The Improvement of Tier Two Nations - In Particular Georgia.

[Seaton]

You have a wrong argument here.
First, because you admit Scotland current treatment is unfair. Does rugby really want to show an unfairness image.
Second, Scotland fall won't reduce rugby elite immediatly, during a transition period Russia, Georgia, Spain and Portugal wiill benefit from this fall with wins against them. It will still promote rugby in this countries before Scotland become what they are at soccer.
Third, Scotland already demonstrate their unability to support pro rugby. Scottish just don't like pro rugby. I don't undestand why but that's a fact, there's noone in their stadiums.

Aye, the team that hasn't finished last for 4 years now in the Six Nations is the one that deserves to be dropped.

Your standards of trolling have dropped min, what happened to the subtlety and facts?

 

[Croket66]

2011 games :
Scotland 34 - 24 Romania
Georgia 25 - 9 Romania

Scotland 21 - 8 Italy
Scotland 15 - 6 Georgia

England 59 - 13 Italy
England 41 - 10 Georgia

of course, others resultats are better for Italy or Scotland (Italy 53-17 Russia/Georgia 15-9 Russia; Scotland 12-16 England/Georgia 10-41 England) but in few years, Georgia can be better than Italy and/or Scotland...

 

[Bail]

I'm not sure poor 6 nations unions have so much to lose in the end of the tournament. I'm still persuaded that a one-host European Championship could generate more revenues than the current tournament (more than ever with the Russian market). That's why I have big doubts about Six nations intentions about expanding rugby. They just want to keep it forever.

 

[welshglory]

7 nations is not the answer. First of all it would add more games to an already congested international season and Second the history between the six nations sides is too great. Would England v Georgia have the same appeal as Scotland v England at Murrayfield?
I think they should keep the 6 nations as it is, an annual rugby tournament which brings in great revenue for those involved as well as economic growth.
But then have a UEFA Euro style competition in between world cups either instead of the 6 nations or the current autumn internationals so it doesn't clash with the Lions tour.

 

[profitius]

You could have a 7 or even 8 nations if international test matches were cut back.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Why can't the 6 Nations grow to 7 teams? It's already grown from the Home Nations tournament to include France and Italy.

From a purely sporting point of view, I'd love to see the next tournament expanded to include the winner of the 2010/12 European Nations Cup. Every two years after that, the bottom placed team from the expanded 7 Nations then faces off against the winner of the European Nations Cup in a two legged affair to determine the final participant in the top tournament. That won't happen though unless TV and sponsorship is on board. If Russia, Georgia, Portugal, Spain or whoever want to play at the top tier of European rugby, they need major financial backing to do so.

 

[Seaton]

he didn't say the should be dropped, read the posts above and somebody suggested a promotion/relegation playoff, somebody else said that then if Scotland were to go down it would make all the rugby authorities there go bankrupt and kill the game there so it shouldn't happen

and somebody else is arguing that protecting one nation whilst holding back others is unfair

in my opinion if there was a promotion/relegation playoff and Scotland lost it they could have no complaints, but I think that Georgia should just be added to make the tournament the 7 nations

Humm, I take it you read his post?

The part(s) where he in marine terms said Scotland are a sinking ship (which it is not), so rather than plug her holes, let smaller ships come and scavenge her hull before she submerges?

I'm nae fussed though, just pointing out that there are inadequacies in his trolling technique since the worl cup.

 

[Croket66]

Or maybe an "Euro Cup" every 4 years (and 6 Nations will be play every two years, when RWC and Euro are not disputed)
for example :
2011 : RWC
2012 : 6N
2013 : Euro
2014 : 6N
2015 : RWC
...

10 teams in 2 pools (for example :
Pool A : England, Wales, Italy, Russia, Romania
Pool B : France, Ireland, Scotland, Georgia, Portugal or Spain

 

[Saintjay]

I am not sure the top club team from any of the six nations would want to lose players for any longer than they do now.

 

[Nielsch]

Having Georgia in the 6/7 Nations would put a hold on the development of the countries just beneath Georgia like Spain, Portugal and Russia. I'd rather see the top 3 of the ENC Division 1A play International Development Tests against the bottom three of the 6 Nations.

 

[Peat]

I know this will be unpopular, but I'm slightly tired of Italy being uncompetitive as hell in the 6N. I don't want another team as equally uncompetitive. If they can beat Italy, then that shows Italy are in the wrong competition, not whoever beats them.

Get them in the Amlin, sure. Rearrange the foreigner caps so that teams in the major leagues can play more tier 2 boys, good idea. More international matches, maybe even some tours, absolutely. Invite their coaches onto our courses, yes. And so on.

But I don't want to see them in an elite competition until they're elite. When that day comes, and I see no reason why it shouldn't, then let us talk. But until that day - keep them out.

 

[psychic duck]

I know this will be unpopular, but I'm slightly tired of Italy being uncompetitive as hell in the 6N. I don't want another team as equally uncompetitive. If they can beat Italy, then that shows Italy are in the wrong competition, not whoever beats them.

Get them in the Amlin, sure. Rearrange the foreigner caps so that teams in the major leagues can play more tier 2 boys, good idea. More international matches, maybe even some tours, absolutely. Invite their coaches onto our courses, yes. And so on.

But I don't want to see them in an elite competition until they're elite. When that day comes, and I see no reason why it shouldn't, then let us talk. But until that day - keep them out.

what a negative view, how's rugby ever going to grow with an attitude like that?

firstly Italy aren't "uncompetitive as hell" and are an asset to the 6 Nations and part of the reason they were so bad when they first joined is because it took them far longer than it should have done to get in the tournament so all their players were like 34 when they entered

does beating France, Scotland and Wales mean "uncompetitive as hell", a term which is a gross exaggeration

secondly putting sides in the Amlin is not some magical improvement tool, and people need to stop saying it is, just look at the Spanish/Italian/Romanian sides getting thrashed, I doubt it has nay impact on any improvement from any of them

it seems by your logic they would have to reach the World Cup semi finals to be added

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

The recent improvement in Georgia and Russia I believe is the governments's backing to the game,for example Georgia pushed Ireland close in 2007 and won their first World Cup match and the government realised they were quite good and gave money for academies, with the Eastern European nations I don't think money is a problem, they are not Samoa or Fiji

I'm not talking about government backing, I'm talking about whether or not they add value to the commercial deals already in place. If adding Georgia, for example, to a new 7 Nations tournament ends up costing the existing 6 Nation money, there won't be an expansion. Maybe it's a short term, self serving view but the English speaking nations tend to be short termist and self serving when it comes to growing the sport.

I know this will be unpopular, but I'm slightly tired of Italy being uncompetitive as hell in the 6N. I don't want another team as equally uncompetitive. If they can beat Italy, then that shows Italy are in the wrong competition, not whoever beats them.

Get them in the Amlin, sure. Rearrange the foreigner caps so that teams in the major leagues can play more tier 2 boys, good idea. More international matches, maybe even some tours, absolutely. Invite their coaches onto our courses, yes. And so on.

But I don't want to see them in an elite competition until they're elite. When that day comes, and I see no reason why it shouldn't, then let us talk. But until that day - keep them out.

Thi is the same Italy that beat World Cup finalists France last season, were two minutes away from beating Ireland and who ran Wales close. The problem with Italy's inclusion is that it came 5 years too late when their top players from the 1990s were on the verge of retirement.

I agree with your point about an effort being made to get more players from tier 2 nations in the major European leagues. I'd like to see an IRB subsidy or salary cap exemption to allow two or three players from tier 2 nations compete at a higher club level.

When I say I want Georgia in a new 7 Nations, I think we should wait until after the next World Cup. During the next four years, get them up to speed by playing more tests against tier 1 countries during the November and June test windows.

 

[welshglory]

Another argument against a 7 nations is that the current 6 nations scheduling works because it's an even number of teams, each team plays every week.
7 nations would mean a bye week which would make things awkward and to be honest I really don't see the point in an annual competition with 7 teams in it that is way too big. We should be looking at 6 nations with relegation and promotion (which will never happen) or a Euro style competition.
And if we're going to include these developing sides we should be looking to include both Georgia and Romania. That would mean 8 nations, that is too big.
That's why I think a Euro would be the best way forward.

Anyway before we see anything like a 7/8 nations or Euro comp the global rugby calendar needs to be revamped, however i don't think summer rugby is the answer.
And we also need to get teams like Georgia, Romania and Russia playing more test matches against top tier sides as Snoopy Dog says.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Having an odd number of teams wasn't an issue for the 90 or so years that the 5 Nations existed. The present situation whereby some teams play 3 home games and others play just 2 isn't ideal either. Unless the 6/7 Nations is decided on a home and away basis, there will always be imbalances.

I'd like to see a European competition in Lions tour years involving the 6/7 Nations and European Nations Cup teams. The Lions countries would be weakened so mismatches against European Nations Cup countries would be minimized.

Above all else, the tier 1 nations nave to stop being so bloody self serving and include tier 2 (and lower tier) nations on the international calendar on a more regular basis. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of seeing Australia play New Zealand four times a year, every year. Likewise, why did Ireland play France three times in 2011? The top 10 nations playing each other ad nauseum will drive people away from supporting international rugby. There's far more variety in club rugby, at least in Europe.

 

[profitius]

Having an odd number of teams wasn't an issue for the 90 or so years that the 5 Nations existed. The present situation whereby some teams play 3 home games and others play just 2 isn't ideal either. Unless the 6/7 Nations is decided on a home and away basis, there will always be imbalances.

I'd like to see a European competition in Lions tour years involving the 6/7 Nations and European Nations Cup teams. The Lions countries would be weakened so mismatches against European Nations Cup countries would be minimized.

Above all else, the tier 1 nations nave to stop being so bloody self serving and include tier 2 (and lower tier) nations on the international calendar on a more regular basis. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of seeing Australia play New Zealand four times a year, every year. Likewise, why did Ireland play France three times in 2011? The top 10 nations playing each other ad nauseum will drive people away from supporting international rugby. There's far more variety in club rugby, at least in Europe.

+1

Everybody wants rugby to grow around the world but none of the top teams do much to help. They're too busy looking after their own interests. As said in this thread already, Russia and Georgia are competitive because alot of money has been pumped into their rugby by the government and/or wealthy benefactors. Another benefactor has set up a national rugby academy in Germany so hopefully in 10 years the German team might start becoming competitive.

I think the top countries should take other countries under their wing. For example each top country "adopt" a smaller country by letting their coaches come and watch them on occasions and by letting their underage teams train with the stronger teams. Also by organising matches against local sides etc. Its very easy to do, costs hardly nothing for the tier 1 nation but would benefit the weaker nation greatly. It does happen already but to a small degree.

 

[powerfulduck]

perhaps a saxon's/ wolfhounds etc tour of tier 2 european nations will be the way forward, I certainly think it could do no harm.

 

[Feicarsinn]

+1

Everybody wants rugby to grow around the world but none of the top teams do much to help. They're too busy looking after their own interests. As said in this thread already, Russia and Georgia are competitive because alot of money has been pumped into their rugby by the government and/or wealthy benefactors. Another benefactor has set up a national rugby academy in Germany so hopefully in 10 years the German team might start becoming competitive.

I think the top countries should take other countries under their wing. For example each top country "adopt" a smaller country by letting their coaches come and watch them on occasions and by letting their underage teams train with the stronger teams. Also by organising matches against local sides etc. Its very easy to do, costs hardly nothing for the tier 1 nation but would benefit the weaker nation greatly. It does happen already but to a small degree.

Urgh, why do people keep saying Russia are competitive? On the basis of their world cup performance they most certainly aren't.

 

[Peat]

what a negative view, how's rugby ever going to grow with an attitude like that?

firstly Italy aren't "uncompetitive as hell" and are an asset to the 6 Nations and part of the reason they were so bad when they first joined is because it took them far longer than it should have done to get in the tournament so all their players were like 34 when they entered

does beating France, Scotland and Wales mean "uncompetitive as hell", a term which is a gross exaggeration

secondly putting sides in the Amlin is not some magical improvement tool, and people need to stop saying it is, just look at the Spanish/Italian/Romanian sides getting thrashed, I doubt it has nay impact on any improvement from any of them

it seems by your logic they would have to reach the World Cup semi finals to be added

Thi is the same Italy that beat World Cup finalists France last season, were two minutes away from beating Ireland and who ran Wales close. The problem with Italy's inclusion is that it came 5 years too late when their top players from the 1990s were on the verge of retirement.

I agree with your point about an effort being made to get more players from tier 2 nations in the major European leagues. I'd like to see an IRB subsidy or salary cap exemption to allow two or three players from tier 2 nations compete at a higher club level.

When I say I want Georgia in a new 7 Nations, I think we should wait until after the next World Cup. During the next four years, get them up to speed by playing more tests against tier 1 countries during the November and June test windows.

We're talking about France in full-on halfwit mode. Implosion style. The spasming death throes of an incredibly mad coach before his players started ignoring him post-Tonga. It is still fantastic that they did it, it will give them confidence for the future and once they've done it once they'll do it again, but I'm not getting carried away. And as for the other two... they still lost. Scotland and Wales have both had periods of absolute barrel scraping crap in this tournament, so I'm not massively got up about those victories.

How many years have Italy won more than one match? How often have they won away from home? How often have they got anything other than the Wooden spoon? Have they ever been shorter than a hundred to one to win the thing? I've yet to watch England - Italy with any trepidation over the result. I can't say that for the other four. Italy do not turn up with realistic hopes of winning it, or even the majority of their matches. And yes, that's partially because we let them in too late. I think they're not too far off becoming competitive again, at the moment they just seem a 10-12 pairing short. But it's taken them a long time to get there again. Incidentally, those are the positions I see new nations being weakest in for longest, as they're the ones where comfort with the ball are the most important.

I don't think Amlin rugby is a magical improvement tool, and nor did I say it was. I said it was one of a list of measures that could help Georgia reach its potential. And I didn't say Georgia would have to reach a WC SF to be let in. You did, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't care how they prove it, I simply want them to show a high enough level of ability that they wouldn't stink the place out if we invited them into the 6N. And I want to give them a good amount of games vs tier 1 teams to give them a chance to prove it - and give them an opportunity to develop as well. I suggest you try reading what I actually write rather than sticking it through a hysteria filter to find the worst possible interpretation in future psychic duck.

Snoopy - I like the idea of the 4 year build up, although it'll look pretty bad if they spend 4 years getting absolutely gubbed. I think the most important thing about the Tier 2 Nation thing is persuading the Celtic teams to use some of their precious non-eligible slots on these sort of players as right now they understandably reach straight for the shelf marked 'top quality players with tri-nations experience'. Tbh, even when they don't, they then head for the next box marked 'Pacific islanders, preferably played in NZ' and truthfully I'd expect to see more of them brought in than Georgians if something happened there. That and loosening the HC restrictions. Atm, I don't think its money, its limited slots and the best value lies in big experience from overseas.

Maybe NZ could fund something though, it would stop their player drain a little

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Wales, Scotland and Ireland are doing their bit about bringing Italy up to speed- largely for sef serving reasons it must be said. The former Celtic League countries have allowed Italian teams into their league because they paid a joining fee and also due to the potential riches Italy's 60m+ inhabitants can bring in terms of sponsorship should Aironi and Treviso become successful. I think there was a recognition that Italy were the poor relations of the 6 Nations countries and something is now being done which could be mutually beneficial.

Back to Georgia, if we're realistic, they'll never have a strong domestic championship. The money is too large in England, France and the Pro 12 for the Georgian league to keep it's best players. It's with that in mind that I think IRB money would be well directed in facilitating the movement of as many Georgians as possible getting into Europe's big leagues. Let the Georgian government pump money into developing players and broadening the playing base. The top players get plucked by bigger foreign teams. If those players are successful, a la Giorgodze, it'll make the game more attractive to youngsters in Georgia and feed into developing a strong national side. The only way we'd possibly see a strong Georgian club side is if it was a franchise in a pan-European league...........

I do understand why it's tough for Georgians to pick up contracts in the British Isles. Language is a huge barrier. If you can get a run of the mill, English speaking player from South Africa who's proven himself in the Currie Cup, he's a more attractive prospect than a Georgian who's only played amateur rugby in his homeland. That's why I think grants could work. It would incentivize giving a Georgian, for example, a contract over a journeyman from a tier 1 nation. If there's little risk in giving a Georgian a contract, it's more likely that he'll pick one up.