Rugby 2011

What needs to happen soon is the realisation that there needs to be a way for the smaller European nations to gain entry into the Six Nations (SN). Unless there's regular competition with the better sides they will never make it. Just look at Italy now compared to Italy in 2000 when they joined the then Five Nations.

There have been some seriously watery proposals from the IRB and FIRA about some sort of promotion and relegation to the SN from the ENC.

Whilst this would be absolutely preposterous to have a direct relegation it would make sense for the last placed team to play off with the 1st placed ENC team to ensure a consistent goal for the ENC teams.
So say this year Italy play-off against Georgia for the right to play in the SN. Italy would win but the continued compettion for georgia would ensure that some day in the future they would have an opportunity to come play with the big boys.

Rugby's problem is that the tradition of the 6 Nations is so marketable. Italy have undoubtedly added to the competition but the main draw is the four sides from these aisles, with France as sort of an exotic extra. They can't really tamper with the round robin format because the four B&I sides playing one another can't be messed with, so the only way they could really expand would be through some kind of messy promotion/relgation system as outlined above. A better short-term solution might be for NH teams to commit to one fixture a year against lower tier sides, so they can guarantee a couple of higher class fixtures in the way that Italy were before 2000 and Argentina have been until next year. I doubt either the NH or SH teams would agree to it easily though. They all operate on budgets that are dependent on regular tours against the same sides.

Concur completely.

I think what I have outlined above is a fairly obvious solution. One extra game wouldn't kill Italy, Scotland or Wales a year! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Canada v NZ wasn't the cakewalk for the All Blacks it would have been 10 years ago.
This weekend is not coming quick enough.

---

I watched the full game, it was over in 10 minutes, and Canada lost by 60+ points. If that's not a cakewalk, what is?

Most of the games so far were walkovers, only a couple of shock results, and all the expected qualifiers sailed through, only having to play one difficult game.

Tbh, it's hard to see past New Zealand in a New Zealand WC. Even in their toughest games, they can destroy a team in a few minutes, especially at home.

There was more to my sentence that I don't think you grasped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Just look at Italy now compared to Italy in 2000 when they joined the then Five Nations.

---

There's not much difference. Italy have lost all 22 games against Ireland and England, another 10 against France, and most of the others. They're still pretty much a guaranteed 3 points and a points difference boost for everybody, unless you play muck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

There's not much difference. Italy have lost all 22 games against Ireland and England, another 10 against France, and most of the others. They're still pretty much a guaranteed 3 points and a points difference boost for everybody, unless you play muck.

---

Its 2 points for a win in the six nations.

On the face of results, Italy, you might think have not made much progress, but looking at Italian rugby now compared to 10 years ago then I have to say there is a world of difference. Playing in a serious international competition has raised the profile of the game massively in Italy, added to that we now have 2 professional regional sides playing regular league rugby is going to bring it on further. On the pitch as well they are now a respected rugby nation – and while they have not got the wins they would have liked - going to Rome / Milan is now a serious game for any International side as Australia and New Zealand have found out in recent years, and the France game certainly showed what they are capable of. True some of the stats are ugly, but you have to look behind the stats – I reckon Italy will continue to improve.

Every team beats them unless they're a poor side or in one case this year, had an off day. When Italy come to Dublin next year, it'll be another mismatch and they'll lose by another 20/30-odd points. They serve little purpose in the 6N, except get hockeyed by better sides who have been playing the sport for nigh on 100 years.

As for the profile raise, I think most Italians prefer the beautiful game.

but they do get the odd win against the Scots and Welsh which is always amusing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Every team beats them unless they're a poor side or in one case this year, had an off day

---

Well you are saying two things there:
1. You have to be a poor side to lose to Italy
2. Good teams have to play well to beat Italy
Contradictory statement I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

When Italy come to Dublin next year, it'll be another mismatch and they'll lose by another 20/30-odd points. game.

---

Like the last 2 Six Nations meetings between the teams?
Italy 12-13 Ireland
Ireland 19-13 Italy
Don't see any mismatch there - were Ireland poor or just having an off day ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

They serve little purpose in the 6N, except get hockeyed by better sides

---

By that logic Scotland shouldn't be allowed compete either. Italy's 6N record in the last ten years was as good as Irelands in the 1990's - should they have kicked us out for a spell for "serving little purpose"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

As for the profile raise, I think most Italians prefer the beautiful game.

---

True - but does nothing to contradict the raised profile of the game due to top level competition, I didn't say it had a higher profile than other sports.

For someone who has talked a bit about pyramids, I'm not for this one! The 6 nations and tri-nations (now to be expanded to 4) are not part of a league system or anything like that, they are championships between certain nations. Tradition has to be respected. Marketability will have a say as well but generally that is influenced on wht the public want.
The ERC or IRB will have to find a different way for the lesser nations. The old 5 nations could accept one more team due to one team having a free weekend. The same has gone for the tri nations.
The European nations cup has a tiered structure. There is also a tiered structure in Asia. There has also been the development of the Pacific Nations. These nations have to find a different path. It's not a fob off, it's just nations have a championship amongst themselves and it has to be respected.
Regards options, would there be any possibility of a European Championship. The rugby calendar is packed. There are Lions tours every 4 years as well, that's another tradition of rugby.
In thinking of possibly ideas, I was mulling over the Davis Cup in tennis and it's format. Could there be a rugby version in Europe. There would be tiered groups of 4. It'd be knock-out based i.e. in Group I: England v France & Ireland v Wales, winner goes to Group I final. The two losers play in a third placed play-off with loser dropping to Group II. In Group II then Scotland v Romania & Italy v Georgia. Winners to final with winner going to Group II. Two losing semi-finalists in third placed play-off with loser dropping to Group III etc. This would only need two weekends and could be one game in May or June and the second game either in the same month or later in the year around the winter series, staged every second year, preferably even number years when there is no RWC or Lions tour.

So, when Italy play well the other team has had an off day? Completely ridiculous talk.

Legendz, instead of the bottom team of the 6N playing 1 more game against the best team in the ENC. You want to create a new competition modelled on the mental Davis Cup format and then shoehorn it into the packed schedule that exists?

BTW, the 6N is the European Championship. England are reigning Champions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Well you are saying two things there:
1. You have to be a poor side to lose to Italy
2. Good teams have to play well to beat Italy
Contradictory statement I think.

---

I only said one, the first one.

Quote:

---

Like the last 2 Six Nations meetings between the teams?
Italy 12-13 Ireland
Ireland 19-13 Italy
Don't see any mismatch there - were Ireland poor or just having an off day ?

---

How many times have we beaten them comprehensively in the past 11 years? How many away games have they won? How many titles have they contended for? How many WC 1/4F's have they made?

We won by 30 points last week. Australia beat them by almost the same in the tournament. Even on our "off days", we still beat them, home and away. England wallop them every year.

Quote:

---

By that logic Scotland shouldn't be allowed compete either. Italy's 6N record in the last ten years was as good as Irelands in the 1990's - should they have kicked us out for a spell for "serving little purpose"?

---

It wasn't as good as Ireland's.

Scotland have a great history in rugby, they have won titles before, and they will be a force again in time. Italy have proved time and time again that they're not up to this level of rugby, and should be in with the Romanians and the Georgians.

Ireland won 9 5N's games during the 90's . Italy won 7 games I'm thier first ten years in the competition. Not much difference. No calls for Ireland to be expelled either.

I didn't call for Scotland to be expelled, merely pointing out that via your logic, Scotland should be excluded based on thier results.

You keep replying to questions with more questions? Do you get a kick out of being negative? No one is saying Italy are top dogs. But surely you must accept that participation has been better than being left out in the cold in terms of thier rugby development?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Ireland won 9 5N's games during the 90's . Italy won 7 games I'm thier first ten years in the competition. Not much difference.

No calls for Ireland to be expelled either.

---

There was of course, one less game to play every year. Ireland have won Triple Crowns, Grand Slams, and Championships before. Italy have won nothing at club or international level, and will win nothing. Ireland beat them routinely every year, ergo Ireland>Italy.

No questions there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Legendz, instead of the bottom team of the 6N playing 1 more game against the best team in the ENC. You want to create a new competition modelled on the mental Davis Cup format and then shoehorn it into the packed schedule that exists?

BTW, the 6N is the European Championship. England are reigning Champions.

---

I've nothing against the Davis Cup format. It works for having tiered groups and very few games. Space can be created for two weekends, use one weekend of the summer tests and another of the winter tests.
I'm not a supporter of the idea of promotion/relegation but asking around work with the rugby heads, there's a warm enough welcome to that suggestion or promotion/relegation so maybe it could be the way forward. Personally I'm not for it but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

No questions there.

---

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

Just one final thing, if 6 nations winners are being given the title of European champion, there should be some promotion/relegation systems otherwise there would have to be a separate competition for determining the best team in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by legendz

Just one final thing, If 6 nations winners are being given the title of European champion, there should be some promotion/relegation systems otherwise their would have to be a separate competition for determining the best team in Europe.

---

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.

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.