Italy undermining the 6 Nations

[Car]

I agree. I used to look forward to it when they actually had a chance of at least competing for large parts of their matches, especially at home, but nowadays? If the only question is how bad it's going to be, it's not really something you're likely to enjoy.

 

[Da Grappla]

I could agree with Italy having won their spot in the competition back in the 90s. Surely there were reasons for them to be chosen by the board members as new peers joining in. They proved their value at the first chance, by just winning the first match against the last champion, Scotland. Further improvements had to wait but in the years to come, they delivered. They defeated France, Wales...

Those times are over.

I think they have to won that spot back again, it shouldn't be an impossible task for them, Georgia, regardless of how much I would like them to be able to play in a Tier 1 tournament on a regular basis, are not yet at the same level. But man, they would offer Italy a rough time.

I don't want to see another 80s Romania, a team good enough to defeat France and some home nations, slipping away just because a dying team has to plugged on with life support no matter what they do.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I think that's a little harsh. This Italy side would probably be competitive against pre-Vern Cotter Scotland, pre-Gatland Wales and possibly pre-Noves France. The problem looks worse because the other 6N sides have all improved significantly, as can be seen by them overtaking a lot of the Southern Hemisphere sides in the rankings. The Italian squad has some quality, but with the relatively new coaching regime and the very ordinary coaching of their professional clubs, they are absolutely nowhere near their potential.

That said, there is no way an Italian visit to Tblisi, Bucharest or Spain would result in anything other than a competitive contest in my opinion.

 

[amz]

I also think is harsh too. Let's be realistic, Georgia never defeated a T1 side; it is true that didn't had many occasions but those which they got they lost with big margins and honestly they have to win few against T1 to be interesting for 6N. Italy at the time they joined I think defeated France, Ireland and Wales (not sure, have to check) and even if was defeated by Romania in 2004, they had a bigger infrastructure and their inclusion was justified.

About Romania, well we weren't included from many reasons, first probably being a communist country. After 89, entire rugby infrastructure was almost destroyed along with a big chunk of industry (we used to have over 200 senior clubs). This was the reason, not lack of inclusion in 6N.

 

[FrankHeaven]

This Italy side would probably be competitive against pre-Vern Cotter Scotland, pre-Gatland Wales and possibly pre-Noves France.

But here's the thing - success will always be cyclical for any team, and particularly those with limited resources. Everyone's saying Scotland have got their act together under Cotter, their rugby history is full of long fallow periods. Rugby's international structure needs to offer a clear pathway to the top table, which is why relegation/promotion needs to come in. So that if a Georgia or Romania have an exceptional team, they get to the play in the top division, and if Italy or Scotland have a poor team they drop down a division. It shouldn't be blazers with vested interests deciding who is good enough.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I completely agree FrankHeaven. I'm just trying to offer a different perspective on Italian performances. If Finn Russell is picked for the GB&I Lions then I expect Italy to defeat Scotland in June in Singapore, regain some credibility and soar up the rankings.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Italy simply are not good enough to be other than the perennial wooden spooners and there should be a move to arrange a home and away 2nd tier 4 nations trophy.
Romnia, Georgia and Russia? joining Italy in a chance to get some tv money and win some silverware.
The winners from each end of the year competition qualify to join the 5 Nations the next year.

 

[Brigantine]

Romnia, Georgia and Russia?

Romania, Georgia, and Japan would work better.

 

[Which Tyler]

Italy simply are not good enough to be other than the perennial wooden spooners and there should be a move to arrange a home and away 2nd tier 4 nations trophy.
Romnia, Georgia and Russia? joining Italy in a chance to get some tv money and win some silverware.
The winners from each end of the year competition qualify to join the 5 Nations the next year.

Perennial is assuming current form for a long time period - they certainly haven't been perennial wooden spoon holders over the last 17 years (even if they're always in contention for it).

As for a 2nd tier trophy - what's wrong with the one that already exists? along with the 3rd, 4th and 5th tier trophies for European countries.
They're 6 teams in each tier, played home and away over a 2 year period; with promotion and relegation every other year; it's only the 6N that is above and separate to the Rugby Europe International Championship.
IMO there's nothing wrong with the top tier, and nothing wrong with the lower tiers (within Europe); the problem is bridging the gap.

 

[ALJ]

.
IMO there's nothing wrong with the top tier, and nothing wrong with the lower tiers (within Europe); the problem is bridging the gap.

I think that's exactly it in a nutshell.
I can't pretend to have any answers but I don't think a relegation and promotion system will work as it'll take a miracle for the promoted side to be anything other than cannon fodder each year.

One way or another, I think whichever side comes in at any given stage needs time to build - it's a shame that Italy haven't managed to maintain their rate of improvement as this is precisely what they've had.

And god help them when Parisse retires - Negri looks really promising but those are big shoes to fill and the side is so reliant on SP it's ridiculous.

 

[Car]

I think that's exactly it in a nutshell.
I can't pretend to have any answers but I don't think a relegation and promotion system will work as it'll take a miracle for the promoted side to be anything other than cannon fodder each year.

They changed to playoff matches in the lower tiers for a reason.

 

[ALJ]

They changed to playoff matches in the lower tiers for a reason.

I must admit don't know what that is intended to illustrate?

 

[welshglory]

I think it clearly illustrates that the relegation contender from the 6 nation will have an opportunity to stay in the competition through a playoff as Rugby Europe has already implemented in its structures. So if they are good enough they will stay and have another year to build. If you wanted you could even have the 6 nation side playing at home.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Aye. The flip side being that playoffs mean that any promoted side should on average be better equipped for the step up than if it was just automatically promoted. So in theory it would make all tournaments, including the 6N more competitive by having such a system even compared to having no promotion or relegation at all.

If Georgia defeated Italy on aggregate over two matches it would be hard to argue that Georgia would be less competitive in the 6N than Italy.

 

[Which Tyler]

Aye. The flip side being that playoffs mean that any promoted side should on average be better equipped for the step up than if it was just automatically promoted. So in theory it would make all tournaments, including the 6N more competitive by having such a system even compared to having no promotion or relegation at all.

If Georgia defeated Italy on aggregate over two matches it would be hard to argue that Georgia would be less competitive in the 6N than Italy.

My only problem with play-off matches is finding the time for them. There's already too much rugby being played, and the pro.s basically know their timetable for 2-3 years ahead; asking them to keep 2 spare weeks fallow, when they could otherwise be playing is actually a huge thing - especially in a professional environment where, like it or not, money is king.

I like the idea of a promotion/relegation play-off; I just can't see a practical way of fitting it in (maybe ditch the end-of-season play-offs in the Prem, Pro12 and T14? - which would mean winning all around for me)

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

My only problem with play-off matches is finding the time for them. There's already too much rugby being played, and the pro.s basically know their timetable for 2-3 years ahead; asking them to keep 2 spare weeks fallow, when they could otherwise be playing is actually a huge thing - especially in a professional environment where, like it or not, money is king.

I like the idea of a promotion/relegation play-off; I just can't see a practical way of fitting it in (maybe ditch the end-of-season play-offs in the Prem, Pro12 and T14? - which would mean winning all around for me)

Fit it into the Autumn internationals maybe? League play offs are here to stay too much of a money spinner, I'd like to get rid of them but they'd be boring without them and I'd be looking at the pro12 this season thinking we was robbed because we were forced to play a 2nd/3rd string side in Munster, so they're good and bad in equal measure.

 

[Which Tyler]

Where in the AIs?
You have 3 weekends available, booked up 3-4 years in advance; but everyone has to keep 1-2 weeks clear just in case they have a bad season - or cancel a tourist at late notice and pay £££ (or £££££££££££££££££ if you have to cancel a match with NZ)
Of course league play-offs are staying, money is king after all. But I refuse to stop having the occassional ***** about them. Let's be honest, I've reduced myself for *****ing about them every other month to every other year now (this year it's mostly down to the new global calendar thing, which makes the official [AKA bullshit] justification for them obsolete)

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Where in the AIs?
You have 3 weekends available, booked up 3-4 years in advance; but everyone has to keep 1-2 weeks clear just in case they have a bad season - or cancel a tourist at late notice and pay £££ (or £££££££££££££££££ if you have to cancel a match with NZ)
Of course league play-offs are staying, money is king after all. But I refuse to stop having the occassional ***** about them. Let's be honest, I've reduced myself for *****ing about them every other month to every other year now (this year it's mostly down to the new global calendar thing, which makes the official [AKA bullshit] justification for them obsolete)

The weekends are booked 3 or 4 years in advance but not the teams you're going to play, give home advantage to the current 6 nations side and have it as their minnow bashing match. If the side seeking promotion isn't good enough to beat the worst 6 nations side away from home they'll just go straight back down anyway!

- - - Updated - - -

If anything it'll make more money having a match with real repercussions.

 

[Which Tyler]

Hmmmm - generally at least 2 years in advance, you know which teams are playing when - the only reasons we don't already know the 2018 scehdule are the global calendar talks and NZ and England playing hardball with each other over $$$.
To keep a weekend fallow, you get 6 months notice; and all 6 countries will be needing to keep that weekend fallow.
It needs to be set aside, and not-booked until 6 months ahead of time.. which has knock-on effects to every incoming nation, and the other 2 weekends of the AI window.
If it has to be done, a better place would be before flying out for the AIs - when the French currently play their final, and England usually play either Wales or the BaaBaas, whilst everyone else thinks that a small nod towards player welfare might be a good idea between club finals and long-haul flights ahead of arse-whippings in SA/NZ

 

[ALJ]

I think it clearly illustrates that the relegation contender from the 6 nation will have an opportunity to stay in the competition through a playoff as Rugby Europe has already implemented in its structures. So if they are good enough they will stay and have another year to build. If you wanted you could even have the 6 nation side playing at home.

Been a few posts since but...

I don't believe play-offs exist to ensure the team finishing top of whatever tier sits beneath is good enough to actually be promoted - more that it's protectionism for the upper tier team in that even if you spend a season getting spanked by better sides, the odds are you'll be more battle-hardened than the team in the lower tier so have a natural advantage.
Or for example, looking the (soon to be defunct) English system for getting into the Permiership - the play-off is between two sides in the Championship so it doesn't apply.

That aside, even if the side seeking promotion can win in a play-off I don't think it invalidates the point - just because you can sneak past the worst side in the league (or whatever you want to call it) above, doesn't mean you're any less cannon fodder the next season.

I dare say it's different for domestic sides as they can recruit based on their elevated league status - doesn't really apply for national sides.

As I said, I don't know the answers but I think an annual play-off system is flawed, particularly at international level.

- - - Updated - - -

The weekends are booked 3 or 4 years in advance but not the teams you're going to play, give home advantage to the current 6 nations side and have it as their minnow bashing match. If the side seeking promotion isn't good enough to beat the worst 6 nations side away from home they'll just go straight back down anyway!

At this level. barring a miracle, they're going straight back down regardless imho.

The money and time required to build a competitive side at international level means that one season isn't enough.
Unless you have some time in tier 1 then you have little hope of getting enough money to provide the required funding so I just don't see how they can plan long-term in a way required for success.