Should Georgia & Romania be added to the 6 Nations?

[rowan]

Should Georgia and Romania be added to the 6 Nations?

The Lelos are ranked higher than Italy now, while the Oaks have played at every World Cup and recorded a few stunning wins over the 5 Nations sides toward the end of the amateur era.

If they can't expand the 6 Nations further, how about a promotion-relegation system, thereby unifying the 6 Nations with the ENC competition and providing rugby with an annual European championship open to all teams in their various divisions? Such a fixture ought to be played at the home of the 6 Nations team, IMHO, to ensure the challenge were full value for its spot before they replaced them. In other words, Georgia would have to go to Italy or Scotland and win there in order to replace them in the top division.

Alternatively, how about a quadrennial European Championship to slot in between World Cups. This could start with 8 teams drawn into two groups of four leading to semis and a final. As a matter of fact, the football equivalent didn't expand beyond eight teams until 1996, but the next installment, I believe, will involve 24, giving some indication of the potential for expansion.

If none of this is possible, then how about at the very least 6 Nations teams be required to play at least one friendly per season against an ENC team. Obviously Georgia and Romania would receive the bulk of these, being tier 2, and hopefully they'd get at least one home-game per year, while Russia might also feature from time to time, and Italy might opt to play Spain or Portugal. That's ONE game a year per 6 Nations team, I'm talking.

& if that's too much to ask then World Rugby might as well drop its globalization pretensions and reduce its showpiece event to a 10-team tournament, because under the current circumstances nobody else really has a chance.

[UKHamlet]

Maybe a second division with six nations development teams, but sticking 70 points on Georgia, or Romania every year will not help their development.

[rowan]

But the Nations Cup and Tbilisi Cup tournaments showed us development teams will not be taken seriously, and the tier 2 teams will only field development teams themselves. Part of the reason is the difficulty in getting European-based pros released for anything besides World Rugby-sanctioned test matches. So that's the only way to it will be taken seriously by both sides. In saying that, we have seen Home Union nations send understrength teams to the Far East and the Americas, sometimes even losing, but the fact they were test matches meant the game was taken very seriously by the locals, with wild celebrations following those occasional victories. By the way, I didn't notice 6 Nations teams putting 70 points on Georgia or Romania at last year's Rugby World Cup. That's obviously an exaggeration. Georgia are currently ranked higher than Italy and might well beat them in a proper test match right now were it held in Tbilisi, just as an example. Even so, teams like Argentina and Italy used to get hammered by the bigger teams, but increasingly contacts gradually brought them up to speed. In fact, the same could be said of both France and Australia in their early years in the 5 Nations and Bledisloe Cup competitions respectively.

[Sandydragon]

This has been discussed on here many times and I think most of use would favor greater engagement with the better teams from the European second tier, the problem is how to manage it.

The 6N can't get bigger. The impact on the domestic season would become critical and there is no way that the English and french clubs in particular would tolerate any expansion. The Celtic nations and Italy could probably manage it better if changes to that league are adopted.

But how to best incorporate new teams. Georgia are a great outfit, but will they make more of an impact on the top teams in the 6N than Italy have done? Arguably, they can't do any worse but that isn't the point. Also, what is the impact on Italy if they are thrown out and given the home/away issue in the 6N, is it fair to have relegation every year when some fixture lists are harder than others?

A playoff game would appear to be the fairest method of dealing with it, but where is that game inserted into the calendar?

I feel that the whole calendar needs a shake up, with a clear domestic season followed by international games. This would probably allow greater flexibility and perhaps a Euro competition would be more inclusive. A straight swap with Italy (or whoever was bottom) would mean no changes to the overall system, but I'm not convinced that the end result would be that much different, i.e. a 2 tier 6N.

Personally, I'd rather make space for an expanded Euro cup with tiers and space for main cup, plate etc.

[Sandydragon]

Theres also the commercial aspects to consider, just how marketable are Georgia et al. Personally, I think Tbilisi is a great weekend away, but its not as easy to get to as Rome and doesn't have the wide scale appeal. From a rugby perspective, Georgia are more than capable of filling Italy's shoes, but its impossible to ignore the commercial factor.

[Lizard]

The commercial factor is important but I'm pretty sure Georgia would sell out its home games even with minimal travelling support.

And surely some clever marketing person could make something of the fact that Georgia did exactly as well as England at RWC2015 (2 wins from 4).

[OptimisticJock]

No.

[rowan]

I feel that the whole calendar needs a shake up, with a clear domestic season followed by international games. This would probably allow greater flexibility and perhaps a Euro competition would be more inclusive. A straight swap with Italy (or whoever was bottom) would mean no changes to the overall system, but I'm not convinced that the end result would be that much different, i.e. a 2 tier 6N.

The tiers are basically the problem, devised solely to give the so-called elite playing nations an excuse not to play anyone else. There should definitely be more a more integrated calendar, while the whole tier system should simply be scrapped.

[Lizard]

I think the tier system also includes World Rugby funding to lower tier nations, so it's not all bad.

[Sandydragon]

I feel that the whole calendar needs a shake up, with a clear domestic season followed by international games. This would probably allow greater flexibility and perhaps a Euro competition would be more inclusive. A straight swap with Italy (or whoever was bottom) would mean no changes to the overall system, but I'm not convinced that the end result would be that much different, i.e. a 2 tier 6N.

The tiers are basically the problem, devised solely to give the so-called elite playing nations an excuse not to play anyone else. There should definitely be more a more integrated calendar, while the whole tier system should simply be scrapped.

By tiers I mean that the promoted team would almost certainly sit in the bottom half of the table whilst another team in the second division of euro rugby was making a pressing case for inclusion. Over time , promotion and relegation could sort that issue out, or at least mak it fairer, although the home and away issue is still a problem for fairness.

I'd prefer something more radical.

[rowan]

I think the tier system also includes World Rugby funding to lower tier nations, so it's not all bad.

They don't need tiers to figure out where the funding should go. The tiers are a cop-out, pure and simple. The 6 Nations and Rugby Championship teams just wanted a tangible reason not to play the other teams, so they invented one. Italy as tier 1 and Fiji & Samoa as tier 2 is a ludicrous notion. Italy never playing European rivals Georgia, who are ranked above them, is a very sad indictment on the exclusivity of the international rugby establishment.

[Lizard]

It's not like the tier system ended a long and honourable tradition of the haves playing the have-nots. And from a financial perspective, the relative rankings of Italy and the islands do make some sense.

I'm all for a more cohesive and merit-based system, and if you read old threads (hell, old boards too) you'll see that I am a big backer of Georgia et al having a shot at playing in the top flight. But in fact World Rugby is doing a reasonable (not perfect) job at improving the game in the lower ranks including by funding international tournaments that would never otherwise take place. Certainly there could be more equitable representation on WR, but the real issue is that WR does not control either the 6N or RC and the participants in those competitions are not beholden to WR financially. It's therefore difficult to overcome the self-interest of the top nations.

[Sandydragon]

It's not like the tier system ended a long and honourable tradition of the haves playing the have-nots. And from a financial perspective, the relative rankings of Italy and the islands do make some sense.

I'm all for a more cohesive and merit-based system, and if you read old threads (hell, old boards too) you'll see that I am a big backer of Georgia et al having a shot at playing in the top flight. But in fact World Rugby is doing a reasonable (not perfect) job at improving the game in the lower ranks including by funding international tournaments that would never otherwise take place. Certainly there could be more equitable representation on WR, but the real issue is that WR does not control either the 6N or RC and the participants in those competitions are not beholden to WR financially. It's therefore difficult to overcome the self-interest of the top nations.

Agreed. In addition to the pressure from clubs, the 6N Committee is under no major pressure for change. They have a highly marketable product so why bother? As Liz points out, the current situation is historic, there was a huge chasm between the old 5N teams and the rest of Europe. italy took over a decade to get entry to the top flight, whether they have advanced as a team at all is debatable thereafter.

I think a more inclusive Euro competition would open the game up to a much wider audience in the 2nd tier nations and really help the game to compete. But, for that to happen the 6N Committee needs to take a risk and I frankly can't see that happening; its too much of a money spinner and many fans will be opposed purely on grounds of tradition.

[rowan]

Integration peaked in the 1990s, and that is when you will find the largest number of victories over today's tier 1 teams were recorded by what are now regarded as tier 2 & 3 teams.

1990s
Canada 15-6 Argentina (03/30/1990)
Romania 12-6 France (05/24/1990)
Canada 19-15 Argentina (06/16/1990)
Canada 24-19 Scotland* (05/25/1991)
Namibia 15-6 Ireland (07/20/1991)
Namibia 26-15 Ireland (07/27/1991)
Romania 18-12 Scotland (08/31/1991)
Samoa 16-13 Wales (10/06/1991)
Samoa 35-12 Argentina (10/13/1991)
Canada 15-12 England (05/29/1993)*
Canada 26-24 Wales (11/10/1993)
Italy 16-9 France (11/11/1993)*
Canada 18-16 France (06/04/1994)
Samoa 34-9 Wales (06/25/1994)
Italy 22-12 Ireland (05/06/1995)
Italy 31-25 Argentina (06/04/1995)
Samoa 40-25 Ireland (11/12/1996)
Italy 37-29 Ireland (01/04/1997)
Italy 40-32 France (03/22/1997)
Italy 37-22 Ireland (12/20/1997)
Italy 25-21 Scotland (01/24/1998)
Fiji 51-26 Scotland (05/26/1998)
Japan 44-29 Argentina (09/15/1998)
Italy 23-19 Argentina (11/07/1998)
Tonga 20-16 France (06/16/1999)
Samoa 38-31 Wales (10/14/1999)

There was also a very extensive qualifying system for the 1999 World Cup, which involved Australia playing in a group with the Pacific Islands and Home Unions including England playing on the European continent. This was undoubtedly the apogee of the globalization process. New Zealand then baulked at having to qualify for 2003, regarding this as beneath its dignity, the qualifying series was subsequently contracted (ostensibly due in some part to England's ton against the Dutch), and the next decade brought far fewer fixtures between the 6 Nations and SANZAR teams plus Argentina and the rest of the international rugby community, with tiers being introduced to create concrete divisions. What a shame, and what a betrayal!

[Sandydragon]

Integration peaked in the 1990s, and that is when you will find the largest number of victories over today's tier 1 teams were recorded by what are now regarded as tier 2 & 3 teams.

1990s
Canada 15-6 Argentina (03/30/1990)
Romania 12-6 France (05/24/1990)
Canada 19-15 Argentina (06/16/1990)
Canada 24-19 Scotland* (05/25/1991)
Namibia 15-6 Ireland (07/20/1991)
Namibia 26-15 Ireland (07/27/1991)
Romania 18-12 Scotland (08/31/1991)
Samoa 16-13 Wales (10/06/1991)
Samoa 35-12 Argentina (10/13/1991)
Canada 15-12 England (05/29/1993)*
Canada 26-24 Wales (11/10/1993)
Italy 16-9 France (11/11/1993)*
Canada 18-16 France (06/04/1994)
Samoa 34-9 Wales (06/25/1994)
Italy 22-12 Ireland (05/06/1995)
Italy 31-25 Argentina (06/04/1995)
Samoa 40-25 Ireland (11/12/1996)
Italy 37-29 Ireland (01/04/1997)
Italy 40-32 France (03/22/1997)
Italy 37-22 Ireland (12/20/1997)
Italy 25-21 Scotland (01/24/1998)
Fiji 51-26 Scotland (05/26/1998)
Japan 44-29 Argentina (09/15/1998)
Italy 23-19 Argentina (11/07/1998)
Tonga 20-16 France (06/16/1999)
Samoa 38-31 Wales (10/14/1999)

There was also a very extensive qualifying system for the 1999 World Cup, which involved Australia playing in a group with the Pacific Islands and Home Unions including England playing on the European continent. This was undoubtedly the apogee of the globalization process. New Zealand then baulked at having to qualify for 2003, regarding this as beneath its dignity, the qualifying series was subsequently contracted (ostensibly due in some part to England's ton against the Dutch), and the next decade brought far fewer fixtures between the 6 Nations and SANZAR teams plus Argentina and the rest of the international rugby community, with tiers being introduced to create concrete divisions. What a shame, and what a betrayal!

You seem to ignore the impact of professionalism which open a gulf between the top teams and the rest. AS much as I want to see the 2nd tier better integrated today, ignoring rational reasons for segregating the top tier is counter-productive. A lot of the work done to close the gap has been down to the pre- tournament time and money provided by WR before the RWCs, its not all one way traffic.

[rowan]

. A lot of the work done to close the gap has been down to the pre- tournament time and money provided by WR before the RWCs,

& how many teams compete at the World Cup? Not 10. Not just the 6 Nations and the Rugby Championship teams. They're only half. So what about the other half? They contribute to this great quadrennial money-spinner as well - only to be practically ignored the rest of the time; basically deemed unworthy. That's what I mean by 'betrayal.'

[Sandydragon]

. A lot of the work done to close the gap has been down to the pre- tournament time and money provided by WR before the RWCs,

& how many teams compete at the World Cup? Not 10. Not just the 6 Nations and the Rugby Championship teams. They're only half. So what about the other half? They contribute to this great quadrennial money-spinner as well - only to be practically ignored the rest of the time; basically deemed unworthy. That's what I mean by 'betrayal.'

NotbyWR they aren't. Aside from the qualification heats they go through before hand. They also playing league structure that gives them competitive games, regardless of the status of Georgia and the others on the cusp of the top tier, most will never get clos t the 6n teams and it's plain daft to think they will any time soon. Do you really want to see the all blacks versus Malta at the RWC?

I have no problem wth a team like Georgia getting more exposure as many of their players are pros and the results speak for themselves.other teams are not as fortunate and the idea of pro player team slaughtering semi pro or amateur teams is not an appealing one.

[rowan]

But no one's talking about NZ v Malta. The original suggestion at the top of this thread was for a promotion-relegation fixture involving the 6 Nations wooden spooner & the ENC 1st division winner - most likely Georgia. Neither they nor Romania disgraced themselves at the World Cup, and as my signiature states, if you can play them at the RWC itself, then why not in between tournaments? It's a ludicrous set-up which on one hand regards them as good enough to play at its money-spinning quadrennial showpiece event but unworthy of attention the rest of the time - thereby placing them at a huge disadvantage and basically stacking the deck in favour of the 6 Nations & Rugby Championship teams. The alternative suggestion was for a quadrennial European Cup involving the 6 Nations and top 2 ENC teams (likely Georgia & Romania at this stage) in 2 groups of 4 leading to semis/final. Option 3 - increased friendlies between 6 Nations sides and ENC division 1 teams (minimum one per year per 6N team); the bulk of which would be against the Eastern Europeans, though a nice touch might be to have the Italians playing their Iberian neighbours Spain and/or Portugal. That's all. Malta and the rest of the lower division teams would have to find their way into the ENC first division to be involved in any of this.

[Sandydragon]

But no one's talking about NZ v Malta. The original suggestion at the top of this thread was for a promotion-relegation fixture involving the 6 Nations wooden spooner & the ENC 1st division winner - most likely Georgia. Neither they nor Romania disgraced themselves at the World Cup, and as my signiature states, if you can play them at the RWC itself, then why not in between tournaments? It's a ludicrous set-up which on one hand regards them as good enough to play at its money-spinning quadrennial showpiece event but unworthy of attention the rest of the time - thereby placing them at a huge disadvantage and basically stacking the deck in favour of the 6 Nations & Rugby Championship teams. The alternative suggestion was for a quadrennial European Cup involving the 6 Nations and top 2 ENC teams (likely Georgia & Romania at this stage) in 2 groups of 4 leading to semis/final. Option 3 - increased friendlies between 6 Nations sides and ENC division 1 teams (minimum one per year per 6N team); the bulk of which would be against the Eastern Europeans, though a nice touch might be to have the Italians playing their Iberian neighbours Spain and/or Portugal. That's all. Malta and the rest of the lower division teams would have to find their way into the ENC first division to be involved in any of this.

Right, I was wondering at one of your previous responses whether you were inferring that the betrayal ran deeper than just tier 2. And for clarity, the issue really is with the 6N, not WR. Aside from top teams not needing to qualify to enter the RWC (which would see some hugely one sided matches), I can't see a huge amount to criticize when it comes to their support of the smaller teams.

Removing the 6N from an annual event (why have 6N and a wider Euro comp?) would lose the big unions a lot of money. The international game is a huge money spinner and very popular - for that reason, I just can't see past anything but an annual event. The easy option is to replace the bottom team, but that would probably need the insertion of a playoff somewhere in an already congested calendar. But with little actual change, it would be the easiest to implement.

Expanding the 6N doesn't work IMO. How long before Romania or Russia, or Italy again, pushed for entry. It becomes unwieldy in its current format.

An annual Euro championship is intriguing. It would have to be based on tiers which means that some of the historic rivalries wouldn't happen every year. Would Welsh fans be happy at not getting a crack at England? But a grouped event followed by cup, plate etc would be the ultimate in fairness for the teams capable of making an appropriate standard (discuss what that is and how many teams it applies to). With the current 6N, plus Romania, Russian and Georgia that would of course be 9, perhaps one more to make 2 pools of 5? Assuming the top 2 make it into the semis etc, then that would mean 6 games for the winner, one more than present. This perhaps offers the best long term solution as 3rd tier teams transition upwards and could compete, but it would need a major overhaul in the season to accommodate it (clubs already feel the pain of 5 international games in the middle of their season) and also a major overhaul in attitudes of supporters and unions.

[rowan]

I can't see a huge amount to criticize when it comes to their support of the smaller teams.

Are you comfortable with the fact they ignore so-called tier 2 teams between World Cups?

Removing the 6N from an annual event

That's not being suggested

Expanding the 6N doesn't work IMO

Not being suggested here either, at least not by me

An annual Euro championship is intriguing

That's exactly what we'd have if that single promotion-relegation fixture were arranged to effectively amalgamate the 6 Nations with the ENC

It would have to be based on tiers

No, divisions - involving promotion-relegation fixtures. Tiers are an imaginary concept

But a grouped event followed by cup, plate etc would be the ultimate in fairness for the teams capable of making an appropriate standard (discuss what that is and how many teams it applies to).

There isn't really time for that. But they might be able to squeeze a Rugby Euros in on a quadrennial basis, to slot in between World Cups (ie 2017, 2021, 2025 . . . ). I'd go for 2 groups of 4 followed by semis/final (no 3rd place match), which was the model used in soccer right up until 1992.

[Mr Mwenda]

Rowan, you seem to be ignoring Sandydragon's central thrust, which is the 6 Nations teams have to see something in it for them and at present they're happy with the way things stand. Nobody is saying this is just. It's mistaken in my mind to think that everything is organised based on a shared goal of growing rugby around the world. The 6 Nations governing bodies' priorities are their own interests, not Georgia's.

It seems everybody here agrees that Georgia and Romania and others should get more games, however it will take time and probably some unusual circumstances before the 6 Nations committee want to take risks with one of their biggest earners.

[Sandydragon]

I can't see a huge amount to criticize when it comes to their support of the smaller teams.

Are you comfortable with the fact they ignore so-called tier 2 teams between World Cups?

Removing the 6N from an annual event

That's not being suggested

Expanding the 6N doesn't work IMO

Not being suggested here either, at least not by me

An annual Euro championship is intriguing

That's exactly what we'd have if that single promotion-relegation fixture were arranged to effectively amalgamate the 6 Nations with the ENC

It would have to be based on tiers

No, divisions - involving promotion-relegation fixtures. Tiers are an imaginary concept

But a grouped event followed by cup, plate etc would be the ultimate in fairness for the teams capable of making an appropriate standard (discuss what that is and how many teams it applies to).

There isn't really time for that. But they might be able to squeeze a Rugby Euros in on a quadrennial basis, to slot in between World Cups (ie 2017, 2021, 2025 . . . ). I'd go for 2 groups of 4 followed by semis/final (no 3rd place match), which was the model used in soccer right up until 1992.

I suggest you re-read my earlier posts to determine if you think I am content that the likes of Georgia ar ignored.
I can't see the appetite for another international competition in between RWCs. As it stands, we already have the summer tours and AIs every year, plus the 5 games of the 6N. Every 4 years there is the RWC and of course the Lions. Adding another competition in between is over congesting an already busy schedule.

I'm all for greater inclusivity, but frankly it needs to be realistic for al concerned.

[Sandydragon]

Rowan, you seem to be ignoring Sandydragon's central thrust, which is the 6 Nations teams have to see something in it for them and at present they're happy with the way things stand. Nobody is saying this is just. It's mistaken in my mind to think that everything is organised based on a shared goal of growing rugby around the world. The 6 Nations governing bodies' priorities are their own interests, not Georgia's.

It seems everybody here agrees that Georgia and Romania and others should get more games, however it will take time and probably some unusual circumstances before the 6 Nations committee want to take risks with one of their biggest earners.

I recall a general consensus on the old board around the 6N teams playing Georgia in some friendlies, perhaps as part of the AIs or on the way to a summer tour. If Georgia are competitive then the case is made for inclusion. If they aren't then its clear they aren't ready. The 6N committee isn't going to take a significant risk with a major tournament unless there is a guarantee that it will be a success.

[rowan]

It's mistaken in my mind to think that everything is organised based on a shared goal of growing rugby around the world. The 6 Nations governing bodies' priorities are their own interests, not Georgia's.

Sure, nice conversation killer

But World Rugby has a self-professed mandate to globalize the game. Given World Rugby's core committee is dominated by the same group of 'elite' nations which are standing in the way of that process, it seems they suffer from a bipolar disorder ad the inmates are running the asylum

[Mr Mwenda]

It's mistaken in my mind to think that everything is organised based on a shared goal of growing rugby around the world. The 6 Nations governing bodies' priorities are their own interests, not Georgia's.

Sure, nice conversation killer

But World Rugby has a self-professed mandate to globalize the game. Given World Rugby's core committee is dominated by the same group of 'elite' nations which are standing in the way of that process, it seems they suffer from a bipolar disorder ad the inmates are running the asylum

For me, I think there's a discussion to be had about how much the top nations are obliged to help grow the game. I think they tend to show quite patchy interest, with some quite clearly doing more than others. Is it just the RFU that actually makes any money? The elite nations involved in World Rugby comprise representatives of the countries with the vast majority of rugby players, surely then it is right then that they dominate? It seems to me that World Rugby does successfully distribute a fair amount to other nations. I agree more could be done but I do not see rugby expanding in many places whatever hapens. I live and play rugby in Sweden and I personally think rugby is frankly unsustainable outside of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Skåne. The distances are too great and the club model doesn't work when sport is an increasingly individualised practice. It's sad, because it means my own club is doomed but unless a local millionaire suddenly develops an interest, it's going to likely die a slow death regardless of what World Rugby do or do not do.