RFU Want 6 Nations Reduced to 6 weeks

First topic message reminder :

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39387032

Does anyone else think this is a bad idea, or is it just me?

Recwatcher16 wrote:At least your usual moan is consistent Secret.
The RFU had their chance to control the professional game twenty years ago and they (rightly) walked away. The annual RFU financial contribution for test players is just that, a contribution. So the RFU  have to work with the PRL who fund the professional tier of the game, which is different from the Union closed shop ownership model.

The RFU is up to plenty of other activities like investing in a hundred new plastic pitches and large numbers of new coaches for the juniors and women's game. That is the RFU's goal in terms of access and participation.

Expecting World Rugby to be a professional organisation with so many vested interests and political agendas is asking too much. Pretty sure many view Steve Tew as having World Rugby in his back pocket any way.

I'm glad my consistency is finally getting the appreciation that it richly deserves.  
I say what I believe and it doesn't change with the seasons.  Ritchie and the RFU can so readily give up the reins to domestic English rugby, Ritchie can supposedly sit on a 'neutral' fence when the new European way was being negotiated - but Ritchie keeps talking like he has the keys of the Rugby Kingdom in his pocket.  Now why do I keep feeling there is nothing remotely neutral about the WE SHALL RULE THE WORLD love-in relationship between PRL and RFU???  Call me a cynical auld dog.

Have many people actually read the quotes?

Come on, 7.5! You know the Celts are busy people and only have time for headlines

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:At least your usual moan is consistent Secret.
The RFU had their chance to control the professional game twenty years ago and they (rightly) walked away. The annual RFU financial contribution for test players is just that, a contribution. So the RFU  have to work with the PRL who fund the professional tier of the game, which is different from the Union closed shop ownership model.

The RFU is up to plenty of other activities like investing in a hundred new plastic pitches and large numbers of new coaches for the juniors and women's game. That is the RFU's goal in terms of access and participation.

Expecting World Rugby to be a professional organisation with so many vested interests and political agendas is asking too much. Pretty sure many view Steve Tew as having World Rugby in his back pocket any way.

I'm glad my consistency is finally getting the appreciation that it richly deserves.  
I say what I believe and it doesn't change with the seasons.  Ritchie and the RFU can so readily give up the reins to domestic English rugby, Ritchie can supposedly sit on a 'neutral' fence when the new European way was being negotiated - but Ritchie keeps talking like he has the keys of the Rugby Kingdom in his pocket.  Now why do I keep feeling there is nothing remotely neutral about the WE SHALL RULE THE WORLD love-in relationship between PRL and RFU???  Call me a cynical auld dog.

I am curious - would you prefer the English game to be controlled by the RFU with just three or four teams put into euro comps ?
I don't understand your last sentence are you suggesting Ritchie should have some neutral (whatever that means) stance?
Perhaps that Titan of rugby administrators P. Browne could offer some nugget of wisdom ?

Just as euro qualification has increased Pro12 interest at the tail end of the season, suspect a shorter 6N will further increase the profile of the annual NH rugby flag waving jamboree too.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:At least your usual moan is consistent Secret.
The RFU had their chance to control the professional game twenty years ago and they (rightly) walked away. The annual RFU financial contribution for test players is just that, a contribution. So the RFU  have to work with the PRL who fund the professional tier of the game, which is different from the Union closed shop ownership model.

The RFU is up to plenty of other activities like investing in a hundred new plastic pitches and large numbers of new coaches for the juniors and women's game. That is the RFU's goal in terms of access and participation.

Expecting World Rugby to be a professional organisation with so many vested interests and political agendas is asking too much. Pretty sure many view Steve Tew as having World Rugby in his back pocket any way.

I'm glad my consistency is finally getting the appreciation that it richly deserves.  
I say what I believe and it doesn't change with the seasons.  Ritchie and the RFU can so readily give up the reins to domestic English rugby, Ritchie can supposedly sit on a 'neutral' fence when the new European way was being negotiated - but Ritchie keeps talking like he has the keys of the Rugby Kingdom in his pocket.  Now why do I keep feeling there is nothing remotely neutral about the WE SHALL RULE THE WORLD love-in relationship between PRL and RFU???  Call me a cynical auld dog.

I am curious - would you prefer the English game to be controlled by the RFU with just three or four teams put into euro comps ?
I don't understand your last sentence are you suggesting Ritchie should have some neutral (whatever that means) stance?
Perhaps that Titan of rugby administrators P. Browne could offer some nugget of wisdom ?

Just as euro qualification has increased Pro12 interest at the tail end of the season, suspect a shorter 6N will further increase the profile of the annual NH rugby flag waving jamboree too.

It would certainly give England an advantage, and probably turn other fans off if the results go England's way. It would appear rigged, and rightly so.

I have noticed some fans are glory hunters.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I have noticed some fans are glory hunters.

Bit harsh on the England fans, but very honest of you.

Have a piece of cake

Yeah they only sell twickenham out when we're winning.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah they only sell twickenham out when we're winning.

Do they? RFU must do something to ensure that England win much more often then. Hmmm .... let's think of a way to rig the competition to make that happen. Any idea's?

No they always sell out bar against the samoa s of the world even when we're below average as we have been for about 15 years. Now we're getting to be rather good again there is a little more whinging from others...

No 7&1/2 wrote:No they always sell out bar against the samoa s of the world even when we're below average as we have been for about 15 years. Now we're getting to be rather good again there is a little more whinging from others...

I doubt anyone is whinging because England has improved, and disagreeing with the RFU proposal isn't whinging. It's a difference of opinion based on the fact that it's something that will only benefit England. How some of you can't understand the opposition to such a proposal beggars belief.

Feehan and the whole Dublin cabal have helped Ireland for long enough. If we're getting into conspiracy theories. Ireland run the Pro12 for example.

Seriously Munchkin!

Never expect an England fan to see any other point of view - it would undermine the empire.

Bloomin' Irish. Just because you've got Bono and Trump on your side you think you're the cat's pyjamas

The Great Aukster wrote:Seriously Munchkin!

Never expect an England fan to see any other point of view - it would undermine the empire.

Can't have the Empire undermined!

All together now! "Jerusalem, Jeruuuuuuuuuusalem....."

What empire? And i thought this was supposed to benefit france as well?

Munchkin wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:At least your usual moan is consistent Secret.
The RFU had their chance to control the professional game twenty years ago and they (rightly) walked away. The annual RFU financial contribution for test players is just that, a contribution. So the RFU  have to work with the PRL who fund the professional tier of the game, which is different from the Union closed shop ownership model.

The RFU is up to plenty of other activities like investing in a hundred new plastic pitches and large numbers of new coaches for the juniors and women's game. That is the RFU's goal in terms of access and participation.

Expecting World Rugby to be a professional organisation with so many vested interests and political agendas is asking too much. Pretty sure many view Steve Tew as having World Rugby in his back pocket any way.

I'm glad my consistency is finally getting the appreciation that it richly deserves.  
I say what I believe and it doesn't change with the seasons.  Ritchie and the RFU can so readily give up the reins to domestic English rugby, Ritchie can supposedly sit on a 'neutral' fence when the new European way was being negotiated - but Ritchie keeps talking like he has the keys of the Rugby Kingdom in his pocket.  Now why do I keep feeling there is nothing remotely neutral about the WE SHALL RULE THE WORLD love-in relationship between PRL and RFU???  Call me a cynical auld dog.

I am curious - would you prefer the English game to be controlled by the RFU with just three or four teams put into euro comps ?
I don't understand your last sentence are you suggesting Ritchie should have some neutral (whatever that means) stance?
Perhaps that Titan of rugby administrators P. Browne could offer some nugget of wisdom ?

Just as euro qualification has increased Pro12 interest at the tail end of the season, suspect a shorter 6N will further increase the profile of the annual NH rugby flag waving jamboree too.

It would certainly give England an advantage, and probably turn other fans off if the results go England's way. It would appear rigged, and rightly so.

You better hope not or the Pro12 Unions who need the cash are screwed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What empire? And i thought this was supposed to benefit france as well?

No! This is all down to Sauron scheming an advantage to Mordor.

The Hobbits won't stand for it!!!

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:At least your usual moan is consistent Secret.
The RFU had their chance to control the professional game twenty years ago and they (rightly) walked away. The annual RFU financial contribution for test players is just that, a contribution. So the RFU  have to work with the PRL who fund the professional tier of the game, which is different from the Union closed shop ownership model.

The RFU is up to plenty of other activities like investing in a hundred new plastic pitches and large numbers of new coaches for the juniors and women's game. That is the RFU's goal in terms of access and participation.

Expecting World Rugby to be a professional organisation with so many vested interests and political agendas is asking too much. Pretty sure many view Steve Tew as having World Rugby in his back pocket any way.

I'm glad my consistency is finally getting the appreciation that it richly deserves.  
I say what I believe and it doesn't change with the seasons.  Ritchie and the RFU can so readily give up the reins to domestic English rugby, Ritchie can supposedly sit on a 'neutral' fence when the new European way was being negotiated - but Ritchie keeps talking like he has the keys of the Rugby Kingdom in his pocket.  Now why do I keep feeling there is nothing remotely neutral about the WE SHALL RULE THE WORLD love-in relationship between PRL and RFU???  Call me a cynical auld dog.

I am curious - would you prefer the English game to be controlled by the RFU with just three or four teams put into euro comps ?
I don't understand your last sentence are you suggesting Ritchie should have some neutral (whatever that means) stance?
Perhaps that Titan of rugby administrators P. Browne could offer some nugget of wisdom ?

Just as euro qualification has increased Pro12 interest at the tail end of the season, suspect a shorter 6N will further increase the profile of the annual NH rugby flag waving jamboree too.

It would certainly give England an advantage, and probably turn other fans off if the results go England's way. It would appear rigged, and rightly so.

You better hope not or the Pro12 Unions who need the cash are screwed.

Aye, just as well the AP (PRL) don't get handouts from their Union.

cascough wrote:

wayne wrote:

beshocked wrote:well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs?

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

To you and the previous poster. What a load of B0llocks, the extra week PRL clubs will be playing said players, and it would disadvantage everyone bar England and France with their player pool being miles LAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEERRRR, than the other 6 Nations teams. It's just the PRL tail pulling the RFU body, with the RFU being the poodle.

Constructive.

As I said, England players can only play a certain amount of minutes, regardless of how they are spread out. If other unions don't have a similar agreement and they are really bothered about welfare then they need to get one. That goes for however the 6 nations is laid out.

Secondly, playing on consecutive weekends for extended periods is already more prevalent in club rugby and the AIs (and the lions) than the 6N. If this proposal was approved, it still would only result in 3 internationals in a row. That would still be less than most countries AIs and often equal to summer tours.

The point is it will be no more games, and if your union has it's house in order will result in no more minutes of Rugby being played than is being played currently.

Your point about WHY the proposal might be happening, ie the PRL and the RFU power struggle may well be a debate worth having. But it doesn't lend any more credence to the "player welfare" criticism that is wheeled out.

You're not really suggesting that playing three club games on consecutive weekends has the same intensity as test match rugby on three consecutive weekends are you?

And, are you really suggesting that the AI's and summer tours are as intense as the 6N games, are you, really?

But you said the rfu were doing rhis on behalf of the prl earlier david...what's their goal in this?

David-Douglas wrote:

cascough wrote:

wayne wrote:

beshocked wrote:well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs?

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

To you and the previous poster. What a load of B0llocks, the extra week PRL clubs will be playing said players, and it would disadvantage everyone bar England and France with their player pool being miles LAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEERRRR, than the other 6 Nations teams. It's just the PRL tail pulling the RFU body, with the RFU being the poodle.

Constructive.

As I said, England players can only play a certain amount of minutes, regardless of how they are spread out. If other unions don't have a similar agreement and they are really bothered about welfare then they need to get one. That goes for however the 6 nations is laid out.

Secondly, playing on consecutive weekends for extended periods is already more prevalent in club rugby and the AIs (and the lions) than the 6N. If this proposal was approved, it still would only result in 3 internationals in a row. That would still be less than most countries AIs and often equal to summer tours.

The point is it will be no more games, and if your union has it's house in order will result in no more minutes of Rugby being played than is being played currently.

Your point about WHY the proposal might be happening, ie the PRL and the RFU power struggle may well be a debate worth having. But it doesn't lend any more credence to the "player welfare" criticism that is wheeled out.

You're not really suggesting that playing three club games on consecutive weekends has the same intensity as test match rugby on three consecutive weekends are you?

And, are you really suggesting that the AI's and summer tours are as intense as the 6N games, are you, really?

What do you actually mean when you say more intense? The ball is in play more at test level than it is at club level so they may have had to run around a bit more. Does that result in more injuries? Do you have any stats? I would be genuinely interested to compare the attrition rates of the prem vs 6N vs AI.

Thinking it about it though, that straight up comparison doesn't really tell us much in terms of this proposal. The proposal is to lose one rest weekend. So you would need to find out how many players are injured the week before a rest weekend and have needed that rest weekend to be fit for the next game. Once you've found that out we can divide by 2 to get the figure of how many players would be likely to miss a game in the new proposal that they would normally be fit for with the existing structure.

The question is why change it?

What is to be gained and what is the cost?

aahh phek - my liver would never take it - I need rest weekends where I just drink water and sniff camomile lawns...

The Great Aukster wrote:The question is why change it?

What is to be gained and what is the cost?

As a viewing experience, fallow weeks do take away from the spectacle. Having less than full strength teams would do that too though.

I'd much rather see them move one Week 2 game to Rest Week 1 and one Week 3 game to Rest Week 2 if they want to address the spectacle of it.

robbo277 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The question is why change it?

What is to be gained and what is the cost?

As a viewing experience, fallow weeks do take away from the spectacle. Having less than full strength teams would do that too though.

I'd much rather see them move one Week 2 game to Rest Week 1 and one Week 3 game to Rest Week 2 if they want to address the spectacle of it.

That's exactly the sort of supposition that I'd like to see some evidence to back up. The notion that fallow weeks take away from the spectacle is often presented as self-evident, but how exactly does it take away from the spectacle? Are there fewer armchair viewers because they have lost interest in a week? Are the fans complaining and signing petitions for change?

How many fans like the current 7 weeks and would hate 6 weeks? Some fans travel to more than one away game, and having them spread out makes it easier to manage family commitments and financial expenditure. Away fans are a big reason why the 6N is such a successful tournament as the event transcends just a rugby match.

The current format is perfectly reasonable but for the same reason there are no breaks in RWC's, TV would like a bigger/continuous/excitement build up, which break weekends spoil.

The catalyst for this has been a focus on the fractious nature of the global season, but would have thought Pro12 Unions would be in favour of any innovation that potentially squeezes more TV £s out of their flagship to support their business model of owning teams in a closed league.

The logistics for travelling away fans is a fair point, although not sure how many would actually travel to more than one away game anyway. I certainly wouldn't.

Recwatcher16 wrote:The current format is perfectly reasonable but for the same reason there are no breaks in RWC's, TV would like a bigger/continuous/excitement build up, which break weekends spoil.

The catalyst for this has been a focus on the fractious nature of the global season, but would have thought Pro12 Unions would be in favour of any innovation that potentially squeezes more TV £s out of their flagship to support their business model of owning teams in a closed league.

The logistics for travelling away fans is a fair point, although not sure how many would actually travel to more than one away game anyway. I certainly wouldn't.

I'm not too fussed either way, and if the other unions don't want it then it's a non-starter. But - I'd have thought the main argument in favor is very much that there are no breaks in a world cup. If you are lucky you get a couple of easy games where you can rest players in the world cup - but even then due to the limited squad size you're only likely to rest each player once. So you are looking at your best players playing 6 games in 7 weeks if you want to win a world cup - and if you are unlucky with the scheduling that rest week could be the first one leaving you 6 games in 6 weeks. At best you will have 3 tough games in a row with the QF, SF and F after an easier game at the end of the group stage. So I don't think it's a bad thing for our players to get used to 3 games in a row, and our coaches to get used to managing that.

The Great Aukster wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The question is why change it?

What is to be gained and what is the cost?

As a viewing experience, fallow weeks do take away from the spectacle. Having less than full strength teams would do that too though.

I'd much rather see them move one Week 2 game to Rest Week 1 and one Week 3 game to Rest Week 2 if they want to address the spectacle of it.

That's exactly the sort of supposition that I'd like to see some evidence to back up. The notion that fallow weeks take away from the spectacle is often presented as self-evident, but how exactly does it take away from the spectacle? Are there fewer armchair viewers because they have lost interest in a week? Are the fans complaining and signing petitions for change?

How many fans like the current 7 weeks and would hate 6 weeks? Some fans travel to more than one away game, and having them spread out makes it easier to manage family commitments and financial expenditure. Away fans are a big reason why the 6N is such a successful tournament as the event transcends just a rugby match.

I don't like the 7 week schedule. I'd prefer a 5, but 6 is a step in the right direction.

As for the assertion that the current structure makes it easier to balance commitments for away fans, when you take into account the TV audience, the away fans are a tiny minority. To build a structure around them would be foolish in my eyes. You say it's that minority that makes the competition special, but I don't think this proposal would have much of an impact on the numbers. Given that there are only 3 away games to get to, the chances of them falling on consecutive weekends is very slim. You may see an increase of 2 away games falling on consecutive weekends, but that happens anyway. In 2016 England fans went to Scotland in week 1 then Italy in week 2. Of course every other year it's even less of an issue as you will only have 2 games to get to. So on the rare occasion that a 6 week schedule means its more difficult for away fans than a 7 week schedule, would the away fans still travel? Probably.

Cascough,

Where is the evidence that it needs to be changed?

How much more TV revenue will the 6 week proposal generate?
How many more players will join rugby clubs?
Will playing surfaces be much better with more frequent games and how will that impact the spectacle?

If there are no numbers to support the proposal and just supposition then who has the right to dictate what change is necessary? Why not just have the whole championship in five consecutive days - that would really increase the intensity!

Anyone who has attended an away 6N game can't have missed the significance of the colours and the atmosphere that is broadcast on TV. A sharp contrast to the Rugby Championship where there is next to no travelling support and their stadia have nowhere near the tribalism and camaraderie on display. The current structure is not just built on what away fans want - that was only mentioned as an example of one thing that could be adversely affected. The onus is on those wanting change to justify it by presenting credible objective data to support it.

There's no dictation it's to be discussed at the April meeting.

Dictation from Richie to his secretary:  "Please let it be known that my lawful command is a symbol of Democracy in action and know that the little people that whine in the background against all my dictats and decrees are in total agreement with me in helping them arrive at the right decision on the future of European Rugby.... ps... Georgia will replace Wales in the 6N as of 2019 due to 606 public demand."

RFU is literally Hitler.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:RFU is literally Hitler.

...Hitler under Putin influence, I'd say. I think Putin must be involved. He's involved in all the best stories lately.

The Great Aukster wrote:Cascough,

Where is the evidence that it needs to be changed?

How much more TV revenue will the 6 week proposal generate?

Dunno, I was only saying that as a fan I would prefer a condensed tournament.

The Great Aukster wrote:
How many more players will join rugby clubs?
Will playing surfaces be much better with more frequent games and how will that impact the spectacle?

Don't know and not sure how that is directly relevant. As for playing surfaces, lets be clear on this. Teams only have 2 or 3 home games and we are only talking about dropping one rest weekend. The chances that there will be 3 straight games played on any one surface is slim. But I'm sure they could cope with maintaining the surface. It happens now anyway. In the summer I believe Twickenham usually hosts games on several consecutive weekends (Army v Navy, Varisty, 7s, Prem final and Baa Baas). I could be wrong on the exact games but I did the Twickenham stadium tour last year and the guy showing us round said they had something on every weekend for the 4/5 weeks.

The Great Aukster wrote:
If there are no numbers to support the proposal and just supposition then who has the right to dictate what change is necessary? Why not just have the whole championship in five consecutive days - that would really increase the intensity!

I only know what I want, I don't have the wider numbers. I don't know why the RFU are proposing this. Maybe you're right, and maybe there is no need for change. But nevertheless a change has been proposed, and no-one has been able to present any facts to back up criticisms of the proposal.

The Great Aukster wrote:
Anyone who has attended an away 6N game can't have missed the significance of the colours and the atmosphere that is broadcast on TV. A sharp contrast to the Rugby Championship where there is next to no travelling support and their stadia have nowhere near the tribalism and camaraderie on display. The current structure is not just built on what away fans want - that was only mentioned as an example of one thing that could be adversely affected. The onus is on those wanting change to justify it by presenting credible objective data to support it.

Like I said before, even if that minority is significant, the change being proposed (ie drop one rest weekend) is, in practice, unlikely to affect the away fans.

Your bit in bold, what if they can't? What if the only way to find out is to try it? It's not possible to come up objective data around bonus points so they've trialed it and there will now be a discussion as to whether to continue with it. In principle I agree with your point about where the onus should lie. However If the success of it can only be seen by trying it, and those in opposition are similarly unable to come up with objective data as to why it's a bad idea (which is the case at the moment) then why shouldn't it be trialed?

majesticimperialman wrote:. ps... Georgia will replace Wales in the 6N as of 2019 due to 606 public demand."

cascough wrote:

As for playing surfaces, lets be clear on this. Teams only have 2 or 3 home games and we are only talking about dropping one rest weekend. The chances that there will be 3 straight games played on any one surface is slim. But I'm sure they could cope with maintaining the surface. It happens now anyway. In the summer I believe Twickenham usually hosts games on several consecutive weekends (Army v Navy, Varisty, 7s, Prem final and Baa Baas). I could be wrong on the exact games but I did the Twickenham stadium tour last year and the guy showing us round said they had something on every weekend for the 4/5 weeks.

Well, they frequently do 3/4 international tests on consecutive weekends for the November series (which is likely to have similar weather to Feb/March) with potential an extra Barbarians game before or after - so I really can't see the pitch being an issue, even if you did end up all 3 home tests on consecutive weeks.

Recwatcher16 wrote: there are no breaks in RWC's

It is much easier for an away fan to organise for an advent every 4yrs, and put things in place, heck my club has been doing a savings club for Japan since the last world cup. For something that is happening on a seasonal basis the free weekends make for a nice break when you are having to make sacrifices all the time at that time of the year.

What are the chances of a fan being able to pick up tickets for 3 consecutive matches anyway?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are the chances of a fan being able to pick up tickets for 3 consecutive matches anyway?

I was able to get tickets for every single Wales game in this years 6N.

Just need to know the right people.

So if you couldn't afford them all if they were back to back it would allow someone else to see them.

You gotta fit carpets for the right people you see.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So if you couldn't afford them all if they were back to back it would allow someone else to see them.

I dont know ?

I purchased the the tickets for the two home games, I did not go away this year so I would have thought somebody else bought them. But I suppose it's just who you know really. I have a lot of contacts in the business world, so I can get a lot of corporate tickets as well.

mikey_dragon wrote:You gotta fit carpets for the right people you see.

It's not what you know mikey, it's who you know. Which is probably a good thing for you as you know the square route of feck all.

Is Square Route a guy or a girl? And how many carpets do they need fitting?

Not talking about how you got them just saying those tickets would be bought by others bringing the point back to people not being able to afford tickets if it were over 6 weeks.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are the chances of a fan being able to pick up tickets for 3 consecutive matches anyway?

I was able to get tickets for every single Wales game in this years 6N.

Just need to know the right people.

God you're a bore, I'm sure you were one of the wallies with a daffodil on his head

Don't be so ridiculous BamBam. It was a pink cowboy hat, okay?

It's total nonsense to say reducing the 6N by a week makes it more like the RWC!
The RWC has variable periods between games with a short turnaround ranging from four days to a long break of 10 days.

Dates for 6N teams in Group D 2015
19/9 Ireland
27/9 - 8 days
4/10 - 7 days
11/10 - 7 days

19/9 France
23/9 - 4 days
1/10 - 8 days
11/10 - 10 days

19/9 Italy
26/9 - 7 days
4/10 - 8 days
11/10 - 7 days

There is a big difference between a six and eight day turnaround never mind a four to ten day one. France had one player start both games in their four day turnaround. so that was really a 12 day turnaround for a lot of the players, followed by a 10 day one. That's three games in 22 days, which is one day more than the 6N with say a 7 followed by a 14 day turnaround. Italy get a hard time in the 6N but they are still better than most of the makeweights in the RWC - they beat Canada and Romania in that group. Italy might be relatively poor in the 6N but even England don't put out a second string against them.

It is reminiscent of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito in Twins when comparing the 6N to the RWC. The two tournaments are at different times of the year, on different surfaces, against a much wider range of opposition and with totally different preparation - only their mother could tell them apart.