Kick Italy and Scotland out of the Six Nations?

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.

anywayyyyyyyyyyy, back on topic.

Italy and Scotland should definitely not be kicked out. Italy were competitive for most of the Ireland game, beat Scotland, were competitive until half-time against Wales, and were also still in the game at half-time against France. If they could find an even serviceable FH and/or someone to kick their goals they'd obviously be doing better too.

Scotland should/could arguably have won their first three matches, so again it's not like they're complete whipping boys either.

If you go down to four teams, how long before we decide France aren't competitive enough either? After all they were fairly comfortably beaten by Wales and Ireland, smashed by England, and weren't exactly convincing in the matches they did win?

Having said that, given Georgia are now above Italy in the rankings there's almost certainly an argument to think about some sort of promotion/relegation system, surely? Problem being of course that Scotland for instance bring a lot more to the table than Georgia in terms of atmosphere, history and of course money, so I can't really see that as an option that will be seriously considered.

HammerofThunor wrote:France had only conceeded 46 point in the 4 games prior to that. Yet 26 MARGIN wasn't a big target?  As it happens the French decided to **** it and chuck it about, which opened up their defence.

Three tries and five or six penalties whilst minding the defensive shop like hawks???  All that was undoable for this Attacking England at home in Twickenham with a Title up for grabs.  Even Lancaster admitted that he felt at times a little less elan and a little more basics might have been better.
The Title was there had a little more 'boring' Irish way been used, Hammer.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Thankfully the Franco/celtic alliance stuck it to the man.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The idea of dropping to 4 nations is ridiculous.  The whole European international rugby format is based on competitions of 6 teams.

But Georgia are now (I believe) ranked above Italy.  They've done this by being consistently better than their peers and Italy being consistently worse.  So far they'll have been there for a couple of days so not really crying out for change, but how long would that have to happen before something changed?

Personally I'd have a playoff between the winner of the ENC and the loser of the 6 nations (following the same two year cycle as the ENC).  Not sure when these game could be fit in but it would be a way of determining the gap between the two levels.  Maybe even home and away legs and taking the aggregate (making the scheduling even harder).  This would also require a change up in the distribution of finances to ensure no-one collapses completely for a one off.

If we say that we need to keep Scotland and Italy in to allow them to get stronger by making money and playing against higher level competition...what does that mean we're doing to the guys just below by not giving them the chance?

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.

how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?

alive555 wrote:
how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?.

Because as I have said on another thread, even though there are some good Scottish players in the two teams, the best players are not Scottish, they are Fijian or South African, you only have TWO pro sides in Scotland, they should be full of Scottish players, but they are not, look at Edinburgh, they are full of South Africans.

Seams a bit like the Old Heinken Cup debate, England want to change the tournament so they have more chance of winning it.

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:
how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?.

Because as I have said on another thread, even though there are some good Scottish players in the two teams, the best players are not Scottish, they are Fijian or South African, you only have TWO pro sides in Scotland, they should be full of Scottish players, but they are not, look at Edinburgh, they are full of South Africans.

The last league game before the 6 nations Glasgow had 11 Scottish players , 2 Fijians and 1 Saffer , who is about to become Scottish , in the starting 15

The last cup game they played in they had 11 Scottish players, 2 Fijians and a Canadian starting.

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:
how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?.

Because as I have said on another thread, even though there are some good Scottish players in the two teams, the best players are not Scottish, they are Fijian or South African, you only have TWO pro sides in Scotland, they should be full of Scottish players, but they are not, look at Edinburgh, they are full of South Africans.

Dowlais, old socks, we've already been through this.

For Edinburgh, that's a valid comment. For Glasgow, it really isn't. Glasgow has 46 registered players. All of them bar 8 are SQ. One of those 8 (Josh Strauss) will be SQ in time for the world cup, so I'm not counting him. Out of remaining 7 who are not SQ, only Nakarawa, Matawalu, Van Der Merwe and either De Klerk or Yanuyanutawa (not both) would be in a first choice Glasgow starting 23. 4 out of 23 being NSQ compares pretty favourably to the other regions.

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:
how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?.

Because as I have said on another thread, even though there are some good Scottish players in the two teams, the best players are not Scottish, they are Fijian or South African, you only have TWO pro sides in Scotland, they should be full of Scottish players, but they are not, look at Edinburgh, they are full of South Africans.

The last league game before the 6 nations Glasgow had 11 Scottish players , 2 Fijians and 1 Saffer , who is about to become Scottish , in the starting 15

The last cup game they played in they had 11 Scottish players, 2 Fijians and a Canadian starting.

Yes but the two squads have too many NSQ players within them, you only have two squads to fill, they should be full of Scottish players, and the best players should be Scottish, not Fijian or South African, I will concede that Straus will be a good player for Scotland, but at the end of the day you should not be going down that route with only two teams, I watched an Edinburgh side not so long ago and they had about 13 SouthAfricans starting, that is why the national side is struggling if you ask me.

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:
how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?.

Because as I have said on another thread, even though there are some good Scottish players in the two teams, the best players are not Scottish, they are Fijian or South African, you only have TWO pro sides in Scotland, they should be full of Scottish players, but they are not, look at Edinburgh, they are full of South Africans.

The last league game before the 6 nations Glasgow had 11 Scottish players , 2 Fijians and 1 Saffer , who is about to become Scottish , in the starting 15

The last cup game they played in they had 11 Scottish players, 2 Fijians and a Canadian starting.

Yes but the two squads have too many NSQ players within them, you only have two squads to fill, they should be full of Scottish players, and the best players should be Scottish, not Fijian or South African, I will concede that Straus will be a good player for Scotland, but at the end of the day you should not be going down that route with only two teams, I watched an Edinburgh side not so long ago and they had about 13 SouthAfricans starting, that is why the national side is struggling if you ask me.

scotland needs another team until then we dont have a hope in hell. the sru are completely to blame for that - all fireworks and no firepower in the marketing and finance department.

George Carlin wrote:Dowlais, old socks, we've already been through this.

Ok George fine, you keep living in denial. Glasgow might not be as bad as Edinburgh, but my point still stands, you only have two pro sides, you should be starting with as many SQ players as possible, you cannot have a competitive national side with only one team partially full of SQ players.

Love it. We've just had probably the greatest end to a rugby tournament of all time, and the usual knuckle draggers are proposing we tear the competition apart and start from scratch!!

LordDowlais wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Dowlais, old socks, we've already been through this.  

Ok George fine, you keep living in denial. Glasgow might not be as bad as Edinburgh, but my point still stands, you only have two pro sides, you should be starting with as many SQ players as possible, you cannot have a competitive national side with only one team partially full of SQ players.

I'm a Scotland fan. Living in denial is very much how we get by.

The Scots NEED four Teams.  No ifs, ands or buts - two sides will not do it.  At least four might.

The SRU must get off their bums and work it out - how to get two more sides up and running.  Scotland has I think 5 million people - more than enough to get things done if the will is there.

It is no surprise that the Nations with only two sides apiece are the ones struggling to maintain consistency.

Italy too needs to get serious and ask itself is it serious about competing against its partners?  If it is, then it too needs to find at least two more sides.  60 million population. Get moving. 21st century.

George Carlin wrote:I'm a Scotland fan. Living in denial is very much how we get by

I suppose so George, but the answer is starring you in the face, either have more pro sides, or have less NSQ players in the only two sides you have.

LordDowlais wrote:Yes but the two squads have too many NSQ players within them, you only have two squads to fill, they should be full of Scottish players, and the best players should be Scottish, not Fijian or South African, I will concede that Straus will be a good player for Scotland, but at the end of the day you should not be going down that route with only two teams, I watched an Edinburgh side not so long ago and they had about 13 SouthAfricans starting, that is why the national side is struggling if you ask me.

Really?? Which game? 13 doesn't sound right at all.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yes but the two squads have too many NSQ players within them, you only have two squads to fill, they should be full of Scottish players, and the best players should be Scottish, not Fijian or South African, I will concede that Straus will be a good player for Scotland, but at the end of the day you should not be going down that route with only two teams, I watched an Edinburgh side not so long ago and they had about 13 SouthAfricans starting, that is why the national side is struggling if you ask me.

Really?? Which game? 13 doesn't sound right at all.

Yes I will try and research it, I distinctly remember seeing the line-ups and even the commentators picked up on it. They were mostly South Africans.

LordDowlais wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yes but the two squads have too many NSQ players within them, you only have two squads to fill, they should be full of Scottish players, and the best players should be Scottish, not Fijian or South African, I will concede that Straus will be a good player for Scotland, but at the end of the day you should not be going down that route with only two teams, I watched an Edinburgh side not so long ago and they had about 13 SouthAfricans starting, that is why the national side is struggling if you ask me.

Really?? Which game? 13 doesn't sound right at all.

Yes I will try and research it, I distinctly remember seeing the line-ups and even the commentators picked up on it. They were mostly South Africans.

i posted the edinburgh squad on here once and it was a shocker. something approaching 15-20 nsq players. almost all crap. things are a lot better now tho...

I am trying to find the game but I cannot remember who it was against, I will keep looking.

I can only assume that OP is a small child who can't remember the 90's when Wales and Ireland were regularly gubbed by 50 points, or the 70's when England were regularly whipped. These things come in cycles and yes Scotlands cycle of poorness has been quite a long time but they'll rebuild and come again. Italy are a young nation rugby wise and will also build.

SecretFly wrote:The Scots NEED four Teams.  No ifs, ands or buts - two sides will not do it.  At least four might.

The SRU must get off their bums and work it out - how to get two more sides up and running.  Scotland has I think 5 million people - more than enough to get things done if the will is there.

It is no surprise that the Nations with only two sides apiece are the ones struggling to maintain consistency.

Italy too needs to get serious and ask itself is it serious about competing against its partners?  If it is, then it too needs to find at least two more sides.  60 million population.  Get moving.  21st century.

ive heard absolutely jack on this . the only thing i ever heard out of the sru was the target was to win the wc. yeah pigs fly and all that. makes the sru look like they are a bunch of overpaid underachievers (six nations champions every year since inception imho)

in any business the bosses need to carry the can for the results , they determine playing resources sponsorship etc. not the fans

one thing alarmingly absent is any strategic plan ? is there one ? it should read the sru plan is ___________________ and right on the front page of the website

ie.
2015 increase state schools playing rugby by 5pc
2016 increase state schools playing rugby by 10pc
2017 increase state schools playing rugby by 15pc and launch 3rd pro rugby team
2018 increase state schools playing by 15pc etc etc

net gain 50pc in state schools 50pc in pro players. thats you business plan right there

once u got that then performance can be measured and everyone knows whats expected. if they fail they get fired just like the coach will, and the players.

I am not sure but I think I have found it, I do not know if any of these players are still there, or if they are SQ by now but anyway most of this Edinburgh side were NOT Scottish at the time:-

http://www.espnscrum.com/guinness-pro12-2014-15/rugby/match/233383.html

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:
how do u explain the fact that scotland in pro 12 are very competitive vs welsh sides but rank when they play as one team ?.

Because as I have said on another thread, even though there are some good Scottish players in the two teams, the best players are not Scottish, they are Fijian or South African, you only have TWO pro sides in Scotland, they should be full of Scottish players, but they are not, look at Edinburgh, they are full of South Africans.

The last league game before the 6 nations Glasgow had 11 Scottish players , 2 Fijians and 1 Saffer , who is about to become Scottish , in the starting 15

The last cup game they played in they had 11 Scottish players, 2 Fijians and a Canadian starting.

Yes but the two squads have too many NSQ players within them, you only have two squads to fill, they should be full of Scottish players, and the best players should be Scottish, not Fijian or South African, I will concede that Straus will be a good player for Scotland, but at the end of the day you should not be going down that route with only two teams, I watched an Edinburgh side not so long ago and they had about 13 SouthAfricans starting, that is why the national side is struggling if you ask me.

Unless I am mistaken (which I am not) your original comment was in regard to the gulf in class between club and international team, more. I think someone mentioned Glasgow and Leinster. You said it was because the Scottish teams were full of NSQ. I am just pointing out that Glasgow is far from it.

You are spot on about only having 2 pro sides.

LordDowlais wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I'm a Scotland fan. Living in denial is very much how we get by

I suppose so George, but the answer is starring you in the face, either have more pro sides, or have less NSQ players in the only two sides you have.

Absolutely. I really do prefer the first of those two solutions, but apparently it costs 5 million quid a year and the SRU cannot reduce the amount it spends on corporate jollies or jaffa cakes.

cakeordeath wrote:Unless I am mistaken (which I am not) your original comment was in regard to the gulf in class between club and international team, more. I think someone mentioned Glasgow and Leinster. You said it was because the Scottish teams were full of NSQ. I am just pointing out that Glasgow is far from it.

But the best players in the Glasgow team are not Scottish.

LordDowlais wrote:I am not sure but I think I have found it, I do not know if any of these players are still there, or if they are SQ by now but anyway most of this Edinburgh side were NOT Scottish at the time:-

http://www.espnscrum.com/guinness-pro12-2014-15/rugby/match/233383.html

14 out of the 22 are SQ. Also this is smack bang in the middle of the 6 Natoins

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:Unless I am mistaken (which I am not) your original comment was in regard to the gulf in class between club and international team, more. I think someone mentioned Glasgow and Leinster. You said it was because the Scottish teams were full of NSQ. I am just pointing out that Glasgow is far from it.

But the best players in the Glasgow team are not Scottish.

Um, if you say so. Didn't realise you were such a follower of Scottish rugby

2 years ago

[th]Position[/th][th]Nation[/th][th]Games[/th][th]Points[/th][th]Tablepoints[/th][th]Played[/th][th]Won[/th][th]Drawn[/th][th]Lost[/th][th]For[/th][th]Against[/th][th]Difference[/th][th]Tries[/th]

1	Wales	5	4	0	1	122	66	+56	9	8
2	England	5	4	0	1	94	78	+16	5	8
3	Scotland	5	2	0	3	98	107	−9	7	4
4	Italy	5	2	0	3	75	111	−36	5	4
5	Ireland	5	1	1	3	72	81	−9	5	3
6	France	5	1	1	3	73	91	−18	6	3

Gooseberry wrote:2 years ago

[th]Position[/th][th]Nation[/th][th]Games[/th][th]Points[/th][th]Tablepoints[/th][th]Played[/th][th]Won[/th][th]Drawn[/th][th]Lost[/th][th]For[/th][th]Against[/th][th]Difference[/th][th]Tries[/th]

1	Wales	5	4	0	1	122	66	+56	9	8
2	England	5	4	0	1	94	78	+16	5	8
3	Scotland	5	2	0	3	98	107	−9	7	4
4	Italy	5	2	0	3	75	111	−36	5	4
5	Ireland	5	1	1	3	72	81	−9	5	3
6	France	5	1	1	3	73	91	−18	6	3

Thanks for that code Goose, it might come in handy sometime for making me graphs more pleasing to the eye

cakeordeath wrote:14 out of the 22 are SQ. Also this is smack bang in the middle of the 6 Natoins.

They were not at the time, I suggest you do a little research on the players, I counted at least 5 New Zealanders, 4 South Africans, 2 Australians and 2 English, 1 Irish and by then I got fed up of checking, 6N or not, that is pretty awful.

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:14 out of the 22 are SQ. Also this is smack bang in the middle of the 6 Natoins.

They were not at the time, I suggest you do a little research on the players, I counted at least 5 New Zealanders, 4 South Africans, 2 Australians and 2 English, 1 Irish and by then I got fed up of checking, 6N or not, that is pretty awful.

I didn't say they were Scottish I said they were SQ. Also the 6 Nations starts beginning of February and finishes end of March, so my original comment stands. Smack bang in the middle. Not all Scottish players are released back to their clubs.

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:14 out of the 22 are SQ. Also this is smack bang in the middle of the 6 Natoins.

They were not at the time, I suggest you do a little research on the players, I counted at least 5 New Zealanders, 4 South Africans, 2 Australians and 2 English, 1 Irish and by then I got fed up of checking, 6N or not, that is pretty awful.

I didn't say they were Scottish I said they were SQ

They might be now, they were not at the time.

Seams a bit like the Old Heinken Cup debate, England want to change the tournament so they have more chance of winning it.

Yes it does doesn’t it.

Somebody – not a familiar name to me – puts up a suggestion and suddenly a non-Anglo forum member claims it’s all an English plot and all of England back the original poste. Do me a favour - Get a Grip man.

The 6N is probably one of the best international tournaments going, yes the format is not ideal, yes there are cycles when certain teams don’t do so well, but bloody hell it’s a magnificent rugby occasion that allow thousands of fans to visit beautiful and interesting countries, for me we should not be reducing the numbers but increasing them.

As for Scotland going, here’s a thing, before the interweb thing and all of these forums started, I couldn’t give a tuppence happeny about Wales or Ireland, for me, being from this part of the world, Scotland were the ones to beat, so don’t you go pulling out my enemies – I need them there.

John Jeffries was famous for saying that the only bad thing about a hill on his holdings was that from there he could see England. Do you think the Northern English feel anything different to their Scottish kindred? I feel privileged to have the Scots as my main enemy and I would be distraught if the left.

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:14 out of the 22 are SQ. Also this is smack bang in the middle of the 6 Natoins.

They were not at the time, I suggest you do a little research on the players, I counted at least 5 New Zealanders, 4 South Africans, 2 Australians and 2 English, 1 Irish and by then I got fed up of checking, 6N or not, that is pretty awful.

I didn't say they were Scottish I said they were SQ

They might be now, they were not at the time.

Nope, that was a the time as well

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:14 out of the 22 are SQ. Also this is smack bang in the middle of the 6 Natoins.

They were not at the time, I suggest you do a little research on the players, I counted at least 5 New Zealanders, 4 South Africans, 2 Australians and 2 English, 1 Irish and by then I got fed up of checking, 6N or not, that is pretty awful.

I didn't say they were Scottish I said they were SQ

They might be now, they were not at the time.

Nope, that was a the time as well

I have missed one as well. So that is 15 SQ players

LordDowlais wrote:I am not sure but I think I have found it, I do not know if any of these players are still there, or if they are SQ by now but anyway most of this Edinburgh side were NOT Scottish at the time:-

http://www.espnscrum.com/guinness-pro12-2014-15/rugby/match/233383.html

Nope - you must be thinking of a different game (I've put South Africans in bold). 4 rather than 13. 8 of the 23 were NSQ. Whilst I agree that we have too many NSQ players who are not contributing enough (Te Rure, Andress and Strauss would be classic examples from that squad), the issue is often overstated in the case of Edinburgh. Saying that there were 13 South Africans being a clear example.

Team
15 - Jack Cuthbert - SQ
14 - Dougie Fife - SQ
13 - Sam Beard - NSQ
12 - Phil Burleigh - NSQ
11 - Tim Visser - SQ
10 - Jade Te Rure - NSQ
9 - Grayson Hart - SQ
1 - Rory Sutherland - SQ
2 - Neil Cochrane - SQ
3 - WP Nel - NSQ (although SQ for the World Cup)
4 - Ollie Atkins - SQ
5 - Anton Bresler - NSQ
6 - Mike Coman - NSQ
7 - Roddy Grant - SQ
8 - David Denton - SQ

Replacements
16 - Stuart McInally - SQ
17 - Grant Shiells - SQ
18 - John Andress - NSQ
19 - Fraser McKenzie - SQ
20- Hugh Blake - SQ
21 - Nathan Fowles - SQ
22 - Tom Heathcote - SQ
23 - Andries Strauss - NSQ

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I am not sure but I think I have found it, I do not know if any of these players are still there, or if they are SQ by now but anyway most of this Edinburgh side were NOT Scottish at the time:-

http://www.espnscrum.com/guinness-pro12-2014-15/rugby/match/233383.html

Nope - you must be thinking of a different game (I've put South Africans in bold). 4 rather than 13. 8 of the 23 were NSQ. Whilst I agree that we have too many NSQ players who are not contributing enough (Te Rure, Andress and Strauss would be classic examples from that squad), the issue is often overstated in the case of Edinburgh. Saying that there were 13 South Africans being a clear example.

Team
15 - Jack Cuthbert - SQ
14 - Dougie Fife - SQ
13 - Sam Beard - NSQ
12 - Phil Burleigh - NSQ
11 - Tim Visser - SQ
10 - Jade Te Rure - SQ
9 - Grayson Hart - SQ
1 - Rory Sutherland - SQ
2 - Neil Cochrane - SQ
3 - WP Nel - NSQ (although SQ for the World Cup)
4 - Ollie Atkins - SQ
5 - Anton Bresler - NSQ
6 - Mike Coman - NSQ
7 - Roddy Grant - SQ
8 - David Denton - SQ

Replacements
16 - Stuart McInally - SQ
17 - Grant Shiells - SQ
18 - John Andress - NSQ
19 - Fraser McKenzie - SQ
20- Hugh Blake - SQ
21 - Nathan Fowles - SQ
22 - Tom Heathcote - SQ
23 - Andries Strauss - NSQ

Fixed that for you. So that's 16 SQ player

Cheers, I had no idea Te Rure was SQ. Not that it matters (other than to further show how little Lord Dowlais knows what he's talking about!)

OK guys, have it your way, there is nothing wrong with Scottish rugby, all is fine, there must be something else that is causing Scotland to lose all the time.

LordDowlais wrote:OK guys, have it your way, there is nothing wrong with Scottish rugby, all is fine, there must be something else that is causing Scotland to lose all the time.

We don't lose all the time. we lose a lot of the time.

In answer to the OP - No.
I love the 6 Nations. Yes Scotland are at a low ebb and Italy need a bloody kicker, but things change. You don't get better playing worse teams.
Ideally I'd like to have a 6 Nations where every team played each other home and away!
Not possible, but two and a half months of great international rugby!

cakeordeath wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:OK guys, have it your way, there is nothing wrong with Scottish rugby, all is fine, there must be something else that is causing Scotland to lose all the time.

We don't lose all the time. we lose a lot of the time.

Quite right. There's also plenty wrong with Scottish rugby, and you've hit upon a salient point LD, but there's just no need to make things up in order to lend it some weight.

People are happy skew these rubbish stats like Ireland being bad in the 90s. Yes they were bad but they also played in a tournament that didnt have Italy there to be beaten every year.

What percentage of games have Scotland and Italy won excluding each other since the Six Nations began?

What real progress have they made? Scotland are falling further behind and Italy are and will remain pretty dreadful.

If they are going to keep them in they should look at revising how the tournament is won. Having a tournament that will be as often as not decided upon which of the top 4 teams hammers the bottom two by more points, or who gets to play an uninterested Italy on the last day and puts 50 or 60 points past them is a pretty unsatisfying end to a championship, regardless of what Nations ends up winning up.

This year the title probably just about went to the right Nation and the exciting finale overlooked two abject surrenders by by the whipping boys so no big deal will be made of it. But in future years there will be championships decided on the last day by teams tonking Italy or Scotland by 40/50/60 points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Six_Nations_Championship#Table

Wow. One year in 15. When Ireland barely had enough players to field a team.

That's an idea. If more than one team are equal on points the winners is dependent on

1) points scored against those teams (in terms of 2 for a win, 1 for a draw)

2) Points difference against those teams.

So this year, England beat Wales, Ireland beat England and Wales beat Ireland. So on to points difference.

Wales +7 -5 so +2
Ireland -7 +10 so +3
England +5 -10 so -5

So it would just switch England and Wales.

catchweight wrote:Wow. One year in 15. When Ireland barely had enough players to field a team.

replace barely with barely more than double Scotland's playing resources.

Also note that year u would have France being demoted to second tier ? that would be real good for the 6nations . Farce !

If we were to have applied this logic consistently throughout the last 40 years the tournament would probably be called the Two Nations, and be a dull failure.

alive555 wrote:

catchweight wrote:Wow. One year in 15. When Ireland barely had enough players to field a team.

replace barely with barely more than double Scotland's playing resources.

Also note that year u would have France being demoted to second tier ? that would be real good for the 6nations . Farce !

I dont really care about Scotlands playing resources as an excuse. If I had my way, Italy and Scotland be a lot closer to the rest. Thats not the case. Maybe the threat of relegation would enourage sides to get the finger out on the final day of the championship.

I would prefer the perrenial losers not to have such a decisive impact of points differance deciding the championship, especially based on them deciding for who and when they turn up.

I dont see anything wrong with Scotland and Italy having a target on their back for the likes of Georgia and Romania. Especially after some of the abject hidings they have got in recent years. If the game is to continue to grow and develop then a multi tier European system will be inneviteable in any case.

Im not even that fussed if Italy and Scotland spend the vast majority of the next 15 years routed to the bottom of the table playing for the Wooden Spoon. I just dont like the idea that on the last day when they have nothing to play for they ship 50 points to whoever and the 6 Ntions becomes a points aggregate lottery half the time.

It would have been a farce if Wales had won this tournament via whipping a surrendered Italy team by 60 or 70 points.