As I am a proponent of ditching Scotland and Italy from the 6Ns, am I feicked again?

In order to develop the game on a World stage I'm keen to see a structural European Nations League to assist.

First of all, well done Scotland for laying a thirty year Oz bogey.

But year after year after year, the Scots tend to do well (especially in the summer), in non-tournament games, build up a credibility on paper at least only to flatter to deceive when real tournaments are contested.

Italy and Scotland (in particular) are the eternal punch-bags of the 6Ns with little recent form when it comes to tournament play and are bed-blockers to aspirant European T2 nations. Which is why I'd like to see a multi-divisional European 4Ns set-up. Div 1 and 2 each contesting H/A fixtures with promotion/relegation (possibly with playoffs).

Worst possible timing for this post - but I still maintain that it's worth debating.

If the RWC can have open access, why not Europe (or SANZAR for that matter)?

Are you kicking out the Scots, Italian and Irish then Portnoy?

Typo rod (previously fixed before your post came in)

Another very poorly disguised WUM from Portnoy.

As well as Italy and Scotland who would be the third team you kicked out of the 6N?

why thank you sir, ok we'll stay but boot the others out

To making a success about two tier competitor needs to be second tier who can make the win against the relegation team and competing regular thing.

So if was relegation from 6N and say, make "super" 4N start with England, France, Wales, Ireland and relegation Itlay and Scotland then must be the other second division who can make the compete. So must be maybe Romanian, Georgia, Spain, Belgium, Russia as next ranking European nation.

But is doubtful would make these teams win frequency to stop relegation/promoter cycle for Scotland or Italy.

Then IRB might think is more worse for Scot and Italian rugby to play regular low tier and costings more and profits less for make development. Then also not benefit to the second tier Europe to play and lost so many.

So my analysis is not happening.

Portnoy wrote:In order to develop the game on a World stage I'm keen to see a structural European Nations League to assist.

First of all, well done Scotland for laying a thirty year Oz bogey.

But year after year after year, the Scots tend to do well (especially in the summer), in non-tournament games, build up a credibility on paper at least only to flatter to deceive when real tournaments are contested.

Italy and Scotland (in particular) are the eternal punch-bags of the 6Ns with little recent form when it comes to tournament play and are bed-blockers to aspirant European T2 nations. Which is why I'd like to see a multi-divisional European 4Ns set-up. Div 1 and 2 each contesting H/A fixtures with promotion/relegation (possibly with playoffs).

Worst possible timing for this post - but I still maintain that it's worth debating.

If the RWC can have open access, why not Europe (or SANZAR for that matter)?

How are Scotland "in particular" the eternal punch bags of the six nations when we have finished sixth less than Italy and since the dawn of the Six Nations we've won nearly double the amount of games as Italy?
As well as that if we bring in the idea of results against the best (currently the tri-nations team), Scotland won their last game against South Africa and their last two against Australia, when was the last time Wales beat a tri-nations side? And whilst I am not idiotic enough to argue that currently Wales are undoubtedly the best international side in the northern hemisphere, there is a cycle. It isn't long ago that Wales weren't very good at all (world cup 2007), Scotland's teams are on an upwards curve and our national team is in transition. Soon we'll be competing again, we have some very good young players and, what happens when Wales' one dimensional play gets stopped will you back a system whereby Wales are relegated? The six-nations is affected a lot by injuries, suspensions and form and so isn't always an accurate depiction of a team's standing.

Portnoy wrote: but I still maintain that it's worth debating.

No its not. You want to destory one of the oldest tournaments in World Rugby to develop world rugby? It's a crazy suggestion, which isn't worthy of debate.

All for helping develop rugby in other countries but this isn't the way.

I'm not just saying this because I'm Scottish and you want to boot us out, I would feel the same if it was any of the other teams in the 6 nations.

Portnoy

Ok for the last time!!!

Check the below link.....the Euro Nations Website...

http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com/competition-1.htm

And whilste we're on it...

African Rugby:
http://www.confederation-africaine-rugby.com/index.php/en/

Asian 5 nations Divisions
http://asian5nations.com/

Rugby is developing nicely....

123456789 wrote:

Portnoy wrote:In order to develop the game on a World stage I'm keen to see a structural European Nations League to assist.

First of all, well done Scotland for laying a thirty year Oz bogey.

But year after year after year, the Scots tend to do well (especially in the summer), in non-tournament games, build up a credibility on paper at least only to flatter to deceive when real tournaments are contested.

Italy and Scotland (in particular) are the eternal punch-bags of the 6Ns with little recent form when it comes to tournament play and are bed-blockers to aspirant European T2 nations. Which is why I'd like to see a multi-divisional European 4Ns set-up. Div 1 and 2 each contesting H/A fixtures with promotion/relegation (possibly with playoffs).

Worst possible timing for this post - but I still maintain that it's worth debating.

If the RWC can have open access, why not Europe (or SANZAR for that matter)?

How are Scotland "in particular" the eternal punch bags of the six nations when we have finished sixth less than Italy and since the dawn of the Six Nations we've won nearly double the amount of games as Italy?
As well as that if we bring in the idea of results against the best (currently the tri-nations team), Scotland won their last game against South Africa and their last two against Australia, when was the last time Wales beat a tri-nations side? And whilst I am not idiotic enough to argue that currently Wales are undoubtedly the best international side in the northern hemisphere, there is a cycle. It isn't long ago that Wales weren't very good at all (world cup 2007), Scotland's teams are on an upwards curve and our national team is in transition. Soon we'll be competing again, we have some very good young players and, what happens when Wales' one dimensional play gets stopped will you back a system whereby Wales are relegated? The six-nations is affected a lot by injuries, suspensions and form and so isn't always an accurate depiction of a team's standing.

Why direct a load of negativity towards Wales when the poster is English???

Griff wrote:

123456789 wrote:

Portnoy wrote:In order to develop the game on a World stage I'm keen to see a structural European Nations League to assist.

First of all, well done Scotland for laying a thirty year Oz bogey.

But year after year after year, the Scots tend to do well (especially in the summer), in non-tournament games, build up a credibility on paper at least only to flatter to deceive when real tournaments are contested.

Italy and Scotland (in particular) are the eternal punch-bags of the 6Ns with little recent form when it comes to tournament play and are bed-blockers to aspirant European T2 nations. Which is why I'd like to see a multi-divisional European 4Ns set-up. Div 1 and 2 each contesting H/A fixtures with promotion/relegation (possibly with playoffs).

Worst possible timing for this post - but I still maintain that it's worth debating.

If the RWC can have open access, why not Europe (or SANZAR for that matter)?

How are Scotland "in particular" the eternal punch bags of the six nations when we have finished sixth less than Italy and since the dawn of the Six Nations we've won nearly double the amount of games as Italy?
As well as that if we bring in the idea of results against the best (currently the tri-nations team), Scotland won their last game against South Africa and their last two against Australia, when was the last time Wales beat a tri-nations side? And whilst I am not idiotic enough to argue that currently Wales are undoubtedly the best international side in the northern hemisphere, there is a cycle. It isn't long ago that Wales weren't very good at all (world cup 2007), Scotland's teams are on an upwards curve and our national team is in transition. Soon we'll be competing again, we have some very good young players and, what happens when Wales' one dimensional play gets stopped will you back a system whereby Wales are relegated? The six-nations is affected a lot by injuries, suspensions and form and so isn't always an accurate depiction of a team's standing.

Why direct a load of negativity towards Wales when the poster is English???

Ah Sorry, I got him confused with someone else, if he's English then it is very rich for someone to be so superior when his team only beat Scotland by 7 through a lucky try in a game that Scotland dominated.

Same logic used when people (the French) recently discussed the exclusion of the Italians and Scottish from the Heino. The game shouldn't be ring-fenced and made into an exclusive party between the top/higher achieving sides. Where has this sentiment been coming from of late? France wouldn't have come this close to winning the last RWC if they'd been cut off from the game 10-15 years after they entered regular fixtures, nor would their clubs be as good. For me this discussion is selfish and disrespectful towards sides who are no longer a guaranteed win for anyone in the 6N.

123456789, I think it's a bit premature to be saying the Scottish national team is in transition. Yes you beat a top 3 side in their own yard today (albeit a weakened top 3 side), firm congrats on that. But before that you'd lost seven on the trot and this doesn't change the fact that Scotland are current Wooden Spoon holders. In the last three years you've beaten Oz and SA at home but these were still followed by bottom two finishes in Europe and not getting out of the group in the WC. So well done on today but too early to be reading too much into this imo.

But why develop the game in other countries at the expense of italy and scotland? The only country i can see that could step up to 6n level is georgia but they dont get the financial backing from their government...if italy were to drop to another level it could destroy their development

I wouldnt kick anyone out of the 6 nations, all nations go through periods of success and failure. Scotland are in the dumps at the moment but will come back at some point.

You only have to look at football to see what happened when England got too big for their boots and decided they didnt need the celt teams. All of us suffered as a result of their decision to disband the football 4 Nations.

I do agree with expanding rugby but I think scrapping the Lions and creating a proper European Cup like the football one is the way to go.

Nice WUM Portnoy. Got a lot of bites.

Knowsit17 wrote:
123456789, I think it's a bit premature to be saying the Scottish national team is in transition. Yes you beat a top 3 side in their own yard today (albeit a weakened top 3 side), firm congrats on that. But before that you'd lost seven on the trot and this doesn't change the fact that Scotland are current Wooden Spoon holders. In the last three years you've beaten Oz and SA at home but these were still followed by bottom two finishes in Europe and not getting out of the group in the WC. So well done on today but too early to be reading too much into this imo.

I meant because of the likes of Tom Brown, Stuart Hogg, Matt Scott, Lee Jones, Duncan Weir, Laidlaw, Denton, Harley, Gray, Welsh, Grant etc. coming in and the like of Paterson, Parks, Hines, Southwell, Morrison etc. going out. Not because of the win but it will hopefully be a turning point.

How did Italy fare against France in last year's Six Nations?

doctor_grey wrote:How did Italy fare against France in last year's Six Nations?

They got hammered

AlynDavies wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:How did Italy fare against France in last year's Six Nations?

They got hammered

thats a bit unfair i thought they gave a really good account of themselves...the scoreline really flattered france as i think they were rattled many times during that game by the italians.

I don't see how that would help rugby in developing test nations. Just damage rugby in Italy and Scotland. Not worth debating imv. Had many a great weekends craic with Italian and Scottish fans in the 6N. Many great games have featured these two over the years.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:How did Italy fare against France in last year's Six Nations?

They got hammered

thats a bit unfair i thought they gave a really good account of themselves...the scoreline really flattered france as i think they were rattled many times during that game by the italians.

I meant the 2011 Six Nations. For me, that's last year.

what a load of rubbish

Italy were doing well until recently, for the want of a half decent 10.

Scotland played quite well in the 6N, despite losing they were playing some good rugby and were lacking the finishing needed.

poor show that man!

Presumably the Tri-Nations, or soon to be Quad-Nations, will need to do the same, and promote the Islanders etc. into their tournament on a relegation basis, so allowing South Africa, Australia or New Zealand to drop into the second tier from time to time for the betterment of the global game.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea, and not just because I'm Scottish. I think it would destroy the best thing in NH rugby.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Presumably the Tri-Nations, or soon to be Quad-Nations, will need to do the same, and promote the Islanders etc. into their tournament on a relegation basis, so allowing South Africa, Australia or New Zealand to drop into the second tier from time to time for the betterment of the global game.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea, and not just because I'm Scottish. I think it would destroy the best thing in NH rugby.

Of course FES it should be a one-size-fits all for both N&S Hemispheres.

And a know it won't happen because at every point, the tier one unions will put every plank, foot, ring-fence and glass-ceiling to maintain their place on the ladder.

To far as I can see, the status quo will remain so.

And I can't detect a sniff of a popular uprising.

Not from the NH anyway.

Portnoy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Presumably the Tri-Nations, or soon to be Quad-Nations, will need to do the same, and promote the Islanders etc. into their tournament on a relegation basis, so allowing South Africa, Australia or New Zealand to drop into the second tier from time to time for the betterment of the global game.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea, and not just because I'm Scottish. I think it would destroy the best thing in NH rugby.

Of course FES it should be a one-size-fits all for both N&S Hemispheres.

And a know it won't happen because at every point, the tier one unions will put every plank, foot, ring-fence and glass-ceiling to maintain their place on the ladder.

To far as I can see, the status quo will remain so.

And I can't detect a sniff of a popular uprising.

Not from the NH anyway.

Portnoy, not another windmill to tilt at?! What if there simply is no popular uprising and the vast majority of rugby fans are ok with things just as they are (give or take a minor tweak or two)? Man the barricades anyway, burn some tires? The sad fact/honest truth is that we live in a world in which folks tend to try to better themselves, sometimes at the expense of the common good, but hopefully more often than not, the whole is improved by a bettering of the general good

GeordieFalcon wrote:Portnoy

Ok for the last time!!!

Check the below link.....the Euro Nations Website...

http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com/competition-1.htm

And whilste we're on it...

African Rugby:
http://www.confederation-africaine-rugby.com/index.php/en/

Asian 5 nations Divisions
http://asian5nations.com/

Rugby is developing nicely....

This. Rugby is developing, maybe not at the pace you would like, but it is developing. The IRB have a duty to nurture this growth, not to accelerate it to unsustainable levels, nor to tear down existing structures.

I am firmly of the opinion that no-one has a right to top level rugby and the meritocracy system as seen in International football (where everyone has to qualify for World Cups/European Championships etc) is a nice ideology to have (even when it meant England missed out in 2008) as it puts everyone on a level footing, but we don't have nearly enough strong teams to make regular competition financially viable or a worthwhile exercise on the rugby pitch.

I'd love to see either the Saxons, the Barbarians or even just a Northern Hemisphere Select side tour the European tier 2 countries this summer. Or in the Autumn, I think they would be great games and having some star names would help raise the profile of rugby in these countries. Then as time develops we could look to have some competition like a European Championship and/or fully integrated World Cup qualifiers involving the whole of Europe and then, when the divide in terms of quality and competitions has been breached, we can look at opening up a full meritocracy with promotion and/or relegation to the Six Nations 'A' (as it would become), if we even decided to keep to that format.

But I've said before, I think the biggest barrier to these countries is a lack of a globally accepted International window. Have a NH Super Rugby type competition (possibly tiered) where you can play as many or as few foreign qualified players as you want in your teams, then split into Internationals and domestic-based competitions with home-grown players. That way the best players from tier 2 countries can play in the top competitions without having fully-professional structures themselves, but also be guaranteed release to play for their countries. Any proposal, in my opinion, has to start there.

All of which would be a very long way at the moment. Cutting the Six Nations down to 4 and allowing promotion/relegation would do as much harm as good.

Could divide the tiers between anyone who has won a slam in the past 3 years and anyone who hasn't?

welliamwibb wrote:Could divide the tiers between anyone who has won a slam in the past 3 years and anyone who hasn't?

That's clever.

welliamwibb wrote:Could divide the tiers between anyone who has won a slam in the past 3 years and anyone who hasn't?

Another old poster returned in disguise? Surely not

Scotland and Italy need our help. Cutting them away would be pointless.

Scotland have a strong pack but still have a toothless attack. Someone needs to desperately teach them how to score tries.

Italy also have similar problems. With a good 10 they would could have turned many narrow losses into wins. Particularly against England.

Treviso on the club scene are slowly getting better. I would suggest them bringing all their best players back to Italy. Would be amazing if Treviso could get Parisse for example.

Glasgow and Edinburgh had pretty good seasons.

This is ridiculous. In the 70's England were hopeless and couldn't buy a win. In the 80's and 90's and early 2000's Wales were in the same state.

Scotland are poor at the moment but I firmly believe that they are on their way back up. It won't be long before they are a power again. Interestingly there is another thread about psychological barriers. Scotland don't seem to have a barrier when it comes to the SH sides but when it comes to the 6 nations they do. That is the only difference.

Kick them out. Don't make me laugh. There wouldn't even be international rugby without Scotland.

mckay1402 wrote:...Scotland don't seem to have a barrier when it comes to the SH sides Australia.

I fix it for you.

It should of course be two groups of nine; promotion, relegation, back-to-backs and derby-centric, with San Marino and Libya in the slots now held by Italy and Scotland, who would be subdivided into San Marino West/East and Libya Desert/Coast..with East and Coast sides playing in the other 6N lower division that would be played between at Tri Nations sides and Brazil in the SH on a tri-yearly basis.

You know it's the only solution! Have I included ALL the Let's-have-yet-one-more-try-at-over-complicating-the-rugby-playing-year cliches?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:...Scotland don't seem to have a barrier when it comes to the SH sides Australia.

I fix it for you.

it didn't need fixing thanks. The only SH team Scotland haven't beaten is NZ. good try though mr pretend I'm foreign

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:...Scotland don't seem to have a barrier when it comes to the SH sides Australia.

I fix it for you.

Not exactly fair. We have beaten Australia twice now, as well as South Africa the last time we played them. Our record against Fiji and Tonga is pretty healthy and despite losing a close game to Argentina in the World Cup we came home with a 100% record from our tour there not long before.

gmclachl wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:...Scotland don't seem to have a barrier when it comes to the SH sides Australia.

I fix it for you.

Not exactly fair. We have beaten Australia twice now, as well as South Africa the last time we played them. Our record against Fiji and Tonga is pretty healthy and despite losing a close game to Argentina in the World Cup we came home with a 100% record from our tour there not long before.

My point exactly. this fella is a poor wum

I'll have to wait 'til next year to revive this post - after the the next cycle of tournament games (6Ns) is over and yet another recurrent occlusion of false dawns is horribly realised.

Portnoy wrote:I'll have to wait 'til next year to revive this post - after the the next cycle of tournament games (6Ns) is over and yet another recurrent occlusion of false dawns is horribly realised.

I am sure England won't do that bad...

Riskysports wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I'll have to wait 'til next year to revive this post - after the the next cycle of tournament games (6Ns) is over and yet another recurrent occlusion of false dawns is horribly realised.

I am sure England won't do that bad...

True Risky,

Maybe Russia and Georgia will be better than England and whoever in div2. But who could tell in a H/A league with bonus points?

Portnoy wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I'll have to wait 'til next year to revive this post - after the the next cycle of tournament games (6Ns) is over and yet another recurrent occlusion of false dawns is horribly realised.

I am sure England won't do that bad...

True Risky,

Maybe Russia and Georgia will be better than England and whoever in div2. But who could tell in a H/A league with bonus points?

And play-offs?

Portnoy, really? You can do better than this, so much better. Where are the tables that you promised for AP minus AI and 6Ns? Priorities, surely?

Obviously the title of the OP and original commentary have stirred some rigorous debate. I think it's a chance to look at the 6 nations afresh. I think that the reality is it could be better and improve European rugby as a whole. The issue is that once people are in it no one wants to lose it. For instance Scotland are a foundation member to be excluded from a competition they helped found and potential loss of revenue and status is something the SRU is likely to fight tooth and nail.

The other side of things is that the current system is ultimately unsustainable. At some point new European nations will have to join the old boys network. I think it's better that the 6 nations are proactive and set up a strategy to increase the 6 nations.

In the short term I'd look to increase the size of the competition to 8 teams. I think this is better than going into a relegation zone with 6 teams.
It allows the existing teams to stay and provides a pathway for at least 2 new teams to progress. At the moment this would be Georgia and Spain.

It allows increased revenue for television companies, with no additional addition to the international season (8 teams could be placed in 2 pools of 4, with teams going through to seeding games and a knock out for the winner (i.e. as in JWC)). If you want relegation/promotion the bottom team could be relegated with the top side from the EC coming up. Alternatively, a 4 yearly review of the strength of the European game to look at promotion. Eventually rugby will become like every other sport and have a European wide competition.

The moment pay TV came in the 5/6 nations was doomed to change. I think it's better if the European RU's are proactive. Ultimately it means that some some traditionally strong sides are going to move down the pecking order. That's an issue that we all face.