Guinness SIX Nations 2021

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A playoff with Georgia would be Italy's most competitive game every year and give the Rugby Europe guys something to play for.

But the 6 Nations would be terrified by the idea of Georgia winning

I've wondered about this sometimes.

Rugby is a much bigger sport in Georgia than it is in Italy. That suggests to me that there is more growth potential there.

Obviously there is less money there and a weekend in Tblissi doesn't exactly appeal like a trip to Rome, but in rugby terms in the long run Georgia maybe have more potential than Italy.

One change I'd like to see is the U20 6Ns expanded to 8 teams to include Georgia and one other team, maybe Spain. It would help the development of players in those countries.

Podge_irl

bilston wrote: »

Obviously there is less money there and a weekend in Tblissi doesn't exactly appeal like a trip to Rome, but in rugby terms in the long run Georgia maybe have more potential than Italy.

It doesn't. Italy have professional domestic teams and a feeder semi/pro league. Italy have beaten every 6N team except England, Georgia have beaten none (including Italy...). What is needed is massive investment in Italian rugby - their current team is insanely young. They will benefit in 2 years from that but ultimately this is what European rugby below the 5N looks like.

Lost Ormond

bilston wrote: »

I've wondered about this sometimes.

Rugby is a much bigger sport in Georgia than it is in Italy. That suggests to me that there is more growth potential there.

Obviously there is less money there and a weekend in Tblissi doesn't exactly appeal like a trip to Rome, but in rugby terms in the long run Georgia maybe have more potential than Italy.

One change I'd like to see is the U20 6Ns expanded to 8 teams to include Georgia and one other team, maybe Spain. It would help the development of players in those countries.

Its popular and theyve lot of pro players in france primarily in front row/second row but beyond games against Russia are they really getting more crowds than italians at games and money isnt going to be near what it is in Italy so how much more potential is there in georgia?

20s should expand i agree but all the 6 nations should be forced by world rugby to send u18 sides to compete in the rugby europe u18 championships that they pulled out of after the 2016 tournament

tgdaly

With all the talk of Italy vs Georgia, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Is there not scope to expand to 7 or 8 teams?

For example, 8 teams, and split into 2 groups. Have England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland in 1, and France, Italy and say Georgia and Romania in the other. Play each team in your group once and 2 more games against the other group, keeps it at 5 games.

So for example, a year of fixtures for Ireland would be England, Wales, Scotland, France or Italy, and Georgia or Romania.

Protects the Triple Crown and Calcutta Cup. I mean is there any particular reason to have to play France and Italy every year, surely once every 2nd year would be ok?

One team that might be against this would be France. But say for example you replace Romania with South Africa, now that would make things interesting. France would probably be happy enough to give up facing all 4 other teams if it meant a yearly fixture with South Africa?

I don't necessarily think bringing SA in is a good idea, but it's worth considering all potential options and formats

Dave_The_Sheep

How about we just leave the Six Nations alone? Don't f*ck with it.

Squidgy Black

tgdaly wrote: »

With all the talk of Italy vs Georgia, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Is there not scope to expand to 7 or 8 teams?

For example, 8 teams, and split into 2 groups. Have England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland in 1, and France, Italy and say Georgia and Romania in the other. Play each team in your group once and 2 more games against the other group, keeps it at 5 games.

So for example, a year of fixtures for Ireland would be England, Wales, Scotland, France or Italy, and Georgia or Romania.

Protects the Triple Crown and Calcutta Cup. I mean is there any particular reason to have to play France and Italy every year, surely once every 2nd year would be ok?

One team that might be against this would be France. But say for example you replace Romania with South Africa, now that would make things interesting. France would probably be happy enough to give up facing all 4 other teams if it meant a yearly fixture with South Africa?

I don't necessarily think bringing SA in is a good idea, but it's worth considering all potential options and formats

All you're doing there is increasing the costs of the tournament, for little to no financial gain as those games won't gather much revenue, and you'd have to pay out to split any share of the existing TV revenue to those unions. Who would very much need it to out the infrastructure in place. And the two teams are also a further step down from Italy again so you're just adding even more terrible games into the mix.

Lost Ormond

tgdaly wrote: »

With all the talk of Italy vs Georgia, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Is there not scope to expand to 7 or 8 teams?

For example, 8 teams, and split into 2 groups. Have England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland in 1, and France, Italy and say Georgia and Romania in the other. Play each team in your group once and 2 more games against the other group, keeps it at 5 games.

So for example, a year of fixtures for Ireland would be England, Wales, Scotland, France or Italy, and Georgia or Romania.

Protects the Triple Crown and Calcutta Cup. I mean is there any particular reason to have to play France and Italy every year, surely once every 2nd year would be ok?

One team that might be against this would be France. But say for example you replace Romania with South Africa, now that would make things interesting. France would probably be happy enough to give up facing all 4 other teams if it meant a yearly fixture with South Africa?

I don't necessarily think bringing SA in is a good idea, but it's worth considering all potential options and formats

Because no union wants to lose out on income from these games and losing a welsh game or english game in aviva regularly would be madness.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

How about we just leave the Six Nations alone? Don't f*ck with it.

Because the sport needs to expand and develop more teams and the way the 6 nations is right now means its very difficult for the sport to develop more teams at top level

Teferi

Georgia's vice president was off shooting their 7s players/coaches a few months ago. I strongly suspect they're an absolute basketcase, we just don't know it because we don't pay enough attention to them.

Beyond that, at least you have to field your strongest team against Italy whereas you would not have to field your strongest team against Georgia. It would unbalance the tournament; take Wales and Ireland for a moment and imagine a Slam on the line. In the final two weeks of the tournament, Ireland have to play France and then Wales, whereas Wales have to play Georgia and then Ireland. Some of those Welsh boys are coming in very, very fresh to that Slam game.

Squidgy Black

One of the massive issues with Georgian rugby as well is although they get a lot of domestic supporters at games, the actual number of players playing with teams is tiny. They've a population of about half of Ireland's, and only around 4k registered players with 46 clubs. In their semi-pro league, 6 of the teams are in Tiblisi.

That's just not a sustainable level of growth in terms of playing numbers to be able to produce players who are capable of playing the top level consistently. They've had a couple of decent looking teams over the years, but there just isn't the foundations there at all to prevent them from completely flopping if a few players were to retire.

Burkie1203

Squidgy Black wrote: »

One of the massive issues with Georgian rugby as well is although they get a lot of domestic supporters at games, the actual number of players playing with teams is tiny. They've a population of about half of Ireland's, and only around 4k registered players with 46 clubs. In their semi-pro league, 6 of the teams are in Tiblisi.

That's just not a sustainable level of growth in terms of playing numbers to be able to produce players who are capable of playing the top level consistently. They've had a couple of decent looking teams over the years, but there just isn't the foundations there at all to prevent them from completely flopping if a few players were to retire.

It's not just if players retire. A half decent showing and half their players will end up at Leicester Tigers like what happened to Benetton a few years ago

Lost Ormond

Squidgy Black wrote: »

One of the massive issues with Georgian rugby as well is although they get a lot of domestic supporters at games, the actual number of players playing with teams is tiny. They've a population of about half of Ireland's, and only around 4k registered players with 46 clubs. In their semi-pro league, 6 of the teams are in Tiblisi.

That's just not a sustainable level of growth in terms of playing numbers to be able to produce players who are capable of playing the top level consistently. They've had a couple of decent looking teams over the years, but there just isn't the foundations there at all to prevent them from completely flopping if a few players were to retire.

There's lot more than 4000 playing. Where are you getting that figure from?

We dont know enough about if they could do more at a higher level when they dont play enough games against the 6 nations sides.

Squidgy Black

Lost Ormond wrote: »

There's lot more than 4000 playing. Where are you getting that figure from?

We dont know enough about if they could do more at a higher level when they dont play enough games against the 6 nations sides.

That's the IRB's published figures from a few years ago.

Edit: I stand corrected it's 9.4k according to 2019's figures http://publications.worldrugby.org/yearinreview2019/en/68-1

Lost Ormond

Squidgy Black wrote: »

That's the IRB's published figures from a few years ago.

Edit: I stand corrected it's 9.4k according to 2019's figures http://publications.worldrugby.org/yearinreview2019/en/68-1

Thats registered players and beside that is total players which is around 16000. Which still isnt very high but considerably bigger than those first two ffigures.

Anyway getting beyond the figures alone they simply need more opportunities.

Podge_irl

Georgia deserve more opportunities and should have a healthy slate of Autumn internationals against 6N teams every year.

But they are also much, much worse than Italy.

schmoo2k

Make it a 7N (Italy and Georgia) and get rid of the rest weekends - force squads to rotate players (good prep for world cups)? (I know its not a runner - just a thought).

pickarooney

Podge_irl wrote: »

Georgia deserve more opportunities and should have a healthy slate of Autumn internationals against 6N teams every year.

But they are also much, much worse than Italy.

Our last two competitive matches against Georgia finished 23-10 and 17-10 IIRC.

nerd69

The way italy have gotten worse if anything it's more likely to go back to 5 nations than go to 7. The italy game is a waste of time at this stage I know plenty who are serious rugby fans that don't bother watching the italy games bar vs ireland. I know there's an argument of growing the sport but how much good has being.in the 6 nations actually done for italy?

prawnsambo

pickarooney wrote: »

Our last two competitive matches against Georgia finished 23-10 and 17-10 IIRC.

The last one wasn't exactly a full strength Ireland squad. A fair few new caps.

Digifriendly

Someone said recently in a commentary that the future was bright for Italy with their U20s success but Italy are yet to win an U20s 6N title. I'm afraid it's sugarcoating all the time. I repeat what I posted some time ago that when Italy entered the then 5N to make it 6N in 2000 it was being confidently predicted that they would win a GS within a decade. Here we are 21 years later and Italy have never won more than 2 matches in any 6N championship. Time for a change whatever that change may be.

prawnsambo

Digifriendly wrote: »

Someone said recently in a commentary that the future was bright for Italy with their U20s success but Italy are yet to win an U20s 6N title. I'm afraid it's sugarcoating all the time. I repeat what I posted some time ago that when Italy entered the then 5N to make it 6N in 2000 it was being confidently predicted that they would win a GS within a decade. Here we are 21 years later and Italy have never won more than 2 matches in any 6N championship. Time for a change whatever that change may be.

Scotland have yet to win an under 20s championship too. Wales have only won two and France and Ireland three. It's not exactly the yardstick you seem to think it is.

tgdaly

I dunno, they say the definition of madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

The same people who say leave the 6nations alone, it's grand the way it is, are probably the same people who will turn around and complain every year when Italy get 5 pastings.

It's hasn't worked for 20 years. Whether the answer is outright replacing Italy or adding more teams I'm not sure, but clearly something has to change. Even if it's changes within Italian rugby itself

Bridge93

Italy had the youngest squad in the tournament by some distance. In their 38 man squad they had:

2 x 19 year olds
5 x 20 year olds
1 x 21 year olds
2 x 22 year olds
5 x 23 year olds
4 x 24/25 year olds

They also have Polledri and Minozzi who are 25 and 24 respectively who were not there for differing reasons. Talk of Paolo Odogwu declaring for Italy too.

It's great they're backing youth and the future but to the extent that its damaging the tournament now I'm a bit uneasy. Italy could be decent in 2 or 3 years but the pain before then looks like it could be enormous.
The easiest fix is their discipline. They wouldnt win but they would be probably 15 points closer in all their games if they werent so awful from a discipline standpoint. Thats an easier fix than the rest. Their attacking shape isnt the worst and is harder to get right which is promising. But they just shoot themselves in the foot in both attack and defence with penalties and unforced errors.

They wont be kicked out any time soon so its a waste of time arguing it. But if this new generation doesnt bare any fruit i really dont know what options there are.

Edit: A quick glance shows another 9 blokes who are 26/27. Only two members of the squad are 30+ and they're both 30 and 31. Two guys with more than 50 caps. It's a remarkably inexperienced squad

Podge_irl

Digifriendly wrote: »

I repeat what I posted some time ago that when Italy entered the then 5N to make it 6N in 2000 it was being confidently predicted that they would win a GS within a decade. Here we are 21 years later and Italy have never won more than 2 matches in any 6N championship. Time for a change whatever that change may be.

And I'll repeat what was no doubt asked at the time - who the **** was confidently predicting they would win a GS within a decade? Because I have never heard anything even close to that ever being said.

GreeBo

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

Italy are worth their place for super Saturday alone. all the games can mean something even if one side up against Italy is looking to have a big score.

I dont think thats a good enough reason to have them there though...

A2LUE42

Bridge93 wrote: »

Italy had the youngest squad in the tournament by some distance. In their 38 man squad they had:

2 x 19 year olds
5 x 20 year olds
1 x 21 year olds
2 x 22 year olds
5 x 23 year olds
4 x 24/25 year olds

They also have Polledri and Minozzi who are 25 and 24 respectively who were not there for differing reasons. Talk of Paolo Odogwu declaring for Italy too.

It's great they're backing youth and the future but to the extent that its damaging the tournament now I'm a bit uneasy. Italy could be decent in 2 or 3 years but the pain before then looks like it could be enormous.
The easiest fix is their discipline. They wouldnt win but they would be probably 15 points closer in all their games if they werent so awful from a discipline standpoint. Thats an easier fix than the rest. Their attacking shape isnt the worst and is harder to get right which is promising. But they just shoot themselves in the foot in both attack and defence with penalties and unforced errors.

They wont be kicked out any time soon so its a waste of time arguing it. But if this new generation doesnt bare any fruit i really dont know what options there are.

If you are playing in a close game that you believe you can win, you do everything possible to not give away a silly penalty or commit an 'unforced' error, because that may be the make or break moment in the game. If you are expecting another glorious defeat, at best, then the same motivation isn't there. I can't see how you can fix that in a term that has such a bad win ratio as Italy against the top teams. They just do not have enough players at the levels required to build a competitive team.

GreeBo

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

How about we just leave the Six Nations
alone? Don't f*ck with it.

Well if we did that it would still be the 5 nations, so...

GreeBo

A2LUE42 wrote: »

If you are playing in a close game that you believe you can win, you do everything possible to not give away a silly penalty or commit an 'unforced' error, because that may be the make or break moment in the game. If you are expecting another glorious defeat, at best, then the same motivation isn't there. I can't see how you can fix that in a term that has such a bad win ratio as Italy against the top teams. They just do not have enough players at the levels required to build a competitive team.

+1
Which is why I think a second tier "6 nations" with relegation/promotion from one to the other would be good for everyone.
If Italy get used to winning "their" 6 nations and having something to lose, maybe they will be a bit more robust during their promotion years.

sydthebeat

tgdaly wrote: »

I dunno, they say the definition of madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

The same people who say leave the 6nations alone, it's grand the way it is, are probably the same people who will turn around and complain every year when Italy get 5 pastings.

It's hasn't worked for 20 years. Whether the answer is outright replacing Italy or adding more teams I'm not sure, but clearly something has to change. Even if it's changes within Italian rugby itself

whats the "it" in the statement above?
what was the original purpose of getting italy into the 6 nations?

was it to expand the game there?
would it by chance have been to establish a professional pathway in italian rugby? would it have been to try to establish professional rugby teams competing in a European league as a path way for developing international players.

if so, then it has been a successful 20 years for italian rugby

in 2001 their domestic league underwent huge change where their previous 2 tier system became essentially AIL and their top league was expanded to the top 10 clubs in the country and consolidated until a further expansion in 2010 to 12 teams... becoming the current Top12 league.

this 10 years of consolidation and extra money in the system allowed for the FIR to apply for membership of the celtic league in 2008 when it expanded from the celtic league to the Pro12 in 2010.. with guaranteed entrance to the heineken cup.
Italy has maintained 2 professional club teams in the league ever since.

in 2009 the FIR took over the Top12 league so they could have greater control over the pathways for player development by essentially controlling the national team, the player development pathway through the top 12.. and through partial funding of the celtic league teams they control the highest level of professional club rugby.

Is Italian rugby in a better place in 2021 than it was in 2000... 100% yes it is.

Is the Italian national team better in 2021 than it was in 2000... 100% no its not.

But that is as much based on the 2000 generation being freakishly outstanding, importing a lot of quality from overseas such as Australia and Argentina. Italy have had significant one off results over the 20 years, but they have no where near been consistent enough.
Hopefully Franco smiths experiment by starting so many young players this year will pay off in the coming years.... hopefully Italy stick with him long enough to see if it pays off.

sydthebeat

A2LUE42 wrote: »

If you are playing in a close game that you believe you can win, you do everything possible to not give away a silly penalty or commit an 'unforced' error, because that may be the make or break moment in the game. If you are expecting another glorious defeat, at best, then the same motivation isn't there. I can't see how you can fix that in a term that has such a bad win ratio as Italy against the top teams. They just do not have enough players at the levels required to build a competitive team.

england gave away more penalties than italy

Former Former Former

Italy can't be kicked out, they're a full shareholder in the Six Nations, just like Ireland. The only way they can leave is by their own volition.

Now CVC are on board, they're going to want to maximise commercial returns. How would they react to replacing a target market of 50 million rich Italians with 4 million impoverished Georgians?

And for what? So Georgia can get annihilated in every game?