Six Nations: Italy should face prospect of relegation - Warburton

First topic message reminder :

From the BBC

Italy should face the prospect of relegation from the Six Nations after their 50-10 hammering by France in the 2021 tournament opener, according to former Wales captain Sam Warburton.

The Azzurri suffered a 28th consecutive Six Nations defeat in a seven-tries-to-one trouncing in Rome.

Warburton said: "I think enough's enough now.

"Italy just don't have the strength in depth from a playing pool point of view."

The former two-tour British and Irish Lions captain says Georgia, who have dominated Europe's second tier in recent years, should be given the chance to take over from Italy in the Six Nations via a play-off.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/55972682

Do you agree.. I don't fully. I agree, that Italy don't have the international strength, and is just the side that the five others look to putting a cricket score on to gain BPs. So yes I believe they should lose their 6 Nations place, but I don't believe Georgia is the answer, as they are likely to be as bad.

I think the tournament needs to drop back to 5 Nations, and played every other weekend (with one extra rest week) as it used to be. Will give the players needed rest time.

Or, if the money men insist it has to be 6 Nations, then invite the Boks, as time zone wise it will suit them and it will give real competition rather than just making up the numbers. Of course, would have meant this years wouldn't have been played with COVID, but not sure it should in the current climate anyway.

That's my thoughts... anyone agree, disagree.... etc..

Just for perspective on the Italy 23 on Saturday

Of the 23 named the number of caps was 294 caps.

24 caps for the 7 backs with Sperandio being the most experienced with 8.
110 caps in the forwards, Bigi 32 and Negri 28 the next best is on 11.
160 caps on the bench, Canna 47 and palazzani 41.

So was Smith right to put out a young team that looked good going forward and green in defence.  He could have gone for the Welsh model and had a ridiculous number of caps on the field and only lost by 20 points yet done nothing for the future.

Smith like France is very much saying that Italy's u20s are just as good as the other Celts so he is giving them a head start at international.  As an Irishman I would take Garbisi and Varney over our outhalves.  I am sure England would have loved Varney giving those English forwards ball on the gain line rather then the slow service of youngs.

The reason Italy did so poorly after joining the 6 nations was they had very few good players coming through, now they do let them use them. They will have a much bigger growth trajectory then if they had put the old players out one more time

If the had had Minozzi as the full back and Polledri at 8 they would have scored more and defended better. That is just two players who are both 24/25. Negri is the grand old age of 26. Ioane 26. Their team is young.

The only - potential - replacement for Italy would be to invite South Africa, as No. 9 suggested above. Not sure how the travel would work and what that would do to the June and November international tours. Ultimately, I doubt there will be any changes for a long time to come.

OK. I'm going to say something that won't be popular.

SA is already coming North in the Pro14 so there's no reason why they can't do the same internationally and join the 6 nations. I thought that was the move that was being made anyway or at least had been whispered about. Get their Super franchises up here to test the waters, if it's all good then dive in completely with 6 Nations inclusion.
Italy have been given every chance and are actually declining as a force, they're barely a speed bump to anyone these days. Maybe it's time to be ruthless and cut them free to duke it out with Georgia in a league of their own with Spain and Portugal etc. Maybe it's realistically where they belong, as harsh as that might sound.

Brendan, that argument would have more weight if France hadn't nearly won the 6 nations with an inexperienced squad, and lets not mention the ANC final!

Also its not like Italy were any good with the experienced players, they have been hopeless since 2015. This isn't just about last weekends game and the argument its a young side doesn't hold much salt.

In the previous 4 championships they managed to get within a score of the opposition once. Almost half the games they've shipped 40+ points. They've never been good but its now a sustained period of being awful, and no signs of improvement. Its not good for the teams and players to face weak opposition.

The real decision though will be down to economics, if they are taking more than they put in then the big unions will be more willing to push for change. As it stands the 6 nations is a very successful and profitable competition. That's because it has competitive games that matter played between teams with real rivalries.

Anyone coming in would have to bring more to the table than Italy not just on the park but also in terms of interest, audience and potential revenue. That's why people see SA as a better fit than Georgia or Italy if a replacement is needed.

Promotion / Relegation on a yearly basis is probably the worst fit for everyone. It wouldn't offer enough to give the false hope of forcing development on a country that just doesn't care about rugby or help improve the quality of the games on offer. Its also worth remembering that SA whilst a real global powerhouse and a country with deep rugby culture are facing real challenges t sustaining their own professional game, as do the other SANZAARS. Its all very well talking about turning our backs on Italy, but all the Unions are facing bankruptcy currently. If the best solution for SA is to join the NH competition and that means losing Italy so be it, the Prohwowvermanyitisthisweek wouldn't be unduly hurt by losing two hopeless franchises.

I'm not wedded to the idea of getting rid of them, but its an option that should be on the table when the global season gets looked at again.

If South Africa were to join the Six (Seven?) Nations what would happen to the June tours down south? Given the Boks would likely still tour up north in November, what happens in June? I can't imagine any Northern nation would want to play the Boks three times in one year (Six Nations, June, November). They would, I presume, still play in the Tri/Four Nations with the Pumas, Wallabies, and the ABs.

It would provide an interesting dynamic for the Boks, however. They would be the only Rugby nation playing every top team every year.

doctor_grey wrote:If South Africa were to join the Six (Seven?) Nations what would happen to the June tours down south?  Given the Boks would likely still tour up north in November, what happens in June?  I can't imagine any Northern nation would want to play the Boks three times in one year (Six Nations, June, November).  They would, I presume, still play in the Tri/Four Nations with the Pumas, Wallabies, and the ABs.  

It would provide an interesting dynamic for the Boks, however.  They would be the only Rugby nation playing every top team every year.  

That's a good point actually. I mentioned earlier in the thread that SAANZAR recently signed a 10 year agreement which suggests SA aren't ditching the Rugby Championship any time soon. Could they really fit in the 6N as well? That really wouldn't work with all the club players as the games are at the start of the European season. But if all the SA franchises are now aligned with the NH season...

And as you say, what about Autumn tests?

Someone also raised a good point about the Lions - will there be any point in touring SA anymore if the 6N teams all play SA every year?

Brendan wrote:Just for perspective on the Italy 23 on Saturday

Of the 23 named the number of caps was 294 caps.

24 caps for the 7 backs with Sperandio being the most experienced with 8.
110 caps in the forwards, Bigi 32 and Negri 28 the next best is on 11.
160 caps on the bench, Canna 47 and palazzani 41.

So was Smith right to put out a young team that looked good going forward and green in defence.  He could have gone for the Welsh model and had a ridiculous number of caps on the field and only lost by 20 points yet done nothing for the future.
.

It’s not a Welsh ‘model’. That would suggest that Wales always goes for an old squad as part of some sort of philosophy. It is currently true that the squad is older/ageing but a few years ago we had one of the youngest. Should we ditch Faletau and AWJ just because of age and put in much worse players? Behave! I think you’ll find that most nations go through periods or cycles of having relatively old/young squads. I think Ireland a while back had a pretty old squad - the so called ‘golden generation’. And then they retired and moved on and all of a sudden you had a relatively young squad out of necessity as the younger ones were then the best players available. But it’s certainly not a Welsh ‘model’. Never has been and never will be.

Gooseberry interesting that you mention 2015.

When the European Cups were reorganised there was also Pro12 issues. Just that little ripple resulted in the FIR having to let most of the good players go. This resulted in the best players going overseas where they didn't get as much time in first team action.

It also meant that the pro teams couldn't afford good overseas players which then couldn't quailify for Italy.

Then you have the FIR hiring Conor O'Shea whose goal was to bring on their underage set up. This resulted in Italy securing u20 championship status.

These are now coming through which will put Italy back where they were.

The Oracle wrote:

Brendan wrote:Just for perspective on the Italy 23 on Saturday

Of the 23 named the number of caps was 294 caps.

24 caps for the 7 backs with Sperandio being the most experienced with 8.
110 caps in the forwards, Bigi 32 and Negri 28 the next best is on 11.
160 caps on the bench, Canna 47 and palazzani 41.

So was Smith right to put out a young team that looked good going forward and green in defence.  He could have gone for the Welsh model and had a ridiculous number of caps on the field and only lost by 20 points yet done nothing for the future.
.

It’s not a Welsh ‘model’.  That would suggest that Wales always goes for an old squad as part of some sort of philosophy.  It is currently true that the squad is older/ageing but a few years ago we had one of the youngest.  Should we ditch Faletau and AWJ just because of age and put in much worse players?  Behave!  I think you’ll find that most nations go through periods or cycles of having relatively old/young squads.  I think Ireland a while back had a pretty old squad - the so called ‘golden generation’.  And then they retired and moved on and all of a sudden you had a relatively young squad out of necessity as the younger ones were then the best players available.  But it’s certainly not a Welsh ‘model’.  Never has been and never will be.

The point was Wales needed improvements so they scraped they young players for the older players who weren't needed in the ANC. Italy have stuck with their plan and not panicked for short term gain but will struggle when they do have to bring in those players in a year or too.

Brendan wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Brendan wrote:Just for perspective on the Italy 23 on Saturday

Of the 23 named the number of caps was 294 caps.

24 caps for the 7 backs with Sperandio being the most experienced with 8.
110 caps in the forwards, Bigi 32 and Negri 28 the next best is on 11.
160 caps on the bench, Canna 47 and palazzani 41.

So was Smith right to put out a young team that looked good going forward and green in defence.  He could have gone for the Welsh model and had a ridiculous number of caps on the field and only lost by 20 points yet done nothing for the future.
.

It’s not a Welsh ‘model’.  That would suggest that Wales always goes for an old squad as part of some sort of philosophy.  It is currently true that the squad is older/ageing but a few years ago we had one of the youngest.  Should we ditch Faletau and AWJ just because of age and put in much worse players?  Behave!  I think you’ll find that most nations go through periods or cycles of having relatively old/young squads.  I think Ireland a while back had a pretty old squad - the so called ‘golden generation’.  And then they retired and moved on and all of a sudden you had a relatively young squad out of necessity as the younger ones were then the best players available.  But it’s certainly not a Welsh ‘model’.  Never has been and never will be.

The point was Wales needed improvements so they scraped they young players for the older players who weren't needed in the ANC.  Italy have stuck with their plan and not panicked for short term gain but will struggle when they do have to bring in those players in a year or too.

Hmm, not a model then. Wales just went for the strongest squad at the time which happened to be the older players. When the younger guys begin to outperform the older ones then they’ll leapfrog them into the starting jersey on a regular basis. Look at Jamie Roberts being usurped by Hadleigh Parkes, who in turn has been usurped by, say, Jonny Williams. Gethin Jenkin and Adam Jones phased out for the likes of Wyn Jones, Samson Lee, Tomos Francis, etc., etc. The back row has seen a churn based roughly on age too - players like Navidi, Ellis Jenkins, Wainwright, Botham, Jones-Hughes, et al all getting plenty of game time since Warburton and Lydiate left the scene. Lydiate bucked the trend recently, albeit short lived, but in fairness he was playing well and as Warburton pointed out in commentary his game is well suited to the Irish gameplan so his recall was somewhat justified. Plus injuries to many others too. Deffo not our model though.

For me, you play your best players in the biggest tournaments. Save the experimentation for the Autumn and the Summer tours. 6N and World Cup should be best players regardless of age. If your best lock is 37 then he should be played rather than throw in a rookie in a big tournament and weaken the squad just for the future. When the rookie is better and the elder statesmen is struggling somewhat then sure, go ahead and swap them. But not for the sake of it, IMO.

As I have heard alot in ireland there are only 25 tests till the next WC. France and Italy are giving the younger players (who will be better) game time So that their squad is ready come the WC. If certain games don't happen then you are looking at less games.

There are two models used by international teams in WC cycles.
1. Get your old players out and get in your young players who will be at the WC. First done by New Zealand who told top players they weren't going to get picked again such as Howlet. This is the model France and Italy are using. Traditional it was a SH model.
2. Best players play regardless which is used by most of the home nations. What it results in is under prepared teams for WCs and sometimes lack of depth when players retire.

So it is a model and Wales are following the second model. Dan Lydiate 33 not benefiting Wales who have plenty of 6s that should have been picked. The change this WC cycle is both France and Italy have gone more for the the SH model.
Jonny Sexton 35
Dave Kilcoyne 32
Keith Earle 33
Richie Gray 31
WP Nel 34
Sean Maitland 32
Ben Youngs 31
Courtney Lawes 31

It's not a great strategy if you have younger players who need experince

The Oracle wrote:

Brendan wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Brendan wrote:Just for perspective on the Italy 23 on Saturday

Of the 23 named the number of caps was 294 caps.

24 caps for the 7 backs with Sperandio being the most experienced with 8.
110 caps in the forwards, Bigi 32 and Negri 28 the next best is on 11.
160 caps on the bench, Canna 47 and palazzani 41.

So was Smith right to put out a young team that looked good going forward and green in defence.  He could have gone for the Welsh model and had a ridiculous number of caps on the field and only lost by 20 points yet done nothing for the future.
.

It’s not a Welsh ‘model’.  That would suggest that Wales always goes for an old squad as part of some sort of philosophy.  It is currently true that the squad is older/ageing but a few years ago we had one of the youngest.  Should we ditch Faletau and AWJ just because of age and put in much worse players?  Behave!  I think you’ll find that most nations go through periods or cycles of having relatively old/young squads.  I think Ireland a while back had a pretty old squad - the so called ‘golden generation’.  And then they retired and moved on and all of a sudden you had a relatively young squad out of necessity as the younger ones were then the best players available.  But it’s certainly not a Welsh ‘model’.  Never has been and never will be.

The point was Wales needed improvements so they scraped they young players for the older players who weren't needed in the ANC.  Italy have stuck with their plan and not panicked for short term gain but will struggle when they do have to bring in those players in a year or too.

Hmm, not a model then.  Wales just went for the strongest squad at the time which happened to be the older players.  When the younger guys begin to outperform the older ones then they’ll leapfrog them into the starting jersey on a regular basis.  Look at Jamie Roberts being usurped by Hadleigh Parkes, who in turn has been usurped by, say, Jonny Williams.  Gethin Jenkin and Adam Jones phased out for the likes of Wyn Jones, Samson Lee, Tomos Francis, etc., etc.  The back row has seen a churn based roughly on age too - players like Navidi, Ellis Jenkins, Wainwright, Botham, Jones-Hughes, et al all getting plenty of game time since Warburton and Lydiate left the scene.  Lydiate bucked the trend recently, albeit short lived, but in fairness he was playing well and as Warburton pointed out in commentary his game is well suited to the Irish gameplan so his recall was somewhat justified.  Plus injuries to many others too.  Deffo not our model though.

For me, you play your best players in the biggest tournaments.  Save the experimentation for the Autumn and the Summer tours.  6N and World Cup should be best players regardless of age.  If your best lock is 37 then he should be played rather than throw in a rookie in a big tournament and weaken the squad just for the future.  When the rookie is better and the elder statesmen is struggling somewhat then sure, go ahead and swap them. But not for the sake of it, IMO.

You are right about picking the best players, but when you are relying for such a long time on a core of the exact same players it is natural that there are a couple of concerns.
1) Are your systems not producing talent to challenge the established players?
2) Is your coach thinking too short term?

doctor_grey wrote:If South Africa were to join the Six (Seven?) Nations what would happen to the June tours down south?  Given the Boks would likely still tour up north in November, what happens in June?  I can't imagine any Northern nation would want to play the Boks three times in one year (Six Nations, June, November).  They would, I presume, still play in the Tri/Four Nations with the Pumas, Wallabies, and the ABs.  

It would provide an interesting dynamic for the Boks, however.  They would be the only Rugby nation playing every top team every year.  

As you say the financial implication of us just having a 6N with SA is bigger then maybe the amount they would get in.

The club's in England & France would need more money off their Union as they would suddenly start to lose more players from their squads.  One of the benefits of have SA players is they are internationals but you lose them at the start of the season not the run in when you need wins and a run of games.

If you have 7 teams you can build in rest weeks for teams going to SA and SA coming North and the last place team from the previous year can sit out the final weekend so all 3 games are in the balance.  Each Union would also get another home game to offset the overnight to Italy v the week travel costs to SA.  In a 6 nations with SA if a team played them home after they had Scotland at home v a team playing England away and the next weekend in SA would be worse then the imbalance with Italy.

Add in why would the 5N give up Italy's 3 votes at WR for SA's 3 and make sure Italy and Europe vote against everything we want forever as it would be closed off forever.  Having 7 teams in the block would mean more votes plus some control over Europe.  Not sure the other regional unions wouldn't take kindly to dumping Italy out either regardless of promises. Why would any T2 nation vote with the block when Italy would have no finacial reason to be a T1 and no money for their professional Clubs/regions

My solution would be an 8 nations (7 plus the winners of a playoff between bottom team and top B6N most likely Georgia v Russia/Spain)  ownership would be divided in 7 owners the current 6 teams plus CVC and 7 participation shares for the current 6 plus SA. Thus reducing the loss of share for the existing unions.  The playoff winners (invited team) would get a participation fee for playing which to be honest any of those unions would bite off your hand for.  It would also result in 24 votes for the block as Georgia would become T1 and they would be able to get the Europe Region to vote with the block. Giving them 26 votes out of 52.

If SA are considered Europe then two teams get good tours, and the rest get paid pennies from 3 PI tours, 2 america tours and Japan.  And you would get to tour one of Oz or NZ once a WC cycle as 6 teams would want to go.

AIs would be worse with most unions getting one big game

Ireland and Wales would be fools to agree to let South Africa join as they probably would never win the Six Nations again. England and France would also win less.

Everyone would be bored of promotion and relegation after 4 years or 2 cycles of promotion when it became clear that there was still a whipping boy and Italy were now in fact even worse than they used to be.

Italy had 6 foreign players against France: Brex (Argentina), Ioane (Australia), Varney (Wales), Sisi (England), Negri (South Africa), Meyer (South Africa). Their bench was fully Italian trained. If they were a team of journeymen with as many foreigners as Scotland and still getting pumped then getting rid of them would be more credible but IMO we're making a mockery of international rugby when the best European team is dictated by who has the best links to English and South African public schools, or who goes on the most scouting trips to the South Pacific, or who hires the best Kiwis to coach the national and pro club teams, rather than a reflection of how well you train your boys at the amateur level in to professional pathway. What is the point in national rugby teams if the solution to not being very good is bring in players from outside the country? It is the opposite of what international rugby should be.

It might have been a better idea to have said this at the end of the tournament as well. Imagine if Italy beat Wales.

Italy and Georgia are strong at u20 level. Both are T1 comfortably. Scotland dropped out of T1 in 2019 so either need to fix their underage system (which I think the Super 6 should do) or carry on with their heritage policy.

The romantic Italy was filled with Italian heritage players who choose Italy in part due to playing in Europe. With the Jags gone might we see a few more Argentina players choose Italy. Italy has the rule if you can show your Italian ancestor you get citizenship so great form working in the EU countries.

Considering Ireland and Wales got to the No1 rank and also have been able to beat SA even prior to 2015 and they would be playing them in the Pro14 can't see why they would suddenly drop from being the top team every three years to never winning it.

The Big SH3 are no longer physically much bigger then the Celtic Nations and rarely win because of phyisicallity. As shown by Wales at the WC

The secret to the tournament is the strong traditions behind the rivalries. Without a Calcutta Cup or an England vs Wales fixture the tournament would be irreparably changed (and ruined in my view). If people don't want Italy in it then kick them out. Personally I think they add something and would keep them in. Regarding Georgia, I just don't think the rugby calendar would support an additional fixture, and nor do I believe they'd be more competitive.

So, I side with leave as is. Still, one of the more interesting contributions from the otherwise bland Sam Warburton. Wonderful player. Boring pundit.

If anyone has ever taken in Rome for a Six Nations, it is not to be missed.  To be fair, Rome is never to be missed.  My first Six Nations in Rome was a Scotland match.  So funny seeing the kilted Scotsmen walking down the cobblestones past so much ancient history singing their brains out.  I have seen all other Six Nations teams in Rome at one time or another and each is unique and great fun.  And the weather is warmer than our frigid islands, which adds to it all.  Kicking out Italy would be a mistake.  We can possibly add to our tournament, but removing Italy......don't you like watching women wearing six inch heels navigate the cobblestones better than a bunch of hairy drunk dudes from the home nations?

Brendan wrote:Considering Ireland and Wales got to the No1 rank and also have been able to beat SA even prior to 2015 and they would be playing them in the Pro14 can't see why they would suddenly drop from being the top team every three years to never winning it.

The Big SH3 are no longer physically much bigger then the Celtic Nations and rarely win because of phyisicallity.  As shown by Wales at the WC

Because France spent 10 years refusing to catch up with the rest of the world. It now looks like they've addressed that problem. From 2000-2010 England won 3 and titles and France won 5. Wales and Ireland won 3 titles between them. South Africa would take those away from them and probably a few away from England and France as well. I think South Africa would win between 3 and 7 tournaments every decade. England would win between 3 and 6. France 2 and 4 at present but could improve. That leaves Ireland and Wales possibily winning one tournament every decade when others are rebuilding.

South Africa are much more physical than the Europeans. In the backs and the forwards. France and England struggle against them let alone Ireland and Wales. The Irish backs look like children in comparison. Ben Healy wouldn't get close to being a professional in South Africa in my opinion. You also want to take a look at some of their outside backs. The pace and power means they have closed the gap on New Zealand and are right up there competing to be the best team in the world. They actually run the ball with skill which NH teams have stopped doing and it will start showing on the international stage with some big scorelines to the SH teams again. Wales were dominated on the gainline by SA in Japan. South Africa then went and bullied England the week after. South Africa had an even worse decade than France don't forget in terms of structural issues. Wales and Ireland would be destroying themselves if they didn't veto South Africa joining the Six Nations.

When it comes to the world cup and not just autumn internationals when the Boks are in turmoil both Wales and Ireland have yet to beat South Africa. In fact SA have only lost once in games v the six nations and that was England in 2003. They have played the old 5 nations teams 11 times. They have won 10 and lost once, and that was to the eventual world cup winners. It was also 18 years ago. I think you're underestimating how good South Africa are when it comes to silverware and their ability to play with injuries and back to back competitive games against big packs. Adding a third big pack in to the tournament would finish Ireland and Wales as competitive six nations teams.

Is this the same SA team that just about beat Wales at a neutral venue. Again the Pro14 teams will be playing the SA teams each week they will catch up quick. It's how teams improve.

whatahitson wrote:

Brendan wrote:Considering Ireland and Wales got to the No1 rank and also have been able to beat SA even prior to 2015 and they would be playing them in the Pro14 can't see why they would suddenly drop from being the top team every three years to never winning it.

The Big SH3 are no longer physically much bigger then the Celtic Nations and rarely win because of phyisicallity.  As shown by Wales at the WC

Because France spent 10 years refusing to catch up with the rest of the world. It now looks like they've addressed that problem. From 2000-2010 England won 3 and titles and France won 5. Wales and Ireland won 3 titles between them. South Africa would take those away from them and probably a few away from England and France as well. I think South Africa would win between 3 and 7 tournaments every decade. England would win between 3 and 6. France 2 and 4 at present but could improve. That leaves Ireland and Wales possibily winning one tournament every decade when others are rebuilding.

South Africa are much more physical than the Europeans. In the backs and the forwards. France and England struggle against them let alone Ireland and Wales. The Irish backs look like children in comparison. Ben Healy wouldn't get close to being a professional in South Africa in my opinion. You also want to take a look at some of their outside backs. The pace and power means they have closed the gap on New Zealand and are right up there competing to be the best team in the world. They actually run the ball with skill which NH teams have stopped doing and it will start showing on the international stage with some big scorelines to the SH teams again. Wales were dominated on the gainline by SA in Japan. South Africa then went and bullied England the week after. South Africa had an even worse decade than France don't forget in terms of structural issues. Wales and Ireland would be destroying themselves if they didn't veto South Africa joining the Six Nations.

When it comes to the world cup and not just autumn internationals when the Boks are in turmoil both Wales and Ireland have yet to beat South Africa. In fact SA have only lost once in games v the six nations and that was England in 2003. They have played the old 5 nations teams 11 times. They have won 10 and lost once, and that was to the eventual world cup winners. It was also 18 years ago. I think you're underestimating how good South Africa are when it comes to silverware and their ability to play with injuries and back to back competitive games against big packs. Adding a third big pack in to the tournament would finish Ireland and Wales as competitive six nations teams.

You seriously need to do your research before you post things like this on here. That very narrow loss at the world cup was nothing like how you have explained it, and that one win was South Africa's first win against Wales in about 5 years with Wales winning 4 on the spin, and going back over the years the results between the two have been very close.

I was just using a statistic and the statistic is true. South Africa have only lost 1 out of 11 games v the five nations (even more when you include Italy but no point) at world cups. That is a good indication that Wales and Ireland will struggle with SA in the six nations.

Thats not what you said though ?

And I am just using a statistic and the statistic is true, last 5 games between Wales and South Africa it is 4-1 in Wales favour.

Regardless the argument that we shouldn't have a team in because they might be good is a bit like saying we should stop going to world cups and just play Italy every week for a different piece of tin. Sure it might mean other teams are less likely to win it but it will mean more when they do.

Wales would still have a better chance of winning it than Italy do.

Considering Australia managed to find a way to play and beat South Africa for years with scrum I'm sure the Celts would manage ok.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Replace Italy with South Africa.

There you go, problem sorted

Yep. I agree with this.

South Africa would join in a heartbeat. Playing Italy is like a training week. If you don’t score max bonus pints you can lose the championship

Italy is basically a practice week as it is.

Blanko wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Replace Italy with South Africa.

There you go, problem sorted

Yep. I agree with this.

South Africa would join in a heartbeat. Playing Italy is like a training week. If you don’t score max bonus pints you can lose the championship

Italy is basically a practice week as it is.

It's not just the 'training week' that effects the outcomes of games. For example, Ireland v France this weekend was going to be tough enough for the boys in green. This can be viewed in 2 ways, firstly that Ireland had a very tough game against Wales with a man short for almost the entire game. France had a good training day. Ireland players have the shorter turnaround - advantage France. Secondly, and this is my optimistic side coming to the fore, France will be undercooked whereas Ireland battle-hardened and galvanised by the adversity they've faced as a group.

It's going to be the firstly isn't it

Pete330v2 wrote:

Blanko wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Replace Italy with South Africa.

There you go, problem sorted

Yep. I agree with this.

South Africa would join in a heartbeat. Playing Italy is like a training week. If you don’t score max bonus pints you can lose the championship

Italy is basically a practice week as it is.

It's not just the 'training week' that effects the outcomes of games. For example, Ireland v France this weekend was going to be tough enough for the boys in green. This can be viewed in 2 ways, firstly that Ireland had a very tough game against Wales with a man short for almost the entire game. France had a good training day. Ireland players have the shorter turnaround - advantage France. Secondly, and this is my optimistic side coming to the fore, France will be undercooked whereas Ireland battle-hardened and galvanised by the adversity they've faced as a group.

It's going to be the firstly isn't it

yeah. I reckon so.

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Blanko wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Replace Italy with South Africa.

There you go, problem sorted

Yep. I agree with this.

South Africa would join in a heartbeat. Playing Italy is like a training week. If you don’t score max bonus pints you can lose the championship

Italy is basically a practice week as it is.

It's not just the 'training week' that effects the outcomes of games. For example, Ireland v France this weekend was going to be tough enough for the boys in green. This can be viewed in 2 ways, firstly that Ireland had a very tough game against Wales with a man short for almost the entire game. France had a good training day. Ireland players have the shorter turnaround - advantage France. Secondly, and this is my optimistic side coming to the fore, France will be undercooked whereas Ireland battle-hardened and galvanised by the adversity they've faced as a group.

It's going to be the firstly isn't it

yeah.  I reckon so.

Pity poor Wales who had a very tough game against 14 men in Green whilst their opponents had a rest week against a team that didnt turn up

whatahitson wrote:Ireland and Wales would be fools to agree to let South Africa join as they probably would never win the Six Nations again. England and France would also win less.

Everyone would be bored of promotion and relegation after 4 years or 2 cycles of promotion when it became clear that there was still a whipping boy and Italy were now in fact even worse than they used to be.

Italy had 6 foreign players against France: Brex (Argentina), Ioane (Australia), Varney (Wales), Sisi (England), Negri (South Africa), Meyer (South Africa). Their bench was fully Italian trained. If they were a team of journeymen with as many foreigners as Scotland and still getting pumped then getting rid of them would be more credible but IMO we're making a mockery of international rugby when the best European team is dictated by who has the best links to English and South African public schools, or who goes on the most scouting trips to the South Pacific, or who hires the best Kiwis to coach the national and pro club teams, rather than a reflection of how well you train your boys at the amateur level in to professional pathway. What is the point in national rugby teams if the solution to not being very good is bring in players from outside the country? It is the opposite of what international rugby should be.

It might have been a better idea to have said this at the end of the tournament as well. Imagine if Italy beat Wales.

But they won’t beat Wales. If that was a genuine threat there would be no need to remove them.

Italy pushed Scotland close in the autumn and outplayed them for 60 minutes. The same Scotland that just beat world cup finalists England.

Italy aren't as bad as some people say and we shouldn't judge them on the first game of the championship that's all because Warburton could end up looking silly. Backing up wins or losses is a sign of where a team really is and why South Africa would do so well in this tournament whereas Ireland in particular have shown they struggle with back to back games against top opposition in world cups as opposed to autumn internationals where they're on home soil and where the big games are in between games against a scratch team from argentina or samoa.

Scotland's 20 year record in the six nations is poor. They've never won it just like Italy and unless they do it this year have never looked like winning it. We all know why they are better now than they were 10 years ago. Italy can beat Wales this year it's not out of the question because Wales are so bad. I don't think the long term solution is to relegate Italy unless they fill all their professional teams with foreign coaches and players like the other six nations teams. What's the point in that.

We do know why scotland are better than a few years ago . They have a good pack now, first choice at least.

The Scottish pack was good 10 years ago. They beat Australia and South Africa semi regularly by getting in to mudbath arm wrestles, with Dan Parks kicking the points.

A quick google search says no.

No 7&1/2 wrote:A quick google search says no.

Is that a Little Britain reference?

Not quite.

whatahitson wrote:Italy pushed Scotland close in the autumn and outplayed them for 60 minutes. The same Scotland that just beat world cup finalists England.

Italy aren't as bad as some people say and we shouldn't judge them on the first game of the championship that's all because Warburton could end up looking silly. Backing up wins or losses is a sign of where a team really is and why South Africa would do so well in this tournament whereas Ireland in particular have shown they struggle with back to back games against top opposition in world cups as opposed to autumn internationals where they're on home soil and where the big games are in between games against a scratch team from argentina or samoa.

Scotland's 20 year record in the six nations is poor. They've never won it just like Italy and unless they do it this year have never looked like winning it. We all know why they are better now than they were 10 years ago. Italy can beat Wales this year it's not out of the question because Wales are so bad. I don't think the long term solution is to relegate Italy unless they fill all their professional teams with foreign coaches and players like the other six nations teams. What's the point in that.

You’re acting like it’s a new conversation. Competing for 60 minutes isn’t good enough, only being a real threat and winning games is. It’s not a development tournament and if it was, the experiment has failed. They are not improving.

Relegating or removing Italy is a non starter for so many reasons. Georgia are a lot worse, the money and structure is better with Italy in the tournament, South Africa would take titles away from everyone but particularly the Celts.

Even with all of that being true the criticism towards them is hard to understand. France have been awful for 10 years. Scotland haven't won the six nations in 20 years and have suffered several 50 point losses in recent years. Italy were looking good 8 years ago with wins against France and Scotland but they decided to go with O'Shea to build up the structures of the game which meant sacrificing the national team's performances eventhough they also beat current world champions south africa in 2018. Their current coach was meant to be a temporary coach but covid meant they just stuck with him as a safe option. He's in the same position as Pivac in that what he's trying isn't working but that doesn't mean it won't work.

When you really get to the truth of the matter it comes down to money being used by the big european teams to close the gap on australia, south africa and new zealand. That's what stopped Wales, Scotland and Ireland losing by 50+ points to the SH teams like they were 20 years ago. Italy are being threatened because their foreign coaches and players aren't as good as everyone else's foreigners. A lot of this is because France and England had huge empires and Wales and Scotland are actually part of the same country as England. I can understand the business argument as everyone looks out for themselves but for fans and pundits to fall for this logic as something for the greater good doesn't make any sense.

Let's see how Italy are in 4 years time. Scotland are now reaping the rewards they put it to place a decade ago. Why are Italy not allowed that considering they showed steady improvement from 2000-2013?

I think we should wait until the end of the tournament to decide whether or not Italy are not good enough for the six nations because you never know what might happen.

You do know, that’s the problem. Will be 5 losses, again.

I think Italy could beat Wales and Scotland. Not saying they will but they could. That's not the point though.

Let's say the six nations went down to 5 and Scotland performed for the next 20 years like they have the last 20 years. Would you want them gone? It would be the four nations in no time, and then the three nations, and then...

No, why would I? I want teams that can win games and provide a challenge. If they lose 28 straight, sure.

Besides that, Scotland have history in the tournament and are a home nation.

But Scotland have never won the six nations and have never come close so why are they safe?

No matter what way you shape it Scotland’s results are consistently much better.

Ok fair enough it's not racism sorry that was wrong but it's still saying Scotland should stay just because they're Scottish. I'm not sure what that is but it's definitely not rugby. It's about giving one union preference because of their nationality.

I thought the whole point was Italy aren't competitive enough. So how do they become more competitive? By relegating them and telling them to spend more money on foreign talent? It's the kind of thing that makes a mockery of international rugby.

Or the problem is the six nations isn't competitive enough? Well then Scotland are in trouble based on the last 20 years and Wales look like they're in trouble without Gatland as well.

This whole conversation is, and always has been, daft. Many of the same people calling for Italy to be demoted were criticising the trinations for being reluctant to include Argentina, look at where they are now versus when they joined. Italy are on a downturn, they have a ridiculously young squad, they are still streets ahead of the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain etc etc.

It's not like logistically Italy are miles away either. Economically and in terms of widening the game it's the right decision to have Italy in. Everyone seems to have a very short term memory of when Italy gave them a scare/beat them. Under Matt Williams, Frank hadden, Andy Robinson Scotland were mostly dire for a good 10 years. We look better now, win more regularly/are much more competitive in every game and have full stadiums as a result God knows where we'd be if we weren't in the 6 nations.

The only team in world rugby who can feel hard done by are Japan, who for my money are worth the rugby championship. However at least they regularly play Fiji and Samoa (who aren't without their own trouble but are far better than Belgium).

Japan of course have a team that is mostly foreign raised and trained, probably moreso than any other tier 1 team, as well as a string of foreign coaches and a league that has become the retirement home for the world's former test players. I'm not sure how they're hard done by. The Pacific Islands have far more to complain about than Japan given how many of their players are poached and how good their teams are yet they have no commercial bargaining power so they get the short straw in terms of money, influence and all the rest of it. But this shouldn't just be about grievances.

Italy are just being outcompeted on and off the field. Scotland are as well but they hired people to address it a decade ago and it's worked well, they're better than they were with a big thanks to importing rugby IQ to make the most of homegrown talent like Townsend and Hogg. Pretending that it's just an on field problem for Italy misses the bigger picture which is that the rugby world is built to work for the wealthy and Scotland benefit massively from being part of GB. The solution to this isn't obvious other than having better qualification rules so international rugby isn't watered down even more than it already is. Getting rid of Italy from the six nations makes almost no sense whatsoever. Pichot did what now seems to be the common thing in business and politics which is ruthlessly pursuing his and Argentina's own self interest while pretending to represent the vulnerable and manipulating his opponents. That's not the answer either. I thought the pandemic might help put the commercial side of rugby in perspective but Warburton has decided to make a name for himself and prove his 'worth' as a pundit by saying something that sparks debate.

Italy are what they are. If they can find a permanent ground like the Flaminio that makes them a hard team to beat again then that will go some way to proving their worth. Part of the problem is they've lost their identity in the last 8 years or so and now without Parisse they need to find a new one with new leaders. If you put a coach like Eddie Jones in charge of Italy no one would be saying they should be relegated or removed. The problem is finding the money to attract someone like that. Fiji have just done it with Cotter though for a few reasons so as I say let's judge them in a few years when their youth players come through. They already have their Finn Russell in Garbisi.

Franco Smith is not a bad coach and did well with the Cheetahs. He is a good person to bring through the young players.

We were giving out that they lost by 40 at home. This week they lose by 23 points in one of the hardest away trips in the 6N to a team out to make a point.

Their next 3 games let's see how they go. If they can keep 15 men on the field v Wales they are in with a shout and who knows what kind of pressure Ireland will be under if they lose to France, and Ireland don't do well with pressure.

If you only care about the end result you can't see where things as going. Are Wales amazing because they have 2 narrow wins v 14 men or have England found form because they got 40 points. It seems with Italy we are counting losses rather then performance which has changed.

Wow. If Italy keep 15 men on the pitch, they’ll be in with a shout. This dig isn’t just levelled against Wales as far as Italy go, but this is the biggest stretch of it yet.

Pivac, whilst heavily under fire in the Autumn and whilst having coached his first true competitive game, has still guided Wales to two wins over Italy.

Whilst I’m sure Italy will test us, let’s not exaggerate.

Italy really don't help themselves and their fans. Fair enough it's nice to have these money spinner test matches but organising two games against NZ for this year, when you haven't won a 6 nation fixture for what will be 6 years is just madness to me. They should be orgnising matches they can actually win and try to build some sort of winning mentality outside of the 6 nations. This is no way to build up a fan base.