The Six Nations and a relegation spot ?

[Leekbrookgull]

Is it worth considering ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35961499

 

[Pavilionaire]

This is an interesting question. Essentially I tend to agree with relegation as it stops the competition becoming a closed shop and gives other nations a chance to prove their worth. However, there are other considerations:

1. Geographically, there is a logic to Italy being part of the 6 Nations - it's joined to France, it is culturally part of Western Europe, the place is accessible.
2. There is a worry that if Italy got relegated they may lose interest in the competition and their gradual progress will grind to a halt.
3. Romania and Georgia will add a novelty value, but for how long?
4. France, Wales and Scotland have all finished bottom of the 6 Nations - in the case of the Scots on 4 separate occasions. Could the competition cope without the England vs. Scotland Calcutta Cup?
5. By the latter stages of the competition Italy begin to get blown away. How would a smaller rugby nation with a smaller squad of players cope with the injuries in games 4 and 5?

 

[Eeyore]

This is an interesting question. Essentially I tend to agree with relegation as it stops the competition becoming a closed shop and gives other nations a chance to prove their worth. However, there are other considerations:

1. Geographically, there is a logic to Italy being part of the 6 Nations - it's joined to France, it is culturally part of Western Europe, the place is accessible.
2. There is a worry that if Italy got relegated they may lose interest in the competition and their gradual progress will grind to a halt.
3. Romania and Georgia will add a novelty value, but for how long?
4. France, Wales and Scotland have all finished bottom of the 6 Nations - in the case of the Scots on 4 separate occasions. Could the competition cope without the England vs. Scotland Calcutta Cup?
5. By the latter stages of the competition Italy begin to get blown away. How would a smaller rugby nation with a smaller squad of players cope with the injuries in games 4 and 5?

Almost agree, but not with #3.

Georgia has Rugby as its national sport. Everything should be done to develop the game. There's an argument for a '7 nations' tournament where the leaders of the Second Division could participate in the group although results against them, in terms of points accumulated in a match, don't count. That way the main teams would be comfortable playing their fringe players thus reducing the pressure to put in a big score and not over exerting the squad.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

This is an interesting question. Essentially I tend to agree with relegation as it stops the competition becoming a closed shop and gives other nations a chance to prove their worth. However, there are other considerations:

1. Geographically, there is a logic to Italy being part of the 6 Nations - it's joined to France, it is culturally part of Western Europe, the place is accessible.
2. There is a worry that if Italy got relegated they may lose interest in the competition and their gradual progress will grind to a halt.
3. Romania and Georgia will add a novelty value, but for how long?
4. France, Wales and Scotland have all finished bottom of the 6 Nations - in the case of the Scots on 4 separate occasions. Could the competition cope without the England vs. Scotland Calcutta Cup?
5. By the latter stages of the competition Italy begin to get blown away. How would a smaller rugby nation with a smaller squad of players cope with the injuries in games 4 and 5?

1, Romania isn't very far away and Georgia isn't exaclty the ends of the earth and there's a logic to it being a European competition
2. Or they benefit from playing more competitive fixtures rather than being whitewashed year in year out
3. With relegation and promotion you get aconstant recycling of new blood and therefore the compettion is refreshed each season.
4 yes
5 Are they really any worse than Italy in terms of te player pool ( I have no idea on this)

I can't see how relegation from the six nations isn't going to make things more competitive myself

 

[Hamilton]

This is an interesting question. Essentially I tend to agree with relegation as it stops the competition becoming a closed shop and gives other nations a chance to prove their worth. However, there are other considerations:

1. Geographically, there is a logic to Italy being part of the 6 Nations - it's joined to France, it is culturally part of Western Europe, the place is accessible.
2. There is a worry that if Italy got relegated they may lose interest in the competition and their gradual progress will grind to a halt.
3. Romania and Georgia will add a novelty value, but for how long?
4. France, Wales and Scotland have all finished bottom of the 6 Nations - in the case of the Scots on 4 separate occasions. Could the competition cope without the England vs. Scotland Calcutta Cup?
5. By the latter stages of the competition Italy begin to get blown away. How would a smaller rugby nation with a smaller squad of players cope with the injuries in games 4 and 5?

I think I like this idea, but to spice it up further - and to address point 2 that [MENTION=258]Pavilionaire[/MENTION] makes, I would relegate the bottom 2 nations each year. That would truly open up the format.

I would then have a Six Nations second level.

 

[Eeyore]

1, Romania isn't very far away and Georgia isn't exaclty the ends of the earth and there's a logic to it being a European competition
2. Or they benefit from playing more competitive fixtures rather than being whitewashed year in year out
3. With relegation and promotion you get aconstant recycling of new blood and therefore the compettion is refreshed each season.
4 yes
5 Are they really any worse than Italy in terms of te player pool ( I have no idea on this)

I can't see how relegation from the six nations isn't going to make things more competitive myself

Lots to ponder.

Italy have teams participating in the Celtic League (although there is an argument for them playing as an attachment to the French League). It's complex. Their club sides have a place in the two European tournaments. It is vital they stay at the top table. Remember, they have won matches and finished fourth not so long ago.

Georgia, like Romania, has teams in the European tournaments but only in the second tier. None are in major leagues. It's all about exposure to higher levels and it takes time. Rugby is taking off globally (the next World Cup is with the AMEX heroes, Japan). Developing nations must be supported. And it takes years not months. Argentina are a wonderful example.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Basically Itlay have sadly not raised their game as quickly as some would have hoped like say Argentina who pay OZ and NZ. Mind you rugby Union is an attritional borefest so I dont know why Im even bothering to comment.

 

[hitony]

Great idea to bring in the relegation system, in my opinion.

 

[Brian Fantana]

Georgia are ranked a few places higher than Italy, so they definitely deserve a crack. A lot of their decent players are with teams in the top two divisons in France. Their forward pack would give most international teams a run for their money. If they could bring through some skillful backs, they'd be a real handful.

 

[Gwylan]

I do think it would be good to expand the 6N. I favour a play-off rather than a straight relegation though,

My only concern would be the European Championship. If that extra competition greatly improves Romania and Georgia, then aren't we going to have the same issue at the second tier? In other words, the dominance of these two teams will make European Championship rather predictable.

The needs to be a way to improve all European teams. It should be mandatory for every 6N team to play two European teams every autumn, that way we can see some improvement all round

 

[dangull]

I think I like this idea, but to spice it up further - and to address point 2 that [MENTION=258]Pavilionaire[/MENTION] makes, I would relegate the bottom 2 nations each year. That would truly open up the format.

I would then have a Six Nations second level.

In a bad season, England are capable of finishing 5th. Cant see there would be great demand to watch 2nd division rugby the next season against Georgia and Rumania.

 

[Brian Fantana]

In a bad season, England are capable of finishing 5th. Cant see there would be great demand to watch 2nd division rugby the next season against Georgia and Rumania.

Twickenham would sell out, regardless.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Has to be worth considering,nothing worse than a closed shop.

 

[dangull]

Twickenham would sell out, regardless.

Okay, if you like watching 60 point routs. TV audiences might go down though.

 

[Jbanged]

Italy have been poor for the past few years, they just don't have the strength in depth. The only other team who could possibly finish last is usually Scotland. I can't see a 6 nations possible without them. Even though money has changed the game drastically, I can't see them ever playing the competition without Scotland in it.
I do like the idea of allowing emerging rugby nations to improve their game. However, the 6 nations won't change any time soon. They would have to find another way to get these nations the chance of developing.

The only suggestion I could see would be having a playoff with the bottom finish 6 nation team against the winner of the sub competition. However, this would cause a stir, due to the extra game being played and club teams losing their national stars.

 

[Hamilton]

In a bad season, England are capable of finishing 5th. Cant see there would be great demand to watch 2nd division rugby the next season against Georgia and Rumania.

Motivates England to perform and would raise the profile of a level 2 set of nations when/if heaven forbid it happened. It's a brave idea, but would shake it up.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

In a bad season, England are capable of finishing 5th. Cant see there would be great demand to watch 2nd division rugby the next season against Georgia and Rumania.

really?

England are the only nation Italy haven't beaten in the Six Nations

the last time we lost to the Scots?

 

[Brian Fantana]

the last time we lost to the Scots?

2008.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

2008.

granted

but we did beat France & Ireland and finished 2nd

have we ever finished 5th in the Six Nations?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I would say that when Italy were first admitted to the expanded 6 Nations they were considerably weaker than Georgia are now. Therefore, Georgia definitely merit inclusion on ability alone.

The problem is that there is no room in the calendar for an expanded 7 Nations competition, or an increase in the number of international friendlies, or an FA Cup-style European knockout tournament.

Could more have been done to help Italy get significantly better? I don't think so. On balance I'm in favour of relegation - it may well be that over the long-term Georgia will turn out to be a stronger outfit than Italy.