Are there any plans to expand European rugby??

Godot.

A 'B' league with the likes of Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain and Portugal with a COMPULSORY promotion/relegation play-off would be great. We need more countries to be playing for the highest goal posssible for interest in our game to thrive.

tolosenc

The competition already exists, but there is no promotion relegation between the top tier and all other tiers. It's financially undesireable for one of the 6 nations sides to be relegated, and to be honest, playoffs could be very one sided affairs, rendering their existence as pointless and maintaining an effective no promotion system. If there was direct promotion, we'd have a year with a decent tournament, followed by a year with a dud tournament, followed by a year with a good tournament etc.

Including the likes of Georgia in the tours is the way forward.

Jawgap

I think there is some talk of Spain and / or Romania being invited to join at some non-specific point in the distant future. Georgia and Portugal might also be potential candidates.

There were also plans afoot to admit Argentina - the idea being "Los Pumas" would decamp to Europe for the six nations season and play their "home" games in Belgium or Spain - but the IRB scuppered that idea and sent them to the Tri-Nations. I think they would have been a brilliant addition to the competition.

In the ladies competition - Spain were in the Women's Six Nations until it was decided to align it with the men's so they were bumped in favour of Italy, despite Italian women's rugby being a lot poorer (something to do with hairy arm pits:))

robd

Godot. wrote: »

A 'B' league with the likes of Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain and Portugal with a COMPULSORY promotion/relegation play-off would be great. We need more countries to be playing for the highest goal posssible for interest in our game to thrive.

Prob better to revamp now defunct Churchill Cup with Irish Wolfhounds, English Saxons etc. and include the various 'B' teams within Europe. Although I think the 'B' teams are actually called the 'A' teams. Would give players good exposure to scouts too.

hypermuse

They should introduce more teams to the 6 nations.. Yea they will struggle for a few years. like Italy did for a while to be fair!

But over time they will adapt and grow to be better and stronger and hopefully improve the competition as whole.

Would make events like the RWC far more eventful.. these current RWC2011 pool clashes only have 1 or 2 exciting games in them tbh!

ormond lad

hypermuse wrote: »

They should introduce more teams to the 6 nations.. Yea they will struggle for a few years. like Italy did for a while to be fair!

But over time they will adapt and grow to be better and stronger and hopefully improve the competition as whole.

Would make events like the RWC far more eventful.. these current RWC2011 pool clashes only have 1 or 2 exciting games in them tbh!

None of the teams like georgia, romania etc are at the same level that italy were when they joined in 2000
Italy at the time had beaten ireland twice between 97 and 2000, beaten france and scotland and narrowly lost to england
None of the tier 2 countries have done anything like that and look how italy struggled at the beginning,
It would be great if it could happen but at the moment its not viable

who the fug

ormond lad wrote: »

None of the teams like georgia, romania etc are at the same level that italy were when they joined in 2000
Italy at the time had beaten ireland twice between 97 and 2000, beaten france and scotland and narrowly lost to england
None of the tier 2 countries have done anything like that and look how italy struggled at the beginning,
It would be great if it could happen but at the moment its not viable

But if we don't start playing them regulary they will never get better.


Each home nation should adopt a country and play them every Autumn

ormond lad

who the fug wrote: »

But if we don't start playing them regulary they will never get better.


Each home nation should adopt a country and play them every Autumn

We should play them more often but adding them(when they are not ready) to the 6 nations is not the answer, play them in november and/or in the summer,
Linking a smaller country with a 6 nations team is a good idea,

profitius

Promotion/relegation is a great idea IMO. It would be great for European rugby and help it grow much quicker. All the lower teams would now have a chance of reaching the top if they are good enough.

There would be concerns especially from Scotland and Italy so the simple answer to that would be to expand the 6 nations to 7 or 8 teams and play less autumn and summer internationals.

The lower teams would become stronger over time as well as add to the TV rights etc. It would also feel more European as opposed to Western European.

GerM

Just for the sake of information, it's worth reading this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

There already is a full tournament for over 30 countries in Europe including promotion and relegation on a two year cycle. As mentioned above, there's no point in any team being pushed beyond their current capabilities. The main aim of these unions should be to foster and develop the sport within the countries. Playing against top tier nations should be secondary for them. Being thumped by the big boys will do them no good. The Saxons thumped second tier nations this summer, they're not ready to play fully professional sides on a regular basis. The likes of Georgia may be able to perform on a one off game against a big side and make the game competitive but they simply don't have the depth or resources to compete with any regularity. These countries need to be brought through gently. There's big progress being made however when you look at the likes of Georgia, Russia and Portugal in recent years.

GerM

profitius wrote: »

The lower teams would become stronger over time as well as add to the TV rights etc. It would also feel more European as opposed to Western European.

The flip side is that the smaller nations would be thumped every single time and the interest in the sport damaged massively in the country. In Georgia, the fans would much rather see their side take on their rivals Russia than play some game in London and lose by 60 points. Italy A comfortably beat them last year. Also, the 6N unions would make a loss at playing additional games against these sides when nobody would turn up to watch France vs Georgia. Until the structure and development of the countries improves at a lower level, the senior international sides won't be able to compete. It's not just a matter of playing better sides again and again. It's no coincidence that Italy beat France when they finally had a professional structure within their own country.

Jawgap

I think setting the Argentinians up in a country like Spain would have helped rugby to break new ground - plus there'd be the added attraction of a trip to Barcelona to see them every second year.

Instead of the developing (in the rugby sense) European countries playing in a competition with the 6N's "A" teams, what about a competition where they play 6Ns teams drawn from the countries' amateur club sides? Could lend some support to the wider development of rugby even in the established countries.

GerM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think setting the Argentinians up in a country like Spain would have helped rugby to break new ground - plus there'd be the added attraction of a trip to Barcelona to see them every second year.

Argentina need to move forward and become a professional outfit. They have been very reluctant to move away from their amateur status. Basing themselves in Europe wasn't the way to see them turn pro. In joining the Tri-Nations, part of the stipulations is that the UAR develop a professional core of players within their own country. They've now done that and are centrally contracting players in Argentina with assistance from the IRB. The stars still play in Europe but hopefully in 10 years we'll see a much stronger, deeper pool of players for them to select from with a large number of professionals playing domestic rugby.

JustinDee

GerM wrote: »

Argentina need to move forward and become a professional outfit. They have been very reluctant to move away from their amateur status

UAR almost went bankrupt and defunct two years ago. The amateur status you mention is actually almost entirely involuntary.
Their star players playing in Europe and elsewhere is actually a godsend.

Each of these "tier 2" sides should aim to get involved in Provincial preseason games as often as possible.

Instead of Leinster v Wasps or whatever in Donnybrook, I think a Leinster v Russia/Georgia/Romania would be a super pull.

This is a step on the way to getting involved in Autumn Internationals etc, and should definitely be a viable option for most.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

Each of these "tier 2" sides should aim to get involved in Provincial preseason games as often as possible.

Instead of Leinster v Wasps or whatever in Donnybrook, I think a Leinster v Russia/Georgia/Romania would be a super pull.

This is a step on the way to getting involved in Autumn Internationals etc, and should definitely be a viable option for most.

Dragons Russia this year was a good thing. That said I don't think its viable for these teams since their quality players are usually pros in western europe and their teams won't release them for international duty.

CIARAN_BOYLE

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Dragons Russia this year was a good thing. That said I don't think its viable for these teams since their quality players are usually pros in western europe and their teams won't release them for international duty.

I agree, at the moment there isn't enough support for this. But I think that the sides would benefit far more from playing composite teams than playing full internationals.

The only way that these teams will ever get to a stage where they can demand that the clubs release their players is by getting competitive. I think that they should form a "tour" for a couple of years to get recognised.
Imagine Georgia played Munster in Thomond Park on a Saturday in August, while Romania played Leinster in the RDS and Russia played Ulster in Ravenhill.
The following week they could play in England, in 3 different stadiums again.

If they can get 3 games a year like that, it would be very beneficial to the players and the international recognition of the sides imo.

BoarHunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Each of these "tier 2" sides should aim to get involved in Provincial preseason games as often as possible.

Instead of Leinster v Wasps or whatever in Donnybrook, I think a Leinster v Russia/Georgia/Romania would be a super pull.

This is a step on the way to getting involved in Autumn Internationals etc, and should definitely be a viable option for most.

I think you forget that players from these teams play for clubs that are also doing pre-season.... ( mostly TOP14 )

Clubs will never agree to release their players in that crucial time of the year.

good idea though.

GerM

As far as I'm aware, unless the IRB were to change the international windows, the clubs don't have to release any player to any nation in August and would be loathe to unless they had to. I can't see them changing the windows for second tier nations.

The idea has potential however. Other nations have played Ospreys/Munster/Leicester in recent seasons during the autumn international window. There's nothing to stop Georgia etc. doing the same. They normally only get one or two games against other tier two nations during the autumn. The obstacle to that though is simply how many people want to go to see Georgia in Thomond Park in November against a second string Munster side. Not near capacity I'd wager. Thomond and the RDS weren't completely full for Ireland games in recent years against Fiji and Canada.

Fight_Night

People forget that all of the best players play for clubs in France, eg. Gorgodze for Montpellier. There is no way they'd get released to play in a competition every summer.

It really is a tough situation. The most convenient way would be to try to improve the Russian league so that there is eventually enough money there that all the players won't get poached by France and then as the standard of rugby improves in the surrounding countries of Georgia and Romania and they become too good for the ENC then they could either join the 6N(unlikely) or start their own 3N tournament. Much easier said than done obviously, but I feel the Russian league will be the way forward.

BoarHunter

They could create an Eastern league with franchises in Georgia, romania, Russia, poland gathering the backbone of their national sides through 8-10 teams. Create a little league. Get included in the HCup eventually ...

Needs sponsors, attendance... tough job but it would be great.

This needs to be taken from primary school, universities ...

07734

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead of Leinster v Wasps or whatever in Donnybrook, I think a Leinster v Russia/Georgia/Romania would be a super pull.

great idea. would be far more interesting to watch that!

Fattes

^^^^^^^^^^

Everything above and no one has realized the obvious Rugby is a minority sport worldwide, just look at the Italy V Russia game today.

Sport needs to focus on its Grass roots and start from there

GerM

Fattes wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^

Everything above and no one has realized the obvious Rugby is a minority sport worldwide, just look at the Italy V Russia game today.

Sport needs to focus on its Grass roots and start from there

Or maybe...

The main aim of these unions should be to foster and develop the sport within the countries. Playing against top tier nations should be secondary for them.

wonton

ormond lad wrote: »

None of the teams like georgia, romania etc are at the same level that italy were when they joined in 2000
Italy at the time had beaten ireland twice between 97 and 2000, beaten france and scotland and narrowly lost to england
None of the tier 2 countries have done anything like that and look how italy struggled at the beginning,
It would be great if it could happen but at the moment its not viable

I think I read somewhere that just before they joined the six nations alot of their best players had retired which is why they struggled so much.




but I think the best option is the 8 nations with two groups of four, the relagation wouldnt be great for the sport as the negatives of italy or scotland players in the b nations would way over do the positves of romania or georgia joining for once season of the 6 nations.

Mister Dread

I dont' think you can just force expansion for the sake of it. If a particular country is knocking on the door and producing results then start thinking about letting them play with the big boys.

wonton

what do you mean by knocking on the door though?

I mean romania and georgia are pretty consistant in the european cup and have shown against at least scotland that they can play good.

I dont think they get much chances to shine though do they? what is it you expect them to do?

GerM

wonton wrote: »

what do you mean by knocking on the door though?

I mean romania and georgia are pretty consistant in the european cup and have shown against at least scotland that they can play good.

I dont think they get much chances to shine though do they? what is it you expect them to do?

They need to make a statement by beating someone. They're in a group with Scotland and an ageing Argentine side. It's the ideal scenario for them to showcase their talents and put down a marker. They didn't beat Scotland and were thumped in the end by England. Before Italy were accepted into the 6N, they had beaten Scotland, France and ourselves three times in a row. The second tier nations won't be brought into competitions with the top tier sides until they can compete and they cannot do that. Granted, Italy were afforded the opportunity to play these games back then but there's no indication that Georgia or Romania could come close to matching that level of performance.

leftism

I think creating a tiered system with promotion and relegation would be great for the game across Europe! The minnow countries need to be given motivation to progress and what better carrot then the opportunity to compete with the big nations.

The increase in popularity of rugby in Italy over the last 10 years has to be seen as a example of what can be achieved by giving smaller nations a chance. In 10 years we've seen:

The growth in support for Treviso and Aironi since they've joined a major European club tournament.

Selling out the San Siro for a game of rugby.

I was told last week that the national team have now outgrown the Stadio Flaminio and are movinig to the Stadio Olimpico with a capacity for 72,000 for next seasons tournament.

Teams like Romania and Georgia will only improve if there is more exposure at home for the sport. What better way then by introducing them into a more competitive European tournament with all the media exposure and attention that it brings...

Het-Field

I think the development of teams like Georgia, Russia etc will require a more insular approach, as I dont believe that the domestic Rugby Unions, or the Club teams would be willing to indulge their development which will offer very little return.

As has been mentioned, Ireland have not filled the RDS, or Thomond Park for games against Fiji and Canada. In fact, games against Argentina at Croker and the Aviva have been vastly below capacity. Previous World Cup Qualifiers against Georgia(1998/2002) attracted miniscule crowds, and I recall in the latter game standing in the Schoolboy enclosure of the South Terrace with four friends, and nobody else.

Unless the 6 Nations, or the Tri Nations are on offer, the rugby public has voted with its feet. Games against the likes of Samoa, Fiji, Romania, USA and Canada are simply not attractive to the public, nor will they ever be.

As such, the 2nd Tier of World Rugby will have to find a way of consolidating, and making a concerted effort to progress. If the money is available, the likes of the Georgia should take in tours of the Pacific Islands in the Summer, where they will come up against physically strong teams like Samoa, while playing a flighty team like Fiji. The November Tour, which takes place during a break in the Nations Cup should be an opportunity to take in two tests against Six Nations B Teams, and a game against the likes of Canada or the US.

wonton

GerM wrote: »

They need to make a statement by beating someone. They're in a group with Scotland and an ageing Argentine side. It's the ideal scenario for them to showcase their talents and put down a marker. They didn't beat Scotland and were thumped in the end by England. Before Italy were accepted into the 6N, they had beaten Scotland, France and ourselves three times in a row. The second tier nations won't be brought into competitions with the top tier sides until they can compete and they cannot do that. Granted, Italy were afforded the opportunity to play these games back then but there's no indication that Georgia or Romania could come close to matching that level of performance.

what were them matchs italy won? im guessing they werent world cup matchs. do you not think its a bit unfair that the only chance they get to play the big teams is when the big teams will be playing out of there skin?


plus I wouldnt be surprised if like the victory over france this year them matchs were at home, at setting romania and geogria dont get.



fair enough, im sure there would be some huge defeats, but whats different between that and say ireland, scotland or wales getting hammered by new zealand like they did last year?

ArmaniJeanss

I suggested this in the 'Is the WC a farce thread' but it fits here as well.

*********
Scrap the 6Nations in 2013, 2017, 2021 etc (i.e., 2 years after each World Cup).
And instead run an 8 team European Championships that year with the Big6 and the top 2 from the previous seasons B division.
Two groups of four, two semifinals and a final. 5 match days needed and the same 5 dates reserved for the 6N could be used.

So that way the emerging nations would have a World Cup and a Europeans to aim at in each 4 year cycle.

Thinking about it 2013 would clearly be too soon logistically, but no reason why it couldn't be started in 2017.

Piliger

The idea of adopting a country is a good idea. But not necessarily at national level. I would like to see adoption with tours by club/provincial sides and summer tours by coaching staff.

Remember Rugby is not soccer. The rugby unions in Ireland, Wales and Scotland are not made of money. Quite the opposite. I don't believe any of the above could afford to give up one of the autumn games.

Also Rugby is not soccer. Rugby is also about tradition and I for one would not support any process where a country like Scotland might fail to appear in the 6 nations for ANY reason.

And while I'm here, since when has Georgia and Russia been part of Europe ? Where does it end ? Will we be inviting Turkey ? Israel ? Azerbaijan ?

No thanks.

wonton

here, im confused, could someone tell me, is rugby soccer?



Well its the depends on the definition I suppose but I thought generally russia is in europe and asia with the ural mountains as the dividing line.



and why does it matter if the teams are in europe anyway?thats a fairly strange point to make, Where the team comes from shouldnt really matter unless it impacts the playability of the matches

GerM

wonton wrote: »

what were them matchs italy won? im guessing they werent world cup matchs. do you not think its a bit unfair that the only chance they get to play the big teams is when the big teams will be playing out of there skin?


plus I wouldnt be surprised if like the victory over france this year them matchs were at home, at setting romania and geogria dont get.



fair enough, im sure there would be some huge defeats, but whats different between that and say ireland, scotland or wales getting hammered by new zealand like they did last year?

They were test matches. Ireland had out strong sides. They beat us in Lansdowne Road in 1997, 6 months before half the Irish pack were starting and winning a Lions series against S.A. Even after Italy joined the 6N, they struggled heavily and it's only in the last 2 or 3 years that they genuinely challenge teams with any regularity. There's no coincidence that this ties in with the establishment of a professional league in Italy and the progress of their teams in Europe, playing in a professional environment at a lower level on a regular basis.

For teams to get up to the required standard, they can't simply play against top tier nations. They'll just be beaten soundly again and again and nobody will benefit; the top tier nations will be bleeding money away and the lower tier nations won't be improving. They need to build the blocks lower down the structure and develop the players first. They need to put in place a system where players can play and improve on a regular basis. This is starting to happen when you see countries like Romania and Spain with teams in the Challenge Cup. It won't happen overnight but it's the right direction.

I'm not sure what your point about the big teams playing out of their skin is. Most big teams put out weakened sides against the second tier nations and even then they manage to beat them comfortably.

There's a major difference between ourselves and Wales and the likes of NZ. We can play against NZ and compete with them. We've repeatedly pushed them close in their own backyard. They put up a big score against 14 men last year and, at times, 13 men. Scotland are a harder case to argue. They're going backwards at a rate of knots and the sport is on the decline there. With that said, they still had the ability to beat Georgia by a couple of scores whilst missing several kicks at goal.

GerM

Piliger wrote: »

And while I'm here, since when has Georgia and Russia been part of Europe ? Where does it end ? Will we be inviting Turkey ? Israel ? Azerbaijan ?

No thanks.

As both Israel and Azerbaijan compete in the European Nations Cup, some day hopefully we will.

bamboozle

GerM wrote: »

As both Israel and Azerbaijan compete in the European Nations Cup, some day hopefully we will.

i dont want to start boycotting rugby matches!

pajunior

I've always had the idea that the IRB should centrally contract Georgian/Russian/Romanian players and have national teams compete in the challenge cup and eventually Heineken Cup.

For the rest of the season these national teams can break up into two/three teams each and play a league maybe inviting the full national teams of Portugal/Czech Republic/Germany etc.

The league's won't make much money, possibly a loss but it's purpose is to keep these players playing as well as developing the next level down in the countries but the challenge cup game would surely generate a lot of money. Russia V Connacht at the sports ground would be a pretty exciting affair and there would surely be tv/advertisement money made in the eastern countries.

leftism

We've all heard the age old arguement that playing SH teams is the only way Ireland is going to move to the next level. Yet at the same time we're happy to let the minnows go 4 years without the opportunity to beat an established European nation?

Even Nick Mallett said yesterday in his post-match interview "this is the first time we've played a competitive match against a lower ranked team in 4 years". Can the Romanian or Georgian coach say the same thing? That speaks volumes to me... If consistently playing better teams is the key to improvement, then the minnows will never improve under the current system!

On a good day NZ could go out and run up 50 points against us! On a GREAT day, we might do the same to Romania or Georgia. On a bad day they could push us close. So what is the difference???