Rugby 2011

There should be a revived and revised version of the Churchill Cup for the 2nd tier nations to allow them the regular competition - even against A sides of the top tier sides would be enough to give them the competitive games they need. IIRC it was stopped because USA and Canada are now fully part of the international series. Not convinced promotion/ relegation play offs would help much to be honest.

I think Italy will only progress more now they have teams in the Celtic League. I can't see how anyone could argue they haven't been an addition to the championship. As has pointed out, Ireland were at a similar standard for most of the 90's, and were probably lucky they weren't in it in those days!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Why would there HAVE to be? Because there is in Soccer?

The 6 Nations are clearly the 6 leading nations in the continent. The winners' of that competition are rightly considered the European Champions.

---

No, not at all because there is in soccer. The 6 nations has such history and tradition of the main body of nations always competing that I'd like to see remain. It is the leading nations alright but the competition started out as 4 nations. If opening the 6 nations isn't an option, and tradition has to be respected as well, another way for determining European champion will have to be found. If the competing nations of the 6 nations are open to the idea of promotion/relegation, then there's no problem but if they are not it should be respected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

There should be a revived and revised version of the Churchill Cup for the 2nd tier nations to allow them the regular competition - even against A sides of the top tier sides would be enough to give them the competitive games they need. IIRC it was stopped because USA and Canada are now fully part of the international series. Not convinced promotion/ relegation play offs would help much to be honest.

I think Italy will only progress more now they have teams in the Celtic League. I can't see how anyone could argue they haven't been an addition to the championship. As has pointed out, Ireland were at a similar standard for most of the 90's, and were probably lucky they weren't in it in those days!

---

They were long dark days, I remember them well. It was still great to have Ireland involved. It is tradition that we were. I'd have hate to have seen us demoted to a second tier competition.
6N being leading nations will have status of best team in Europe but if the likes of Georgia and Romania want a shot and are lobbying for inclusion I think the options are promotion/relegation to 6N but if the 6 nations don't agree a separate competition would be needed to earn title of Europe's best.

There's no contradiction in the current system of the 6 nations champions being european champions. There should be a mechanism for emerging nation to play the top teir nations to estabilish their credentials over a period, which is what Italy did in the 90's to gain entry (including a few victories over us, including in Dublin (just to back up earlier points!)). But that doesn't mean it has to be a promotion/ relegation play off as such.

I don't see why a second division can't exist, with the winner being promoted to the 6N and the 6N 6th place team dropping down.

Well I do, but it's not that unrealistic.

Who'd be in Div 2? Romania, Russia, Georgia (the latter two playing each other would be some game!). Who else plays?

Geysir, could you scrape a team together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I don't see why a second division can't exist, with the winner being promoted to the 6N and the 6N 6th place team dropping down.

Well I do, but it's not that unrealistic.

Who'd be in Div 2? Romania, Russia, Georgia (the latter two playing each other would be some game!). Who else plays?

Geysir, could you scrape a team together?

---

Ukraine, Portugal and Spain are in Div.2 or Division 1A as its known. Here's all the other divisions, there is relegation/promotion between these every two years

I don't think the second tier nations are ready to step up yet to full on entry into the 6N.
I do however think its time an annual game between the 6th place team in the 6N and the 1st place team in the ENC.

For the first few years it could be considered a trial run where it doesn't affect the composition of the 6N and let's be honest, the ENC team wouldn't have much hope of victory. But after say 4 or 5 years of this with constant improvements in their abilities then the IRB could open up the potential for demotion for the big six.

Maybe 10 years in a row the ENC team would lose but with every year there would be noticeable improvements like there has been undoubtedly in Georgia, Canada and Portugal over the last 10 years. At some stage they will win and at some stage we can look forward to a trip to Tbilisi in the 6N.

I think its worth a go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

And no answers either, apart from underlying your assertion that results justify participation.

---

Argentina have just been invited to join the other heavyweights down South. They are a competitive side, and will get results, especially at home. Italy shouldn't be expelled from the 6N, but they should never have been allowed in it until they were ready. With 32 losses out of 33 against England France and Ireland, no club success, and no WC impact since then, it's doubtful if they ever will be able to be anything more than a handy 2 points for the opposition.

Italy were let in because they were competitive against, and indeed beating, 5 nations teams. In the mid to late 90's they beat us in Dublin and Italy, France in France, Scotland in Italy. and ran England close a couple of times. First year in they beat Scotland, who were bloody holders. How ready did they need to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Argentina have just been invited to join the other heavyweights down South. They are a competitive side, and will get results, especially at home. Italy shouldn't be expelled from the 6N, but they should never have been allowed in it until they were ready. With 32 losses out of 33 against England France and Ireland, no club success, and no WC impact since then, it's doubtful if they ever will be able to be anything more than a handy 2 points for the opposition.

---

Argentina have never ever beaten New Zealand or South Africa and haven't beaten Australia in 14 years - you have no problem with them in the new 4 nations tournament, yet Italy weren't ready ? Your argument isn't even consistant. There's more to the participation of team than the results - results only tell part of the story.

Argentina deserve thier shot in the 4 nations - Italy deserved its shot at the six nations, and while they haven't been as competitive as they would have liked, thier participation has envigorated the tournament - soon the Euro powers that be will need to make room for Russia and Georgia as well.

It's only from now Italy are likely to work on possible club success. Countries need good structures at that level if they are to progress at international level. For top ENC nations to progress more they have to lobby for it as well. It's not all down to the IRB. It's down to Georgia and Romania to stake their claims as well. Italy did that. Progression has to work on two fronts. I haven't heard much talk from the Georgian and Romanians. If they show the ENC is not enough for their ambitions, I'm sure something can be done.
Spain, Portugal and Romania are the only non-first tier countries having a club in the Amlin Challenge Cup. Romania are represented by Bucureşti. The side is a team that is formed every season to play in the Challenge Cup, consisting of footballers playing in the domestic Romanian leagues. The team has yet to make it past the pool stages in the Challenge Cup, but have managed some good results. Georgia should field a team like that as well. These are way countries and work to develop giving their better club players a chance to compete at a decent level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Argentina have never ever beaten New Zealand or South Africa and haven't beaten Australia in 14 years - yet you have no problem with them in the new 4 nations tournament, yet Italy weren't ready ? Your argument isn't even consistant. There's more to the participation of team than the results - results only tell part of the story.

Argentina deserve thier shot in the 4 nations - Italy deserved its shot at the six nations, and while they haven't been as competitive as they would have liked, thier participation has envigorated the tournament - soon the Euro powers that be will need to make room for Russia and Georgia as well.

---

Argentina were semi-finalists in the last WC and beat Ireland in two WC's, they're also in the knockout rounds of this. They won't win at the weekend, (it's hard to see any side beating NZ on home soil) but they are a good side. Italy haven't merely been as competitive as they would have liked, they haven't been competitive at all. Results pay the bills and as in football, they determine rankings, qualifications, and titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Argentina were semi-finalists in the last WC and beat Ireland in two WC's, they're also in the knockout rounds of this. They won't win at the weekend, (it's hard to see any side beating NZ on home soil) but they are a good side. Italy haven't merely been as competitive as they would have liked, they haven't been competitive at all.

---

You make the same point over and over again re. results - its not consistant. You are picking and chosing results that suit you - Italy's wins before and during the 6N are not relevant, yet Argentina's excellent world cup perfomance in 2007 is justification for a 4 nations ticket ( despite thier record against thier future opponents )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Results pay the bills and as in football, they determine rankings, qualifications, and titles.

---

Results results results. Forget about what's good for the game.

I did say Argentina beat us in 2 WC's. They've now reached the knockouts in 3 of them. If we played Argentina tomorrow, you know we'd be in for a tough game that could go either way. If we play Italy, we win all the time, and usually by 20-30 points. The difference between the opposition is night and day.

I make the same point over and over again, because it's very important. Everyone is selecting results in their arguments, so no surprise that I am also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

I did say Argentina beat us in 2 WC's. They've now reached the knockouts in 3 of them. If we played Argentina tomorrow, you know we'd be in for a tough game that could go either way. If we play Italy, we win all the time, and usually by 20-30 points. The difference between the opposition is night and day.

I make the same point over and over again, because it's very important. Everyone is selecting results in their arguments, so no surprise that I am also.

---

You used Italy's results against Ireland , France and England when agruing for thier exclusion in the 6N's, a consistant argument would have compared Argentina's results against New Zealand and Australia as a tool when making a case for thier inclusion in the new southern hempisphere tournament. You ignore for example, Italy's results against Scotland and Wales. Argentina have lost a lot of big names over the last few years and I think they will struggle to get any wins - prob 1 or 2 per tournament will be the max they can get - no doubt when that happens you'll be on here calling for thier exclusion. Anyway I don't see results as the no.1 barometer for progress or it is the most important, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Globalisation of the game is important for the future of it - the same 8 tier 1 nations can't go on forever on thier own. That why it's important that the Argentina's and Italy's of this world get as much exposure to top games as possible. 20 team world cup's are also important. The next step is Georgian and Russian clubs or regions teams competing in the Challenge Cup for example. Munster v Siberia would be a cracker in 2020!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

You used Italy's results against Ireland , France and England when agruing for thier exclusion in the 6N's, a consistant argument would have compared Argentina's results against New Zealand and Australia as a tool when making a case for thier inclusion in the new southern hempisphere tournament. You ignore for example, Italy's results against Scotland and Wales.

---

They've lost most of those as well. Very few nations in the world can beat Australia and NZ, Ireland have never beaten NZ, and until this, had never beaten Australia at the WC. I remember watching the rest of Australia-Ireland 1/4 final live in 1987, and astonished to find Ireland 30 points down already!!

What you can use as a comparison is Argentina's results against sides from this part of the world. Most of the games were close, a lot were very competitive, and they've won their share of them. Argentina obviously can't play in the 6N, so have to play in a different tournament. Their games will be competitive, and the crowd there will make games uncomfortable for the opposition.

Quote:

---

The next step is Georgian and Russian clubs or regions teams competing in the Challenge Cup for example. Munster v Siberia would be a cracker in 2020!

---

60 points or 70 points, what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I don't see why a second division can't exist, with the winner being promoted to the 6N and the 6N 6th place team dropping down.

Well I do, but it's not that unrealistic.

Who'd be in Div 2? Romania, Russia, Georgia (the latter two playing each other would be some game!). Who else plays?

Geysir, could you scrape a team together?

---

I know féck all about Rugby, but still a good bit more than Mypost though.

I like your idea of a 2nd div, but can you imagine the 6N voting for relegation/promotion? Look how long it took for them to accept Italy into the ranks and the way they (the rugby elite) have snubbed Argentina year after year.
Maybe if they were paid enough? money talks a lot in rugby, any rugby person I know has something to do with money.

Georgia / Russia need to start playing / hosting games on a regular basis first. That should be the main focus over the next 4 years. As someone already said it wouldn't kill the major nations to go there once every 2 / 3 years . If they could get 3 games in November and 3 in June and keep playing ENC rugby during the 6 nations window - this would be a start.

I can't understand why there isn't a big push to get a Georgian / Russian team in the challenge cup - if there can be a Spanish team, why not ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

I like your idea of a 2nd div, but can you imagine the 6N voting for relegation/promotion? Look how long it took for them to accept Italy into the ranks and the way they (the rugby elite) have snubbed Argentina year after year.
Maybe if they were paid enough? money talks a lot in rugby, any rugby person I know has something to do with money.

---

Once Italy started getting results, they weren't that long being accepted. I think it's a bit harsh to blame it purely on money - there's a lot of tradition around the championship too.

I wouldn't be a fan of relegation from 6 nations - the focus should be on expansion. Regular games against tier one teams in the autumn and summer windows would be a start. Maybe the ENC champion should have promotion to the international calendar? Also, regarding a Georgian team in the challenge cup - I've no objection in theory, but most of their international team play in France...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Once Italy started getting results, they weren't that long being accepted.

---

Italy were getting some good and some exceptional results as an emerging team for 20 years before they were accepted into the expanded 6 nations.
And I think some good results or some good performances came at the world cup as well

Quote:

---

I think it's a bit harsh to blame it purely on money - there's a lot of tradition around the championship too.

---

I didn't blame it on money at all, more a reference to the lack of willingness to change, to adopt a newcomer and break away from those negative constraints of tradition.