Will 6N ever grow?

B-D-P--

So just pondering, probably a silly question.
But does the rest of Europe have any good Rugby teams?
I would have thought the likes of Germany, Poland and the sorts would throw out some beefy teams that would be able to throw the Rubber oval backwards?

How come Rugby isin't as popular in the rest of the continent?

cruizer101

I think Georgia and Romania were the only other European teams in the 2015 would cup so they would likely be the next to join if there was any but really even the standard of them is a good bit below the 6N.

prawnsambo

One of the problems with growth is the length of time it would take to complete a tournament with even just one more team in it.

bilston

It all boils down to money and room.in the calendar.

Georgia are comfortably better than the rest in Europe but whether they would be competitive in the 6Ns is highly questionable. Of course with financial support and time they could get there.

However I've wondered in the past that if Germany, or perhaps Spain, were as good as Georgia then would more of an effort be made to fast track them into the 6Ns for financial reasons?

Putting money to the side to expand the 6Ns would probably require a change in format. Maybe two groups of 4 with play offs and just become a European Championship. But personally I'd hate to see that, maybe one day it will happen but put it this way I'd be surprised if it happened in the next 10-20 years.

No real need right now Italy where brought in and have been on the cusp of prigressing for years but never have Georgia are the dominant team outside of the 6nayions but would likely become a new year after year wooden spoon that's not good for the 6 nations

Argentina where making World Cup quarter and semis before being accepted to the tri nations if we just allow Georgia in without them regularly being able to compete it damages the tournament

A Churchill cup type competition would be a better stepping stone for now

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

I don't think Georgia get enough credit. They're currently ahead of Italy in the world rankings and would be at least as competitive as them in a 7 Nations tournament IMO. They've been showing slow but steady signs of improvement over the last number of years. They have a number of players in the Top 14 in France. Rugby is huge in Georgia and they've won something like 9 out of the last 11 or 12 Rugby Europe Championships.

Given the chance to compete with Tier 1 nations, I think they'd improve immensely.

The Lost Sheep

B-D-P-- wrote: »

So just pondering, probably a silly question.
But does the rest of Europe have any good Rugby teams?
I would have thought the likes of Germany, Poland and the sorts would throw out some beefy teams that would be able to throw the Rubber oval backwards?

How come Rugby isin't as popular in the rest of the continent?

It does have some very good sides but they wont be added to 6 nations and 6 nations wont add promotion/relegation for a variety of reasons.

cruizer101 wrote: »

I think Georgia and Romania were the only other European teams in the 2015 would cup so they would likely be the next to join if there was any but really even the standard of them is a good bit below the 6N.

They were the only other european sides because Europe is only given 2 automatic spots and 1 more potentially via repechage(playoffs between regions)

prawnsambo wrote: »

One of the problems with growth is the length of time it would take to complete a tournament with even just one more team in it.

Yeah thats part of it as well. Now you could add 2 teams and then have 2 groups of 4 with everyone then playing 2 additional games but to make 5 weeks of games but would some of the traditional countries go year or years without potentially playing each other?

bilston wrote: »

It all boils down to money and room.in the calendar.

Georgia are comfortably better than the rest in Europe but whether they would be competitive in the 6Ns is highly questionable. Of course with financial support and time they could get there.

However I've wondered in the past that if Germany, or perhaps Spain, were as good as Georgia then would more of an effort be made to fast track them into the 6Ns for financial reasons?

Putting money to the side to expand the 6Ns would probably require a change in format. Maybe two groups of 4 with play offs and just become a European Championship. But personally I'd hate to see that, maybe one day it will happen but put it this way I'd be surprised if it happened in the next 10-20 years.

Possibly but we wont really know if Georgians would be competitive in the 6 nations because the 6 nations sides refuse(??)/dont play Georgia and certainly not in Georgia.

Milani Mealy Sleepwear wrote: »

No real need right now Italy where brought in and have been on the cusp of prigressing for years but never have Georgia are the dominant team outside of the 6nayions but would likely become a new year after year wooden spoon that's not good for the 6 nations

Argentina where making World Cup quarter and semis before being accepted to the tri nations if we just allow Georgia in without them regularly being able to compete it damages the tournament

A Churchill cup type competition would be a better stepping stone for now

Georgians need to be given more games against 6 nations sides before a step up happens. Italy were giving loads of games against us and others before they joined to make the 6 nations and they were beating us regularly.
However the Georgians dont want a churchill cup type tournament. And how exactly is that better for them?
They need full tests. Theyve proven they can beat the rest of europe. They need full tests and some in Georgia as well, not just in Dublin/London/Cardiff

prawnsambo

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

I don't think Georgia get enough credit. They're currently ahead of Italy in the world rankings and would be at least as competitive as them in a 7 Nations tournament IMO. They've been showing slow but steady signs of improvement over the last number of years. They have a number of players in the Top 14 in France. Rugby is huge in Georgia and they've won something like 9 out of the last 11 or 12 Rugby Europe Championships.

Given the chance to compete with Tier 1 nations, I think they'd improve immensely.

Their position in the world rankings is one of the problems with the raniking system. Georgia have largely played against lower ranked teams in the last couple of years and Italy have been playing teams ranked above them.

Georgia being better than italy is
1.questionable
2.irrelivant because Italy are not good enough for the 6 nations right now

I can see the a precious poster had claimed that Churchill cup is no good to ten but I wouldn't have any faith in Georgia beating an Irish A team so what would they be better off playing a first team? Get to a stage where you can beat a teams and then talk about getting into the 6 nations

The Lost Sheep

Milani Mealy Sleepwear wrote: »

Georgia being better than italy is
1.questionable
2.irrelivant because Italy are not good enough for the 6 nations right now

I can see the a precious poster had claimed that Churchill cup is no good to ten but I wouldn't have any faith in Georgia beating an Irish A team so what would they be better off playing a first team? Get to a stage where you can beat a teams and then talk about getting into the 6 nations

:rolleyes:
How am i being precious?
A churchill cup is no good to them. They need games against 6 nations sides first teams not weakened teams. How else do we get more sides to the top tier of international rugby if we dont give them games against the top sides?

ec18

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

:rolleyes:
How am i being precious?
A churchill cup is no good to them. They need games against 6 nations sides first teams not weakened teams. How else do we get more sides to the top tier of international rugby if we dont give them games against the top sides?

There's a subtlety there being that they need to be beating weakened teams not just playing top sides

Mc Love

Could it be moved to the Summer if more teams were brought in? Surely Spain is one nation that could possibly join?

The Lost Sheep

Mc Love wrote: »

Could it be moved to the Summer if more teams were brought in? Surely Spain is one nation that could possibly join?

Should it be moved to summer? Global calendar will see some changes but players need time off already and they get feck all as it is.
Spain arent near ready to step up. Not strong enough.

Mc Love

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Should it be moved to summer? Global calendar will see some changes but players need time off already and they get feck all as it is.
Spain arent near ready to step up. Not strong enough.

The other side of the coin is they do get paid handsomely for the fact. They do get some time off during the season (irish players do anyway)

The Lost Sheep

ec18 wrote: »

There's a subtlety there being that they need to be beating weakened teams not just playing top sides

But they dont even get enough games against weakened sides. They need more games full stop.

Mc Love wrote: »

The other side of the coin is they do get paid handsomely for the fact. They do get some time off during the season (irish players do anyway)

They get time off games but how much real off time do they have in season?

Chivito550

2 groups of 4 is a dreadful idea. It would remove the concept of the Grand Slam from the championship, which is a slap in the face of the history of the event.

Promotion/ relegation via a playoff is the fairest method. There's promotion/ relegation between tiers 2, 3 and 4 etc in Europe, so why not to tier 1 too?

If the 6 nations are good enough then the bottom team should have no problem disposing of Georgia. Are Italy/France/Scotland worried they might lose to them and spend a year playing Spain and Romania?

The Lost Sheep

Chivito550 wrote: »

2 groups of 4 is a dreadful idea. It would remove the concept of the Grand Slam from the championship, which is a slap in the face of the history of the event.

Promotion/ relegation via a playoff is the fairest method. There's promotion/ relegation between tiers 2, 3 and 4 etc in Europe, so why not to tier 1 too?

If the 6 nations are good enough then the bottom team should have no problem disposing of Georgia. Are Italy/France/Scotland worried they might lose to them and spend a year playing Spain and Romania?

There isnt promotion because the top tier sides have too much to lose financially by not playing in the 6 nations. 2 groups of 4 may remove a grand slam of beating all the traditional sides but so what if it helps improve things and gives more sides a chance of playing at the top level. It also allows all sides play 5 games.
Yes some of those countries are worried about losing to Georgia and they should be as their finances would be f****d without being in the 6 Nations - its about 20% of IRFUs annual income and thats similar for all other countries.

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

:rolleyes:
How am i being precious?
A churchill cup is no good to them. They need games against 6 nations sides first teams not weakened teams. How else do we get more sides to the top tier of international rugby if we dont give them games against the top sides?

Ment previous apologies autocorrect

Sure will we start clontarf playing the all blacks so? You get better in stages you don't just play agains good teams and get better

Podge_irl

Chivito550 wrote: »

2 groups of 4 is a dreadful idea. It would remove the concept of the Grand Slam from the championship, which is a slap in the face of the history of the event.

Promotion/ relegation via a playoff is the fairest method. There's promotion/ relegation between tiers 2, 3 and 4 etc in Europe, so why not to tier 1 too?

If the 6 nations are good enough then the bottom team should have no problem disposing of Georgia. Are Italy/France/Scotland worried they might lose to them and spend a year playing Spain and Romania?

Promotion/Relegation is never going to happen. There is no benefit to any of the current 6N teams to allow it so why would they?

A tournament without Scotland, Wales (or indeed Ireland) would be ****.

loyatemu

as an initial measure the winner of the European Rugby Championships (i.e. tier 2 that Georgia won this year) should get guaranteed tests against 3 of the 6 nations (so the 6N teams could alternate each year). Looking at Georgia's fixtures they've only played 3 tier 1 teams in the last 3 years (Wales, Scotland and Argentina) so this would be an immediate improvement and give a better insight into how good they really are.

If they started winning some of those tests then they'd have a case for a promotion playoff to be introduced.

The Lost Sheep

Podge_irl wrote: »

Promotion/Relegation is never going to happen. There is no benefit to any of the current 6N teams to allow it so why would they?

A tournament without Scotland, Wales (or indeed Ireland) would be ****.

Exactly and when 6 nations is so vital to finances then nothing will change. We need more competitive sides but simply introducing promotion/relegation isnt good enough. We've won a grand slam this year but go back to the 90s when we were ****e and Italy were regularly beating us. What if we had been relegated and Italy added in our place. It would have done us no good.

Losty Dublin

loyatemu wrote: »

as an initial measure the winner of the European Rugby Championships (i.e. tier 2 that Georgia won this year) should get guaranteed tests against 3 of the 6 nations (so the 6N teams could alternate each year). Looking at Georgia's fixtures they've only played 3 tier 1 teams in the last 3 years (Wales, Scotland and Argentina) so this would be an immediate improvement and give a better insight into how good they really are.

If they started winning some of those tests then they'd have a case for a promotion playoff to be introduced.

If Georgia or indeed another nation comes into the fold then it follows that their club structure needs to follow into the club scene as well. To so so means more adjusting with the two cups, and is Georgian rugby able to support this much of a commitment?

To get back on track; to be fair to World Rugby but they are facilitating the lower tier nations into the International seasons more and more with step up tests but it cannot be rushed at the risk of making aspirants look weak.

Chivito550

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Exactly and when 6 nations is so vital to finances then nothing will change. We need more competitive sides but simply introducing promotion/relegation isnt good enough. We've won a grand slam this year but go back to the 90s when we were ****e and Italy were regularly beating us. What if we had been relegated and Italy added in our place. It would have done us no good.

Hardly comparable. By adding Italy, the number of weekends of rugby remained at 5. The difference is that no team has a bye week now. Italy were never going to replace anyone. Expansion was the natural thing to happen.

Expanding to 7 is messy as it will bring back the bye week, and result in 7 weekends of rugby. Hence why a playoff is the best option.

Podge_irl

Chivito550 wrote: »

Hardly comparable. By adding Italy, the number of weekends of rugby remained at 5. The difference is that no team has a bye week now. Italy were never going to replace anyone. Expansion was the natural thing to happen.

Expanding to 7 is messy as it will bring back the bye week, and result in 7 weekends of rugby. Hence why a playoff is the best option.

That is not remotely their point. If you transferred the performances of all the teams from the 90s to today we would be the ones being relegated. And I doubt anyone would be in favour of it then.

AbusesToilets

I like the idea posited elsewhere of a European tournament every few years. I think it would offer a better means of competition for the tier 2 nations and serve as an excellent advertisement for the game. Could take place in lieu of the 6 Nations or in the summer, in place of the June series.

Chivito550

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like the idea posited elsewhere of a European tournament every few years. I think it would offer a better means of competition for the tier 2 nations and serve as an excellent advertisement for the game. Could take place in lieu of the 6 Nations or in the summer, in place of the June series.

Like a European Championship held every 4 years between World Cups, with a different host each time? I quite like that idea.

The Lost Sheep

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If Georgia or indeed another nation comes into the fold then it follows that their club structure needs to follow into the club scene as well. To so so means more adjusting with the two cups, and is Georgian rugby able to support this much of a commitment?

To get back on track; to be fair to World Rugby but they are facilitating the lower tier nations into the International seasons more and more with step up tests but it cannot be rushed at the risk of making aspirants look weak.

They are bringing more tests but possibly we need to stop making long term schedule of tests to allow for more games with the supposed tier 2 sides. Having a tour schedule arranged a decade in advance does nothing to help tier 2 sides.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Hardly comparable. By adding Italy, the number of weekends of rugby remained at 5. The difference is that no team has a bye week now. Italy were never going to replace anyone. Expansion was the natural thing to happen.

Expanding to 7 is messy as it will bring back the bye week, and result in 7 weekends of rugby. Hence why a playoff is the best option.

It is comparable. We were horrific in the 90s. We could beat Wales and thats about it. We still finished last virtually every year
Bringing in a playoff just wont happen whether its the supposed best option or not. No 6 Nations side will vote for it as it brings the risk they could lose and none can afford to miss out

Quin_Dub

The idea is great in theory , but simply put - look at the Georgian results when they have played Tier 1 sides in recent years (and almost always 2nd string sides) , they are getting soundly beaten with a few rare exceptions.

I'd agree with others that they need several years of exposure to Tier 1 rugby before being added to any kind of 6N's

The easiest thing to do would be to permanently add them to the Autumn calendar giving them at least 2 games each November , perhaps 1 against one of the 6N's teams and another against one of the SH tourists (not sure if Georgian November weather would be an issue but if so, host the game in Western Europe somewhere).

If after a number of years they are showing themselves to be competitive in those fixtures then it builds the argument for inclusion in a 6N's competition.

Thud

They could split the tournament into two periods Oct/November and March/April to facilitate more teams, the gap would hinder momentum but it happens in other competitions Champions Cup, champions league etc.
It would mean losing some November internationals but you could still have one or two as warm up games and two or three championship games in Oct/Nov, some of the Nov internationals are pointless already.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like the idea posited elsewhere of a European tournament every few years. I think it would offer a better means of competition for the tier 2 nations and serve as an excellent advertisement for the game. Could take place in lieu of the 6 Nations or in the summer, in place of the June series.

Thing is how much money it would bring in. 6 Nations is the key income for the unions. If you removed June series would southern hemisphere sides come up here in November having lost their home series?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The idea is great in theory, but simply put - look at the Georgian results when they have played Tier 1 sides in recent years (and almost always 2nd string sides) they are getting soundly beaten with a few rare exceptions.

I'd agree with others that they need several years of exposure to Tier 1 rugby before being added to any kind of 6N's

The easiest thing to do would be to permanently add them to the Autumn calendar giving them at least 2 games each November, perhaps 1 against one of the 6N's teams and another against one of the SH tourists (not sure if Georgian November weather would be an issue but if so, host the game in Western Europe somewhere).

If after a number of years they are showing themselves to be competitive in those fixtures then it builds the argument for inclusion in a 6N's competition.

How many games against the top sides have they had in between world cups where theyve had full access to all their players for more than a short period right before game?? They are in the Autumn Internationals but not enough games against 6 nations and southern hemisphere sides. They do need home games as well and that could happen in summer.

bilston

I'd like to see Georgia would get 3 tests against the 6Ns each year, one of which would be in Tblissi and could be played in either November or June. A bit more exposure, added to more finance from TV and sponsors is bound to have a positive effect on rugby there.

They are got between two worlds...too good for the rest but not good enough for the big table yet. The problem is that comparative sides like the South Sea Islanders and Canada, USA and Japan are all too far away for them to enter some kind of tournament with them.

DJIMI TRARORE

I don't know much about international rugby admin,etc,but long term,cud Germany,Spain Romania,Georgia international teams be allowed play in H cup or pro 14 or other competions,just throwing it out there for consideration

The Lost Sheep

DJIMI TRARORE wrote: »

I don't know much about international rugby admin,etc,but long term,cud Germany,Spain Romania,Georgia international teams be allowed play in H cup or pro 14 or other competions,just throwing it out there for consideration

International sides wouldnt be able to play in it as the players are contracted/if at all to sides in France/England.
There is a qualifying competition for the challenge cup.
There has been russian, georgian, spanish sides competing in that for several years

Cork Boy 53

Milani Mealy Sleepwear wrote: »

Georgia being better than italy is
1.questionable
2.irrelivant because Italy are not good enough for the 6 nations right now

I can see the a precious poster had claimed that Churchill cup is no good to ten but I wouldn't have any faith in Georgia beating an Irish A team so what would they be better off playing a first team? Get to a stage where you can beat a teams and then talk about getting into the 6 nations

Have you forgotten that Georgia came close to beating Ireland in the 2007 World Cup? Admittedly that was a disastrous tournament overall for the Irish but it came very close to being much worse.

Former Former

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Have you forgotten that Georgia came close to beating Ireland in the 2007 World Cup? Admittedly that was a disastrous tournament overall for the Irish but it came very close to being much worse.

I don't think anyone has forgotten it; but it's 11 years ago and that was an absolute nadir for Irish rugby, while Georgia have not really moved on.

Our second string beat them pretty handy in 2014 (and it wasn't a great second string). They'd have no business in the 6N.

The Lost Sheep

Former Former wrote: »

I don't think anyone has forgotten it; but it's 11 years ago and that was an absolute nadir for Irish rugby, while Georgia have not really moved on.

Our second string beat them pretty handy in 2014 (and it wasn't a great second string). They'd have no business in the 6N.

That wasnt exactly their full first strength side though. Maybe they are not good enough for the 6 Nations but theyre still next best and need more games against Italians and the rest of us.

Trojan

There was no Rugby World Cup in 2007. Never happened.

joseywhales

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote: »

Promotion/Relegation is never going to happen. There is no benefit to any of the current 6N teams to allow it so why would they?

A tournament without Scotland, Wales (or indeed Ireland) would be ****.

Exactly and when 6 nations is so vital to finances then nothing will change. We need more competitive sides but simply introducing promotion/relegation isnt good enough. We've won a grand slam this year but go back to the 90s when we were ****e and Italy were regularly beating us. What if we had been relegated and Italy added in our place. It would have done us no good.

Yes it's a competitive sport where losing costs. It's against the spirit of sport in general to have this kind of protectionism, putting the vested interest of groups above that of the open market is immoral and terrible leadership. It's never going to happen and it being the right thing to do are completely different things. There has to be at least a garaunteed pathway established, you can't say to Georgia, "even if you win every game for the next 100 years you will never play in our competition"

Buer

I just don't see how Georgia being entered into the 6N is going to improve them. We've already seen that being exposed regularly to a higher level has completely failed for Italy and they've gone significantly backwards since the 1990s if anything.

Georgia would perform, at best, as well as Italy have done. They're in a state of limbo at the moment where they're simply too good for the level they are competing at but not good enough for tier one nations. I think there has to be some sort of look at their domestic game for a start as well as bringing them more into the fold for summer/autumn internationals to give them some sort of regular exposure.

On the flip side is Italy. There has been a massive commitment towards improving them over the past 20 years. To relegate them from the 6N would be massively damaging to any progress the game could potentially make in the coming years particularly with their domestic game now starting to look better than it has done in recent years.

Podge_irl

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes it's a competitive sport where losing costs. It's against the spirit of sport in general to have this kind of protectionism, putting the vested interest of groups above that of the open market is immoral and terrible leadership. It's never going to happen and it being the right thing to do are completely different things. There has to be at least a garaunteed pathway established, you can't say to Georgia, "even if you win every game for the next 100 years you will never play in our competition"

Sure you can. The 6N is a closed member's club. It is not run by World Rugby. Why on earth would any of its members vote to risk their membership?

I care about rugby in Georgia significantly less than I care about rugby in Ireland. I would like the sport to grow but not at the expense of the best rugby tournament in the world and all its attendant history.

The Lost Sheep

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes it's a competitive sport where losing costs. It's against the spirit of sport in general to have this kind of protectionism, putting the vested interest of groups above that of the open market is immoral and terrible leadership. It's never going to happen and it being the right thing to do are completely different things. There has to be at least a garaunteed pathway established, you can't say to Georgia, "even if you win every game for the next 100 years you will never play in our competition"

It is but while the 6 nations need to open to play more games against Georgia, Romania it would be crazy to have the set up where you go from playing england, france etc to playing russia, spain. Loss of income would f*** up the 6 nations completely. There certainly does need to be a pathway but it cant be a simple promotion/relegation even with a playoff at first. something else needs to be looked at.

Buer wrote: »

I just don't see how Georgia being entered into the 6N is going to improve them. We've already seen that being exposed regularly to a higher level has completely failed for Italy and they've gone significantly backwards since the 1990s if anything.

Georgia would perform, at best, as well as Italy have done. They're in a state of limbo at the moment where they're simply too good for the level they are competing at but not good enough for tier one nations. I think there has to be some sort of look at their domestic game for a start as well as bringing them more into the fold for summer/autumn internationals to give them some sort of regular exposure.

On the flip side is Italy. There has been a massive commitment towards improving them over the past 20 years. To relegate them from the 6N would be massively damaging to any progress the game could potentially make in the coming years particularly with their domestic game now starting to look better than it has done in recent years.

Italy didnt have a place in a domestic competition of sufficient standard until too late after they joined the 6 nations. If any other nation is to potentially join or be able to join the 6 nations they need higher standards of domestic rugby to play first.
and as ive said already the problem with the summer series and given them games there is games are decided by the big boys years in advance and the smaller countries dont get a look in. that needs to change first

Chivito550

Chivito550 wrote: »

Like a European Championship held every 4 years between World Cups, with a different host each time? I quite like that idea.

Drop the Lions (wouldn't be completely against that)

joseywhales

Podge_irl wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes it's a competitive sport where losing costs. It's against the spirit of sport in general to have this kind of protectionism, putting the vested interest of groups above that of the open market is immoral and terrible leadership. It's never going to happen and it being the right thing to do are completely different things. There has to be at least a garaunteed pathway established, you can't say to Georgia, "even if you win every game for the next 100 years you will never play in our competition"

Sure you can. The 6N is a closed member's club. It is not run by World Rugby. Why on earth would any of its members vote to risk their membership?

I care about rugby in Georgia significantly less than I care about rugby in Ireland. I would like the sport to grow but not at the expense of the best rugby tournament in the world and all its attendant history.

Because if you return on in investment has a more long term forecast, not controlling markets and increasing the size of your market will pay off. We are talking 50-100 year horizon. If we want to think big in terms of the sports health. And the revenue for any competition.

I can see how promotion relugation right now might seem too big a commitment. But there has to be some commitment to a pathway. Like an earlier suggestion that all top tier nation's set aside time to play the tier 2 champion and if the same champion wins for 3 consecutive years and beats 5/6 tier one nation's consistently for 3 years they get a promotion playoff. Even that glimmer of light is a door that can be opened in time.

joseywhales

I am also not sure there is any value in "attendant history", it just seems like pointless entitlement. I wasn't alive when Willie Duggan gave some guy a great clatter and we won a match, it is not my history just because I was born in a certain country or had some connection to the person, it's his and his peer's history. My "history" began in 1987 and involves anything I had direct or indirect impact and will toward. Some Georgian guy has as much connection to say the 1948 grand slam as I do. Anyway, this protectionism as with any economic market, damages the efficiency of the market in the long term and with sport being the purest form of competition, one would imagine it would be severely affected.

prawnsambo

Unless the respective unions can wrest control of players from their clubs, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the 6N being expanded. And there's a similar chance of any member of the current 6N voting like turkeys for Christmas.

A separate competition like a European cup would have a better chance. But it would be over the dead bodies of various vested interests in the club game.

P_1

I like the idea of a European Cup but the question is where can you fit it in.

A potentially dramatic option might be to hold it every 4th year in lieu of a 6 nations that year.

12 teams, 4 groups of 3 with QF, SF, 3rd/4th and Final.

It would give the top teams the same 5 games they'd get in a 6N window.

triple nipple

Forget Georgia, let's get Japan into the 6 nations. They are a fantastic side and could definitely compete!

Utopia Parkway

The 6 Nations won't get any bigger. It's already been shortened in length due to the demands of the English and French clubs. It's hard enough fitting the games in as it is. The only possible change might be promotion/relegation of the bottom side. And even that will be hard to push through.

The Lost Sheep

triple nipple wrote: »

Forget Georgia, let's get Japan into the 6 nations. They are a fantastic side and could definitely compete!

Japan are in rugby terms a southern hemisphere side with super rugby side etc. And the travel makes it a complete non runner.

who_me

If Georgia (or whoever) want to step up, are a few internationals a year going to make the difference? Surely having their squad playing high-level rugby week-in, week-out is more important. I'd imagine several of their squad play at a decent level (probably quite a few in the T14) but unless most of their squad are, I can't see them matching Italy's record, never mind improving on it.

On the other hand, rugby's growing rapidly there; they're getting big crowds already. Joining the 6N would give the sport an utterly massive shot in the arm. And Tblisi looks like a freakin epic spot for a 6N spring weekend. Bring it on!

Neil3030

I'd love to see a Jaguares style outfit enter the Pro14, but from Georgia. Tbilisi is hardly any more dangerous than South Africa right now, you'd think?