Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Will 6N ever grow?

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,552 ✭✭✭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


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


    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭Cork Boy 53


    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

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    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.


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


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,402 ✭✭✭✭Trojan


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,959 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    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"


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,133 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,710 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    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.


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


    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


  • Advertisement


  • 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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,959 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    Podge_irl 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,959 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,450 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭triple nipple


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,110 ✭✭✭✭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.


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭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! :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭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?


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


    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.
    There does need to be some sort of pathway but promotion/relegation wont be an option unless the side coming up can guarantee income similar to what already exists and what about the side that does go down. Like how do you address the loss in income they would have if not in the 6 nations considering how important 6 nations is to each of the competing unions?
    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.
    Thats nonsense and this protectionism will stay until the next potential side can add to or at least match sides already in the competition.
    P_1 wrote: »
    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.
    In lieu of 6 nations would work but you would need to provide all sides with 5 games. so playoffs for all sides to get 5 games.
    Forget Georgia, let's get Japan into the 6 nations. They are a fantastic side and could definitely compete!
    Too far away and theyre a southern hemisphere side with side in super rugby and compete in other southern hemisphere sides and travel would be too far
    who_me wrote: »
    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! :)
    They have lot of forwards in top14 but more internationals would make a huge difference. issue with tbilisi would be travel for games. its 7.5 hours
    And playing more internationals against better sides of course it will make a difference. Georgia have rarely played many of the 6 nations sides. If they had at least 1 if not 2 games a year against them it would make a huge difference


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,450 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Neil3030 wrote: »
    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?
    That would be the best start for them. They're like Italy at the start with a lot of their best players in the T14 and Prem. Getting them back to play in Georgia in a Pro 14 team would be a start. They can learn from Italy's mistakes and start properly from the ground up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭triple nipple


    the travel makes it a complete non runner.


    Dosnt seem to to stop the tri nations


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,450 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Dosnt seem to to stop the tri nations
    There are a lot of complaints in the RC about the travel, the different time zones etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I think building a viable club game in these countries would be a better place to start, in terms of bringing them up to 6 Nations level. Inclusion in the Pro14, or one of the other leagues would be great imo. Travel distances could be tricky, but if we can manage SA teams, we could manage a Georgian one.

    The dream of a Pan-European league would make this sort of thing much easier to accomplish, but I fear entrenched financial interests will resist any change to the status quo.

    I hope the American MLR can be successful and show the potential of expanding rugby beyond the traditional bases.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1



    In lieu of 6 nations would work but you would need to provide all sides with 5 games. so playoffs for all sides to get 5 games.

    Yeah that could work actually.

    Say 4 groups of

    Ireland, Georgia, Spain

    Wales, Italy, Belgium

    France, Romania, Russia

    Scotland, England,Germany

    QF for the main trophy is
    A1vD2, B1vC2, C1vB2, D1vA1

    Winners go into the SF for the main trophy, losers into a 5th-8th SF

    SF then for 9th-12th with
    A3vD3, B3vC3

    That gives 8 of the 12 teams 5 matches with the 4 lowest ranked in the groups having 4


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


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    That would be the best start for them. They're like Italy at the start with a lot of their best players in the T14 and Prem. Getting them back to play in Georgia in a Pro 14 team would be a start. They can learn from Italy's mistakes and start properly from the ground up.
    Is the funding there for it to happen? Getting players back to georgia does need to happen. You have to look at issues Argentinians are having to see that. You cant just have 1 side and try keep players there to play nationally as that isnt good enough
    Dosnt seem to to stop the tri nations
    Completely different and there's more than a few complaints about the travel and issues arising from it
    I think building a viable club game in these countries would be a better place to start, in terms of bringing them up to 6 Nations level. Inclusion in the Pro14, or one of the other leagues would be great imo. Travel distances could be tricky, but if we can manage SA teams, we could manage a Georgian one.

    The dream of a Pan-European league would make this sort of thing much easier to accomplish, but I fear entrenched financial interests will resist any change to the status quo.

    I hope the American MLR can be successful and show the potential of expanding rugby beyond the traditional bases.
    A Europe wide league league would be the ultimate but yeah agree why it wont happen. South Africans added plenty to tv deal didnt they? What would Georgians offer? If South Africans didnt offer significant more to tv would they have been added?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


    Have Georgia ever even beaten a 6 nations side Italy included? They are nowhere near the tournament until they start winning some meaningful games.


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


    MayoSalmon wrote: »
    Have Georgia ever even beaten a 6 nations side Italy included? They are nowhere near the tournament until they start winning some meaningful games.
    No and not in 11 games. They need more games against stronger sides until we can see if they are ready for a step up to a higher level


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Is the funding there for it to happen? Getting players back to georgia does need to happen. You have to look at issues Argentinians are having to see that. You cant just have 1 side and try keep players there to play nationally as that isnt good enough

    Completely different and there's more than a few complaints about the travel and issues arising from it
    A Europe wide league league would be the ultimate but yeah agree why it wont happen. South Africans added plenty to tv deal didnt they? What would Georgians offer? If South Africans didnt offer significant more to tv would they have been added?

    We can't let every decision be dictated by how much tv revenue will be immediately generated. Call me old fashioned, but if you focus on developing a tournament that matters to as many people as possible, the revenue will follow.


Advertisement