Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Will 6N ever grow?

  • 22-03-2018 9:58am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,167 ✭✭✭ 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?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,127 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,308 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,218 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭ nerd69


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,236 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ 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.
    nerd69 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,308 ✭✭✭✭ prawnsambo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭ nerd69


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ The Lost Sheep


    nerd69 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,634 ✭✭✭ ec18


    :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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,016 ✭✭✭✭ Mc Love


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,016 ✭✭✭✭ Mc Love


    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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,693 ✭✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭ nerd69


    :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


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,343 ✭✭✭✭ 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 ****.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,367 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,338 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,693 ✭✭✭ Chivito550


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,343 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,997 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,693 ✭✭✭ Chivito550


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ The Lost Sheep


    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


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ The Lost Sheep


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,218 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


Advertisement