Should Georgia & Romania be added to the 6 Nations?

[OptimisticJock]

Still no.

[rowan]

If I had to think of a favoured option; more-or-less on the hop; it'd be expansion to a 2 pool tournament of; say 8 teams; with a specific space set aside for a play-off for promotion and relegation.

2 pools of 4 playing home and away; with the week before the June international's being the play-off for promotion/relegation - maybe held at a neutral country half-way to the tour destinations? (not ideal, but the best I can come up with right now).
That's the trouble with expansion; there's no obvious way to do it; simply expanding to 8 teams and 7 matches won't be palatable for the clubs; and possibly not for the semi-professional unions. Whilst 8 teams isn't enough for a good split for tiers or pools; whilst 10 leads to uneven pools/tiers and 12 is basically no change. There's also nowhere really available in the callendar to put a promotion/relegation match; and just straight promotion/relegation is unlikely to do anyone any favours at the moment; potentially bankrupting Italy/Scotland; whilst it's likely that Georgia/Romania would be more at sea that It/Sco if brought up...


If there was an easy/obvious answer; it would probably have been taken by now.

5 of those nations have been playing each other annually since the end of the Second World War and would not be prepared to give up that tradition so easily. And neither should they. To be honest, I'd be happy just to see the promotion-relegation fixture(s) added, and everything else remain the same, including the 6 Nations in its current form. That way everybody has a chance, from England down to Finland, and Europe will have a genuine (unified) championship operating on an annual basis and involving the vast majority of the continent's nations. What an accomplishment that would be! & it's only one simple step away...

[Which Tyler]

Trouble is... that simple step is by no means simple. With panic setting in that fixtures are only arranged for the next 3 years; you need to find a week where everyone has to be available, with their squads (preferably reasonably fit), not clashing with the clubs, and not being too much worse for player wellfare.
That weekend simply doesn't exist at the moment.

[Sandydragon]

Trouble is... that simple step is by no means simple. With panic setting in that fixtures are only arranged for the next 3 years; you need to find a week where everyone has to be available, with their squads (preferably reasonably fit), not clashing with the clubs, and not being too much worse for player wellfare.
That weekend simply doesn't exist at the moment.

I think the only way it could happen would be to remove the rest weekends in the 6 nations. Otherwise, the season ends domestically and its straight into summer tours.

Im pretty anti the idea of straight promotion/relegation given the format of the 6N. A newly promoted team could have only 2 home fixtures and lose 5 games on the bounce and be straight back down again - its not like a domestic season where you get plenty of time to try and pick up points over 20 plus games.

Equally, whilst Italy haven't done that much in the 6N, relegating them is hardly going to help their development. Maybe time to embrace a different format where perhaps as well as the main prize there are different levels that countries can compete at. Even then, it would only embrace so many countries so how do you manage the expectations of those who narrowly miss out?

[rowan]

Just to reiterate my point about the necessity of an actual promotion-relegation fixture, or better still a home & away series, because automatic promotion-relegation would of course be an absurdity at this present time.

I think the only way it could happen would be to remove the rest weekends in the 6 nations. Otherwise, the season ends domestically and its straight into summer tours.

Ah, yes, the summer tours. Much more important to play yet more fixtures against our tier 1 buddies on the opposite side of the planet than accommodate a promotion-relegation fixture or two that would tie European competition together from top to bottom, allay the grievances of our up-and-coming tier 2 neighbors (one of which is ranked ahead of Italy and has thereby earned its overdue chance at the top, literally).

Why provide opportunity and motivation for those teams? Why help them develop with a view to a much fairer and more competitive Rugby World Cup in the future, when we can just keep on playing the same old teams at both ends of the globe every single season ad infinitum and exclude everyone else until it's time to thrash them at the World Cup again?

[Sandydragon]

Just to reiterate my point about the necessity of an actual promotion-relegation fixture, or better still a home & away series, because automatic promotion-relegation would of course be an absurdity at this present time.

I think the only way it could happen would be to remove the rest weekends in the 6 nations. Otherwise, the season ends domestically and its straight into summer tours.

Ah, yes, the summer tours. Much more important to play yet more fixtures against our tier 1 buddies on the opposite side of the planet than accommodate a promotion-relegation fixture or two that would tie European competition together from top to bottom, allay the grievances of our up-and-coming tier 2 neighbors (one of which is ranked ahead of Italy and has thereby earned its overdue chance at the top, literally).

Why provide opportunity and motivation for those teams? Why help them develop with a view to a much fairer and more competitive Rugby World Cup in the future, when we can just keep on playing the same old teams at both ends of the globe every single season ad infinitum and exclude everyone else until it's time to thrash them at the World Cup again?

Mock them if you will, but the summer tours are the quid pro quo for the Ads which generate money for the tier 1 unions. Rugby Union is hardly overwhelmed with finance to the point where sources of revenue can so easily be dismissed.

[rowan]

I understand that and am certainly not advocating their abandonment. Although they certainly weren't playing this many fixtures against one another a couple of decades ago and it seems that in some cases greed may be more the motive than desperation. It's also a somewhat myopic attitude, because the opportunity to develp the market is not being seized upon. With a more expansive approach the time might not be too far off when 6 Nations teams would be able to play in full stadiums all over Europe. So if money is the central argument it seems that would be far preferable to traversing the globe every year to play in the antipodes. Meanwhile, summer tours in World Cup years have already been removed from the agenda. So it appears sacrifices can indeed be made where necessary.

[Digby]

The idea that teams weren't playing so many revenue generating fixtures so much going back a few decades might only surprise those who don't know the sport has only just gone pro.

Though having said that I'd vote for relegation/promotion from and to the 6N, and without any play-off game(s) to further clutter the calendar.

Also have summer tours been removed from the schedule in a WC year (ignoring the lack of a schedule) I thought that was just up for discussion, and might anyway simply be replaced by a revenue generating world club championship.

[rowan]

The game went pro more than two decades ago. At a quick count, New Zealand hosted only '3' summer tours tests over the next four years - less than one per season. All I'm advocating is a fractionally reduced program that would accommodate a promotion-relegation fixture (or two), and thereby merge the 6 Nations with ENC to create an all-embracing annual European rugby championship.

[Digby]

20 years is the blink of an eye when one looks around at other sports sharing the same market space as rugby. And in many ways the sport has maybe only been pro about a decade now, the first decade being paid amateur from player to coach, to refs and to administrators

If we do cut back on the summer tours then seeing as they're the quid pro quo for the autumn internationals are they cut back too?

[Sandydragon]

The game went pro more than two decades ago. At a quick count, New Zealand hosted only '3' summer tours tests over the next four years - less than one per season. All I'm advocating is a fractionally reduced program that would accommodate a promotion-relegation fixture (or two), and thereby merge the 6 Nations with ENC to create an all-embracing annual European rugby championship.

I think referring the AIs and summer tours as greed is a bit rich. Yes the game went pro a few years earlier, but lets not forget that it was a shock to the system. Unions and clubs were desperate to raise revenue and when you look at how cash is handled in the modern game, I don't see anyone getting rich off it. SO calling it greed is frankly wrong.

If a new structure can be developed which encompasses the lower ranked nations and gives them an opportunity, without extending the international window and which didn't retard the development already taking place due to a shortage of funds then Im all for it. Chucking Romania in instead of Italy just stuffs Italy and does very little for Romania if they are then replaced in a year or 2 by another country. Italy have got nowhere in over a decade other than the odd morale boosting win, but have never been in the top half of the table. When France joined the 4 nations, it took them a considerable amount of time to challenge and then win championships. A promote and relegate structure would not support that development.

[rowan]

You wouldn't be 'chucking' Romania in at all, because they would have to earn their place, firstly, by heading off Georgia for the ENC title (which they haven't done for quite some time), and secondly, by winning a promotion-relegation fixture or home & away series with the 6 Nations spooner. That's very different. & if Romania achieved all that, they will have earned their place on merit and quite clearly be full value for the challenge.

I'm not sure what to make of your comments about Italy. On the one hand, you tell us they've got nowhere after 17 years. On the other, you remind us it took France a long time to get up to speed after they joined in 1910. In fact, Italy just beat the Springboks, in case it escaped your attention. That's the first time they've beaten a former World Cup winner.

& as pointed out, they've clearly come a long way since the 99 RWC when they conceded a ton to the All Blacks and also lost to Tonga, while there is simply no comparison to the team which sometimes ranked behind the USSR in the amateur era. They even lost to the likes of the Cook Islands and Namibia! So they're certainly progressing, however slowly.

But if they were poor enough to lose a promotion-relegation match or series to the ENC winner, then they would belong in the ENC, not the 6 Nations. I personally don't think that would occur in the foreseeable future, but just imagine how much more interest and passion such a prospect would add to the wooden spoon battle . . .

[rowan]

Personally I haven't gone out of my way to watch a lot of first tier rugby since coming to Europe a couple of decades ago, and that's because, notwithstading the addition of Italy & Argentina to the fold, by the time I left New Zealand at the end of the century I'd seen enough of these teams playing one another ad infinitum to last me a life-time. Frankly, I really can't see how anybody could maintain an interest in such repetitive competition for more than a decade or two at most. The All Blacks v Springboks series' used to be as big a deal to Kiwis as the World Cup is now, and not half so regular either, and I never imagined a future in which I would have grown bored of such encounters. But that scenario also arrived some considerable time ago. So now I actually get more of a kick out of watching the 2nd & 3rd tier nations in action, especially since I can now stream them live. At a very rough estimate I would guess I watched about a dozen or so tests live last year, and none of them involved tier 1 sides. Rugby needs to keep moving forward, adapting and evolving, and while some very significant steps have been made in the pro era, the process is far from complete.

[Sandydragon]

Well for most of us who do watch Tier 1 rugby, I suspect I am not alone in looking for solutions that don't screw up what is already in place. Most of us agree with you that more needs to be done for the tier 2 nations, but the season schedule is heavily congested and no one is rolling in money at international level.

There is no pint in banging on about how unfair it all is unless there is a practical solution. Even allowing Romania into the top tier for 2 seasons wouldn't make much difference to them - not without prolonged investment and the exposure of their players to a higher level of domestic rugby. At the same time, you would be virtually destroying the pro game in Italy (probably Italy).

If you think that adding a weak team to the top flight will make it more interesting then I think you are wrong. They would not be consistently competitive.

[Sandydragon]

You wouldn't be 'chucking' Romania in at all, because they would have to earn their place, firstly, by heading off Georgia for the ENC title (which they haven't done for quite some time), and secondly, by winning a promotion-relegation fixture or home & away series with the 6 Nations spooner. That's very different. & if Romania achieved all that, they will have earned their place on merit and quite clearly be full value for the challenge.

I'm not sure what to make of your comments about Italy. On the one hand, you tell us they've got nowhere after 17 years. On the other, you remind us it took France a long time to get up to speed after they joined in 1910. In fact, Italy just beat the Springboks, in case it escaped your attention. That's the first time they've beaten a former World Cup winner.

& as pointed out, they've clearly come a long way since the 99 RWC when they conceded a ton to the All Blacks and also lost to Tonga, while there is simply no comparison to the team which sometimes ranked behind the USSR in the amateur era. They even lost to the likes of the Cook Islands and Namibia! So they're certainly progressing, however slowly.

But if they were poor enough to lose a promotion-relegation match or series to the ENC winner, then they would belong in the ENC, not the 6 Nations. I personally don't think that would occur in the foreseeable future, but just imagine how much more interest and passion such a prospect would add to the wooden spoon battle . . .

FFS, beating Italy does not mean that they are ready fro compete for the 6N title.

Italy beat the worst Springbok team for decades, in case you hadn't noticed. The result was great for them, but lets not get carried away.

Italy are the worst team overall i the 6N, hence my picking on them as the likely relegation side. It could be Scotland, but Scotland normally manage to win at least one game and avoid the bottom spot.

Im not sure how much more clearly I need to write this. France had a long time to get established (in an amateur game where the fields was more or less equal) and they only managed that because they had time to do so without being relegated. Your solution would not give Romania or Georgia that opportunity. At best they would have 2 seasons before heading back down again. This isn't soccer where there is more money and more teams with adequate funding.

[rowan]

That again misses the point that they would have to earn their passage. You can talk all you want about 'allowing' or 'chucking' Romania in, but that's not remotely what would happen. They would have to improve vastly to get past Georgia, then vastly more to get by Italy or Scotland in a promo fixture. If they could do all that, they would be ready. Anything else is a closed shop mentality. & all I'm talking about personally is a promo fixture or 2, no other change whatsoever. Of course rugby can find room for that. I'm old enough to remember when the Brits were trying to convince us there was no room for a Rugby World Cup...

[Sandydragon]

It is about chucking them into a competition where they will struggle to survive, no matter how they earned the right to get there. Im not suggesting that we randomly pick a team to include in the 6N, so I think you are reading something into my words there. This is all about doing what is right for the top teams and the tier 2 teams and not just making a gesture that screws everyone up.

Incidentally, whilst we probably could accommodate a 7 nations at the moment (assuming rest weekends were scrapped) what happens when an 8th or 9th nations feels they are at that level? Any change has to be sustainable.

Again, were do we find room for a promotion fixture? Dropping a summer tour game or an AI has financial impact. None of the unions are that rich to afford that. Whilst some, like Wales and England, play a 4th game, this is outside of the international window so would be utterly pointless for the challenger. Given that these games are organised years in advance, how would space for a promotion game be scheduled?

Your solution means the top flight lose money which they cannot afford to do.

[rowan]

It is about chucking them into a competition where they will struggle to survive

We'll have to agree to disagree. You are not talking about the Romania of the pro era. You might as well be talking about Bulgaria. We know that at present the most realistic candidate is Georgia. If Romania start beating Georgia, that will be a different Romanian team reminiscent of the one we saw in the 80s. Many people at the time thought that Oaks team ought to have been added to the then 5 Nations. But, no, a more realistic discussion would present the Lelos as the example, and if they reach the point where they can knock over the 6 Nations spooner in a test match (or 2) of such vital importance, they will have indeed earned their place on merit and would be unlikely to struggle to survive at all. That's how promo-relegation works.

Incidentally, whilst we probably could accommodate a 7 nations at the moment (assuming rest weekends were scrapped) what happens when an 8th or 9th nations feels they are at that level? Any change has to be sustainable.

Ok, but I'm not a fan of expansion. I may have held that view in the past, but not for some time. I think six is the right number, and it just needs a promo-relegation system to give other teams a chance.

Again, were do we find room for a promotion fixture? Dropping a summer tour game or an AI has financial impact. None of the unions are that rich to afford that. Whilst some, like Wales and England, play a 4th game, this is outside of the international window so would be utterly pointless for the challenger. Given that these games are organised years in advance, how would space for a promotion game be scheduled?


You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”
George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950)

They could easily find room for a promo-relegation match if they really wanted to. As mentioned, this argument reminds me of some of the excuses the Brits were coming out with when the Australasians were trying to get a Rugby World Cup underway.

[rowan]

This is the new Lelos jersey. I guess you'd call it crimson. Georgia could own this if they continue to progress and become a major force in the game, as none of the other major playing nations wear the same colors. Interesting how jerseys have evolved since my playing days, too. What happened to collars, buttons and long sleeves? These ought rather to be called T-shirts, and personally I'm not sure I'd want to have been caught running about on a wintry Wellington afternoon in one of these skimpy things - let alone Georgia, where it often snows Thoughts??

[Which Tyler]

You'd have thought they'd confirm the sponsor before using their logo - bit amateur really

[OptimisticJock]

Real rugby teams still have collars.

[rowan]

Real rugby teams still have collars.

Indeed.

[rowan]

Interesting comments about Georgia's claims (v Italy's) right here:

Promotion to - and relegation from - the Six Nations has been ruled out by chief executive John Feehan, at least in the near future. In reality Georgia are well aware of that position, and as much as they would like to be in the tournament they have another idea.

The head of operations at Georgia's Rugby Union told BBC Sport he would like to see a "show match" between the bottom-placed team in the Six Nations and the Rugby Europe winner. That team, for almost all of the past decade, has been Georgia.

The Georgians suggest this match would take place on a neutral venue. It would not be a promotion relegation game. Just a match that - as Georgia puts it - "really can attract big interest".

''I'm sure it would be interesting but we've got to look at it from the integrity of our competition and what's good for us and not necessarily what's good for Georgia," he told BBC Sport.

"And I don't mean that in any nasty way - other than to say that my role is to make sure that the six unions which are involved in the Six Nations maintain the credibility of the tournament. And a game like that could involve all sorts of speculation that wouldn't necessarily be helpful.''

Since they joined in 2000, Italy have finished bottom of the Six Nations table on 11 occasions - and they were well beaten at home by Wales in their opening game in this year's championship.

But in individual matches they have beaten all the other nations teams, apart from England. Mr Feehan's standpoint is to support Italy's status in the competition. But he does admit to some disappointment.

''Have Italy progressed as much as we'd like? Probably not," he said.

"But the reality is; it's very hard. And part of that is that everybody else's standards have improved as well. It's not like the others have stood still and Italy hasn't. Italy have developed and made progress, but it's a relative progress, if you like.

"Are they going to catch up? Of course they are. And they are in the process of doing that and [new Italy boss] Conor O'Shea's going to be a very important part of that happening.''

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38907843

[Adder]

P

[rowan]

Is that a thumbs down, Adder? You know, I think they should be a little bolder and actually challenge the 6 Nations to a 'European Championship' clash between the winners of the ENC & 6 Nations. This is kind of how the Super Bowl got started in the 60s. At first everyone laughed at the AFL challenging the more established and recognized NFL to a national championship decider, and that seemed justified as the NFL's Packers steamrolled their opponents in the first two Super Bowls. But then Joe Namath rocked up with the NY Jets and 'guaranteed' his AFL outfit would reverse the trend in Super Bowl III. The rest is history...