Rugby Euros - why not?

First topic message reminder :

So the much-anticipated, expanded 24-team Euros will kick off next week with particular excitement over the inclusion of rank outsiders Iceland, Albania & Wales. The tournament began in 1960 and included only 4 teams right up to 1980, then just 8 until 1996. Now it is the second most-watched football competition in the world, drawing 300 million TV viewers for the last of its 16-team installments four years ago. This year it will be staged in France, and in 2020 there will be a pan-European tournament with matches staged across the continent, culminating in the semis and final in England.

Could rugby implement some kind of similar quadrennial tournament, perhaps beginning eight 8 teams? This would certainly help quell Eastern European frustrations at their continued exclusion from the annual 6 Nations tournament, despite Georgia being ranked ahead of Italy at present. A quadrennial rugby Euros could slot in between World Cups from 2021 onward, and include the 6 Nations and top 2 ENC division 1 teams. Alternatively, the bottom and perhaps 2nd-bottom 6 Nations could be forced to play qualifiers against the 3rd and 4th-placed ENC division 1 teams respectively.

This would at least ensure the likes of Georgia and Romania meaningful competition against tier 1 opposition on a biennial basis, given their regular involvement in the World Cup itself. & who knows? Give it 20 years and the rugby Euros, also, might be ready to double the number of teams - and by midway through the centuy it might even have grown to 24.

fa0019 wrote:3 wins vs.....

1 point margin for Georgia vs. Namibia
7 point margin for Georgia vs. Tonga
2 point margin for Romania vs. Canada

a bit of a step up required for opposing teams like Wales and Ireland.

And a monumental leap to then face the real crème de la crème like England and NZ....

But they oppose them at the World Cup

Rowanbi wrote:But they oppose them at the World Cup

They get whipped by them at the world cup.

Problem here is Rowanbi (cure name still won't say why he's named himself after a woman he dislikes) proposes this, people say the reasons why it won't happen and potential pitfalls and instead of coming back with anything just dodges questions.

I just don't see how this would work in practice, it would take a huge chunk out of the season, would be a lot more games for the top players and no one would be interested until the semi finals.

I do think that there should be more games between the Tier 1 sides and the rest the European teams but for full internationals these would have to be with reserve, age grade sides to be in any way meaningful - maybe have them do an old fashioned "tour" of the British Isles, playing some club sides or even composite XVs - remember the days of "North" v "Midlands" and finishing with a high profile game at Twickenham/Landsdowne/Millenium/Murrayfield against a "Combined RFU Presidents XV" or GB & I Barbarians type of side, maybe made up from players who don't make the summer tour squads to see them off in style ?

They get whipped by them at the world cup.

I see    Georgia didn't play a 6 Nations team at last year's World Cup, but they beat Tonga and Namibia and only lost 10-43 to the All Blacks. However, you've remained fixated on the 50-point loss to Argentina - a side which steamrolled the 6 Nations champs enroute to the semis. By your method of evaluation, the spring tours will be a waste of time then, because rugby Championship teams "whipped" 6 Nations teams at the RWC.

How do we define a whipping? Again, by your method of evaluation, it doesn't actually amount to much. Romania lost 22-32 to Italy, 12-38 to France and 10-44 to Ireland. Meanwhile France lost 13 - 62 to the All Blacks

In 2011 Georgia lost 6-15 to Scotland & 10-41 to England, while in 2007 they were undoubtedly unlucky to lose 10-14 to Ireland.

Meanwhile, Romania held Scotland to 24-34 in 2011 and Italy to 18-24 in 2007.

So if you're going to conveniently ignore Georgia and Romania on this basis, you must also agree that 6 Nations teams shouldn't be playing Rugby Championship teams because they get 'whipped.'

The exception, of course - and somewhat ironically - is the World Cup, where it's just fine and dandy for all these teams to be playing each other because it's proved a highly successful model in terms of both entertainment value and revenue.

Quite theres my point Rowan, we can do away with the world cup which only exists to act as a welfare check for the me smaller nations. It nearly bankrupted NZRFU to win it at home.

What I constantly want to know is when are the All Blacks... and Australia... and South Africa planning on playing Georgia or Romania in the next few years?

Rowanbi wrote:They get whipped by them at the world cup.

I see    Georgia didn't play a 6 Nations team at last year's World Cup, but they beat Tonga and Namibia and only lost 10-43 to the All Blacks. However, you've remained fixated on the 50-point loss to Argentina - a side which steamrolled the 6 Nations champs enroute to the semis. By your method of evaluation, the spring tours will be a waste of time then, because rugby Championship teams "whipped" 6 Nations teams at the RWC.

How do we define a whipping? Again, by your method of evaluation, it doesn't actually amount to much. Romania lost 22-32 to Italy, 12-38 to France and 10-44 to Ireland. Meanwhile France lost 13 - 62 to the All Blacks

In 2011 Georgia lost 6-15 to Scotland & 10-41 to England, while in 2007 they were undoubtedly unlucky to lose 10-14 to Ireland.

Meanwhile, Romania held Scotland to 24-34 in 2011 and Italy to 18-24 in 2007.

So if you're going to conveniently ignore Georgia and Romania on this basis, you must also agree that 6 Nations teams shouldn't be playing Rugby Championship teams because they get 'whipped.'

The exception, of course - and somewhat ironically - is the World Cup, where it's just fine and dandy for all these teams to be playing each other because it's proved a highly successful model in terms of both entertainment value and revenue.

NZ put out a 2nd string to Georgia so applying it to the QF win vs. France makes little sense. Well given your logic NZ beat Georgia by less than by they beat France so by that default.... Georgia are better than France. That makes about as much sense as your logic.

IN RWC15 Romania conceded 15 tries vs. the 6N sides, scored only 5 themselves and yes, the 6N sides didn't take the match seriously and fielded weaker than normal sides. When you concede on average 5 tries per match, you're being whipped.

Often NH teams do get whipped by 3N sides. Doesn't change anything to a hypothetical scenario of Georgia and Romania facing 6N opposition where they would also get whipped. 6N sides aren't in a annual tournament with 3N sides and no one is calling for one.

Since the pro era began Italy have won 19 matches vs. tier 1 nations. Argentina have won 44.

Romania and Georgia have 1 single win (ROM vs Italy 2004) between them in 55 games and the average score is 50-12 against. Literally they get whipped every game (a 15 point margin in test matches defines getting whipped as it causes the ranking points calculated multiple to increase by 50%).... their margin is 38 points (and often teams go easy on them/don't send top sides).

In the last RWC cycle they played 7 matches vs. tier 1 sides. The average loss was 41-12 against... again those scores would be far worse if taken seriously.  Nothing has really improved from previously.

They're not good enough.

SecretFly wrote:What I constantly want to know is when are the All Blacks... and Australia... and South Africa planning on playing Georgia or Romania in the next few years?

Has your VHS of the Texas chainsaw massacre finally broke down?

Well, I'm not squeamish, fa. I support Ireland. Cannon Fodder in most world sports. You develop a thick skin.

Question still stands if the supposition still stands that NH 'top' sides should be nice to the 'little people'.

SecretFly wrote:Well, I'm not squeamish, fa.  I support Ireland.  Cannon Fodder in most world sports.  You develop a thick skin.

Question still stands if the supposition still stands that NH 'top' sides should be nice to the 'little people'.

I don't think the finances of the celtic nations are good enough to be frank. Say they forgive a SH tour or 2 SH test matches for Romania and Georgia. Sure they get a bumper win over a bumper loss but I imagine they would lose massively financially.

England and France probably could but what good would 70-0 matches do for them?

A 2 leg KO match between WS winner in 6N vs. ENC winners might suffice. At least as part of a test... say the aggregate score over the first 5 years is +40 points to 6N WS winner... if so its little point continuing it. However there is perhaps a question so may be worth exploring.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, I'm not squeamish, fa.  I support Ireland.  Cannon Fodder in most world sports.  You develop a thick skin.

Question still stands if the supposition still stands that NH 'top' sides should be nice to the 'little people'.

I don't think the finances of the celtic nations are good enough to be frank. Say they forgive a SH tour or 2 SH test matches for Romania and Georgia. Sure they get a bumper win over a bumper loss but I imagine they would lose massively financially.

As would the SH sides that miss out on those tests.  The SH sides come up North (or have NH sides visit them) for a reason...to make money of their own.  The more 'top' NH sides play games against NH 'minnow' sides, the less time in the calendar to entertain their SH colleagues.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, I'm not squeamish, fa.  I support Ireland.  Cannon Fodder in most world sports.  You develop a thick skin.

Question still stands if the supposition still stands that NH 'top' sides should be nice to the 'little people'.

I don't think the finances of the celtic nations are good enough to be frank. Say they forgive a SH tour or 2 SH test matches for Romania and Georgia. Sure they get a bumper win over a bumper loss but I imagine they would lose massively financially.

As would the SH sides that miss out on those tests.  The SH sides come up North (or have NH sides visit them) for a reason...to make money of their own.  The more 'top' NH sides play games against NH 'minnow' sides, the less time in the calendar to entertain their SH colleagues.

It can be done in theory with 6 teams all touring in the summer but its a question of a) cost and b) rotation. You could have some tune up games pre tour but can Georgia/Romania provide their very best players? Many play in France... would they get released as the Top14 still has 2 weeks to go.

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:They get whipped by them at the world cup.

I see    Georgia didn't play a 6 Nations team at last year's World Cup, but they beat Tonga and Namibia and only lost 10-43 to the All Blacks. However, you've remained fixated on the 50-point loss to Argentina - a side which steamrolled the 6 Nations champs enroute to the semis. By your method of evaluation, the spring tours will be a waste of time then, because rugby Championship teams "whipped" 6 Nations teams at the RWC.

How do we define a whipping? Again, by your method of evaluation, it doesn't actually amount to much. Romania lost 22-32 to Italy, 12-38 to France and 10-44 to Ireland. Meanwhile France lost 13 - 62 to the All Blacks

In 2011 Georgia lost 6-15 to Scotland & 10-41 to England, while in 2007 they were undoubtedly unlucky to lose 10-14 to Ireland.

Meanwhile, Romania held Scotland to 24-34 in 2011 and Italy to 18-24 in 2007.

So if you're going to conveniently ignore Georgia and Romania on this basis, you must also agree that 6 Nations teams shouldn't be playing Rugby Championship teams because they get 'whipped.'

The exception, of course - and somewhat ironically - is the World Cup, where it's just fine and dandy for all these teams to be playing each other because it's proved a highly successful model in terms of both entertainment value and revenue.

NZ put out a 2nd string to Georgia so applying it to the QF win vs. France makes little sense. Well given your logic NZ beat Georgia by less than by they beat France so by that default.... Georgia are better than France. That makes about as much sense as your logic.

IN RWC15 Romania conceded 15 tries vs. the 6N sides, scored only 5 themselves and yes, the 6N sides didn't take the match seriously and fielded weaker than normal sides. When you concede on average 5 tries per match, you're being whipped.

Often NH teams do get whipped by 3N sides. Doesn't change anything to a hypothetical scenario of Georgia and Romania facing 6N opposition where they would also get whipped. 6N sides aren't in a annual tournament with 3N sides and no one is calling for one.

Since the pro era began Italy have won 19 matches vs. tier 1 nations. Argentina have won 44.

Romania and Georgia have 1 single win (ROM vs Italy 2004) between them in 55 games and the average score is 50-12 against. Literally they get whipped every game (a 15 point margin in test matches defines getting whipped as it causes the ranking points calculated multiple to increase by 50%).... their margin is 38 points (and often teams go easy on them/don't send top sides).

In the last RWC cycle they played 7 matches vs. tier 1 sides. The average loss was 41-12 against... again those scores would be far worse if taken seriously.  Nothing has really improved from previously.

They're not good enough.

Lots of excuse-making here, but a test is a test and you still haven't addressed the fact that none of the 6 Nations teams have actually played a test against Georgia in Tbilisi. I think the Lelos would have an excellent chance against Italy at that venue, especially as they're currently ranked ahead of them, rightly or wrongly. In fact, I can't recall the last time a 6 Nations team visited Bucharest either. Back in the day when they did, they suffered some shocking defeats (even including the 5 Nations grandslammers). Basically, the Eastern Europeans receive relatively few opportunities against the 6 Nations, except at World Cups - and those are basically away games half the time given the 6 Nations have been hosting every second tournament. Your closing comment might equally be applied to the 6 Nations versus the Rugby Championship teams, so by your method of evaluation the spring (and autumn) tours are a waste of time.

Quite theres my point Rowan, we can do away with the world cup which only exists to act as a welfare check for the me smaller nations. It nearly bankrupted NZRFU to win it at home.

Pure genius at work there, mate. Keep trying...

You can say you think all you want. Fact is they have no record on the pitch in pro rugby history to suggest they can compete... all this, oh they don't play enough, oh they play away, they play their 2nd teams.... they still lose every time, they still get whipped by B teams, they still haven't earned their spot.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, I'm not squeamish, fa.  I support Ireland.  Cannon Fodder in most world sports.  You develop a thick skin.

Question still stands if the supposition still stands that NH 'top' sides should be nice to the 'little people'.

I don't think the finances of the celtic nations are good enough to be frank. Say they forgive a SH tour or 2 SH test matches for Romania and Georgia. Sure they get a bumper win over a bumper loss but I imagine they would lose massively financially.

As would the SH sides that miss out on those tests.  The SH sides come up North (or have NH sides visit them) for a reason...to make money of their own.  The more 'top' NH sides play games against NH 'minnow' sides, the less time in the calendar to entertain their SH colleagues.

It can be done in theory with 6 teams all touring in the summer but its a question of a) cost and b) rotation. You could have some tune up games pre tour but can Georgia/Romania provide their very best players? Many play in France... would they get released as the Top14 still has 2 weeks to go.

Too much rugby is too much rugby - period.

The currently debated 'World season' has been produced as a topic for discussion supposedly out of concern for players and to enable less rugby to be played overall.

Already England players have began to utter concerns about being pushed too much (through league and then International) and feeling the need for more rest - less rugby.

It's all very well talking about 'rotation' and B sides or alternate sides taking up the pressure.  That might be fine in a Nation like England, France or South Africa.  

In smaller Nations, it's unreasonable to ask them to compete under so many guises on a regular basis, fa.  Indeed, I remember 2013 when Ireland gave an Emerging Ireland side to the Tbilisi Cup - and beat a Georgian side in the process - yet at the same time the main International side were on tour in Canada and the US...and that team was also handicapped as 11 or so regular Internationals were away with the Lions.
That kind of spreading resources might be okay for the sides I've mentioned above and a few more - but from Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Italy - it's asking a lot. Your International team is your International team. If you have four or five versions of it travelling the world to keep everyone happy then International becomes a joke.

I agree fly

In MMA if you knocked out you're out for 6-12 months. In rugby ok the knocks are less severe but more frequent.

Take Scotland. 2 pro sides... Scotland A is pretty much every other professional in the land.

I think it would be better idea to have a Eiropean competition with the A sides from 6 nations plus Russia and Portugal.

That way the tours could continue as normal until the global season comes in.

The tour monies are needed each year for the various teams so that won't be disrupted.

fa0019 wrote:You can say you think all you want. Fact is they have no record on the pitch in pro rugby history to suggest they can compete... all this, oh they don't play enough, oh they play away, they play their 2nd teams.... they still lose every time, they still get whipped by B teams, they still haven't earned their spot.

Pretty sure if I'd suggested a year ago Japan were worthy opponents for South Africa, fa0019 would have scoffed at the idea with a similar display of chutzpah

I think it would be better idea to have a Eiropean competition with the A sides from 6 nations plus Russia and Portugal.

Like the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup tournaments, you mean? Didn't work, because the Eastern European teams just fielded their A teams as well and nobody really cared about these glorified training runs.

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:You can say you think all you want. Fact is they have no record on the pitch in pro rugby history to suggest they can compete... all this, oh they don't play enough, oh they play away, they play their 2nd teams.... they still lose every time, they still get whipped by B teams, they still haven't earned their spot.

Pretty sure if I'd suggested a year ago Japan were worthy opponents for South Africa, fa0019 would have scoffed at the idea with a similar display of chutzpah

I think it would be better idea to have a Eiropean competition with the A sides from 6 nations plus Russia and Portugal.

Like the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup tournaments, you mean? Didn't work, because the Eastern European teams just fielded their A teams as well and nobody really cared about these glorified training runs.

No that's not what I mean.  They would field their full teams against the A sides from 6 Nations in a European competition. Georgia and Romania could be involved too.

I know. But they didn't. Not Georgia, anyway. They want to play tests. They feel they deserve tests. They're ranked ahead of Italy and won two games at the last World Cup.

Rowanbi wrote:I know. But they didn't. Not Georgia, anyway. They want to play tests. They feel they deserve tests. They're ranked ahead of Italy and won two games at the last World Cup.

Well if they want to play more tests, this is one way of how they go about it. Getting more regular tests is an annual issue. Participating in a tougher, higher quality competition is part of that process.

Tell you what. Why don't you put four or five options for a European-style competition at the top of your article and give people an option to vote on which they think would work best?

You've had a few suggestions on formats and structures put forward by various posters as well as myself. So put them up and see what the forum/other posters think.

Tell you what. Why don't you put four or five options for a European-style competition at the top of your article and give people an option to vote on which they think would work best?

Done. Add your votes, gentlemen

There you go. Nearly there.

You might add in the option I suggested of using A teams from the 6 Nations with other ENC teams such as Georgia, Romania, Russia, etc.

Don't seem to be able to modify the poll, sorry. Perhaps you could open a new thread and set up your own poll.

Rowanbi wrote:Don't seem to be able to modify the poll, sorry. Perhaps you could open a new thread and set up your own poll.

How strange. Don't worry - I'm sure one of the mods could do it. No point in having a second thread - only causes confusion.

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:You can say you think all you want. Fact is they have no record on the pitch in pro rugby history to suggest they can compete... all this, oh they don't play enough, oh they play away, they play their 2nd teams.... they still lose every time, they still get whipped by B teams, they still haven't earned their spot.

Pretty sure if I'd suggested a year ago Japan were worthy opponents for South Africa, fa0019 would have scoffed at the idea with a similar display of chutzpah

I think it would be better idea to have a Eiropean competition with the A sides from 6 nations plus Russia and Portugal.

Like the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup tournaments, you mean? Didn't work, because the Eastern European teams just fielded their A teams as well and nobody really cared about these glorified training runs.

But you've said several times recently that the America's Rugby Cup has been a great success and Argentina should be praised for their contribution; they play reserve teams. I'm confused are you holding different standards as you don't like Europeans?

And the other option discussed here was additional games for Georgia etc with the southern touring sides. The easiest step to take.

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:You can say you think all you want. Fact is they have no record on the pitch in pro rugby history to suggest they can compete... all this, oh they don't play enough, oh they play away, they play their 2nd teams.... they still lose every time, they still get whipped by B teams, they still haven't earned their spot.

Pretty sure if I'd suggested a year ago Japan were worthy opponents for South Africa, fa0019 would have scoffed at the idea with a similar display of chutzpah

I think it would be better idea to have a Eiropean competition with the A sides from 6 nations plus Russia and Portugal.

Like the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup tournaments, you mean? Didn't work, because the Eastern European teams just fielded their A teams as well and nobody really cared about these glorified training runs.

Lets see Japan do it again or even replicate any form over so called decent opposition.

Lets be frank, Japan were filled with foreigners. 4 in the pack alone and their playmaker. It makes a big difference. Its nothing to do with their domestic players and therefore its no sign of their future as it all depends on them shopping uncapped foreigners. In addition, their coach was one of the world's finest and he makes a huge difference. It happens sometimes in sport but I severely doubt it will happen again. Almost happened in 2003 twice (Samoa almost beat England, Wales B almost beat NZ), it may happen again too but it won't be a trend. It was great for rugby and I'm glad it happened but its not a trend bar the impact of professional mercenaries for hire.

I would say this for starters... Scotland are going to go to Japan this summer and get to +15 point wins, the WR definition of getting a proper beating. It will be a stark reminder to those who think Japan are turning a corner.

Lets see how many games Georgia wins this season anyhow.

They have a PI tour coming up where they will face Samoa, Fiji & Tonga. In the AIs they will face Japan twice and Scotland.

They need to be playing such games every year. This is the first time they will have really played so many matches. In the last RWC cycle they played only 4 games against such opposition. Until they're winning a minimum 4 of 6  of such games year in year out they don't deserve to even be considered for movement towards joining the 6N tournament either by additional entry or forcing an annual playoff.

Oh well there you go. A clean sweep by them this year and take that form on, they'll have something to back it up .