John Beattie: Can the Six Nations change to become a bigger tournament?

[psychic duck]

Here is John Beattie's blog from BBC Sport (please do not get mixed up between this and my opinion)

---

The World Cup causes us all problems - or at least Saturday's Scotland game against Romania caused me a problem.

After it I thought to myself: "hang on, if we can bring Italy into the fold and create the Six Nations do we have to stop there?"

What do you think, is there justification for saying that, actually, there should be promotion and relegation into an elite Northern Hemisphere tournament?

Could the Six Nations be expanded?

​

Or is the key a play-off system between two European leagues?

For the rest of the year there are very special versions of self preservation societies who continue to claim to be the elite of world rugby.
In the Southern Hemisphere South Africa, New Zealand and Australia play in the Tri-Nations.

Actually, they are the top three sides but how I hope Samoa, Fiji or Tonga cause an upset.

Meanwhile in my neck of the woods, north of Hadrian's wall, we Scots continue to take part in the Six Nations as of right.

Our professional teams take part in a Celtic league and we make money from a television deal because of our continued participation in the top tournament in the northern hemisphere.

Then - bang - the World Cup arrived.

The gap is closing between the rich and the pretenders; nobody can deny that Romania gave us a fright at the weekend - they were winning with ten minutes remaining.

So what does that mean?

If I am being honest, I was one of the people who argued long and hard against Italy being brought into the then Five Nations, and that was despite having beaten France and Scotland in "friendlies" at the time.

But the addition of Italy has been a masterstroke.

On the one hand rugby has spread, and on the other Italy has been a credible force and a great location for rugby.
However, already this first round of matches has meant that Europe can no longer rightfully exclude the likes of Romania - and the USA caused Ireland some problems too.

My gut feeling is that Scotland would be against any expansion of a European spring competition, as we probably have most to lose.

More than any other country we need the Six Nations, and we would fear play-off games with Romania, Georgia and, maybe one day, Russia, Portugal, and Spain.

But I can't see us ignoring them for long.

My gut feeling is that things will change; one day there will be play-offs to get into the annual Six Nations tournament.

What do you think?

---

 

[SelimNiai]

"Italy has been a credible force and a great location for rugby."

No they have not, the odd game here and there but overall have been a 4 points in the bank each season. And only 'cos Rome is such a spectacular city which has sweet fanny adams to do with the rugby.

Does this man ever stop spouting tripe

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Id like to see a second tier added with promotion / relegation. Would add something and maybe the likes of Georgia and Spain (for example) could benefit from an expanded tournament and exposure to a higher level of international rugby.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Man, after having this discussion several times, now John Beattie starts about it haha. Sure it would help the development of countries like Spain, Romania, Georgia, Portugal and Russia, but will it really be possible? Sure the whole franchise-rugby idea in the Super15 and Magners League (Yes, they are called provincial teams, but still feels like franchises) is great since there is no relegation, but isn't it better to keep the competition interesting even for the bottom teams?

It might not be possible in the Magners League, but in Test rugby, it would be interesting to see Spain being promoted when the wooden spoon holder relegates to the ENC. I think it's a moot point and more of a philosophical question than a realistic one...

 

[SelimNiai]

In theory its a decent enough idea but the gulf in talent is astronomical, all that would happen is that Italy would go down then up the following year replacing the team that went up, occasionally Scotland would drop down to come back up.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

In theory its a decent enough idea but the gulf in talent is astronomical, all that would happen is that Italy would go down then up the following year replacing the team that went up, occasionally Scotland would drop down to come back up.

Probably ... but after a while you might well see a change.

Teams are only going to improve with greater exposure to high level International rugby in my opinion. The only way they can find out if it works or not is to give it a go. The money is were the issue lies in regard to who will fund the second tier nations in competitions. If there is a will ... there is a way.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Next year we have a Four Nations tournament in the Southern Hemisphere, with Argentina joining. I think in the long run they will really benefit from it. It won't be 5 or 10 years, it might even take 25, but they will get better and playing the 3 giants every year (if the format survives) will definitely help improve popularity in the country itself, which will result in more people playing and getting more depth.

The same thing could be said about Spain, Georgia, Romania, Russia and Portugal. It might take decades, but in the end it's a big advantage for all of us. Rugby will be more popular, the smaller teams will get better and maybe in 30 or 40 years we see the knock out stages without South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, who knows???

 

[Toko_11]

What about European Championship ?? I think the 6N is boring anyway. and its not a sport if you win and stay down is it ? truth is that when IRB created 5N/6N they didn't think about the outsiders. the tournament was created for 5 nations only and then Italy barged in became became 6N. but its just not right.. Rugby should become an open sport where no one is left out and forgotten. I believe that rugby in general will benefit.. if for example: 6N teams play GEO/ROM/RUS the latter teams will gain a lot of experience thus becoming better later GEO/ROM/RUS play teams like Ukraine/Belgium and now they get better creating the chain reaction going all the way to the last place FINLAND! that is what i think will be fair. but i also think Fair is not how i would define IRB

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Realistically, commercial interests will come into play. Will Romania, Portugal, Russia or Georgia coming into the 6 Nations instead of, say, Scotland or Italy boost the revenue each of the participants get? I don't believe it will. I would like to see expansion though. Expand the tournament to 7 teams. In such an instance, each team play three home and three away games per season. Relegation/promotion happens every two years ie you play each of the other countries both home and away and the standings (in terms of who goes down/up) are based on that.

I've argued here many times that the best option for expanding interest in rugby is to have a Europe wide club competition which replaces the Heineken Cup and domestic leagues. Roughly 40 franchises with the vast majority in the existing 6 Nations countries but a smattering of other teams in expansion markets like Spain, Russia, Romania and Germany. It's based on a US Sports model of divisions and playoffs instead of the football model of promotion and relegation. Let's face it, the Russian and Romanian leagues for example, will never be strong enough so the only way of getting clubs in those countries up to scratch is to artificially move them into a new pan-European competition. I'm well used to being shot down on this point though!

I'd also like to see a European international cup in Lions years. The 6 Nations and European Nations Cup teams play off for a European trophy. It exposes the European Nations Cup teams to a higher standard while giving the 6 Nations teams something to play for instead of meaningless end of season friendlies.

 

[SelimNiai]

What about European Championship ?? I think the 6N is boring anyway. and its not a sport if you win and stay down is it ? truth is that when IRB create 5N/6N they didn't think about the outsiders. the tournament was created for 5 nations only and then Italy barged in became became 6N. but its just not right.. Rugby should become an opens sport where no one is left out. I believe that rugby in general will benefit.. if for example: 6N teams play GEO/ROM/RUS the latter teams will gain a lot of experience thus becoming better later GEO/ROM/RUS play teams like Ukraine/Belgium and now they get better creating the chain reaction going all the way to the last place FINLAND! that is what i think will be fair. but i also think Fair is not how i would define IRB

What do you think is the main difference between the 6N teams and the lower tier nations? Rugby is the, if not second, national sport in Wales, Ireland, Scotland etc etc. In Georgia Wrestling is national sport closely followed by beating up Russians. In Spain, Portugal its football and tennis/sailing etc.

There just isn't the fanbase, awareness of the sport in those nations to make it work. And no matter how much the IRB pump into funding these nations Rugby will still be a minority sport there.

 

[Toko_11]

In Georgia Wrestling is national sport closely followed by beating up Russians

you are kidding i hope. I don't know anything about wrestling being national sport. I also know that Georgian Rugby Union along with the rugby national team are the most supported Union/NT in Georgia. I also know that nobody is beating up Russians over here. and that everyone in Georgia is holding their breaths until the 14th. I have no idea who lied to you about all those things. fan base?? 50K supporters WILL show up guaranteed if any of the 6N teams were to come to tbilisi

 

[SelimNiai]

you are kidding i hope. I don't know anything about wrestling being national sport. I also know that Georgian Rugby Union along with the rugby national team are the most supported Union/NT in Georgia. I also know that nobody is beating up Russians over here. and that everyone in Georgia is holding their breaths until the 14th. I have no idea who lied to you about all those things. fan base?? 50K supporters WILL show up guaranteed if any of the 6N teams were to come to tbilisi

The beating up Russians was an attempted bit of political satire. Try to understand a joke, there's a good lad.

 

[Toko_11]

The beating up Russians was an attempted bit of political satire. Try to understand a joke, there's a good lad.

I in my lifetime would never have been able to realize that was a joke

 

[Peat]

Reasons this idea is currently stupid

1) Financially speaking, it would be poo for the current 6N boys. The market is at saturation levels already; Wales, Ireland and Scotland all failed to sell out their games - adding in more games that the majority of the rugby watching public don't care about is not the godsdamned answer.

2) The clubs would howl at the prospect of more international games and rightly so.

3) I don't believe they're good enough yet. Big whoop, Romania pushed a half-hearted Scotland into giving them a slap to shut them up. Well done. Scotland are crap. But Romania couldn't beat them and couldn't hold onto a lead with ten to go. If Romania get that close again against both Argentina and England - or even beat one of them - I might change my mind. Russia? Russia lost to Italy A this summer. They also lost to Canada, who England A have been using as whipping boys regularly. The Saxons put 49 points on Russia last year. Georgia didn't do much better last time they were in the Churchill Cup. And so on.

I would like to see the game expand. But not at the cost of a competitive, interesting Six Nations. The Italians are still whipping boys, lets be honest, and distance closed recently is probably more due to a shocking lack of standards from Ireland and Scotland which I expect to see repaired fairly soon. And there isn't the same joy at beating Italy as there is in beating the rest, who are hated/loved neighbours where I know plenty of people to taunt when it goes ***s up for them. Russia, Romania, Georgia et al have some distance to go before they'd be worth including.

 

[psychic duck]

for those who don't believe that Georgia are not good enough yet:

if it was a playoff with the bottom team then they would only actually get into the 6 Nations through showing that they were at the level of at least the bottom team of 6N

of course if they weren't good enough they would lose, but it would be a shame if a good generation of players never got the chance to play regularly with higher nations

the authorities waited too long to put Italy in the 6N and when they came in they were not competitive because all their players were like 35, you're watching a similar thing happening to Argentina right now as well

I really don't want that too happen again, and I hope lessons are learned

 

[nickdnz]

In theory its a decent enough idea but the gulf in talent is astronomical, all that would happen is that Italy would go down then up the following year replacing the team that went up, occasionally Scotland would drop down to come back up.

Exactly, you'd get a situation like Leeds in which Italy/Scotland would bounce between the first and second devision and their interest in rugby would deminish. I've always thought the biggest problem with the Four Nations, and the reason why League will not become a truly global sport, is that the fourth team will never be able to get continual access to the highest level, so interest will never be consistantly high.

If the 6 Nations were to expand (And I do like the idea), it would have to add another team for a perminant fixture and then adopt a promotion/relagation. So it would become the 7 Nations in which the 7th team would get promoted and relagated therefore not killing the sport in established countries, and in the process killing the money that Scotland/Italy bring in.

 

[Peat]

for those who don't believe that Georgia are not good enough yet:

if it was a playoff with the bottom team then they would only actually get into the 6 Nations through showing that they were at the level of at least the bottom team of 6N

of course if they weren't good enough they would lose, but it would be a shame if a good generation of players never got the chance to play regularly with higher nations

the authorities waited too long to put Italy in the 6N and when they came in they were not competitive because all their players were like 35, you're watching a similar thing happening to Argentina right now as well

I really don't want that too happen again, and I hope lessons are learned

I don't believe adding an additional international game to find out what already seems to be transparently the case is particularly in the 6N unions' interests.

I also don't believe that the ability to win a one-off game shows equality. Any team coming up shouldn't just be competitive against the lowest team, it should be competitive against the highest.

I agree it would be a shame if the top players in the likes of Georgia and Romania didn't get regular chances to test themselves against the best; sorry, I will rephrase that. It is a shame. It's happening. I for one would be interested in using these countries as semi-regular opponents for the Saxons. Maybe the 6N unions could help organise and fund mini-tours for the likes of Georgia to come over here, play some club and representative sides, have a look at the guts of fully pro organisations and so on. Maybe expand the Challenge Cup to hand more opportunities for clubs from Europe's minor leagues to meet the big boys. Or send the Saxons over there. Hell, maybe have the Lions play a couple of warm-up games on their way to the big 3. That would be awesome if feasible.

The opportunities can be given without mucking up the 6N.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

The opportunities can be given without mucking up the 6N.

I agree with this in part. In the short term, adding a European Nations Cup team would diminish the value of the competition from TVs perspective. What exactly would Georgia, Romania or Russia add? They'd be whipping boys. I would like to see a strategy in place whereby the expansion of the tournament can take place, say around the time of the 2019 World Cup in Japan.

I believe the traditionally strong nations are killing the goose that laid the golden egg by playing each other constantly. If Ireland are playing New Zealand twice a year every year, the fixture loses it's appeal pretty quickly. Reduce the amount of games between the Sanzar nations and the 6 Nations and try integrate the north american, south sea island, Japan, lesser European and African teams into the schedule more frequently be it via A internationals or tests in their home country. If, for example, Georgia get 4 or 5 tests against tier 1 nations per year for the next decade, they'll be more than ready to enter and add value to the 6 Nations tournament.

 

[i tickle ur tum]

why not incorperate a "super nations cup" instead of the "tri nations" & run it over a year including the pumas(already there thru outside funding), fiji & samoa!! its a question of logistics & finance, but that aside it is possible! i tink ud find the big 3 wudnt hav it all there own way when on there travels, im sure this will never happen of course but if it did clearly in world cup year the format wud hav 2b diffrent!! im sure ill b called a nutjob 4 writing this but actually im a happy nutjob!!

 

[nickdnz]

I agree with this in part. In the short term, adding a European Nations Cup team would diminish the value of the competition from TVs perspective. What exactly would Georgia, Romania or Russia add? They'd be whipping boys. I would like to see a strategy in place whereby the expansion of the tournament can take place, say around the time of the 2019 World Cup in Japan.

I believe the traditionally strong nations are killing the goose that laid the golden egg by playing each other constantly. If Ireland are playing New Zealand twice a year every year, the fixture loses it's appeal pretty quickly. Reduce the amount of games between the Sanzar nations and the 6 Nations and try integrate the north american, south sea island, Japan, lesser European and African teams into the schedule more frequently be it via A internationals or tests in their home country. If, for example, Georgia get 4 or 5 tests against tier 1 nations per year for the next decade, they'll be more than ready to enter and add value to the 6 Nations tournament.

I agree. New Zealand has played Australia 14 times in four years, played South Africa 11 times, had three grandslams since 2005 and played France 8 times since 2006. Despite this the last time we played Portugal and Romania was the last World Cup, the last time we played Canada and Argentina was in 2006. Prior to this WC, the last time we played Tonga was in the 2003 World Cup. The last time we played against Japan was in the 1995 World Cup and the last time we played USA was in the 1991 World Cup. Now the immediate appeal of facing one of the smaller teams from a TV perspective is fairly low, however unless these teams get a chance to face Tier 1 competitions, they're never going to improve and the countries that they are playing for are never going to buy into rugby.

why not incorperate a "super nations cup" instead of the "tri nations" & run it over a year including the pumas(already there thru outside funding), fiji & samoa!! its a question of logistics & finance, but that aside it is possible! i tink ud find the big 3 wudnt hav it all there own way when on there travels, im sure this will never happen of course but if it did clearly in world cup year the format wud hav 2b diffrent!! im sure ill b called a nutjob 4 writing this but actually im a happy nutjob!!

No. You'll be called illiterate . I had to hit myself in the head to understand that. Please use actual words.