Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Peat" data-source="post: 708760" data-attributes="member: 42330">Goode is unpopular as his first receiver qualities were never used in international rugby and his style of running wasn&#039;t effective either, at least to most people&#039;s minds. Throw in the fact that he&#039;s not the best one on one tackler and lots of people are done with him. I would consider myself in that, by and large, but if you&#039;re down 2 full-backs and you urgently need someone who will be in the right place at international level, then he would seem to be your man.As for play-offs/relegation... me, personally, I think there needs to be a concrete case made for it improving the Six Nations and the teams involved in the process. And in all the talk, I&#039;ve never seen one. I&#039;ve seen a lot of ifs, maybes and coulds, but that goes both ways. There is an awful lot that could go wrong with in terms of nations suffering from fluctuating finances and interest levels. That&#039;s not just the teams at risk of relegation/promotion either - if Italy go down and Georgia come up, who makes up the shortfall in TV payments that will affect the other five nations? That&#039;s the big difference between, say, Scotland and Accrington Stanley - Scotland still bring money to the table. Losing Scotland would be a serious short term financial hit for the likes of Ireland and Wales.I appreciate that&#039;s on the conservative side of things, but I think we are a young professional sport and should move carefully to shore up the good work done so far, rather than risk losing what we have through over-extending. It seems far safer to be patient with Italy, to try and rebuild Scotland, and to find ways of strengthening the 6N B sides ahead of opening up the game further. Maybe funding them to run annually rather than bi-annually would be a good start.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Peat, post: 708760, member: 42330"] Goode is unpopular as his first receiver qualities were never used in international rugby and his style of running wasn't effective either, at least to most people's minds. Throw in the fact that he's not the best one on one tackler and lots of people are done with him. I would consider myself in that, by and large, but if you're down 2 full-backs and you urgently need someone who will be in the right place at international level, then he would seem to be your man. As for play-offs/relegation... me, personally, I think there needs to be a concrete case made for it improving the Six Nations and the teams involved in the process. And in all the talk, I've never seen one. I've seen a lot of ifs, maybes and coulds, but that goes both ways. There is an awful lot that could go wrong with in terms of nations suffering from fluctuating finances and interest levels. That's not just the teams at risk of relegation/promotion either - if Italy go down and Georgia come up, who makes up the shortfall in TV payments that will affect the other five nations? That's the big difference between, say, Scotland and Accrington Stanley - Scotland still bring money to the table. Losing Scotland would be a serious short term financial hit for the likes of Ireland and Wales. I appreciate that's on the conservative side of things, but I think we are a young professional sport and should move carefully to shore up the good work done so far, rather than risk losing what we have through over-extending. It seems far safer to be patient with Italy, to try and rebuild Scotland, and to find ways of strengthening the 6N B sides ahead of opening up the game further. Maybe funding them to run annually rather than bi-annually would be a good start. [/QUOTE]

Verification