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.

And then comes the question of do you just send a developing side to it until it becomes something seeing as the best teams in Europe already have the 6Ns.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And then comes the question of do you just send a developing side to it until it becomes something seeing as the best teams in Europe already have the 6Ns.

It serves no purpose to play a game (winning or losing) where you're nilled by 50 on average for each game. Say England Saxons played Georgia, I reckon they'd still put 40 on them (margin).. maybe they should send their 3rd side?

True.

Rowanbi wrote:Why not Samoa, Fiji, Tonga in the RC?

I've always been in favour of their inclusion in the elite Southern Hemisphere competitions - for the very same reason I'm advocating a Rugby Euros, in fact.

They are MUCH closer in quality to NZ than say Belgium would be to Italy though

I think a 12 team Rugby Euro tourny played in England or France would generate interest for sure. For one thing, plenty of old Rugby die-hards will lap up (yet another) big 6 clash, so no danger of empty seats in the knock outs, and I'm sure the other games played in mid-size grounds would sell a few tickets.

I think they should start with 8, as only Georgia and Romania would be up to it at present. In fact, Georgia would also make a great host nation, and I imagine they'd give the likes of Italy and Scotland a very torrid work out in Tbilisi. Russia and Spain might have an outside chance of qualifying, but they've both played at the RWC without being disgraced by the big guns too much, so even there I don't think there would be a problem. Expansion is something that would have to be looked at in the future, of course. But eight seems like the perfect number to start with, & this served the football Euros very well indeed from 1980 - 1996.

Meanwhile, Australia, New Zealand and Japan might make themselves useful by staging a Pacific Championship with the Pacific Island trio. 2 groups of 3 leading to a final, for example. & South Africa could play tests, with Namibia and Argentina...

A better idea might be to have an 8-team european competition like the soccer European Cup. It would allow Georgia and Romania to participate.

Then it could be expanded over time and become real popular.

Pot Hale wrote:A better idea might be to have an 8-team european competition like the soccer European Cup.   It would allow Georgia and Romania to participate.

Then it could be expanded over time and become real popular.  

Indeed, that is my suggestion.

So you'd have the 6Ns in Feb etc (or possibly May if WR get their way) and then a 6Ns plus 2 rubbish teams repeat later in the year. Bit samey for me, much better to extend the invites to touring teams in Europe, get Japan there, get Georgia to stage a match against SA.

What an idiotic, chidlish little fellow you are. Really! Georgia, rubbish?

Rowanbi wrote:What an idiotic, chidlish little fellow you are. Really! Georgia, rubbish?

Jeez Rowan, settle down/Control yourself you'll get yourself banned. then what will we do for cheap entertainment?

There's no need to throw insults around, stop it please. But yes in comparison they ain't good. And as I said very samey to bring in that sort of secondary comp.

If you want to compare them to a 6N then yes... they'd be classified as rubbish.

18 months ago they played this Ireland team

Ireland: Felix Jones, Craig Gilroy, Darren Cave, Gordon D'Arcy, Simon Zebo, Ian Madigan, Eoin Reddan, Dave Kilcoyne, Richardt Strauss, Mike Ross, Dave Foley, Mike McCarthy, Dominic Ryan, Tommy O'Donnell, Robbie Diack.

And got beat 49-7.

This was their wolfhounds team in reality. The next week when they faced Australia only 3 took part in that match.

They got beat by 50 points by Argentina in the RWC. They beat Namibia by only 1 point.

If I was describing a unknown teams exploits with those 3 indicators I would say, yes they are a sub par team and certainly have not proved themselves to get into a big tournament... let alone Romania.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:What an idiotic, chidlish little fellow you are. Really! Georgia, rubbish?

 Jeez Rowan, settle down/Control yourself  you'll get yourself banned. then what will we do for cheap entertainment?

Given that 7 1/2 does little else but throw insults around, your comments come across as extremely hypocritical.

fa0019 wrote:If you want to compare them to a 6N then yes... they'd be classified as rubbish.

18 months ago they played this Ireland team

Ireland: Felix Jones, Craig Gilroy, Darren Cave, Gordon D'Arcy, Simon Zebo, Ian Madigan, Eoin Reddan, Dave Kilcoyne, Richardt Strauss, Mike Ross, Dave Foley, Mike McCarthy, Dominic Ryan, Tommy O'Donnell, Robbie Diack.

And got beat 49-7.

This was their wolfhounds team in reality. The next week when they faced Australia only 3 took part in that match.

They got beat by 50 points by Argentina in the RWC. They beat Namibia by only 1 point.

If I was describing a unknown teams exploits with those 3 indicators I would say, yes they are a sub par team and certainly have not proved themselves to get into a big tournament... let alone Romania.

Georgia nearly beat Ireland at the 2007 World Cup. No 6 Nations team has ever ventured into Tbilisi to play them there, so we only have their away games to judge by. Again, you are referring to an Argentina team that thrashed the 6 Nations champions on its way to the World Cup semi finals. Georgia won two games at the World Cup (one of them against Tonga, a nation which has beaten both Australia and France, and gave 2007 champions South Africa a hell of a fright in the pool stages) and qualified directly for the next one. They are ranked ahead of Italy. So calling them rubbish is completely idiotic.

Still ignoring points you struggle with then Quentin.

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:What an idiotic, chidlish little fellow you are. Really! Georgia, rubbish?

 Jeez Rowan, settle down/Control yourself  you'll get yourself banned. then what will we do for cheap entertainment?

Given that 7 1/2 does little else but throw insults around, your comments come across as extremely hypocritical.

I was only trying to be helpful and look at the thanks I get!

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:If you want to compare them to a 6N then yes... they'd be classified as rubbish.

18 months ago they played this Ireland team

Ireland: Felix Jones, Craig Gilroy, Darren Cave, Gordon D'Arcy, Simon Zebo, Ian Madigan, Eoin Reddan, Dave Kilcoyne, Richardt Strauss, Mike Ross, Dave Foley, Mike McCarthy, Dominic Ryan, Tommy O'Donnell, Robbie Diack.

And got beat 49-7.

This was their wolfhounds team in reality. The next week when they faced Australia only 3 took part in that match.

They got beat by 50 points by Argentina in the RWC. They beat Namibia by only 1 point.

If I was describing a unknown teams exploits with those 3 indicators I would say, yes they are a sub par team and certainly have not proved themselves to get into a big tournament... let alone Romania.

Georgia nearly beat Ireland at the 2007 World Cup. No 6 Nations team has ever ventured into Tbilisi to play them there, so we only have their away games to judge by. Again, you are referring to an Argentina team that thrashed the 6 Nations champions on its way to the World Cup semi finals. Georgia won two games at the World Cup (one of them against Tonga, a nation which has beaten both Australia and France, and gave 2007 champions South Africa a hell of a fright in the pool stages) and qualified directly for the next one. They are ranked ahead of Italy. So calling them rubbish is completely idiotic.

nearly beat a side in 2007... and went on from there to not beating a single tier 1 side or coming close in the 9 years therefter with poor recent results.
When the Irish wolfhounds are putting 50 points on a test side... they don't deserve to be in a top class annual competition.

More exposure, more games fine.

Before Italy got their 6N shot in the 4 years preceeding entry they beat Ireland twice, Scotland, Argentina and France. That is the benchmark.

nearly beat a side in 2007... and went on from there to not beating a single tier 1 side or coming close in the 9 years therefter with poor recent results.
When the Irish wolfhounds are putting 50 points on a test side... they don't deserve to be in a top class annual competition.

& how many games did they get against tier 1 sides? & how many tier 1 sides have visited Tbilisi? ZERO!!! Yes, they nearly beat Ireland. Yes, they won two games at the World Cup - one of them being against Tonga, a nation which BEAT subsequent finalists France at the 2011 World Cup, having frightened the life out of subsequent champions South Africa at the revious event - and, yes, they are ranked ahead of Italy right now.

& you very well know that Georgia did not field its best team against the Wolfhounds, so why pretend that they did? In fact, the Lelos seemed to be a little insulted that they weren't facing the Irish test team and responded accordingly, throwing out their locally-based players for the most part.

&, yes, Argentina thrashed the 6 Nations on the way to the World Cup semis. Does that make Ireland rubbish? Does it make the 6 Nations rubbish? I suppose Southern Hemisphere rugby fans might just regard the whole of Europe as being rubbish at rugby by your method of evaluation. So why are they even bothering to play them?

Too samey with the same basic comp plus too rubbish sides.

If you want 6n nations sides to play games against Germany / Belgium etc then it would have to be an U23 side or something. Even the Saxons / Wolfhounds / Wales A etc would put cricket scores on them.

But interest in rugby in Europe is growing quickly, and the likes of Germany will come good. They have a growing club culture (Heidelburg is the big club apparently) Just takes time and to continue exposure in the Euro nations etc.

Walk before they can run.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If you want 6n nations sides to play games against Germany / Belgium etc then it would have to be an U23 side or something. Even the Saxons / Wolfhounds / Wales A etc would put cricket scores on them.

But interest in rugby in Europe is growing quickly, and the likes of Germany will come good. They have a growing club culture (Heidelburg is the big club apparently) Just takes time and to continue exposure in the Euro nations etc.

Walk before they can run.

It is extremely unlikely Germany or Belgium would qualify for an 8-team competition. The obvious candidates would be Georgia & Romania, two very worthwhile opponents, one of which is ranked ahead of Italy at present; the other of which has beaten most of the 6 Nations teams at some time or another in the past. The 8-team model served the football Euros very well from 1980 thru 1996, which really represented its transitional stage from a token collection of fixtures into the world's second biggest football tournament after the World Cup. At the rate things are moving, I don't imagine a rugby Euros would be ready for expansion for another decade or two either. So we'd probably be talking about Georgia & Romania, who are champing at the bit for involvement in elite European competition, and not Germany and Belgium, which would indeed by quite farcical at the present.

Ireland were 1 point to Argentina with 15 mins to go and got gassed. It happens, like when England beat NZ in 2012 by a record score. Sometimes teams get gassed. Its an exception.

Georgia fielded weak team. You could barely name the NZ first team let alone the Georgia first team. In any case... if a team fields a weak side against you don't follow suit especially if chances are limited... you punish them. That is the only way to get respect... not get man shamed.

Rowanbi wrote:The obvious candidates would be Georgia & Romania, two very worthwhile opponents, one of which is ranked ahead of Italy at present; the other of which has beaten most of the 6 Nations teams at some time or another in the past.

They haven't beaten Scotland, Wales or France since 1991. England or Ireland never. Some point in the past indeed.

But we already have a 6Ns, would get boring fast to have 2 tournaments with the same teams competing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But we already have a 6Ns, would get boring fast to have 2 tournaments with the same teams competing.

They all compete in the world cup

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But we already have a 6Ns, would get boring fast to have 2 tournaments with the same teams competing.

They all compete in the world cup

some compete... some take part!

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But we already have a 6Ns, would get boring fast to have 2 tournaments with the same teams competing.

They all compete in the world cup

But you don't get that repetition. This would be the 6Ns in the same year as the 6Ns but some more games of thrashings. Waste of time. There would be more sense to say just add 2 teams to the 6Ns. Still comes back to too much rugby, money issues and club conflict. If the aim is to develop teams you don't do this you let Georgia play SA, Aus, NZ etc in the AIs. Invite Japan to tour, have more games with Tonga etc.

And even then money would be a big big issue.

If we were to lose the Lions, and go down this route, it would have to be done the same as the football euros, being hosted by one nation and all the games being played in that country. You would need a minimum of 16 sides I would say. In four groups, with only the pool winner progressing.

But in reality that would be 2 pools with 2 6Ns sides in, and 2 real cannon fodder teams. And 2 pools with only 1 6Ns side, 1 Georgia/Romania, and then 2 cannon fodder sides. So the 6Ns sides would pretty much only play one real test match, and 3 training games in the pools, and then 1 or 2 knock out games. So the actual amount of real rugby would not be any greater than if the 6Ns sides had their summer tour/Lions tour. If anything it may be less.

Given how WR seem to be wanting to put pressure on NH teams to alter their season (which overall we do need a global one for my money) how would the 6Ns take to their tournament being replicated with some others? I doubt very well.

The top tier NH sides don't need to play each other more often. That will not bridge the gap. They need genuine SH competition tours not a 6N 0.7 type tournament (i.e. not as good).

Likewise, Romania and Georgia will not improve by walking up and down their half 10 times a match to restart off a conceded try. They need similar type competition and maybe single notch up... games with teams like Fiji and Samoa. Given Argentina blew them away by 50 at the RWC they are too big a team now.

However the problem with this is who finances matches like the above?

What I dont get is why theres an automatic assumption that more teams = a good thing.
The 5 nations goign to 6 is evidience to the contrary. And despite all the pre toruanment howling fans had to grudgingly accept that the slimemd down T20 cricket world cup was a massive improvement on the bloated tedious previous iterations.

People want competitive tournaments between quality sides with meaningful rivalries and stories.
The unions want something that enables them to pay their players enough to get them to turn up rather than retiring to a French club.

You would need a minimum of 16 sides I would say

No reason in the universe for 16 sides. Eight works well as it did for the Euros. Georgia would be a good host nation and might well cause an upset over the likes of Italy or Scotland at home.

They need similar type competition and maybe single notch up... games with teams like Fiji and Samoa.

This comment indicates a real lack of knowledge about international rugby history. Competition with teams a notch or two up is precisely how teams develop. France after joining the 5 Nations and Australia via the Bledisloe Cup are graphic examples of this. Argentina had been receiving almost annual test matches against today's tier 1 teams for at least a decade or so before it began to beat them on a regular basis. Ditto Italy, who may have disappointed a little in this year's 6 Nations but are clearly a much stronger and more consistent side than they were at the end of the 20th century (when they lost to Tonga and conceded a ton to the All Blacks at RWC IV). The rise of Japan, also, is attributable at least in part to their involvement in the PNC against traditionally stronger sides. Meanwhile, we can see that teams stuck in competitions with equal or inferior opposition do not progress. And if you want to ridicule Georgia's failure to knock over a tier 1 side, that might be one of the primary reasons. Talk about Catch 22! With thinking like yours, the game is going absolutely nowhere.  

The 5 nations goign to 6 is evidience to the contrary.

Personally I think it's become far more interesting. & haven't Scotland collected almost as many spoons as Italy?

People want competitive tournaments between quality sides with meaningful rivalries and stories.

Like the 20-team World Cup, you mean - the world's biggest rugby tournament, which regularly includes Georgia & Romania..

I will say it now and have said it again and there is nothing you can do to dispute it...

Georgia have never beaten a tier 1 side ever. In the last RWC cycle every time they faced a tier 1 side they were whipped.... many times by B teams.

4 years prior to joining the 5N Italy beat Ireland twice, Scotland, France and Argentina.

4 years prior to joining the 3N Argentina came 3rd in RWC07, the QFs of RWC11 and beat Scotland 4 times, France and Italy 3 times, Ireland twice and England once.

Those teams earned their spots.

You need to put the performances on the pitch before you can stake a claim. Beating Portugal and Germany and even the odd match vs. Tonga (the worst PI RWC team) does nothing to make them look worthy.
Saying, oh the almost beat a 2nd string Ireland team in 2007 proves nothing. Samoa almost beat England in 2003, Wales' 2nd team almost beat NZ in 2003, Japan actually beat SA in 2015 and then went to drop 40 to Scotland the next week.

Then there's the road blocks in the way of simply moving to this as well.

Rowanbi wrote:You would need a minimum of 16 sides I would say

No reason in the universe for 16 sides. Eight works well as it did for the Euros. Georgia would be a good host nation and might well cause an upset over the likes of Italy or Scotland at home.

So with 8 it would be a straight knock-out tournament? If that is the case then it would end up having to be seeded to avoid losing on of the top two sides in the opening round. So Georgia would end up against England/Wales/Ireland, and never get the 'easier' draw.

This would be a terrible idea.

Georgia, Romania or whoever would get humiliated and the other sides would have no meaningful competition unless they played 2nd string sides. Even then the Saxons etc would give them a serious drubbing. Bring back the Churchill Cup and not this nonsense. I'm not interested in seeing England's 2nd or third string put these sides to the sword. It would be like a diluted 6 Nations, just in a cup format.

No tier one side would be interested and with very good reason.

Put this idea in the bin where it belongs

Cyril wrote:This would be a terrible idea.

Georgia, Romania or whoever would get humiliated and the other sides would have no meaningful competition unless they played 2nd string sides. Even then the Saxons etc would give them a serious drubbing. Bring back the Churchill Cup and not this nonsense. I'm not interested in seeing England's 2nd or third string put these sides to the sword. It would be like a diluted 6 Nations, just in a cup format.

No tier one side would be interested and with very good reason.

Put this idea in the bin where it belongs

Some posters here think that the 6N champs can't call themselves the best team in Europe because they haven't faced Georgia and Romania such is their high regard for them as teams.

I don't think you can say the 6Ns champs are the best in Europe based on winning it due to the nature of the tournament.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think you can say the 6Ns champs are the best in Europe based on winning it due to the nature of the tournament.

If you win a grand slam I think its fair to say. unlike in a tournament KO, you may win all your KO games but you may get lucky draws too.
In the 6N if you win all your games, you've played everyone, you've beaten everyone (Grand slam)

Yeah but not home and away.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah but not home and away.

If thats the case you'd have to throw any home won RWC into doubt then. Don't say that to kiwi's. It is tougher I give you that. However in 6N you play 2 home games, 2 away games so for me it evens out excluding Italy which for any 6N winner is a tryfest.

No you wouldn't have to throw it away, but you do have to acknowledge the best don't always win. I said before the last world cup, win or lose NZ were the best team in the world and would be at the end (albeit they would then lose some key guys).

No 7&1/2 wrote:No you wouldn't have to throw it away, but you do have to acknowledge the best don't always win. I said before the last world cup, win or lose NZ were the best team in the world and would be at the end (albeit they would then lose some key guys).

Its a paper-reality issue. Happens in all sports I guess from time to time.

Yup in a lot of cases I believe it does. Look at the Champs League this year won by a team not even the best in their league.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup in a lot of cases I believe it does. Look at the Champs League this year won by a team not even the best in their league.

Don't think it applies for 6N winners because of Georgia/Romania mind.

No, but it does as there isn't a home and away format. Only with that could you more realistically say, they are the best.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:You would need a minimum of 16 sides I would say

No reason in the universe for 16 sides. Eight works well as it did for the Euros. Georgia would be a good host nation and might well cause an upset over the likes of Italy or Scotland at home.

So with 8 it would be a straight knock-out tournament?  If that is the case then it would end up having to be seeded to avoid losing on of the top two sides in the opening round.  So Georgia would end up against England/Wales/Ireland, and never get the 'easier' draw.

No reason in the universe an 8 team tournament would be a straight knock-out tournament either. The football Euros wasn't, was it? Two groups of four leading to semis & a final. That worked extremely well for the Euros from 1980 - 1996, and transformed it into the world's second biggest football event. Already mentioned this a number of times.

Georgia, Romania or whoever would get humiliated and the other sides would have no meaningful competition unless they played 2nd string sides.

I disagree, Georgia are ranked ahead of Italy and would surely give them a tough game if they were the host nation, for example. But even if what you suggest were true, you appear to have overlooked the fact that these teams are regular competitors at the World Cup, and a far from the worst teams there. Indeed, they collected a combined three wins at the latest installment. So your view seems to be that only tier one nations are worthwhile playing. Which takes us back to the Cretaceous Period, I believe....  


Some posters here think that the 6N champs can't call themselves the best team in Europe because they haven't faced Georgia and Romania such is their high regard for them as teams.



It certainly couldn't be regarded as a World Championship any more than the next three installments of the Rugby Championship should be regarded as a World Championship - and for precisely the same reasons.

So it's a no go as I doubt the 6Ns would be very happy about it and it would just be a repetition of a very good comp anyway.

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.