Changes to the Six Nations

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/25/elite-english-clubs-push-limit-six-nations-five-weeks/

A proposal to move the tournament to successive weekends - down from the current seven and original ten week tournament.
Would this counter SH demands to move the Six nations ?
Would this be even more attractive to sponsors in the next seemingly bumper TV/sponsorship deal?

It appears this is all part of the global season restructure discussions with both Tests outside international windows being banned and dropping NH summer tours in World Cup years, although not clear from article if that is before or after RWC's.

A good idea ? Builds tournament excitement ?
Gives leagues & euro cups some potential delineation towards the end of the crowded season ?

It would benefit England as they always have the biggest player base and you would really need a strong squad to play every weekend.

Recwatcher16 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/25/elite-english-clubs-push-limit-six-nations-five-weeks/

A proposal to move the tournament to successive weekends - down from the current seven and original ten week tournament.
Would this counter SH demands to move the Six nations ?
Would this be even more attractive to sponsors in the next seemingly bumper TV/sponsorship deal?

It appears this is all part of the global season restructure discussions with both Tests outside international windows being banned and dropping NH summer tours in World Cup years, although not clear from article if that is before or after RWC's.

A good idea ? Builds tournament excitement ?
Gives leagues & euro cups some potential delineation towards the end of the crowded season ?

The bottom line is the money and power is up here in the North...who gives a t@ss what the whinging muppets down south want!

It sounds like a good idea, but won't the team's have to have bigger squads? because of player burn out, injuries, etc etc.

Surely the players in the starting 23 would not be expected to play all the way through.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/25/elite-english-clubs-push-limit-six-nations-five-weeks/

A proposal to move the tournament to successive weekends - down from the current seven and original ten week tournament.
Would this counter SH demands to move the Six nations ?
Would this be even more attractive to sponsors in the next seemingly bumper TV/sponsorship deal?

It appears this is all part of the global season restructure discussions with both Tests outside international windows being banned and dropping NH summer tours in World Cup years, although not clear from article if that is before or after RWC's.

A good idea ? Builds tournament excitement ?
Gives leagues & euro cups some potential delineation towards the end of the crowded season ?

The bottom line is the money and power is up here in the North...who gives a t@ss what the whinging muppets down south want!

Well said Geordie. To add though its not just the money and the power but the six nations is already the greatest annual rugby tournament in the world and always has been. No need to change it.

Change is inevitable though as we've seen with bonus points. Personally if we're progressively looking forward to total number of games, aligning ca lenders and patient welfare among other things nothing should be off the table for discussion initially even bad ideas!

I'm not sure my liver can take 5 consecutive weekends of beery punishment anymore. Post this idea back to circa 2002 when I could keep up!

Its funny that it means the English clubs would then have their top players available for more games meaning theres more value in the league so BT will play more.

5 consecutive weeks will take its toll on the top players and that's not right.

Should there be a limit on consecutive games? We talk mainly international players in these sort of discussions but what of the old reliables in the club games.

I think I am probably neutral on the proposals, although I can see an advantage for players, if, those two spare weeks are used as fallow periods for Test players before the remaining league and cup competitions take place.

Players and fans would certainly have to pace themselves though, the excitement really could generate a final weekend that brings in ever more non-rugby fans.

As far as the SH goes, well their centralised financial model has peaked and the NH either supports or let's them slowly decline over the next ten years with no changes to the global season.
I see the ABs have agreed to play Scotland at Murrayfield, for the first time in a while, although there has been no statement on the financial split.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Should there be a limit on consecutive games? We talk mainly international players in these sort of discussions but what of the old reliables in the club games.

Waller has well over 100 consecutive AP games (100 in Dec 16) as a prop!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Should there be a limit on consecutive games? We talk mainly international players in these sort of discussions but what of the old reliables in the club games.

There are breaks during the season and I think when there are periods of 5, 6 or 7 games there are very few players who play every game.

I always saw the breaks in the 6N window as a chance for players to rest their bodies and come back fresher to go again due to the increased pace, physicality and intensity of the games and that means theres greater chance of the best players being available and means the competition is at its best

No 7&1/2 wrote:Should there be a limit on consecutive games? We talk mainly international players in these sort of discussions but what of the old reliables in the club games.

I can't see what the problem is with 5 consecutive games. Wales always play 4 AIs, and England do every other year (I believe), so it is only one more game than those.

Looking at it like that more time to rush those broken players back with that rest weekend as well. Loads of players play more than 7 consecutive games great example from Scott above.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at it like that more time to rush those broken players back with that rest weekend as well. Loads of players play more than 7 consecutive games great example from Scott above.

Although not sure how many consecutive weekends it is in reality (assuming he's rested for cup games which he often isn't).

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at it like that more time to rush those broken players back with that rest weekend as well. Loads of players play more than 7 consecutive games great example from Scott above.

Although not sure how many consecutive weekends it is in reality (assuming he's rested for cup games which he often isn't).

He hasn't played in the Anglo Welsh this season has he? He also doesn't start every game in the league

So we're purely talking international games aren't we?

As long as England win bring it on.

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at it like that more time to rush those broken players back with that rest weekend as well. Loads of players play more than 7 consecutive games great example from Scott above.

Although not sure how many consecutive weekends it is in reality (assuming he's rested for cup games which he often isn't).

He hasn't played in the Anglo Welsh this season has he? He also doesn't start every game in the league

He does start every game in the league. His record is still intact.

Not Anglo Welsh but has started Champions Cup games.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at it like that more time to rush those broken players back with that rest weekend as well. Loads of players play more than 7 consecutive games great example from Scott above.

Although not sure how many consecutive weekends it is in reality (assuming he's rested for cup games which he often isn't).

He hasn't played in the Anglo Welsh this season has he? He also doesn't start every game in the league

He does start every game in the league. His record is still intact.

Not Anglo Welsh but has started Champions Cup games.

You're right I was thinking Corbisiero was still with Saints at the start of last season it was the previous season and Waller was the impact sub

Personally I'm all for it. As a fan I dislike the fallow weeks. For the players, well that's down to the various unions to make sure that agreements in place so that they are still not overplayed. In the EPS agreement I think there's a limit for games in a season. I haven't got the facts to hand but last season I believe Mike Brown got closest to the limit, and even he wasn't that close (relatively speaking).

Someone has said about teams needing bigger squads. I disagree with that. Teams will potentially need to USE their squads. Usually what happens is a team picks it's strongest 15 and where possible sticks to it. Minor tweaks might be made and then there's making changes for injuries of course. At the end of the tournament though, there's usually a bunch of players that have played a lot and a bunch of players that have played a little.

It instantly favours those with larger squads and player bases who can better manage the injuries and workloads.

Lets face it this proposal will be driven by commercial considerations above all else. Maybe for he armchair punter its an easier sell for consecutive weekends, but from the consideration of maximising time with the best players on the pitch its not so good.

Also what happens if theres another game called off because of conditions/world events? OK this has happened less than very few times but the fallow weekends do give that cover.


The proposed change doesnt do anything in regard to the global season debate.

cascough wrote:Personally I'm all for it. As a fan I dislike the fallow weeks. For the players, well that's down to the various unions to make sure that agreements in place so that they are still not overplayed. In the EPS agreement I think there's a limit for games in a season. I haven't got the facts to hand but last season I believe Mike Brown got closest to the limit, and even he wasn't that close (relatively speaking).

The number of games doesn't change though, so players will play the same with less rest. The fallow weeks gives players a chance to focus on getting over niggles, bumps and bruises they pick up. I think this adds to the quality because players are closer to their best especially come week 5.

Gooseberry wrote:It instantly favours those with larger squads and player bases who can better manage the injuries and workloads.

Lets face it this proposal will be driven by commercial considerations above all else. Maybe for he armchair punter its an easier sell for consecutive weekends, but from the consideration of maximising time with the best players on the pitch its not so good.

Also what happens if theres another game called off because of conditions/world events? OK this has happened less than very few times but the fallow weekends do give that cover.


The proposed change doesnt do anything in regard to the global season debate.

It offers more flexibility to fit in changes to the SH schedule but it will cram more games into a shorter period which I think will be detrimental to the game as players will be looking at an increased workload which will end up driving up wages too

One benefit it would have for the 6 nations teams is that the world cup is played on consecutive weekends so it would prepare teams for the need to have very strong squads for the RWC.

Gooseberry wrote:It instantly favours those with larger squads and player bases who can better manage the injuries and workloads.

Lets face it this proposal will be driven by commercial considerations above all else. Maybe for he armchair punter its an easier sell for consecutive weekends, but from the consideration of maximising time with the best players on the pitch its not so good.

Also what happens if theres another game called off because of conditions/world events?  OK this has happened less than very few times but the fallow weekends do give that cover.


The proposed change doesnt do anything in regard to the global season debate.

I am always struck by the irony of this usual response when Unions have reduced their elite tier to just three/four teams with the specific intention of providing Test players, that somehow four teams doesn't cover all contingencies over 4/5 games. A case of wanting all the cake and eating it I suppose.

There is much more to reducing elite tier to four teams that just creating a pool of competitive players. In Ireland for example it wouldn't be financially viable to have a fifth team. There wouldn't be a big enough population base to sustain them anywhere. Instead promising players have to go overseas.

I presume that's why Scotland axed the Border Reivers side too. They played their games in very small town previously.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is much more to reducing elite tier to four teams that just creating a pool of competitive players. In Ireland for example it wouldn't be financially viable to have a fifth team. There wouldn't be a big enough population base to sustain them anywhere. Instead promising players have to go overseas.

I presume that's why Scotland axed the Border Reivers side too. They played their games in very small town previously.

Theres also the problem in Ireland of there are only 4 provinces and the teams had a history so it was a natural evolution

I simply don't believe it Guns. Dublin is bigger than any of the AP towns and could easily support two teams. The IRFU don't want it though do they. It is only financially unviable through their own centralised structure.

You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Recwatcher16 wrote:I simply don't believe it Guns. Dublin is bigger than any of the AP towns and could easily support two teams. The IRFU don't want it though do they. It is only financially unviable through their own centralised structure.

Cant see Dublin hosting a second side at all. A North Dublin side would be a fun idea though. People are always wearing tracksuits on the north side of Dublin so there must be a lot of athletes over there.

Dublin is bigger than all other cities but Belfast is a big city and in Munster you have three reasonably big cities Cork, Limerick and Waterford that all have big fan bases particularly Cork and Limerick who both host games.

Connacht has traditionally struggled because it revolves predominantly around Galway which is a small city and Connacht fairly sparsely populated.

There are no other cities in Leinster that are capable of sustaining a team by itself really. At a stretch you could combine Kilkenny and Waterford in the South East but that would span two provinces and may bring lots of teething issues. I cant see it ever happening.

I have no idea on Dublin teams and was being hypothetical but the Union PR message that the financial impasse makes more teams impossible and then you get fans saying our player base is too small to cope is just an irony that gets richer as the years go by.

How is that ironic? Not all provinces are profitable. I'm fairly sure the revenue generated by the Ireland side is ploughed back into the provinces to make them sustainable.

They dont have private backers like Bath.

As a fan, I'd like if they were consequetive weekends, but I just don't know how that would work when you take into account that since games are played on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, you would be asking some teams to play an international game in less than a week.

So, for player protection, I say no.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:It instantly favours those with larger squads and player bases who can better manage the injuries and workloads.

Lets face it this proposal will be driven by commercial considerations above all else. Maybe for he armchair punter its an easier sell for consecutive weekends, but from the consideration of maximising time with the best players on the pitch its not so good.

Also what happens if theres another game called off because of conditions/world events?  OK this has happened less than very few times but the fallow weekends do give that cover.


The proposed change doesnt do anything in regard to the global season debate.

I am always struck by the irony of this usual response when Unions have reduced their elite tier to just three/four teams with the specific intention of providing Test players, that somehow four teams doesn't cover all contingencies over 4/5 games. A case of wanting all the cake and eating it I suppose.

Rec, numbers are numbers and there is no maths you can attempt that will magic numbers off into some closet that the rest of us can't see.  

Sin é wrote:As a fan, I'd like if they were consequetive weekends, but I just don't know how that would work when you take into account that since games are played on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, you would be asking some teams to play an international game in less than a week.

So, for player protection, I say no.

Ireland did last year anyway.

I'm mixed. I'd appreciate that it would disrupt the league less, and probably makes for a more engaging tournament but maybe it weakens the ability of teams to play their best players.

I'd like to see it condensed to consecutive weekends as it would favour the fitter teams like Ireland and Wales and not the less fit like England and France.

Relax.  

Ain't this about the best players giving the pink-cowboy hat crowd (casual/prospective new rugby fans) just what they want?  

I know Club silk-Italian-suit guys want to continuously lessen and lessen the time International rugby is out and about in any given year - as though the Rugby Union calendar belongs to them - but International should relax, ignore, take the weeks they have, smoke the cigars, lap up the attention, wait for seriously good players to perhaps shake off a niggle or two after a particularly bone-crunching 6N weekend and raise a finger to the wise-guy club millionaires who seem to feel they should be getting constant envelope backhanders and concessions to keep them from moaning about just anything that moves in the rugby world.  

Elite?  Elite whiners anyway...

Play it all in one weekend, at one venue (and call it The Bumper Games or summat) so we can get on with the club season pronto.

If we start early it can all be done by about 4pm on Sunday and then Itoje and Gray can hit some tackle bags to burn off that excess energy.

Good one Cyril...finally the genuinely thoughtful solutions begin to appear.

SecretFly wrote:Relax.  

Ain't this about the best players giving the pink-cowboy hat crowd (casual/prospective new rugby fans) just what they want?  

I know Club silk-Italian-suit guys want to continuously lessen and lessen the time International rugby is out and about in any given year - as though the Rugby Union calendar belongs to them - but International should relax, ignore, take the weeks they have, smoke the cigars, lap up the attention, wait for seriously good players to perhaps shake off a niggle or two after a particularly bone-crunching 6N weekend and raise a finger to the wise-guy club millionaires who seem to feel they should be getting constant envelope backhanders and concessions to keep them from moaning about just anything that moves in the rugby world.  

Elite?  Elite whiners anyway...

Rubbish Secret and you know it. The initiative to reduce the Test calendar started in the SH in order to produce a global calendar to suit their financial purse strings.

Club owners have taken all the financial risks over the last twenty years and your precious Provinces are still keen to play above else.

If you hate the clubs so much, suggest you petition the Leinster CEO and demand you boycott clubs and their club competitions until they morph into closed shop elite trials sides with a finite financial structure. Your problem solved.

Scottrf wrote:You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Would they support Meath ? What happened to that province ? Dublin is in Meath. There is always a chance for a fifth province in Ireland.

What a terrible idea!

The one advantage is that the clubs can flog their Test players outside the International window because they would be available, when they aren't now. Now that's a goal to strive for.  

The disadvantages?
As has been mentioned the smaller nations don't have the playing numbers of England and France, so the rest weeks are invaluable to get the best quality teams on the pitch to make the games competitive. A player injured in the first game now has two weeks more to recover in time for the grand finale.
The Pro12 nations not only don't have the depth of England and France, they also have far more Test players per club team. Having five Tests in five weeks not only increases their risk of injury but also increases their recovery time so impinging on their club season further that it does now.
Then there is the issue of when the competition will be staged - will the games be brought back to February or moved forward to March? Either way the nature of the competition will be affected. Currently part of the charm of the 6N is that it starts in Winter and finishes in Spring - a test of different skills and resilience.
The punctuation in the tournament adds to the spectacle just as an interval does in a play. The final two weeks increase the hype rather than take away from it, and gives fans an extra week to pay even more extortionate amounts to secure tickets and make plans.
Then what about the RFU - having the extra two weeks gives them more time to get the Grand Slam winners 'T' shirts from China, and also more chance to cancel should the unthinkable happen...

OK we know the clubs want to disband Test rugby altogether, but someone should tell them that if the goose is kept alive they actually get more gold in the long run.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Would they support Meath ? What happened to that province ? Dublin is in Meath. There is always a chance for a fifth province in Ireland.

Haha no Dublin is beside Meath. Meath is a small county, no cities.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Would they support Meath ? What happened to that province ? Dublin is in Meath. There is always a chance for a fifth province in Ireland.

Haha no Dublin is beside Meath. Meath is a small county, no cities.

Surely it's close enough to get the fans who will not support Leinster interested ? It's more or less on the border with Meath.

http://www.irishtourist.com/meath/maps/

LordDowlais wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Would they support Meath ? What happened to that province ? Dublin is in Meath. There is always a chance for a fifth province in Ireland.

Haha no Dublin is beside Meath. Meath is a small county, no cities.

Surely it's close enough to get the fans who will not support Leinster interested ? It's more or less on the border with Meath.

http://www.irishtourist.com/meath/maps/

Yip there are a bunch of rugby fans in Meath anxiously waiting for a team to pop up for them to support

LordDowlais wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Would they support Meath ? What happened to that province ? Dublin is in Meath. There is always a chance for a fifth province in Ireland.

Haha no Dublin is beside Meath. Meath is a small county, no cities.

Surely it's close enough to get the fans who will not support Leinster interested ? It's more or less on the border with Meath.

http://www.irishtourist.com/meath/maps/

Why would anyone not want to support Leinster? They are one to the greatest European sides of all time and Meath is in Leinster.

It would never work Lord.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Relax.  

Ain't this about the best players giving the pink-cowboy hat crowd (casual/prospective new rugby fans) just what they want?  

I know Club silk-Italian-suit guys want to continuously lessen and lessen the time International rugby is out and about in any given year - as though the Rugby Union calendar belongs to them - but International should relax, ignore, take the weeks they have, smoke the cigars, lap up the attention, wait for seriously good players to perhaps shake off a niggle or two after a particularly bone-crunching 6N weekend and raise a finger to the wise-guy club millionaires who seem to feel they should be getting constant envelope backhanders and concessions to keep them from moaning about just anything that moves in the rugby world.  

Elite?  Elite whiners anyway...

Rubbish Secret and you know it. The initiative to reduce the Test calendar started in the SH in order to produce a global calendar to suit their financial purse strings.

Club owners have taken all the financial risks over the last twenty years and your precious Provinces are still  keen to play above else.

If you hate the clubs so much, suggest you petition the Leinster CEO and demand you boycott clubs and their club competitions until they morph into closed shop elite trials sides with a finite financial structure. Your problem solved.

Had to be you, Rec.  Just had to be you.  
I don't hate clubs, Rec.  But I do often like fishing for fish who know there are hooks in the water but still can't resist.  

Nah, if auld Union gets the dotty, mothballed, doddering amateur, blazer-bedecked clichés thrown their way then I'll sure keep up my Tommy-gun-wielding, omerta-loving, profiteering-obsessed gangsta allusions going on the 'elite' clubs.  
Sure isn't it a good novel anyway?

LordDowlais wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:You think there are a bunch of rugby fans in Dublin who don't support Leinster but would support another team?

Would they support Meath ? What happened to that province ? Dublin is in Meath. There is always a chance for a fifth province in Ireland.

Haha no Dublin is beside Meath. Meath is a small county, no cities.

Surely it's close enough to get the fans who will not support Leinster interested ? It's more or less on the border with Meath.

http://www.irishtourist.com/meath/maps/

What the hell is going on here? Meath is a Province now? Dublin is in Meath? What mushrooms have you been eating this weekend, Lord?

Yes fair enough - the clubs aren't perfect by any stretch but you do puff up some of the myths to suit a flawed status quo.
Unions that control and own the game is a conflict and business risk that many fans refuse to acknowledge or can't see. You better hope the Unions aren't dotty, mothballed, doddering amateur, blazer-bedecked clichés.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Yes fair enough - the clubs aren't perfect by any stretch but you do puff up some of the myths to suit a flawed status quo.
Unions that control and own the game is a conflict and business risk that many fans refuse to acknowledge or can't see. You better hope the Unions aren't dotty, mothballed, doddering amateur, blazer-bedecked clichés.

Where is the conflict and risk?