6 Nations 2017 General Discussion Thread

Winters · 26-01-2017 01:38PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

English and the French are in the majority in the Champions Cup. They are not in the 6 Nations. This time would need support from their own unions as well as some of the Celtic unions, which is a different ball game. Not even clear that Ian Ritchie supports them yet.

How much those unions are willing to support a change to the 6 Nations comes down to politics.

We can expect the Welsh Regions to roll over so.

flangemeistro · 26-01-2017 01:42PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

flangemeistro wrote: »

Do you not remember the recent changes to the Heineken /Champions cup?
The premiership also demanded that along with the French.
The poms get what the poms want or they throw their toys out of the pram.

English and the French are in the majority in the Champions Cup. They are not in the 6 Nations. This time would need support from their own unions as well as some of the Celtic unions, which is a different ball game. Not even clear that Ian Ritchie supports them yet.

How much those unions are willing to support a change to the 6 Nations comes down to politics.

As we are all well aware the French clubs aren't too fond on releasing or resting their players either so I reckon they will join the cause.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 01:43PM

Winters wrote: »

We can expect the Welsh Regions to roll over so.

Regions are irrelevant on this particular issue. It's the RFU, FFR, IRFU, SRU, WRU and FIR. PRL, LNR, PRW and the like are just petitioners. Maybe they can sway their unions once politics comes into play.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 01:43PM

flangemeistro wrote: »

As we are all well aware the French clubs aren't too fond on releasing or resting their players either so I reckon they will join the cause.

Doesn't matter what cause the French clubs join unless they can get FFR to agree with them, and their relationship is rocky to say the least.

thomond2006 · 26-01-2017 01:56PM

The suggested Six Nations change would go hand-in-hand with having no summer tours the year after a World Cup and no Tests being played outside the official window, ending the much-criticised fourth autumn international.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/inside-track-controversial-plans-reduce-12511038

I have no problem with this as a viewer. 4 AIs is too much and a summer tour following the RWC is overkill.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 02:07PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

I have no problem with this as a viewer. 4 AIs is too much and a summer tour following the RWC is overkill.

I think I'd be OK with it, but I don't know what that would do to revenue for the Unions and they may push against that.

awec · 26-01-2017 02:08PM

It would probably be bad news for tier 2 nations as it would become even more difficult for them to attract tier 1 nations on tour.

Podge_irl · 26-01-2017 02:09PM

Wouldn't no summer tours after a RWC basically mean only one proper summer tour every 4 years?

molloyjh · 26-01-2017 02:12PM

awec wrote: »

Yea but the argument is that squads can be rotated like world cup pools.

Yeah but how much rotation actually happens in the RWC really? And against who. Teams rotate against the likes of the Georgias and the Namibias. They also very rarely have more than 2 top teams in them. The 6 Nations isn't really comparable from that perspective.

thomond2006 wrote: »

I have no problem with this as a viewer. 4 AIs is too much and a summer tour following the RWC is overkill.

But there's no summer tour prior to the RWC either so you're taking 2 summer tours out and having only 2 every 4 years (and as Podge pointed out 1 of those 2 years would be a Lions year too so only 1 real summer tour every 4 years). The Unions need to bring in money, which is a factor few seem to consider when talking about this. The money from the internationals pays for most of the rugby in the country, up to and partially including the provincial game. Any discussion about reducing Test games must address the lost income that will follow.

EDIT: Remove more summer tours and that'll ave an impact on the game in the SH too won't it? If we want them to travel up here every year then surely we shouldn't just be traveling down there once every 4 years?

Teferi · 26-01-2017 03:07PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

As pointed out to me on twitter, the 5 games in 5 weeks is probably a bargaining position to start on. 5 games in 6 weeks seems like a reasonable compromise.

There should be absolutely no compromise on this. The current format is perfectly fine.

This is the door that was opened when we let the clubs dictate the terms of Europe a few years ago. World Rugby and every other Union should tell them to go and ram it up their holes.

ScrubsfanChris · 26-01-2017 03:11PM

awec wrote: »

I see English clubs want the rest weeks in the 6 nations to be cut so the competition takes 5 weeks instead of 7.

Not sure what I think about it. Because our players are employed by the union our clubs wouldn't benefit from it as players wouldn't be allowed to play either way.

If they got rid of the completely outdated Anglo-Welsh Cup then wouldn't have to be worried about time constraints.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 03:12PM

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

If they got rid of the completely outdated Anglo-Welsh Cup then wouldn't have to be worried about time constraints.

Not really. If the Anglo-Welsh cup was causing any issues they would scrap it. It's not actually a problem given internationals don't play in it.

Teferi · 26-01-2017 03:12PM

The Welsh will be dangled the usual carrot of entry into the Premiership in the vague and distant future (with no hope of it ever actually happening) and they will fall for it again. Just watch.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 03:14PM

Teferi wrote: »

There should be absolutely no compromise on this. The current format is perfectly fine.

This is the door that was opened when we let the clubs dictate the terms of Europe a few years ago. World Rugby and every other Union should tell them to go and ram it up their holes.

So long as you ignore the underlying point and the aim of reducing the number of weeks in use, then there should be no compromise. But if there is any interest from the Unions in actually achieving a unified calendar by 2021 (which is what they're discussing at the meeting where the clubs are presenting this idea) then there'll need to be some give and take.

Teferi · 26-01-2017 03:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So long as you ignore the underlying point and the aim of reducing the number of weeks in use, then there should be no compromise. But if there is any interest from the Unions in actually achieving a unified calendar by 2021 (which is what they're discussing at the meeting where the clubs are presenting this idea) then there'll need to be some give and take.

The club owners wanting more power along with a reduced valued and importance on the international game?

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 03:28PM

Teferi wrote: »

The club owners wanting more power along with a reduced valued and importance on the international game?

Try: the Unions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres all trying to find a way to produce some form of global calendar without moving the 6 Nations from February/March.

Teferi · 26-01-2017 03:32PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Try: the Unions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres all trying to find a way to produce some form of global calendar without moving the 6 Nations from February/March.

The English clubs have put this forward, not the Unions.

Try: Yet another power grab by the clubs.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 03:33PM

Teferi wrote: »

The English clubs have put this forward, not the Unions.

Try: Yet another power grab by the clubs.

And where are the English clubs putting it forward?

Teferi · 26-01-2017 03:36PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And where are the English clubs putting it forward?

So now you agree with me that it's the English clubs. Excellent.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 03:39PM

Teferi wrote: »

So now you agree with me that it's the English clubs. Excellent.

Not something I ever disagreed with.

The answer to the question you avoided is that it's at an international summit in America where the issue of a global calendar is up for discussion.

Teferi · 26-01-2017 03:48PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not something I ever disagreed with.

The answer to the question you avoided is that it's at an international summit in America where the issue of a global calendar is up for discussion.

Because it was irrelevant - it's yet another power grab by the clubs. They don't have the best interests of the game or the calendar at heart.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 04:08PM

Teferi wrote: »

Because it was irrelevant - it's yet another power grab by the clubs. They don't have the best interests of the game or the calendar at heart.

In what way is it a power grab? What power? What effect does the number of weeks off between games in the 6 Nations have on power structures in world rugby? Given the whole point of this move towards a global calendar (which was initiated by unions) is to increase the viability and success of international test windows, the answer can't be a relative change in strength of their products.

You don't need to be afraid of the boogeymen at every turn. The clubs motivation is to ensure that if they're going to lose weeks at the beginning or end of their season, they're getting them back elsewhere. If this is going to scupper international rugby to the benefit of the clubs, then the answer for the unions will be amazingly simple: vote against it.

molloyjh · 26-01-2017 04:18PM

Didn't this all start from a post of awecs stating that the English clubs were looking for a 5 week 6Ns? He didn't link an article and I haven't had time to go looking for one, but surely complaints about the clubs making demands of the international calendar in this way are valid? It's one thing to suggest moving the tournament, it's another to say they don't want any breaks in it at all.

irishbucsfan · 26-01-2017 04:23PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Didn't this all start from a post of awecs stating that the English clubs were looking for a 5 week 6Ns? He didn't link an article and I haven't had time to go looking for one, but surely complaints about the clubs making demands of the international calendar in this way are valid? It's one thing to suggest moving the tournament, it's another to say they don't want any breaks in it at all.

The English clubs are looking for a 5 week 6Ns, in a move to a global calendar. Not an out-of-the-blue request from power-hungry evil bastards looking to line their pockets, but actually just one of a number of potentially moving parts that will likely also see the clubs asked to give up some of their time or commit to some structure.

I don't want to see a 5 week 6 Nations, but I would like to see the clubs commit to a maximum number of game-weeks or some form of consistent calendar instead of constantly creeping deeper into May. If a 6-week 6 Nations is a compromise for that, then maybe it'd be worth it (maybe not). All of this combined is probably the reason none of it will happen.

CMOTDibbler · 26-01-2017 04:46PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't want to see a 5 week 6 Nations, but I would like to see the clubs commit to a maximum number of game-weeks or some form of consistent calendar instead of constantly creeping deeper into May. If a 6-week 6 Nations is a compromise for that, then maybe it'd be worth it (maybe not). All of this combined is probably the reason none of it will happen.

Is this not the problem people are voicing? They've gone as deep into May as they can, so the next step is to dig backwards into the 6N.

I'm not seeing a quid pro quo for this, it's a demand for 6N time as well as for summer tour time as well. Now I can understand the latter because the RWC takes a chunk of the season out and there's a lot of pressure on clubs as a result. But the 6N thing seems like trying it on to see if they can at least get the summer tour taken out and everybody breathes a sigh of relief because the 6N has been left alone.

errlloyd · 26-01-2017 05:25PM

Sorry to change the topic, but does anyone else wonder why Wales have to ask permission to close the roof of their stadium. If they had built a stadium with a permanent roof would anyone care? Sure it gives them an advantage becuase they're used to it, but that equally makes them less able to play away from home.

I think it should always be closed. And I hate the Welsh.

molloyjh · 26-01-2017 05:26PM

Right, finally got a chance to look for an actual article on what we are discussing.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jan/26/english-clubs-seek-reduction-in-six-nations-length-from-seven-to-five-weeks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/25/elite-english-clubs-push-limit-six-nations-five-weeks/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plan-to-shorten-six-nations-65b9xf80b

It seems this has been submitted to WR as part of the global calendar, with a view to allowing more flexibility for the business end of the clu season. How sensible that is all depends on what they mean by "flexibility". As it is the first game our internationals will play after the 6Ns is the QF against Wasps. There will be no league game to build up to it for the lads so if it's there to address that kind of thing (and assuming they aren't actually after a 5 week 6Ns, because that would be madness) then that's fair enough. However if it is there to facilitate something like an increased AP then that's an entirely different matter.

There does need to be some give and take in all of this. It'll be interesting to see what the clubs are willing to do on their end.

CMOTDibbler · 26-01-2017 05:30PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Sorry to change the topic, but does anyone else wonder why Wales have to ask permission to close the roof of their stadium. If they had built a stadium with a permanent roof would anyone care? Sure it gives them an advantage becuase they're used to it, but that equally makes them less able to play away from home.

I think it should always be closed. And I hate the Welsh.

The reason it's not permanent is that grass needs sunlight to grow. There have been issues in Lansdowne Road where some areas of the pitch sometimes don't receive enough sunlight and they have to use artificial light to promote growth.

Closure of the roof has a lot of other downsides. The noise is unbelievable and that causes problems for the officials. Also seen as an unfair advantage for the Welsh. So the veto goes to the away team as a result.

26-01-2017 05:34PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Sorry to change the topic, but does anyone else wonder why Wales have to ask permission to close the roof of their stadium. If they had built a stadium with a permanent roof would anyone care? Sure it gives them an advantage becuase they're used to it, but that equally makes them less able to play away from home.

I think it should always be closed. And I hate the Welsh.

Because rugby is an outdoor game and the away team may prefer to play outdoors.

errlloyd · 26-01-2017 05:46PM

Madalynn Unkempt Pedestal wrote: »

Because rugby is an outdoor game and the away team may prefer to play outdoors.

I know that's the official reason, but it's a load of crap. We don't get to demand we play Saracens on a grass pitch for instance. When we played in Dunedin we didn't kick up a fuss about it being indoors becuase the roof wasn't retractable. It just seems like the unions were sitting around a table one day in the 90s and decided to be awkward becuase there was the choice to be awkward. Let them do what they want, we let the all blacks do their war dance, we let Scotland have pipers on the roof, we let Saracens play on plastic. The roof objectively makes the game better, close the bloody thing and stop talking about it every year.

6 Nations 2017 General Discussion Thread

Comments