. I've always wanted to see the game develop and love nothing more than watching the tier 2 nations putting it up the big boys.

Great agreed.

So lets finance a 2nd tier annual comp

Simple.

Rownbi is partially right that annual competition elitism is dulling down RWC competition - Argentina's rise shows that after joining RC, but it goes much deeper and is simpler.

Its $$$$

Give Tonga, Fiji and Samoa the resources the rest of the world has and up north we'd all be hoping to qualify at RWC.

Rugby is a rich mans sport dominated by the rich unions.

Until the pro game starts to distribute wealth at club level and we have a USA pro league, then including the likes of Georgia in 6 Nations competition is piecemeal and will destroy great traditions.

We've seen endless amounts of 2nd tier competitions and they have all failed due to poor promotion and players not being available due to us not having a global season and the clubs all out refusing to let players represent their nation. A complete overhaul of the structure of the season is a must if we want to develop the game.

Impossible its a global season. You'll never convince either hemisphere to change

Gwlad wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: What I would like to happen is for England to leave the 6 nations and join the ENC

You might actually win that instead of coming second.

Ahh, poor old England, forever the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Be careful, any entirely factual posts based on fact indicating England have in fact a) come 2nd a lot in the 6 Nations and b) not won it for ages are obviously WUMS.

post at your own risk

Gwlad is 2011 ages?

I think you'll find that England have won a 6 nations more recently than Wales have beaten the likes of Australia or NZ.....

Of course Gatland is a saviour because of the as long as we beat the English mentality.

Gatland has not yet proven he can raise Wales from a good side against NH but nearly men vs the best SH sides. The RWC was the same old story as the 2011 one, can take on the NH sides but simply can't beat the top SH sides.

I stand corrected again. once since 2003. Thank you. 2nd the rest of the time is correct though yes?

As for the rest of your post, were i posting it i would just be called a WUM but of course rules are different for some.

There is no 'as longs we beat the english mentality' of note anymore, feeding off that fallacy is one of England's biggest problems and indicates just how much they rate themselves, still, in the face of rather damning contrary evidence. But that's not our problem.

We certainly aren't the only nation that has felt that way either-try all the home nations, Aus and NZ -and i guess the common denominator is England and a perceived attitudinal issue sometimes called arrogance.

We are way past that feeling of we must beat England now because it happens so frequently it just doesn't have the same effect. Though, nice when it happens as it will in a few weeks.

Our challenge is now as you say to go down below and beat Aus and NZ where we are the nearly men. Gatland has proved he is the best coach in Europe with the best side -even though Lnacaster won more games apparently but not a jot of silverware bar the Crown once.

At least we know where we are at. Not sure England have a clue.

If there isn't still a "as long as we beat the English mentality" why on earth did Dan Biggar win Welsh sports personality of the year?

I agree England shouldn't be important, 8th in the rankings, a mediocre rugby nation these days but beating England made Wales' world cup a triumph.

Sides like France,England and SA sacked their coaches because they were disappointed in their performances. SA beat both Wales and Scotland who believed they had decent RWCs. Just shows that some countries have higher expectations.

You do have a selective memory - did you forget that you've lost to England in the last two 6 nations? It's not been one way traffic - the England-Wales game have been tough close encounters. It's a fascinating rivalry.

Did you win the 6 nations last year or the year before that? No that was Ireland. You aren't even the best in Europe at the moment. That title is up for grabs.

I respected Wales' fighting spirit in the world cup against the likes of England,Australia and SA but time to move above plucky underdogs against the SH sides.

I still believe that Gatland is holding you back, he's given you Welsh fans quite a few happy memories but in my opinion it's time to move on.

Oh and if you think England are unimportant then why do you continually natter on about England?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:We've seen endless amounts of 2nd tier competitions and they have all failed due to poor promotion and players not being available due to us not having a global season and the clubs all out refusing to let players represent their nation. A complete overhaul of the structure of the season is a must if we want to develop the game.

Since when has that happened? There are numerous international windows when most of these tournaments take place and players aren't available because they've retired or are 'injured', there are times they are mysteriously not picked as well and most of the time its down to pressure from their paymasters. As someone pointed out earlier the Georgians had to forego selecting a large number of their players for the ENC to have them available for the RWC, look at their squad from the RWC and those from Toulon, Stade and Clermont are not available, these games are the same time as the 6Ns, that's an international window.

Beshocked wrote:I agree England shouldn't be important, 8th in the rankings, a mediocre rugby nation these days but beating England made Wales' world cup a triumph.

Beating the rugby world cup hosts at home and getting out of a very hard group made our WC partially impressive - the fact that it was England was immaterial apart from the obvious bragging rights.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:That's why nobody is calling for their immediate inclusion...Even their union isn't calling for that. What they want is the chance to one day ;have the chance.
They are investing millions into what is their national sport now. They aren't doing that to just play in a WC every 4 years.

Just no

Its not the EU, we can't let anyone in because they want to

Its a tradition, a European tradition, that has gone back over a 100 years. Why does change always have to represent progress.

Everybody wants different things I suppose. I've always wanted to see the game develop and love nothing more than watching the tier 2 nations putting it up the big boys.

Great agreed.

So lets finance a 2nd tier annual comp

Simple.

Rownbi is partially right that annual competition elitism is dulling down RWC competition - Argentina's rise shows that after joining RC, but it goes much deeper and is simpler.

Its $$$$

Give Tonga, Fiji and Samoa the resources the rest of the world has and up north we'd all be hoping to qualify at RWC.

Rugby is a rich mans sport dominated by the rich unions.

Until the pro game starts to distribute wealth at club level and we have a USA pro league, then including the likes of Georgia in 6 Nations competition is piecemeal and will destroy great traditions.

We've seen endless amounts of 2nd tier competitions and they have all failed due to poor promotion and players not being available due to us not having a global season and the clubs all out refusing to let players represent their nation. A complete overhaul of the structure of the season is a must if we want to develop the game.

The fundamental problem with second tier competitions is that they do nothing to improve the standard of the nations involved. The Pacific Islands dominate the PNC, for example, but have collectively failed to make the QFs at the last 2 RWCs. Japan has improved, yes, because the PNC gave them the opportunity to play sides that were traditionally stronger than them. So that's something, I guess. But the point is, in rugby, more than most other sports, your standards will be largely determined by the level of competition you face most often. In other words, you need to be playing stronger teams to improve. Rugby denies that opportunity to the vast majority of its member nations, the advent of "tiers" only compounded this, and we can see how many promising second and third tier teams reach a certain level then just max out and stagnate. I even suspect the small nations that make up half of World Rgby's central committee are quite snug and comfortable with this state of affairs.

Rowanbi wrote:I even suspect the small nations that make up half of World Rgby's central committee are quite snug and comfortable with this state of affairs.

And perhaps they are right. Rugby in the 6Ns may be higher quality now it is pro rather than amateur, but is it more fun? For fan or player?

Just a thought....

Rowanbi wrote:
We've seen endless amounts of 2nd tier competitions and they have all failed due to poor promotion and players not being available due to us not having a global season and the clubs all out refusing to let players represent their nation. A complete overhaul of the structure of the season is a must if we want to develop the game.

The fundamental problem with second tier competitions is that they do nothing to improve the standard of the nations involved. The Pacific Islands dominate the PNC, for example, but have collectively failed to make the QFs at the last 2 RWCs. Japan has improved, yes, because the PNC gave them the opportunity to play sides that were traditionally stronger than them. So that's something, I guess. But the point is, in rugby, more than most other sports, your standards will be largely determined by the level of competition you face most often. In other words, you need to be playing stronger teams to improve. Rugby denies that opportunity to the vast majority of its member nations, the advent of "tiers" only compounded this, and we can see how many promising second and third tier teams reach a certain level then just max out and stagnate. I even suspect the small nations that make up half of World Rgby's central committee are quite snug and comfortable with this state of affairs.[/quote]

Argentinas coaches seem to agree with you, after the RWC they were saying playing in the Rugby Championship was a big factor in their performances at the RWC. Even though they weren't winning they were competing and then analysing their performances and building from there

marty2086 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:
We've seen endless amounts of 2nd tier competitions and they have all failed due to poor promotion and players not being available due to us not having a global season and the clubs all out refusing to let players represent their nation. A complete overhaul of the structure of the season is a must if we want to develop the game.

The fundamental problem with second tier competitions is that they do nothing to improve the standard of the nations involved. The Pacific Islands dominate the PNC, for example, but have collectively failed to make the QFs at the last 2 RWCs. Japan has improved, yes, because the PNC gave them the opportunity to play sides that were traditionally stronger than them. So that's something, I guess. But the point is, in rugby, more than most other sports, your standards will be largely determined by the level of competition you face most often. In other words, you need to be playing stronger teams to improve. Rugby denies that opportunity to the vast majority of its member nations, the advent of "tiers" only compounded this, and we can see how many promising second and third tier teams reach a certain level then just max out and stagnate. I even suspect the small nations that make up half of World Rgby's central committee are quite snug and comfortable with this state of affairs.

Argentinas coaches seem to agree with you, after the RWC they were saying playing in the Rugby Championship was a big factor in their performances at the RWC. Even though they weren't winning they were competing and then analysing their performances and building from there[/quote]

Yes, it's no coincidence that the Celtic nations with their limitations have remained competitive for more than a century, while France's rise can be traced directly to their addition to the 5 Nations, and Australia's to increasing contacts with New Zealand since the Bledisloe Cup was first presented for competition. Meanwhile, Romania and Canada were left out in the cold after both threatened to break into the big time toward the end of the amateur era, and look where that got them. The Pacific Islands, regrettably, may be headed in the same direction.

beshocked wrote:Gwlad is 2011 ages?

I think you'll find that England have won a 6 nations more recently than Wales have beaten the likes of Australia or NZ.....

Of course Gatland is a saviour because of the as long as we beat the English mentality.

Gatland has not yet proven he can raise Wales from a good side against NH but nearly men vs the best SH sides. The RWC was the same old story as the 2011 one, can take on the NH sides but simply can't beat the top SH sides.

How is that fair?
Gatland as coach of Wales has beaten every major nation apart from New Zealand, and no Welsh coach ever has beaten New Zealand so you can't hold that against him.

Rowanbi wrote:Yes, it's no coincidence that the Celtic nations with their limitations have remained competitive for more than a century, while France's rise can be traced directly to their addition to the 5 Nations, and Australia's to increasing contacts with New Zealand since the Bledisloe Cup was first presented for competition. Meanwhile, Romania and Canada were left out in the cold after both threatened to break into the big time toward the end of the amateur era, and look where that got them. The Pacific Islands, regrettably, may be headed in the same direction.

The Islanders will never struggle because most of their young players are hoovered up and given scholarships in New Zealand, they will always have a conveyor belt of talent due to this. They don't develop their own talent in fact if you look at their U20 World Cup results, their bloody awful simply because they pick home based players who werent good enough for a New Zealand scholarship. Japanease and French clubs also have academies over there to help their young players.

The Islanders will never struggle because most of their young players are hoovered up and given scholarships in New Zealand, they will always have a conveyor belt of talent due to this. They don't develop their own talent in fact if you look at their U20 World Cup results, their bloody awful simply because they pick home based players who werent good enough for a New Zealand scholarship. Japanease and French clubs also have academies over there to help their young players.

That mostly applies to Samoa, and least of all to Fiji. In the 1960s New Zealand government belatedly opened up immigration to peoples other than the British, resulting in a massive influx of Samoans and Tongans - but comparatively few Fijians. The Samoan diaspora is probably larger now than the population of Western Samoa itself, with particularly large communities in Auckland and Wellington. Tonga is a smaller island, of course, and its diaspora is mostly confined to Auckland, also probably outnumbering the population of the island itself. By way of trivia, last time I looked the Guiness Book of Records listed Tongans as the biggest people in the world (not the tallest, that goes to the Dutch). That probably owes to the fact they were never colonized. So you are right; this will serve both islands well in the future, with those players unable to break into New Zealand teams having the option of representing their ancestral land instead. But the islands, too, remain veritable rugby star factories, and none more so than Fiji, which retains a largely home-grown national team (despite losing 7s stars to NZ). There is also a fair amount of poaching still going on at schoolboys level on all 3 islands. Fiji's English 7s coach Ben Ryan went public on this issue not so long ago: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/76373289/nz-rugby-clubs-are-poaching-pacific-players-and-paying-them-illegally-says-fiji-coach

Incidentally, I think more Fijians have actually migrated to Australia, especially since the '87 coup. Interesting, as Fijians are mostly Melanesian, ethnically akin to the Aborigines, whereas the Samoans and Tongans are Polynesian, akin to the Maori. Not sure if that's got anything to do with it.

Rowanbi wrote:The Islanders will never struggle because most of their young players are hoovered up and given scholarships in New Zealand, they will always have a conveyor belt of talent due to this. They don't develop their own talent in fact if you look at their U20 World Cup results, their bloody awful simply because they pick home based players who werent good enough for a New Zealand scholarship. Japanease and French clubs also have academies over there to help their young players.

That mostly applies to Samoa, and least of all to Fiji. In the 1960s New Zealand government belatedly opened up immigration to peoples other than the British, resulting in a massive influx of Samoans and Tongans - but comparatively few Fijians. The Samoan diaspora is probably larger now than the population of Western Samoa itself, with particularly large communities in Auckland and Wellington. Tonga is a smaller island, of course, and its diaspora is mostly confined to Auckland, also probably outnumbering the population of the island itself. By way of trivia, last time I looked the Guiness Book of Records listed Tongans as the biggest people in the world (not the tallest, that goes to the Dutch). That probably owes to the fact they were never colonized. So you are right; this will serve both islands well in the future, with those players unable to break into New Zealand teams having the option of representing their ancestral land instead. But the islands, too, remain veritable rugby star factories, and none more so than Fiji, which retains a largely home-grown national team (despite losing 7s stars to NZ). There is also a fair amount of poaching still going on at schoolboys level on all 3 islands. Fiji's English 7s coach Ben Ryan went public on this issue not so long ago: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/76373289/nz-rugby-clubs-are-poaching-pacific-players-and-paying-them-illegally-says-fiji-coach

Ah the South Africans are of Dutch decent that helps to explain things!

Shifty wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:The Islanders will never struggle because most of their young players are hoovered up and given scholarships in New Zealand, they will always have a conveyor belt of talent due to this. They don't develop their own talent in fact if you look at their U20 World Cup results, their bloody awful simply because they pick home based players who werent good enough for a New Zealand scholarship. Japanease and French clubs also have academies over there to help their young players.

That mostly applies to Samoa, and least of all to Fiji. In the 1960s New Zealand government belatedly opened up immigration to peoples other than the British, resulting in a massive influx of Samoans and Tongans - but comparatively few Fijians. The Samoan diaspora is probably larger now than the population of Western Samoa itself, with particularly large communities in Auckland and Wellington. Tonga is a smaller island, of course, and its diaspora is mostly confined to Auckland, also probably outnumbering the population of the island itself. By way of trivia, last time I looked the Guiness Book of Records listed Tongans as the biggest people in the world (not the tallest, that goes to the Dutch). That probably owes to the fact they were never colonized. So you are right; this will serve both islands well in the future, with those players unable to break into New Zealand teams having the option of representing their ancestral land instead. But the islands, too, remain veritable rugby star factories, and none more so than Fiji, which retains a largely home-grown national team (despite losing 7s stars to NZ). There is also a fair amount of poaching still going on at schoolboys level on all 3 islands. Fiji's English 7s coach Ben Ryan went public on this issue not so long ago: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/76373289/nz-rugby-clubs-are-poaching-pacific-players-and-paying-them-illegally-says-fiji-coach

Ah the South Africans are of Dutch decent that helps to explain things!

Well, less than 10% of South Africans are white, with Bantu the majority among the non-white population. Among the white population, Afrikaners probably represent no more than 50%, with English - in particular - French, Germans and Portuguese also prominent. Today only about 1.5% of South Africans speak Afrikaans as a first language. But, yes, those Afrikaners certainly produce a lot of giant forwards...

Certainly out on their own, these 2 teams:

06.02 Kutaisi Georgia 59-7 Germany European Nations Cup Division 1A
06.02 Cluj Romania 39-14 Portugal European Nations Cup Division 1A

Maybe the ENC winner should challenge the 6 Nations winner to a Super Bowl-style European championship match. That's how the Super Bowl started, actually. There were two rival leagues, initially without any contact with each other. The AFC was considered the stronger by some distance, with the NFC regarded as a sort of poor relation. But the challenge was taken up and the Super Bowl was born in 1967. In accordance with most expectations, the AFC's Green Bay Packers ran riot in the first two Super Bowls, but just when people were beginning to question the fixture's credibility, along came the Jets in 1969 and won the trophy for the NFC, just as qarterback Joe Namath had brashly "guaranteed" they would. Could this happen in rugby?

What they need is meaningful games vs 6 nation countries every year, the AI is a perfect opportunity for that to happen.

Agree re the need for meaningful games, but what is the AI?

Rowanbi wrote:Agree re the need for meaningful games, but what is the AI?

Really?

Rowanbi wrote:Agree re the need for meaningful games, but what is the AI?

Artificial Intelligence, its what English rugby players have....

marty2086 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Agree re the need for meaningful games, but what is the AI?

Artificial Intelligence, its what English rugby players have....

Am I having a blonde moment - or are you guys just messing with my head? Really, what does AI mean?

Anyway, I agree with the main idea; more interaction between 6 Nations teams and the ENC is the first step forward. Sucks that Italy, who should remember their own days of exclusion, show about the least interest of all. Isn't Georgia still ranked ahead of them? Italy v Georgia in Tbilisi right now would be a hell of a match-up. Maybe that's what the Azzurri are afraid of...

TightHEAD wrote:What they need is meaningful games vs 6 nation countries every year, the AI is a perfect opportunity for that to happen.

No it isn't.

(and AI is Autumn Internationals)

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.