A case for the termination of the 6Ns

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 13:05

A chasm is developing between England/Ireland/France/Wales and Scotland/Italy.

IRB World Rankings - 24 February 2014
4(4) ENGLAND 85.46
5(6) IRELAND 80.76
6(7) WALES 80.60
7(5) FRANCE 80.56
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.35
14(13) ITALY 72.05
16(16) GEORGIA 69.57
17(17) ROMANIA 68.66
19(19) RUSSIA 61.20
21(22) PORTUGAL 59.83
22(21) SPAIN 59.71
26(26) GERMANY 56.20
28(29) MOLDOVA 55.11
29(28) BELGIUM 54.44

Surely it's time to have a divisional home and away European 4Ns.

Previously I've argued for a play-off for promotion but now I settle for the IRB rankings to determine the divisions

Say
Europe 1
Europe 2
W. Europe 1
E. Europe 1
Mediterranean 1
and so on...

This would provide incentives to up and coming 3/4 tier nations and stymie the on-going cartel of the iniquitous six.

by GunsGerms Mon 24 Feb - 13:08

France took years to become a decent side. In the 90 Ireland were dreadful and Wales have had their moments too. In the mid 00s England werent great either. Scotland were excellent in the 90s and Itlay have won against everyone bar England.

If it aint broke dont fix it.

by quinsforever Mon 24 Feb - 13:14

the 6N is mostly broken apart from a few random years where it was worth following...

2000...2001...2003...2011...

and this year of course Smile

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 13:19

GunsGerms wrote:France took years to become a decent side. In the 90 Ireland were dreadful and Wales have had their moments too. In the mid 00s England werent great either. Scotland were excellent in the 90s and Itlay have won against everyone bar England.

If it aint broke dont fix it.

Equally GG, why not encourage the likes of Georgia who have shown a consistent rise on the extremely greasy pole of the IRB rankings.

Currently Div 1 would be E,F,S,I home and away to decide a true European championship winner.

Similarly Div 2 would pitch Geo,Ita,Por and Sco in a close contest.

I think that the cartel prevents the contest.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 24 Feb - 13:23

I can see the possibility of a transition, where the traditional Six Nations still takes place but some wider European competition is introduced in at least one year between World Cups.

That wouldn't be because Scotland and Italy are destined to be annual pushovers. More an attempt to grow the game. Heaven knows when the right timing would be for such a move. The Six Nations is still a key asset for TV revenue, so I doubt the unions will want to mess with the formula any time soon.

by Cyril Mon 24 Feb - 13:27

On a slightly different note:

There's a bigger gap between England and Ireland (4th-5th) than there is between Ireland and Scotland (5th-10th).

by quinsforever Mon 24 Feb - 13:28

seems about right. irb rankings have always been about results vs SH teams.

by alive555 Mon 24 Feb - 13:32

funny how the english want to decimate club rugby in europe the H Cup by claiming the lions share of places and revenues (whilst consistently not winning it) , and demanding a top tier 4 nations thus decimating the best rugby competition in the world

and more they want to "spread the game" by having more teams in a second tier.
that is until they get any good... makes me wanna vomit

by Steffan Mon 24 Feb - 13:37

Wales should play in the 4 nations to give the other teams a chance of competing

by tigertattie Mon 24 Feb - 13:39

yeah good luck with this!

I'm sure last years wooden spoon winners would vote through this nonsense idea!

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 13:46

Cyril wrote:On a slightly different note:

There's a bigger gap between England and Ireland (4th-5th) than there is between Ireland and Scotland (5th-10th).

Not on the scoreboard, Cyril.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 13:49

Dear God, Portnoy I'm beginning to think you think more of lists and charts and Tables and sub-tables and divisional factorising than the actual game of rugby that gets played by real players.

You always seem to want more...and less at the very same time. More teams, more sub-divisions, more plotting form and points through numerous catagories and relegations and promotions and.......and anti-cartel of course - always anti-cartel Wink

There is only one year...how many channels of rugby do we all want and how many of us want to watch so much of it? Mediterranean 1 should get a good TV contract....and I'll be tuning in.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 24 Feb - 13:49

There's a bigger gap between England and the next spot than Scotland/Italy and the place above.

Is it time for England to graduate to the rugby championship?

by Geordie Mon 24 Feb - 13:53

Why break what isnt broken.

Italy are developing. Scotland have a rubbish coach being fixed soon. Ireland progressing very quickly with Schmidt, Wales and England looking good...only France that are the frustration.

I would love to see a wider European Championship type competition come through but aside from possibly Georgia and Russia, no team in the 6n "b", "c" etc etc would result in anything other than a cricket score, which isnt helping anyone.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 13:56

GeordieFalcon wrote:Why break what isnt broken.

Italy are developing. Scotland have a rubbish coach being fixed soon. Ireland progressing very quickly with Schmidt, Wales and England looking good...only France that are the frustration.

I would love to see a wider European Championship type competition come through but aside from possibly Georgia and Russia, no team in the 6n "b", "c" etc etc would result in anything other than a cricket score, which isnt helping anyone.

Helping the folks doing the cricket scores. I've changed my mind now actually. I'm all for it! Wink

by Irish Londoner Mon 24 Feb - 14:01

Whilst the other European sides may be getting progressively better what would dropping Scotland or Italy do to grow the game anywhere else - both these sides would dominate a second division compeition (they might have one bad game in tournament but would have enough over a series) and any team promoted would get a series of stuffings that would probably harm the game in their home country more than expand it.
More damaging for the credibility of the competition would be that the tournament could be decided not by wins but by how many points you rack up against the "minnows" - looking at this years table so far would anyone really like their nation to win purely on the basis that they ran in 50 points when everyone else ran in 40 against Georgia?
Also from the point of view of the IRB and the home RFUs, the revenue generated by the current set up would make it unviable and not just for the Celts - does anyone think that Twickenham (or Paris) would sell out for games featuring Portugal or Georgia - they can't even sell out for any AIs not involoving the SH big 3.
I think there is a case for promoting a second tier European international competition and televising it with a possible view to eventually having a promotion relegation scenario but it's a long way off - I also think that the home unions could do more in terms of playing the othe Euro sides but I should imagine the clubs would not be too happy with an extra interntional in the mix.

by Cyril Mon 24 Feb - 14:13

SecretFly wrote:
Cyril wrote:On a slightly different note:

There's a bigger gap between England and Ireland (4th-5th) than there is between Ireland and Scotland (5th-10th).

Not on the scoreboard, Cyril.

Yeah, but that was only in real life. The rankings are written on stone tablets Wink

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 14:19

Italy are now 14th in the IRB rankngs despite their 6Ns cartel position.

Would they really run in a cricket score against the likes of Georgia?
Would Scotland for that matter?

For the past ten years all I've ever heard about the 'minnows' of the 6Ns is words about jam tomorrow.

And the 4Ns could be absorbed into current 6Ns schedule ala the RWC in a similar time frame.

by demosthenes Mon 24 Feb - 14:25

Hmm.

The IRB rankings reflect who you play. So whilst Scotland and Italy sit at the bottom of the major nations rankings, it is because they play the other major nations. And Georgia sit top of the second rank (in European terms) because they play other second (and lower) ranked terms. What this doesn't show is the size of the gulf between the bottom of the top; and the top of the bottom! This only gets shown for what it is on the very few occasions that these teams come up against each other, such as the World Cup. And whilst some of the lower ranked teams can occasionally run the higher close, from recollection they admit that they treat those games as their 'cup finals' and really raise their games for those particular matches.

So how do you close that gap - assuming that you want to? Well, the lower ranked teams need to play against higher standard opponents. But not necessarily against the full 6N teams. It would be interesting to see what sort of standard these European Nations Cup D1A teams are at compared to say the Saxons; Wolfhounds; or Scotland A (I don't know if the others play A sides)

From recollection there were a few years where this sort of tournament took place. It would be interesting and useful to see it run regularly. Alongside the 6N would be useful - but I can see player release and League scheduling issues for both Premiership and Rabo.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 14:31

So a 4N that the bottom side drops out the bottom of every year? And heads off to play in Europe 2 the following season.

So that's even less teams of meaning in the 4N - three?

Afterall, which one of Wales, Ireland, France and England will be regularly at the bottom? - and if you tell me that will be inter-changeable over the years, then I say where is the gap in quality standards? As if England are going down in one year, Scotland, Italy or Georgia are going to be going up in their place.

Back to the cricket score team being in a league they can't handle.

by **Notch** Mon 24 Feb - 14:37

The better idea is to ensure that the next 2 or 3 teams down after the 6N are promoted to regularly playing the 6N teams in the autumn. Once they are competing well they should be invited to join.

This is where the IRB need to step in above the heads of their biggest unions. It's no good New Zealand and Australia saying 'but we could make more money if we played an extra test against England!' and not playing Samoa or Fiji, and it's not good for any of the European sides to be saying 'we could cram in an extra fixture against the All Blacks' and not playing Georgia or Russia. Extend the autumn international window by another week if you have to, just get the developing European nations more games against the Six Nations teams.

How did the Six Nations expand before? Italy were invited to play many test against its current members. They had a very successful run, beating Ireland several times. We need to give Georgia et al. a platform outside the 6N before we talk about changing the format. If they impress, if they win a few, then the question is raised. But we don't have the data right now because there aren't enough meaningful head to heads.

At least games within the international window do not involve appearance fees otherwise no developing nation would ever have a chance of playing the big boys.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 14:41

SecretFly wrote:So a 4N that the bottom side drops out the bottom of every year? And heads off to play in Europe 2 the following season.

So that's even less teams of meaning in the 4N - three?

Afterall, which one of Wales, Ireland, France and England will be regularly at the bottom? - and if you tell me that will be inter-changeable over the years, then I say where is the gap in quality standards? As if England are going down in one year, Scotland, Italy or Georgia are going to be going up in their place.

Back to the cricket score team being in a league they can't handle.

a. read the OP. It would be the rankings position - presumably at the end of the previous season. Not automatic relegation/promotion.
b Cricket scores are often bandied about but seldom occur.

In any case, what fundamental right do Scotland and Italy have to bar Russia, Romania or Georgia from playing at the big table?

by quinsforever Mon 24 Feb - 14:45

6N is a cartel. and the weakest members are the ones most opposed to changing the format. twas ever thus.

is the same in club rugby's Heineken Cup.

only way to break it open is for the IRB to force change, and thats pretty hard to imagine given the IRB board is stuffed full of 6N blazers.

by alive555 Mon 24 Feb - 14:46

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So a 4N that the bottom side drops out the bottom of every year? And heads off to play in Europe 2 the following season.

So that's even less teams of meaning in the 4N - three?

Afterall, which one of Wales, Ireland, France and England will be regularly at the bottom? - and if you tell me that will be inter-changeable over the years, then I say where is the gap in quality standards? As if England are going down in one year, Scotland, Italy or Georgia are going to be going up in their place.

Back to the cricket score team being in a league they can't handle.

a. read the OP. It would be the rankings position - presumably at the end of the previous season. Not automatic relegation/promotion.

LMAO - how can a team ranked outside the top 4 get ranked higher than 5th if they never play competitively against the top 4 ? - they cant !! what a shocker...

b Cricket scores are often bandied about but seldom occur.

In any case, what fundamental right do Scotland and Italy have to bar Russia, Romania or Georgia from playing at the big table?

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 14:49

Notch wrote:The better idea is to ensure that the next 2 or 3 teams down after the 6N are promoted to regularly playing the 6N teams in the autumn. Once they are competing well they should be invited to join.

This is where the IRB need to step in above the heads of their biggest unions. It's no good New Zealand and Australia saying 'but we could make more money if we played an extra test against England!' and not playing Samoa or Fiji, and it's not good for any of the European sides to be saying 'we could cram in an extra fixture against the All Blacks' and not playing Georgia or Russia. Extend the autumn international window by another week if you have to, just get the developing European nations more games against the Six Nations teams.

How did the Six Nations expand before? Italy were invited to play many test against its current members. They had a very successful run, beating Ireland several times. We need to give Georgia et al. a platform outside the 6N before we talk about changing the format. If they impress, if they win a few, then the question is raised. But we don't have the data right now because there aren't enough meaningful head to heads.

At least games within the international window do not involve appearance fees otherwise no developing nation would ever have a chance of playing the big boys.

As ever, a thing that once granted as a privilege it taken as a right.

by alive555 Mon 24 Feb - 15:25

quinsforever wrote:6N is a cartel. and the weakest members are the ones most opposed to changing the format. twas ever thus.

is the same in club rugby's Heineken Cup.

only way to break it open is for the IRB to force change, and thats pretty hard to imagine given the IRB board is stuffed full of 6N blazers.

that sounds exactly like a recipie for disaster.

why stop there ? why not just have the wc featuring aus nz and sa. they are the best teams in the world after all.

same in HK . remove english teams as they rarely win it and are not competitive enough

same rationale as yours. Doh

by quinsforever Mon 24 Feb - 15:28

wasnt making any comment on whether it should be broken open or not.

was just making clear how it would have to be done. and therefore how unlikely it is.

turkeys dont vote for xmas.

don't blame me if you misunderstood.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 15:32

alive555 wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So a 4N that the bottom side drops out the bottom of every year? And heads off to play in Europe 2 the following season.

So that's even less teams of meaning in the 4N - three?

Afterall, which one of Wales, Ireland, France and England will be regularly at the bottom? - and if you tell me that will be inter-changeable over the years, then I say where is the gap in quality standards? As if England are going down in one year, Scotland, Italy or Georgia are going to be going up in their place.

Back to the cricket score team being in a league they can't handle.

a. read the OP. It would be the rankings position - presumably at the end of the previous season. Not automatic relegation/promotion.

LMAO - how can a team ranked outside the top 4 get ranked higher than 5th if they never play competitively against the top 4 ? - they cant !! what a shocker...

b Cricket scores are often bandied about but seldom occur.

In any case, what fundamental right do Scotland and Italy have to bar Russia, Romania or Georgia from playing at the big table?

I'll only answer the last bit as it's the only bit that comes close to giving me a reason to.
The same right as England, Wales, Ireland and France?.... they part own the 6N? We've been here before. Who tells who to get stuffed in a room full of equals?

by nobbled Mon 24 Feb - 15:44

Please don't mess with the 6 Nations.
It's fine as it is.
I cede all TV rights in my household - I disappear into a book, online, or out with the dog when "I'm a celebrity on Ice X-Factor without talent diving get me out of here" is on - providing I'm allowed the 6 Nations and WC matches.
Please don't make me have to renegotiate.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 15:50

SecretFly wrote:
alive555 wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
SecretFly wrote:So a 4N that the bottom side drops out the bottom of every year? And heads off to play in Europe 2 the following season.

So that's even less teams of meaning in the 4N - three?

Afterall, which one of Wales, Ireland, France and England will be regularly at the bottom? - and if you tell me that will be inter-changeable over the years, then I say where is the gap in quality standards? As if England are going down in one year, Scotland, Italy or Georgia are going to be going up in their place.

Back to the cricket score team being in a league they can't handle.

a. read the OP. It would be the rankings position - presumably at the end of the previous season. Not automatic relegation/promotion.

LMAO - how can a team ranked outside the top 4 get ranked higher than 5th if they never play competitively against the top 4 ? - they cant !! what a shocker...

b Cricket scores are often bandied about but seldom occur.

In any case, what fundamental right do Scotland and Italy have to bar Russia, Romania or Georgia from playing at the big table?

I'll only answer the last bit as it's the only bit that comes close to giving me a reason to.
The same right as England, Wales, Ireland and France?.... they part own the 6N? We've been here before. Who tells who to get stuffed in a room full of equals?

That in a nutshell defines the difference between brutal business and sport.

It matters not whether the person knocking on the door has a good argument. The door is shut, locked and bolted to potential interlopers.

Sounds very Imperialist to me.

by Bathman_in_London Mon 24 Feb - 15:59

I like the idea of a play off between the 6N losers and the winners of the 6N 'B', but it probably won't happen due to vested interests.

What might be more realistic in the short term is a European Churchill cup style summer tournament for the 6N A teams plus Georgia etc. Yes there would be some big scores at first in some of the fixtures but in time it tournament would become a big focus for the 'minnows' and it could only improve them.

Personally I think without a global pathway to the top and with sevens becoming an Olympic sport, there will be a real danger that young players from say Spain never really play 15's at all.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 16:34

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
That in a nutshell defines the difference between brutal business and sport.

It matters not whether the person knocking on the door has a good argument. The door is shut, locked and bolted to potential interlopers.

Sounds very Imperialist to me.

Number 1. You didn't answer the question. Who in a room of equals decides who should sacrifice themselves for the interloper's benefit and who 'naturally' gets to stay in the big party?
To me Imperialism is someone in that room saying "our opinion is more important than yours". There seems to be a lot of that attitude and therefore a lot of that 'Imperialist' opinion about lately in polite rugby circles.

Number 2. Nobody is denyng nations the chance to play rugby. Let them play it. Let them evolve. Let them organise their own groups of four or six. Let them put KNOWN money into such Championships and teams and resources and coaching.

Russia, Georgia, Romania, Spain etc...they ain't poor (some under financial pressure at the moment but fundamentals are there for healthy pan European economies). Not many of them need handouts from us.

So - let them have a serious alternative contest? Let them grow together and let's see if the natural law is always that the 6N is the supreme NH contest into the future. Maybe if the others got their act together and became seriously competitive with each other, maybe it's some of us that would be looking to get into their show rather than the other way round! Wink

Don't always have the superior attitude that 6N should always and would always be the premium European International Championship.

Europe has many more millions in population to the SH Championship Nations. There is room enough for other International Championships in their own right. We don't all have to be joined at the hip simply because of a map that says 'Europe'

The argument for increasing the 6N influence is the same as saying top AP sides should have the right to play in the big money Top14. They are two groups of teams doing their own thing.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 18:05

SecretFly wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
That in a nutshell defines the difference between brutal business and sport.

It matters not whether the person knocking on the door has a good argument. The door is shut, locked and bolted to potential interlopers.

Sounds very Imperialist to me.

Number 1. You didn't answer the question. Who in a room of equals decides who should sacrifice themselves for the interloper's benefit and who 'naturally' gets to stay in the big party?
To me Imperialism is someone in that room saying "our opinion is more important than yours". There seems to be a lot of that attitude and therefore a lot of that 'Imperialist' opinion about lately in polite rugby circles.

Number 2. Nobody is denyng nations the chance to play rugby. Let them play it. Let them evolve. Let them organise their own groups of four or six. Let them put KNOWN money into such Championships and teams and resources and coaching.

Russia, Georgia, Romania, Spain etc...they ain't poor (some under financial pressure at the moment but fundamentals are there for healthy pan European economies). Not many of them need handouts from us.

So - let them have a serious alternative contest? Let them grow together and let's see if the natural law is always that the 6N is the supreme NH contest into the future. Maybe if the others got their act together and became seriously competitive with each other, maybe it's some of us that would be looking to get into their show rather than the other way round!
Don't always have the superior attitude that 6N should always and would always be the premium European International Championship.

Europe has many more millions in population to the SH Championship Nations. There is room enough for other International Championships in their own right. We don't all have to be joined at the hip simply because of a map that says 'Europe'

The argument for increasing the 6N influence is the same as saying top AP sides should have the right to play in the big money Top14. They are two groups of teams doing their own thing.

OK.

No 1. "Who in a room of equals decides who should sacrifice themselves for the interloper's benefit and who 'naturally' gets to stay in the big party? " That of course depends on the voting rights and implicitly you are correct and therefore to the detriment of rugby it won't happen unless there's a sh!t load of global pressure on the top ten nations to change their monopolistic practices. As each of the 6Ns holds a veto, it won't happen and therefore a proper h/a 4Ns contest won't be seen. And who in E/F/I/W wouldn't just love that prospect?

"To me Imperialism is someone in that room saying "our opinion is more important than yours". There seems to be a lot of that attitude and therefore a lot of that 'Imperialist' opinion about lately in polite rugby circles." To me Imperialism implies domination of external nations and selfishly exploiting their resources. Plus a policy of maximising the Empire's powers whilst dissipating those of the oppressed. As a fully-qualified Englishman I'd say that's roughly how it works.

"Number 2.[/b] Nobody is denyng nations the chance to play rugby. Let them play it. Let them evolve. Let them organise their own groups of four or six. Let them put KNOWN money into such Championships and teams and resources and coaching.

Russia, Georgia, Romania, Spain etc...they ain't poor (some under financial pressure at the moment but fundamentals are there for healthy pan European economies). Not many of them need handouts from us.

So - let them have a serious alternative contest? Let them grow together and let's see if the natural law is always that the 6N is the supreme NH contest into the future. Maybe if the others got their act together and became seriously competitive with each other, maybe it's some of us that would be looking to get into their show rather than the other way round! Wink

Don't always have the superior attitude that 6N should always and would always be the premium European International Championship."

That roughly follows the Imperialist tactic.
A more modern approach might be to tear down the barriers from within. See the error of historic decisions and cede the right to protect the status quo. There are a few (a precious few) major examples of this occurring on the World stage.

However your suggestion implies the old 1st World tactic of 'encouraging' self help without supplying the means and structures to ever allowing real progress to happen. Again Imperialst.

"Europe has many more millions in population to the SH Championship Nations. There is room enough for other International Championships in their own right. We don't all have to be joined at the hip simply because of a map that says 'Europe'
"
Waffle quite frankly. You're not a politician are you by any chance? You should be is you can expectorate like that.

The argument for increasing the 6N influence is the same as saying top AP sides should have the right to play in the big money Top14. They are two groups of teams doing their own thing.

Non sequitor. Just as nations is nations and continents is continents, leagues is leagues. The Jeff and T14 are national structures with their own strict and historic progression rules. (Other and less fussy leagues are available).

Perhaps D2 S&It could charge the newcomers a few million yo-yos entry fee. That's got a good track record.
If you like Imperialism.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 19:00

Away we go... a long enough reply that dies when the inevitable insult rises, Portnoy.

"Waffle" indeed. I stick to the points I made...all of them.

I say again, you want more, you want less, you want little people being kicked out so that larger people with bigger profit margins (Russia, Georgia, Germany whoever) can get in. You want quality, you want the people who would seek quality to be the ones judging what quality is ("I think we're good enough to be in Europe 1 and because we have lots of TV ariels, we decide that's where we'll be...eternally".)

You talk about being against Imperialism and then outline Imperialist positions - the greed, the juicy greed of England, Ireland, France and Wales having an Elitist High Table, Round Table, Big Money, Perpetual Self-Regarding Lucky Foursome Championship so that this fantasyscape (NH rugby) can feel as self-important as the Big Three down South.

It's all opinions of course and, as always, we all have them. Waffle Heaven.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 24 Feb - 19:19

So you are saying that the glass ceiling should remain, SF?

There would in my mind be no glass ceilings and nothing to hinder the progress of a Georgia to the top table.

You want to perpetuate an indecent cartel. But don't worry, it's not going to happen. The cartel won't let it happen.

Sport indeed! Sport has nothing to do with it in your 'room'. Meanwhile outside, the grapes will wither on the vine for lack of nurtre.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 19:37

I say 6N is a product and products can happen all through Europe - it's a big place - free market and all that guff. You want to see a one world view of Europe and not think that Imperialistic? - then away you go, your thoughts are yours.

I repeat - the world is easy to slice into perfect sections when you always know you're going to control the cutting of the cake - as the BIG TWO in EUROPE Always know they will do. They'll never be outside Head Controlling Office of any future Big Brotherly Love European All Nations event because they have their fingers on the purse strings...and they aren't like you - they don't want to commit suicide for the common good.

It's like the Eurovision - everyone gets a shot at that - even the poor folks, bless 'em. But the Big Folks control the circus and therefore there is qualifying for 'them' little people and yet a free room at the inn for 'us' money lads with the TV aerials/Sat dishes.

No - let the others have their foursome/sixsome cartels; let them buy up the best coaches and let's see real competition develop within Europe itself for the Premium Rugby Event.
It might even lead to the final death of the olde worlde indecent 6N cartel itself. A day for rejoicing to be sure to be sure as the little folk of super rich countries finally get the chance to play against England.

Meanwhile Ireland was the only side last summer who sent an actual team (with players and a ball) to play Georgia. Talk is cheap. Let's start playing them first and then think about inviting them to the party

by Steffan Mon 24 Feb - 19:44

I would scrap the 6 nations and have a:

4 Nations Premiership

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Wales

4 Nations Championship

England
Ireland
France
Argentina

And another tournament including developing nations like Italy, Scotland, Romania, Japan etc

by Duty281 Mon 24 Feb - 19:51

Steffan wrote:I would scrap the 6 nations and have a:

4 Nations Premiership

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Wales

4 Nations Championship

England
Ireland
France
Argentina

And another tournament including developing nations like Italy, Scotland, Romania, Japan etc

Fitting that around the respective NH/SH seasons every year may be a barrier of sorts.

by Cyril Mon 24 Feb - 19:51

Steffan wrote:I would scrap the 6 nations and have a:

4 Nations Premiership

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Wales

4 Nations Championship

England
Ireland
France
Argentina

And another tournament including developing nations like Italy, Scotland, Romania, Japan etc

That suggestion would make me wonder how many years it would be until Wales won a competitive game of rugby again.

by Geordie Mon 24 Feb - 19:53

Well why not run a few experimental games between the 6n 'A' teams and the next tier...

Saxons v Georgia
Wolfhounds v Romania
etc etc

If the 2nd tier teams come through with straight forward victories...then maybe its worth looking at expanding the whole competition. Maybe have a euro cup style with the 6n 'A' teams or possibly a 6n one year...with a wider European competition every 2 or three years.

I don't want the 6n changed yet...but I really do see the need for more higher level exposure for the next tier teams.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Feb - 19:53

Steffan wrote:I would scrap the 6 nations and have a:

4 Nations Premiership

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Wales

4 Nations Championship

England
Ireland
France
Argentina

And another tournament including developing nations like Italy, Scotland, Romania, Japan etc

Best post of the thread.

by Cyril Mon 24 Feb - 19:55

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well why not run a few experimental games between the 6n 'A' teams and the next tier...

Saxons v Georgia
Wolfhounds v Romania
etc etc

If the 2nd tier teams come through with straight forward victories...then maybe its worth looking at expanding the whole competition. Maybe have a euro cup style with the 6n 'A' teams or possibly a 6n one year...with a wider European competition every 2 or three years.

I don't want the 6n changed yet...but I really do see the need for more higher level exposure for the next tier teams.

Sadly with the demise of the Churchill Cup the push for those types of games is pretty unlikely, Geordie.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 24 Feb - 20:14

If it was going to be terminated, id do it on aesthetic grounds to be honest.

by Geordie Mon 24 Feb - 20:14

Cyril wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Well why not run a few experimental games between the 6n 'A' teams and the next tier...

Saxons v Georgia
Wolfhounds v Romania
etc etc

If the 2nd tier teams come through with straight forward victories...then maybe its worth looking at expanding the whole competition. Maybe have a euro cup style with the 6n 'A' teams or possibly a 6n one year...with a wider European competition every 2 or three years.

I don't want the 6n changed yet...but I really do see the need for more higher level exposure for the next tier teams.
Sadly with the demise of the Churchill Cup the push for those types of games is pretty unlikely, Geordie.

True mate...

by Bathman_in_London Tue 25 Feb - 10:35

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/qualifying/news/newsid=2070427.html

Rather than starting a new thread, 55,000 were at the Georgia vs Russia qualifier. Certainly I think that energy and enthusiasm should be harnessed.

by lostinwales Tue 25 Feb - 10:50

What about having a European cup once every 4 years in the summer? - maybe running at the same time as the Lions so that the home nations are encouraged to send out A/B sides.

6N is too well established with fans knowing where they are going to be going year after year.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 25 Feb - 11:02

I would have no issues with a second tier European competition featuring Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and perhaps Russia. Once that got going and showing itself to be a functioning tournament, you could then introduce promotion and relegation with the 6 Nations, one up one down, to encourage progression. Worth noting that under that system France, as holders of the Wooden Spoon, would currently be second tier.

I think that would be the right starting point, but it would require the second tier sides to initiate matters. The door would be open though. I think it could work well.

by SecretFly Tue 25 Feb - 11:11

lostinwales wrote:What about having a European cup once every 4 years in the summer? - maybe running at the same time as the Lions so that the home nations are encouraged to send out A/B sides.

6N is too well established with fans knowing where they are going to be going year after year.

What about more sides simply doing what an Ireland B side did last summer?
Many of our main players were with the Lions, we also had the tour of North America for the virtual A International side - and then we had an Emerging Ireland side turning up in Georgia

It was a mini tournament. A South African B side was also there - called the President's XV. And Uruguay was also there.

Like I said somewhere above, that's the practicality of actually finding ways of playing these sides rather than doing the eternal maths of how they should all be adopted by us into an enlarged 6N format. Play them first. Let's say hello in playing terms.

I'm not so sure where that Tblisi Cup (as it was called) goes from here. It was mentioned as an Inaugural event which suggests it is meant to have a future. Maybe it'll be held again this summer with other National A/B sides turning up.

by SecretFly Tue 25 Feb - 11:16

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would have no issues with a second tier European competition featuring Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and perhaps Russia. Once that got going and showing itself to be a functioning tournament, you could then introduce promotion and relegation with the 6 Nations, one up one down, to encourage progression. Worth noting that under that system France, as holders of the Wooden Spoon, would currently be second tier.

I think that would be the right starting point, but it would require the second tier sides to initiate matters. The door would be open though. I think it could work well.

Good post. Let them knuckle down and get serious (funding/coaching etc) and form another 4, 5 or 6 Nation event. They can drag up their own standards being serious about such an event as they might be expected to do in swinging in to a divsion under the 6N structure.

by Guest Tue 25 Feb - 11:43

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would have no issues with a second tier European competition featuring Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and perhaps Russia. Once that got going and showing itself to be a functioning tournament, you could then introduce promotion and relegation with the 6 Nations, one up one down, to encourage progression. Worth noting that under that system France, as holders of the Wooden Spoon, would currently be second tier.

I think that would be the right starting point, but it would require the second tier sides to initiate matters. The door would be open though. I think it could work well.

The promotion and relegation sounds like a good idea, but then you have the issue of home advantage in the current 6 nations format, is it really fair that you alternate between 3 home and away games yearly?

by Sponsored content