Kick Italy and Scotland out of the Six Nations?

by catchweight Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:06 pm

First topic message reminder :

Some suggestions:

1. Have a 4 Nations tournament with England, Ireland, Wales and France playing each other home and away. This lessens the chances of a tournament being decided on who puts the biggest scores on the whipping boys.

2. Put Italy and Scotland in with Georgia, Russia, Romania etc for a second tier competition. Gives the smaller nations in Europe more of a chance to develop.

Doubt this will be popular with the traditionalists but Scotland and Italy were so pathetic in rolling over at home that they deserve to have their place in the competition questioned. If the top teams didnt approach matches with them so conservatively they could run up massive scores against them all the time. Its not a great way for a competition to be decided.

The final day was thrilling in terms of where the competition would be decided but only the England v France game was a genuine thriller. The other two was just two pathetic teams offering no resistance and being put to the sword. They should be ashamed to have folded so meekly in front of their home fans.

Dont really have a problem with Scotland and Italy being perrenial losers but its bad for the competition when they are just their to act as a scoreboard and come the final day of the competition they dont even show up. Plus having a home and away system amongst the top 4 teams reduces the lottery element of it somewhat.

Mayne the bottom team in the top 4 Nations could play off against the winner of a tier two competition to keep incentives high. It might also encourage the Scots and Italians to get the finger out and give them something to play for.

by Mad for Chelsea Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:56 am

George Carlin wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Italy have a serious, serious problem at FH that's for sure. Think Gori is OK at SH really, not great, but OK. At FH they've never replaced Dominguez, either as a goal-kicker (Mi. Bergamasco went alright for a bit), or as someone to direct play. Haimona and Allan are not the answer, or even close, though I see a bit of potential with Haimona (first half of the England game, where I thought he directed play pretty well). Didn't MacLean used to kick goals? Surely can't be worse than Haimona/Allan, for whom a 50% success rate seems a minor miracle.

I also agree with LD that two pro teams simply isn't enough for Scotland to compete on a regular basis IMO. I know they both have players playing abroad, but Ireland and more recently England have clearly shown the value of having your players play at home, if you can get some agreements with the clubs. Ideally, four professional teams should really be a minimum, with the vast majority of those teams made up of home-grown players. Otherwise, your player-pool is too small.
You've convinced me, Chelsea. Please can you make your cheque for £5 million payable to Mark Dodson, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 5PJ.

Why? Don't you Scots have any rich blokes of your own who'd be willing to bankroll a couple of extra sides? Or does the myth that Scots are, shall we say, somewhat reluctant to part with their (no doubt hard-earned) cash have some truth to it? Very Happy

In all seriousness I do understand the financial problems of the idea, but I stick by what I said: two teams is simply too few players to choose from.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:11 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
George Carlin wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Italy have a serious, serious problem at FH that's for sure. Think Gori is OK at SH really, not great, but OK. At FH they've never replaced Dominguez, either as a goal-kicker (Mi. Bergamasco went alright for a bit), or as someone to direct play. Haimona and Allan are not the answer, or even close, though I see a bit of potential with Haimona (first half of the England game, where I thought he directed play pretty well). Didn't MacLean used to kick goals? Surely can't be worse than Haimona/Allan, for whom a 50% success rate seems a minor miracle.

I also agree with LD that two pro teams simply isn't enough for Scotland to compete on a regular basis IMO. I know they both have players playing abroad, but Ireland and more recently England have clearly shown the value of having your players play at home, if you can get some agreements with the clubs. Ideally, four professional teams should really be a minimum, with the vast majority of those teams made up of home-grown players. Otherwise, your player-pool is too small.
You've convinced me, Chelsea. Please can you make your cheque for £5 million payable to Mark Dodson, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 5PJ.

Why? Don't you Scots have any rich blokes of your own who'd be willing to bankroll a couple of extra sides? Or does the myth that Scots are, shall we say, somewhat reluctant to part with their (no doubt hard-earned) cash have some truth to it?

In all seriousness I do understand the financial problems of the idea, but I stick by what I said: two teams is simply too few players to choose from.

The problem is that we're all socialists in Scotland. That's what makes us so different to the Tory south. Income and wealth generation is against our nature, except when it isn't, which is most of the time.

by **George Carlin** Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:16 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
George Carlin wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Italy have a serious, serious problem at FH that's for sure. Think Gori is OK at SH really, not great, but OK. At FH they've never replaced Dominguez, either as a goal-kicker (Mi. Bergamasco went alright for a bit), or as someone to direct play. Haimona and Allan are not the answer, or even close, though I see a bit of potential with Haimona (first half of the England game, where I thought he directed play pretty well). Didn't MacLean used to kick goals? Surely can't be worse than Haimona/Allan, for whom a 50% success rate seems a minor miracle.

I also agree with LD that two pro teams simply isn't enough for Scotland to compete on a regular basis IMO. I know they both have players playing abroad, but Ireland and more recently England have clearly shown the value of having your players play at home, if you can get some agreements with the clubs. Ideally, four professional teams should really be a minimum, with the vast majority of those teams made up of home-grown players. Otherwise, your player-pool is too small.
You've convinced me, Chelsea. Please can you make your cheque for £5 million payable to Mark Dodson, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 5PJ.

Why? Don't you Scots have any rich blokes of your own who'd be willing to bankroll a couple of extra sides? Or does the myth that Scots are, shall we say, somewhat reluctant to part with their (no doubt hard-earned) cash have some truth to it?

As someone who lives somewhere with no income tax, I am not sure that I will do my countrymen a service by answering that question. Whistle

by Mad for Chelsea Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:23 pm

George Carlin wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
George Carlin wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Italy have a serious, serious problem at FH that's for sure. Think Gori is OK at SH really, not great, but OK. At FH they've never replaced Dominguez, either as a goal-kicker (Mi. Bergamasco went alright for a bit), or as someone to direct play. Haimona and Allan are not the answer, or even close, though I see a bit of potential with Haimona (first half of the England game, where I thought he directed play pretty well). Didn't MacLean used to kick goals? Surely can't be worse than Haimona/Allan, for whom a 50% success rate seems a minor miracle.

I also agree with LD that two pro teams simply isn't enough for Scotland to compete on a regular basis IMO. I know they both have players playing abroad, but Ireland and more recently England have clearly shown the value of having your players play at home, if you can get some agreements with the clubs. Ideally, four professional teams should really be a minimum, with the vast majority of those teams made up of home-grown players. Otherwise, your player-pool is too small.
You've convinced me, Chelsea. Please can you make your cheque for £5 million payable to Mark Dodson, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 5PJ.

Why? Don't you Scots have any rich blokes of your own who'd be willing to bankroll a couple of extra sides? Or does the myth that Scots are, shall we say, somewhat reluctant to part with their (no doubt hard-earned) cash have some truth to it?
As someone who lives somewhere with no income tax, I am not sure that I will do my countrymen a service by answering that question.

funnily enough, I had a telemarketer on the phone yesterday alking to me about how her company could help me reduce my income tax. I responded with "last year my income tax was -80 euros (in France you get something called a "prime pour l'emploi" if you work full time on low wages), can you improve on that?" she went rather quiet. Very Happy

by Shifty Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:10 pm

It's awful how anyone can even contemplate kicking Scotland or Italy out of the tournament.

When France joined the old four nations they were bloody awful for many years. In fact before World War 2 France and Germany played several times a year and results were about 50/50 either way, so Germany could easily of been admitted themselves. If World War 2 hadn't of happened they probably would of been admitted in the late 1930's to early 1940's.

You could of easily made a case for kicking Wales or Ireland out of the tournament in the 1990's because both teams were so poor, but both teams have turned it around and Scotland will at some point as well. It all swings in roundabouts, if you'd of told any Welsh person of the success we'd be enjoying now during the 1990's they of laughed in your face.

by englandglory4ever Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:01 pm

Italy clearly can not compete for more than two games. They should hold up their hands and walk. I also believe Scotland is being left behind by the rest.

by **George Carlin** Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:45 am

I presume that anyone suggesting Scotland and Italy be kicked out of the tournament are under 30-35 years of age.

by The Saint Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:26 am

George Carlin wrote:I presume that anyone suggesting Scotland and Italy be kicked out of the tournament are under 30-35 years of age.

Here come the young people generalisations Wink

.

by SecretFly Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:32 am

Hold on there! Just coz some of us are young and things, don't make us right idiots coz we're not older than you lot were maybe in the dark ages when you all thought the Goodies were funny and f**king David F**king Bowie was a good musician! He can't even sing proper like wot the fella with the ginger hair and pink tattoos can now! You old farts don't no nothinkg!!!

by **George Carlin** Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:35 am

The Saint wrote:
George Carlin wrote:I presume that anyone suggesting Scotland and Italy be kicked out of the tournament are under 30-35 years of age.

Here come the young people generalisations .

by bedfordwelsh Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:41 am

As has been mentioned before it wasnt to long ago that France and England wanted to break away from the rest but since then they haven't had a great deal of success to shout about in the 6 Nations.

I don't think we will see Italy winning it but for me they more than deserve their place in the current set up and have beaten everyone bar England.

If the set up was ever to change then (don't think it will) but if it did then ok let the bottom team battle it out.

by Prothero Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:25 pm

Cant help but think this Wouldn't have been posted had Haskell not run into his own post or England had actually finished the chances they created?

Scotland may have lost 5 games but they gave Wales and France a hell of a game and won the first 40 against england.

Next year further strides will be made and Scotland will have a large say in who wins the tournament again. Hopefully by grinding out a win against England at Murrayfield and having a off day against Ireland in dublin. Wink

by Big Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:07 am

LordDowlais wrote:
I agree with this, also if Georgia keep winning in the second tier and Italy keep losing then the gap will become wider, which is not out of the realms of possibility. How can Scotland and Italy be ranked as tier one sides when they are struggling to stay above tier two sides in the world ranking's ? If it was not for the Pro12 I do not think Scotland or Italy would have a fully professional rugby league within their set-ups, and before anybody says anything about Wales and Ireland, I think we would have the support from within our systems to at least have some sort of professional set-up.

The world cup will go a long way to showing whether or not Georgia are really at the right level. I seem to recall they made a decent fist of it in the last couple of tournaments - pushing Scotland close last time and Ireland close in 2007. They will undoubtedly be looking to get 2 wins for what I think would be the first time, and it's not outside the bounds of possibility that they could make the last 8 (if I remember rightly they were up at half time against Argentina last time, even if they did ship a lot of points towards the end).

For myself I'd sooner see an expanded format 6 nations than dropping Italy/Scotland or switching one for Georgia. There are lots of ways of tackling it even without increasing the number of games. Off the top of my head, go up to 8 for example and you could have two groups of 4 doing a round robin (so 3 matches at that stage) and then the top 2 from each play for positions 1-4 and the bottom 2 for 5-8. Either top 2 from group A playing top 2 from group B and adding points to total from previous, or as a playoff - and same for the bottom 2. Either way still only 2 more games and therefore same number as at present. Still plenty of matches between the top teams with that sort of format, and a few new places to visit.

On a final note, as someone that has been following rugby for 25 years (and I know there are plenty on here that have been following for longer than that) it seems very premature to suggest dropping anyone. It doesn't seem all that long ago to me that Wales were far worse than the current Scotland side, and Scotland were competing for the title. Give it another 4/5 years and who knows which teams will be battling it out at the top and which will struggling to avoid embarrassment.

by LordDowlais Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:22 am

Hi Big, you have quoted me out of context here, I DO NOT want anybody being kicked out of the 6N I have been following the competition for over 30yrs now, god that makes me feel old, what I want to see is Scotland and Italy making more of an effort, both domestically and Internationally, they need more than two pro teams each, they need to start putting in the leg work to get more people playing, and they need to sort their finances out, until then they will both continue being whipping boys.

by Big Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:31 am

LordDowlais wrote:Hi Big, you have quoted me out of context here, I DO NOT want anybody being kicked out of the 6N I have been following the competition for over 30yrs now, god that makes me feel old, what I want to see is Scotland and Italy making more of an effort, both domestically and Internationally, they need more than two pro teams each, they need to start putting in the leg work to get more people playing, and they need to sort their finances out, until then they will both continue being whipping boys.

Apologies, not intended but reading back can see where you are coming from. My first paragraph was intended in response to the quote (i.e. this autumn will be a good opportunity to see where Georgia are really at in rugby terms) and the second couple of paragraphs in response to the thread suggesting Scotland and Italy should be dropped. Also, did that last response using my mobile and have only just realised your post was the bottom of the first page (of many) not the last post! Will now need to catch up with all the discussion since.

by LordDowlais Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:34 am

No probs Big. Hug

by gregortree Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:40 pm

Also Romania, Portugal, (thank goodness the German's don't do it).
Could do an annual 2nd tier 'qualifier' with promotion to the next season's 6n ?

by englandglory4ever Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:49 pm

Have they gone yet? Surely they're not still here.

by TJ Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:50 am

Can anyone else remember a time in the 5 nations when England were regularly whipping boys? I can. Perhaps they should have been kicked out then. I'll give you a clue - England regularly got the wooden spoon in the 70s

by aqualung71 Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:13 am

TJ wrote:Can anyone else remember a time in the 5 nations when England were regularly whipping boys? I can. Perhaps they should have been kicked out then. I'll give you a clue - England regularly got the wooden spoon in the 70s

I assure no italian would have never questioned their spot into the Championship, even if we would have been a winning side.

by beshocked Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:01 am

TJ yet in the 70s the record with Scotland was 4 wins to England 6 to Scotland.

Not exactly a humiliation. Compare that to the one sided head to head of England and Scotland in the last 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_England_and_Scotland

Since 91, Scotland have only beaten England 3 times - all at Murrayfield by 6 points. England have won 23 times, 1 draw.

England have never lost to Italy in 21 matches. Italy have beaten every other side in the 6 nations.

England might have not won a GS since 2003 but are consistently one of the strongest NH sides - also the only NH side to win the RWC.

I don't think the SH sides fear the NH sides at all but I would expect the one they are most wary of is England.

by funnyExiledScot Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:10 am

It is of course true that England have been historically more successful than Scotland at rugby. The sheer weight of numbers will ensure that is always the case I suspect, and as we all know, Scotland may a complete and utter hash of professionalism which has set us back at least a decade compared to the other nations (with the honourable exception of Italy).

Still, I look at it like this. We all clearly love the 6 Nations, the historic rivallries, the wonderful cities and stadia and the banter between the fans. I see absolutely no reason to do anything other than to grow it and expand it. Those who wish to dismantle it are nuts.

by LordDowlais Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:13 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:Those who wish to dismantle it are nuts..

I agree.

by TJ Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:34 am

beshocked wrote:TJ yet in the 70s the record with Scotland was 4 wins to England 6 to Scotland.

Not exactly a humiliation. Compare that to the one sided head to head of England and Scotland in the last 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_England_and_Scotland

Since 91, Scotland have only beaten England 3 times - all at Murrayfield by 6 points. England have won 23 times, 1 draw.

England have never lost to Italy in 21 matches. Italy have beaten every other side in the 6 nations.

England might have not won a GS since 2003 but are consistently one of the strongest NH sides - also the only NH side to win the RWC.

I don't think the SH sides fear the NH sides at all but I would expect the one they are most wary of is England.

However the point remains - England were propping up the table during much of the 70s. 3 wooden spoons in a row at least. Should they have been kicked out?

by beshocked Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:15 pm

TJ but the stats show that Scotland are less competitive against England now than England were in the 70s. Better case to kick you out now though I wouldn't.

England have consistently been one of the best sides in the NH sides - any calls to kick them out would be bonkers. Even England were shared winners in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_rugby_union_team

In the 6 nations - Scotland have been very poor indeed.

Though saying that NZ have more right to refuse to playing the likes of Scotland,Ireland and Wales than we do to refuse to play Italy and Scotland.

by **George Carlin** Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:20 pm

Can we just get the rules nailed down, then please?

I want to know which teams in the IRB rankings we can officially get sniffy about.

by beshocked Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:35 pm

George Carlin the way you gain more respect from teams are winning matches.

Scotland and Italy simply need to win more. You can talk about improving but it will only be seen to be true with wins.

The RWC is a huge opportunity for many teams to showcase their talents and show that they have improved.

Not long before we see who the winners and losers are.

by cakeordeath Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:36 pm

George Carlin wrote:Can we just get the rules nailed down, then please?

I want to know which teams in the IRB rankings we can officially get sniffy about.

I get the feeling from some on here anyone below England in the rankings.

by TJ Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:30 pm

beshocked wrote:TJ but the stats show that Scotland are less competitive against England now than England were in the 70s. Better case to kick you out now though I wouldn't.

England have consistently been one of the best sides in the NH sides - any calls to kick them out would be bonkers. Even England were shared winners in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_rugby_union_team

In the 6 nations - Scotland have been very poor indeed.

Though saying that NZ have more right to refuse to playing the likes of Scotland,Ireland and Wales than we do to refuse to play Italy and Scotland.

Check it out sunshine - 3 wooden spoons in a row. Bottom of the table much of the time. England have not been consistently one of the best teams - back in the 70s they where the worst team much of the time. Not won a huge amount of championshiops recently either. So actually consistently inconsistant

by No 7&1/2 Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:37 pm

1. Wooden spoons weren't about in those days.

2. In games won England are about top in the 6Ns.

3. I still think no team should be kicked out.

by TJ Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:55 pm

Wooden spoon was always about.

England might be near the top of the 6 N now but years ago thyey were near the bo0ttom. I agree no team should get kicked out. Its just amusing to watch people flounder having asserted Scotland are not worthy of a place yet England were in the same position in the 70s.

by beshocked Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:56 pm

TJ what have the 70s got to do with anything? Even England at their worst still won 4 vs Scotland and lost 6. Not a huge amount of championships recently but over the years have won many.

You are on shaky ground if you're only crumb of comfort as a Scots fan is harking back to the 70s.....

As bad as England might well have been in the 70s the head to head is not as one sided as it is these days.

For the Scots and Italy, playing England is just as daunting as playing the top SH sides. Certainly in terms of records in the last 20 years there isn't that much difference.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:58 pm

Shared wooden spoons then TJ!

by **George Carlin** Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:00 pm

beshocked wrote:George Carlin the way you gain more respect from teams are winning matches.

Someone write that down.

by TJ Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:08 pm

beshocked wrote:TJ what have the 70s got to do with anything? Even England at their worst still won 4 vs Scotland and lost 6. Not a huge amount of championships recently but over the years have won many.

You are on shaky ground if you're only crumb of comfort as a Scots fan is harking back to the 70s.....

As bad as England might well have been in the 70s the head to head is not as one sided as it is these days.

For the Scots and Italy, playing England is just as daunting as playing the top SH sides. Certainly in terms of records in the last 20 years there isn't that much difference.

Why are you talking about head to head with Scotland? All I am showing is back in the 70s england were pretty woeful propping up the bottom of the table much of the time.
Ie if scotland are not good enough now - england were not back then - BTW - in recent years Scotland have beaten SH teams a lot more than they have beaten England
;-) OH - and as a scots fan I tell you playing England is not daunting usually.

by highland_scot Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:18 pm

TJ wrote:
beshocked wrote:TJ what have the 70s got to do with anything? Even England at their worst still won 4 vs Scotland and lost 6. Not a huge amount of championships recently but over the years have won many.

You are on shaky ground if you're only crumb of comfort as a Scots fan is harking back to the 70s.....

As bad as England might well have been in the 70s the head to head is not as one sided as it is these days.

For the Scots and Italy, playing England is just as daunting as playing the top SH sides. Certainly in terms of records in the last 20 years there isn't that much difference.

Why are you talking about head to head with Scotland? All I am showing is back in the 70s england were pretty woeful propping up the bottom of the table much of the time.
Ie if scotland are not good enough now - england were not back then - BTW - in recent years Scotland have beaten SH teams a lot more than they have beaten England
;-) OH - and as a scots fan I tell you playing England is not daunting usually.

I don't know... As a Scotland fan I find playing anyone daunting...

by beshocked Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:58 pm

TJ talking about head to head with Scotland because it shows that Scotland struggle against England.

You can hark back to the 70s if you like but it doesn't change Scotland's current predicament.

Also you say England were woeful but they still managed to win 40% of their games vs the Scots.

You just said Scotland have beaten SH sides a lot more than they have England yet you don't find playing England daunting?

If beating England was not daunting then you would think Scotland would do it more than 3 times in 27 matches. That's a winning percentage of 11.111111111

by englandglory4ever Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:38 pm

Harping back to the amateur days where boot money and beer determined who won a rugby match is clutching at straws to say the least. Pro rugby started in 1995. That's the world we live in now.

by funnyExiledScot Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:59 pm

I think the point being made by TJ is that each and every team in the 6 Nations goes through peaks and troughs. Depending on the year you determine this silly cut to take place, since 1995 (the game turning pro) you could have lost Italy, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. Only England have never finished last.

The Wooden Spoon table (since 1995) is as follows:

Italy - 10
Scotland - 4
Ireland - 3
Wales - 2
France - 2

Anyway, even if Scotland had collected the Wooden Spoon in each and every season since 1995, I still wouldn't break up the tournament.

by Exiledinborders Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:51 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think the point being made by TJ is that each and every team in the 6 Nations goes through peaks and troughs. Depending on the year you determine this silly cut to take place, since 1995 (the game turning pro) you could have lost Italy, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. Only England have never finished last.

This proves that only England are consistently good enough to remain in the tournament. Throw the others out. We will win every year. Hurrah! Yahoo

by funnyExiledScot Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:10 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:I think the point being made by TJ is that each and every team in the 6 Nations goes through peaks and troughs. Depending on the year you determine this silly cut to take place, since 1995 (the game turning pro) you could have lost Italy, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. Only England have never finished last.
This proves that only England are consistently good enough to remain in the tournament. Throw the others out. We will win every year. Hurrah!

....and at the same time hold the Wooden Spoon!

When I suggested that we ought to extend this whole "kick the rubbish teams" out approach to the Pro12, the Welsh didn't seem keen!

by Sponsored content