Should Italy be kicked out of the 6 Nations?

Spore

Well, should they? Yet again they're the whipping boys of the tournament, added little to the games they played apart from some negative rugby particularly against us, when, rather than playing the game they thought they'd just take our players out e.g. Rob Kearney and the high tackles.

They haven't improved since being admitted, actually I think they've gotten worse. Now they're going to be admitted to the Magners League, so yet another competition is going to be distorted with shíite Italian teams in the pool stages a la the Heineken Cup. If the Italian RFU was given some sort of Ultimatum it might improve their attitude to the competition, start playing rugby instead of trying to bully teams up front. They could be told something simple like just win one game and take it from there. Maybe Argintina could take they're place if they don't?

What's the consensus? Poll to follow!

RuggieBear

italy have beaten Wales and Scotland in the 6 nations very recently. They probably should have beaten us last year.

By your rationale, Ireland would have been kicked out of the 5 nations in the 90's.

I was at every home game between 91 and 99 and i think i saw about 4 Irish wins in the championship (not sure of the actual figure but it couldn't have been more than that...:eek:).

I watched us get absolutely hammered by Samoa too and a 6 all draw with Scotland which was probably the worst match of all time.

So no Italy don't play an attractive brand of rugby but they are reasonably competitive and deserve to play in the championship

PCros

Yes I agree they should leave and maybe the IRB should do up another European tournament for maybe Italy, Georgia, Romania and Portugal which would be good.

That in turn would make the latter teams much better and more experienced when it comes to World Cups.

I think its only fair to leave Italy out, they've won 6 games in the six nations over 9 years? It must be demoralising for them coming back every year knowing that they are going to lose every match most likely.

As for Argentina, they're most likely going to join the tri-nations.

PCros

RuggieBear wrote: »

By your rationale, Ireland would have been kicked out of the 5 nations in the 90's.

I was at every home game between 91 and 99 and i think i saw about 4 Irish wins in the championship (not sure of the actual figure but it couldn't have been more than that...:eek:).

The thing is though Ireland have been in this competition since the start and have had one or two bad spells (one of them beeing the 90s) but they've always improved after whereas Italy don't seem to bee improving at all in my view.

Serenity Now!

PCros wrote: »

It must be demoralising for them coming back every year knowing that they are going to lose every match most likely

That would be up to them and not you to consider.

PCros wrote: »

As for Argentina, they're most likely going to join the tri-nations.

No, they're not. Aside from press speculation when there's eff all to write about, there has been nothing evident to suggest the Argentinians are "most likely" joining the Tri Nations.

Spore

RuggieBear wrote: »

By your rationale, Ireland would have been kicked out of the 5 nations in the 90's.

I knew someone would bring that up! Well the fact of the matter is Ireland was one of the founding Union teams and our history is as old as the Champoinship, we've had great spells and not so great spells and dire spells like the early nineties but we've always been competitive and our history would indicate that we'd improve with a new generation. Italy have shown zilch in terms of improvement, their involvement in the competition was orginally mooted to improve their test match Competitiveness the irony being they're less competative now than ever. Don't see them improving, kick them out!

Amazotheamazing

They have to be kept in, imo. I actually think they are improving, year on year, the only thing is that other teams are improving too so the improvement isn't as evident. Italy would comfortably beat every other European team that isn't in the 6 nations. The two teams that would, maybe, challenge them are Georgia and Romania. We should be looking to find a way to include both of them in a meaningful competition too.

PCros

Serenity Now! wrote: »

That would be up to them and not you to consider.

That was my opinion not a statement, please read things first.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

No, they're not. Aside from press speculation when there's eff all to write about, there has been nothing evident to suggest the Argentinians are "most likely" joining the Tri Nations.

Apart from this article which suggests they may take part in 2012. Yes its speculation to whether or not they will join but it has to start somewhere.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090305-rugby-argentina-join-tri-nations-2012-australia-new-zealand-south-africa

Noopti

Serenity Now! wrote: »

That would be up to them and not you to consider.


No, they're not. Aside from press speculation when there's eff all to write about, there has been nothing evident to suggest the Argentinians are "most likely" joining the Tri Nations.

http://www.scrum.com/trinations/rugby/story/92936.html

Argentina's hopes of joining the Tri-Nations competition have been boosted following a meeting of the SANZAR executive committee in Dubai.

The Pumas, currently fourth in the world rankings, have long been pushing for promotion to an elite competition - either the Tri-Nations or the Six Nations in Europe. However, following an International Rugby Board ruling that their future was in the southern hemisphere, the Argentina Rugby Union (UAR) have concentrated their efforts on SANZAR, the umbrella body representing South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

Those pleas have been rewarded with SANZAR instructing a working party to investigate the viability of their case. Argentina finished third at the 2007 Rugby World Cup and were rewarded with an expanded Test schedule and entry into Churchill Cup competition but they are likely to have to wait until 2011 for a place in the Tri-Nations.

I think this pretty much confirms that Argentina are "most likely" to join the Tri-Nations. Certainly a LOT more likely than them joing the 6 nations.

egan007

You would think to read this thread that the 6nations is a high quality tournament - it was good this year - some good matches ...and of course we won.
But most years there are very few matches.

Italy can never get better if they can't compete.

Argentina would whip every team in the 6 nations.

Amazotheamazing

PCros wrote: »

The thing is though Ireland have been in this competition since the start and have had one or two bad spells (one of them beeing the 90s) but they've always improved after whereas Italy don't seem to bee improving at all in my view.

Money talks, Italy is a far bigger country than Ireland, a far bigger potential market. As it is, I think nearly all their home games are sell-outs, they nearly beat Australia last October, and they have huge underage numbers. We need to stop looking at them year by year and instead ask, is rugby itself stronger in Italy since it's inclusion in the 6 nations. Of course it is. We probably won't see the first really competitive Italian side for another 10 years, imo.

By the way, should we kick Connacht, the continually crap, last placed, shambolic, Irish team out of the ML, or do we stick with them and hope they can improve?

Amazotheamazing

egan007 wrote: »

You would think to read this thread that the 6nations is a high quality tournament - it was good this year - some good matches ...and of course we won.
But most years there are very few matches.

Italy can never get better if they can't compete.

Argentina would whip every team in the 6 nations.

We beat Argentina last November, I reckon if they were included in the 6 nations (and I think we should include them), they'd be like Ireland or Wales are at the minute, with good years and bad years, maybe even good decades and bad decades.

Webbs

Spore wrote: »

I knew someone would bring that up! Well the fact of the matter is Ireland was one of the founding Union teams and our history is as old as the Champoinship, we've had great spells and not so great spells and dire spells like the early nineties but we've always been competitive and our history would indicate that we'd improve with a new generation. Italy have shown zilch in terms of improvement, their involvement in the competition was orginally mooted to improve their test match Competitiveness the irony being they're less competative now than ever. Don't see them improving, kick them out!

Would you have done the same to France as they won only 5 of their first 50 games in the 5N?

bleg

no, exclusion is not the way to go about it. they need to be included in the 6 nations and will be accomodated in the magners league with a team each from milan and rome. excluding italy is a step backwards in developing the sport.

Amazotheamazing

The big question for European rugby isn't what to do with improving Italy, as I said, their player numbers are very impressive underage and that's eventually going to improve their senior team, it's what to do with the tier two countries that could be competitive on any given day, or used to be competitive but are now in the doldrums.

Georgia are the obvious example, with our memories of the RWC, they have a good number of pro players in France but rarely get the opportunity to play tier one countries.

Romania were a serious force in the 1980's, but have declined since then.

If we could bring these countries closer to tier one standard we'd greatly improve the health of European rugby, imo.

Below them again you have teams like Portugal, Spain and Russia but I don't think the game is anywhere near as established yet in those countries.

KevinK

PCros wrote: »

Yes I agree they should leave and maybe the IRB should do up another European tournament for maybe Italy, Georgia, Romania and Portugal which would be good.



quote]

This tournament does exist with Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Russia, Germany and Spain.

dub_skav

KevinK wrote: »

This tournament does exist with Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Russia, Germany and Spain.

Indeed it does

There is currently no promotion to the 6 nations but if there was more financial incentive for the winners (possibly bankrolled by the 6 nations teams) the ENC might become more successful.
Also, some double headers with the ENC match before the 6 nations match or at least in the same venue on the same weekend might expand interest.

Capt'n Midnight

If Italy are in then the fans get to somewhere warm and dry with good food

It takes time to build up a sport. AFAIK it's just people from the north many with foreign ancestory who are playing, if/when it goes mainstream or more secondary level schools have it as an option there will be a far bigger pool of players.

Nothingcompares

I would welcome the winner of "Six Nations B" entering the "7 nations" competition as the 7th team. I wouldn't go as far as saying any of them would beat Italy though. Maybe the 5 nations (excluding italy maybe) would play a solid but second rate team against them.

thebossanova

I thought I heard something about a relegation/promotion type deal with the last place team in the 6N and the winners of the 6NB? Might have been a year or 2 ago now but thought they were looking at it no?

JJ

I think a relegation system would be great. That could make the competition more competitive and help other countries get a look in. If anyone is wary about letting other countries in, you could have the "B" tournament winner play the wooden spoon team at the wooden spoon's home stadium for a spot in the "A" tournament.

PCros

Is the ENC backed by the IRB though?

Spore

Would a promotion / relegation of a team from / to the ENC provide a compromise solution? It would definitely add to the competitiveness at the foot of the tournament with countries like Scotland and Italy fighting to stay up as opposed to just squabbling over the wooden spoon.

mike65

The French entered the old tournament in 1910 they won thier first championship on points difference in 1951. For the first few decades they finished either last or second last.

Serenity Now!

Noopti wrote: »

I think this pretty much confirms that Argentina are "most likely" to join the Tri-Nations. Certainly a LOT more likely than them joing the 6 nations.

No, it doesn't. What they've said is they will, at the request of the IRB, look into the viability of accepting the UAR into the Tri Nations.

For some weird reason, Argentina being south of the equator means they're 'handier' to include in the Tri Nations than in European competition. This with the fact that all their (and the Argentilianos in Italy) pro players play in European competitions.

Weird.

anonymous_joe

Ah here now.

You can't start talking about kicking Italy out, Ireland spent most of the last century as the leading exponents in how to get your ass kicked annually.

We're far and away the weakest team in terms of the 5 Nations, and no-one kicked us out. Italy's team and structures are improving and can only continue to do so. The Italian team of the late 90s which was what got them invited in would have given us a run for our money before injuries and retirements kicked in.

death1234567

Worst idea ever...and scotland have been worse than Italy over the past few years..

Although a divsion 2 six nations for the lesser sides, georgia, romania etc. isn't a bad shout.

Trojan

RuggieBear wrote: »

I watched us get absolutely hammered by Samoa too and a 6 all draw with Scotland which was probably the worst match of all time.

I was at that 6-6 game with Scotland too - put me off the 5 Nations for a season. Utter rubbish.

To the OP: we can't just go kicking them out of the tournament because they've had a few bad seasons. The season they joined, or the one just before, they beat us twice in a row, as well as beating Scotland and having good games against a lot of other teams.

As for what to do with Argentina, that's a whole different can of worms.

Spore

If fairness I take the point that kicking them out is unfair, I'd love though for a more fluid Six Nations set up with promotion / relegation from the ENC putting the frighteners on teams, though that will never happen cause the current set up is such an institution. And the poll is currently on 80% keeping them in so, yeah, keep them in but no more putting flankers at scrum half!

MikeHoncho

Keep Italy in. Sure how would I convince the misses to let me go to Rome on my own on the piss of their wasnt Rugby involved.:D

Seriously though Italy should be kept in. For one thing it would be a crying shame if Parrise was'nt playing in the 6 nations every year. The big thing they are missing is half backs. Once they get a steady pairing in I can see them competing.

Amazotheamazing

Spore wrote: »

If fairness I take the point that kicking them out is unfair, I'd love though for a more fluid Six Nations set up with promotion / relegation from the ENC putting the frighteners on teams, though that will never happen cause the current set up is such an institution. And the poll is currently on 80% keeping them in so, yeah, keep them in but no more putting flankers at scrum half!

There is too big a gap between the worst team in the 6 nations and the best team in the ENC to make promotion or relegation feasible.

Podge_irl

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

There is too big a gap between the worst team in the 6 nations and the best team in the ENC to make promotion or relegation feasible.

Exactly. Italy would walk the ENC1, yet people are seeing how much they are struggling in the 6N. You would just have Italy/Scotland yoyo-ing up and down while whatever tier two team got promoted would be constantly obliterated. It would also be a financial disaster for whatever union was relegated. Never going to happen, and its simply not feasible now anyway.

ScholesyIsGod

When France joined it took them 45 years to win their first championship and look what they've done over the years since that first win. Its too easy to say they should be kicked out, two seasons ago they hammered Scotland in Murrayfield and beat Wales as well. All they need is more time and it could be another 10 years or even longer but they'll eventually become a more competitive side.

toomevara

There are a number of issues to consider here...

We should remember that the current predicament Italian rugby finds itself in is largely as a result of the fact that they were admitted far too late to the Nations competition. Italy had a wonderful team in the early 90's and they routinely put the wind up and beat more established nations...I was living in Italy in 1995 when we were well beaten, 22-12 (I think) and by God I can tell you being the only Irish man in a bar in Naples surrounded by passionate Italian fans was an experience I'll never forget...Because the powers that be were a dithering collection of old farts more concerned with shoring up their exclusive cash cow, than advancing the game globally, Italy were ignored. This was Italy's 'Golden Generation' and they were shamefully lost to the world game....but that's all water under the bridge....

Italy's contemporary woes stem from their current inability to produce play making half-backs..when they had the likes of Domiguez at ten and Troncon at nine they could, and regularly did, beat anyone on their day. Had that team been in the nations c'ship, they'd have definitely challenged for a championship and had they won one, well who knows what the profile of the game may currently be in Italy...???

The FIR need to get its act together and fundamentally retrench rugby in the country. The Super 10 doesn't work, the imposition of a provincial system, like Irelands, while traumatic in the short term would reap massive benefits in the long term...and the FIR also, like other unions, need to actively militate against loading domestic teams with foreign players...young Italian talent needs to be fostered and brought through, As another poster said the numbers playing the underage game are healthy, the interest is there, it's just a question of managing it...

It's insulting and disrespectful to Italy to talk about excluding them form the competition...they are a proud rugby nation with a long rugby history. If we are to talk about cutting Italy loose, well what of Scotland? Equally dire and in many ways you could argue that the game of professional rugby union is close to extinction in Scotland...only the fact that they are a founder union seems to save them from the same type of criticism routinely levelled at the Italians..

stephen_n

Firstly this smacks of the elitest attitude that rugby is accused of all the time. The only way teams will improve is by playing against better teams and i don't think it is fair to say Italy haven't improved they just lack quality in certain key positions which as was pointed out with new players coming through and a few imports from either Argentina or Australia they will probably get they will improve more. You use Argentina as an example, how long has it taken them to get to where they are in world rugby and they only really did so with the help of the French Union giving them competetive fixtures and touring there when no one else would. If you think they haven't improved then how did they nearly manage to turn over the Welsh team that was challenging us for the championship. On their day they are capeable of of causing problems for any of the other 6 nations teams but just lack consistency over the 80 minutes to really start winning games. Improvement happens by degrees not in leaps and bounds as Ireland have shown.

One final point Italy play pretty much the same brand of rugby that Argentina play so to say that Italy are negative and Argentina aren't is a bit strange!

Serenity Now!

stephen_n wrote: »

One final point Italy play pretty much the same brand of rugby that Argentina play so to say that Italy are negative and Argentina aren't is a bit strange!

Especially given the amount of Argentinians on the Italian side in the first place.

No, Italy should go nowhere. They have to start somewhere and to promote a minority game, it needs a flagship national team to lead it.

ScholesyIsGod

The difference between Italy and Argentina is that the Argies have guys like Hernandez, both Contepomies, Borges, Corletto etc. behind thier pack whereas the Italians dont have very much.

If the two Italian sides join the Magners League it should speed up the development of the national side.

Amazotheamazing

ScholesyIsGod wrote: »

The difference between Italy and Argentina is that the Argies have guys like Hernandez, both Contepomies, Borges, Corletto etc. behind thier pack whereas the Italians dont have very much.

If the two Italian sides join the Magners League it should speed up the development of the national side.

Does anybody else wonder how a nation so obsessed with football can't produce better kickers? I realise a football and rugby ball are very different to kick but you'd think there would be some cross-over.

stephen_n

ScholesyIsGod wrote: »

The difference between Italy and Argentina is that the Argies have guys like Hernandez, both Contepomies, Borges, Corletto etc. behind thier pack whereas the Italians dont have very much.

If the two Italian sides join the Magners League it should speed up the development of the national side.

Outside of 9-10 the Italian backline isn't bad and if they get that area sorted they will start scoring tries without a doubt!

Craft25

I would like to see relegation & promotion between 2/3 tiers of 6N each in europe but i don't know if the home nations would go for it; Italy would probably yoyo with Georgia for a few years but scotland would also get a kick up their ass of danger, ireland & wales would also be vulnerable during weak spells!(or they would have been in the not to distant past anyway!)

Ireland, Wales, France, England, Scotland, Italy.

Georgia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Germany.

Belgium, Ukraine, Poland, Netherlands, Czech, Lithuania.

teednab-el

Craft25 wrote: »

I would like to see relegation & promotion between 2/3 tiers of 6N each in europe but i don't know if the home nations would go for it; Italy would probably yoyo with Georgia for a few years but scotland would also get a kick up their ass of danger, ireland & wales would also be vulnerable during weak spells!(or they would have been in the not to distant past anyway!)

Ireland, Wales, France, England, Scotland, Italy.

Georgia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Germany.

Belgium, Ukraine, Poland, Netherlands, Czech, Lithuania.

I disagree with you when you say that Ireland would be vulnerable during weak spells. In the age of Professionalism Ireland have been one of the best teams in the 6n in the 2000's. Just look at the history, we narrowly missed out on 3 possibly 4 Grand Slams in this decade before winning the 2009 champinship alone. and we finished third a few times. If anything England would be more vulnerable, since 2003 they have been awful!

corny

Webbs wrote: »

Would you have done the same to France as they won only 5 of their first 50 games in the 5N?

The key point. How can anyone advocate kicking the Italians out when history has a direct comparison showing them how long it takes to bed in?

In time the Italians will produce their own Serge Blanco or Jean-Pierre Rives, it won't happen overnight though. Get real and give it time lads.

TarfHead

RuggieBear wrote: »

By your rationale, Ireland would have been kicked out of the 5 nations in the 90's.

+1

RuggieBear wrote: »

I was at every home game between 91 and 99 and i think i saw about 4 Irish wins in the championship (not sure of the actual figure but it couldn't have been more than that...:eek:).

I remember us walking out of Lansdowne after Ireland beat Scotland in 2000 and looking blankly at each other cos we had forgotten how to celebrate a success - we had become conditioned to having a good moan after Ireland games.

keane2097

This thread puzzles me. Nobody has given any reason yet why kicking Italy out of the 6N would be beneficial to anyone...

ScholesyIsGod

Thats because most people dont think they should be kicked out

keane2097

ScholesyIsGod wrote: »

Thats because most people dont think they should be kicked out

But if there's nobody arguing the other side it's not even a discussion. That's why I said this thread puzzles me - it just seems pointless...

Het-Field

In fairness we were the whipping boys in the sunset years of the five nations. Between 1995-1999 we only beat the Welsh, and the other three managed to rack up comprehensivve wins over us in the final yesrs. England beat us 46-6 in Dublin in 1997, France did the same in Pairc De Princes in 1996, and the Scots mauled us several times in Murryfield.. During that period we were also beaten on three occasions by the Italians in friendlies. By the rational discussed by the OP, we should have been dropped from the 6 nations at the end of the last decade.

However, I agree with a 6 Nations B Championship. I think the likes of Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Russia and an other could benefit greatly from such a tournament. I would like to see one of these teams get a chance to compete in the 6 nations (in a relegation, promotion scenario), however, it would be a paper match between the B Winner and the 5th placed A Team. The entire 6 nations would run rings around these guys, particularly when they would be away from home. Hence development is the key. I dont mind if its more elitism, however, its the only way sides like Romania can properly develop.

It has to be agreed, that when Italy beat Scotland in February 2000, it was a baptism of ice for the Azzuri, and if I remember correctly, each other team has racked up 50 + points on them at least once (maybe not the Scots). They have never been anything other than whippping boys. However, I would wait and see if that could be changed in the next decade.

Real FM

I completely agree that Italy shouldn't be kicked out, there's no positives from it whatsoever.

However... I do really like the idea of a championship for the weaker nations such as Germany Georgia etc. with promotion/ relegation. Do they play for anything on a yearly basis? If they rarely play how can they get any momentum to spur on any development. Please, someone fill me in if they do have some sort of annual competition.

I doubt this would ever happen as the RFU have shown that they aren't the best at helping developing rugby nations:

- No room for Argentina in any tournaments
- Giving the World Cup to NZ over Japan
- Looks like they're sticking with ELV's which so far only seem to help the worlds 3 strongest teams
- A lot of people have varied views on this last point, but I believe that players can qualify for other countries for to easily. Just think how the Pacific Islands could have developed if all their players didnt jump on the NZ band wagon.

Podge_irl

Het-Field wrote: »

However, I agree with a 6 Nations B Championship. I think the likes of Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Russia and an other could benefit greatly from such a tournament. I would like to see one of these teams get a chance to compete in the 6 nations (in a relegation, promotion scenario), however, it would be a paper match between the B Winner and the 5th placed A Team. The entire 6 nations would run rings around these guys, particularly when they would be away from home. Hence development is the key. I dont mind if its more elitism, however, its the only way sides like Romania can properly develop.

There already is a 6N B championship. Its called ENC, and there are three/four levels of it, with promotion/relegation between each level. Germany recently got promoted to the top level, ENC1, for example. I think it has Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Russia, Germany and Spain in it at the moment. There will never be promotion relegation between it and the 6N though. At best if there is a consistent winner of it they may eventually be entered into an expanded 6N. The experiences of both France and Italy show that there is little to no merit in having a team in the 6N for one season. It takes years to get up to the appropriate level.

Amazotheamazing

One thing I'd like to see more of the provinces playing lower tier countries. Munster have played USA twice in the last two years, and Ulster and Connacht played Portugal in November. During the 6 nations, the provinces could play a lower tier country, would help the provinces keep sharp too, imo.

Stev_o

Real FM wrote: »

I completely agree that Italy shouldn't be kicked out, there's no positives from it whatsoever.

However... I do really like the idea of a championship for the weaker nations such as Germany Georgia etc. with promotion/ relegation. Do they play for anything on a yearly basis? If they rarely play how can they get any momentum to spur on any development. Please, someone fill me in if they do have some sort of annual competition.

I doubt this would ever happen as the RFU have shown that they aren't the best at helping developing rugby nations:

- No room for Argentina in any tournaments
- Giving the World Cup to NZ over Japan
- Looks like they're sticking with ELV's which so far only seem to help the worlds 3 strongest teams
- A lot of people have varied views on this last point, but I believe that players can qualify for other countries for to easily. Just think how the Pacific Islands could have developed if all their players didnt jump on the NZ band wagon.

RFU=English Rugby Football Union your thinking of the IRB :P

As far as a relegation goes, i think the only way it could be implemented is changing things around into the 8 Nations and having two groups of four etc etc. This would mean that you wouldn't have the case of Italy being relegated, Italy being promoted, Italy being relegated, Italy being promoted, Scotland being relegated etc.