Should Georgia & Romania be added to the 6 Nations?

[rowan]

Digby, straight promotion/relegation would be a crazy idea. There remains a huge gulf between the two competitions. & the system in the ENC at the moment involves a division winner having to travel to the home of the bottom team from the division above, thereby proving themselves decisively superior. Portugal were unable to manage that against Belgium just recently, for example. That system would also work very well for the 6N. This year you'd have had Romania travelling to Italy to tackle the Azzurri, and it would require an upset of monumental proportions for the Oaks to prevail under those circumstances. But were they to do so, then so be it. They'd obviously handle themselves well enough in the 6 Nations, while the Italians would deserve to go down.

Sandydragon, I get what you're saying. You don't need to keep repeating it. But if rugby can't fit a solitary game in for the sake of unifying European rugby, then it needs to sort itself out pronto or risk implosion. I frankly regard it as an easily surmountable obstacle and nothing more. &, once again, what I am suggesting is actually a far simpler solution than most of the other ideas being bandied around. Your approach seems to be everything's impossible, nothing shall change, the game shall not move forward - which is depressingly myopic and lacking in mettle. I also think promotion-relegation should be annual. Who on earth thought up this 2-year nonsense?

I repeat myself because you seem to think its easy. It really isn't.

And I agree that European rugby needs to sort itself out and that means a full restructure, including moving the 6N to later in the season.

Not saying it would be easy. Nothing in rugby these days is. But it is most certainly doable. & I think 'full restructure' is stretching it a little, as only 1 current 6 Nations side would be involved - in one fixture (at home). What is certain, however, is that this is by far the easiest way to unify European rugby, and that's what's being called for right now, one way or the other. It can only be a matter of time. I'm old enough to remember the naysayers telling us a World Cup was absolutely impossible. & there are many more examples besides that one.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Digby, straight promotion/relegation would be a crazy idea. There remains a huge gulf between the two competitions. & the system in the ENC at the moment involves a division winner having to travel to the home of the bottom team from the division above, thereby proving themselves decisively superior. Portugal were unable to manage that against Belgium just recently, for example. That system would also work very well for the 6N. This year you'd have had Romania travelling to Italy to tackle the Azzurri, and it would require an upset of monumental proportions for the Oaks to prevail under those circumstances. But were they to do so, then so be it. They'd obviously handle themselves well enough in the 6 Nations, while the Italians would deserve to go down.

Sandydragon, I get what you're saying. You don't need to keep repeating it. But if rugby can't fit a solitary game in for the sake of unifying European rugby, then it needs to sort itself out pronto or risk implosion. I frankly regard it as an easily surmountable obstacle and nothing more. &, once again, what I am suggesting is actually a far simpler solution than most of the other ideas being bandied around. Your approach seems to be everything's impossible, nothing shall change, the game shall not move forward - which is depressingly myopic and lacking in mettle. I also think promotion-relegation should be annual. Who on earth thought up this 2-year nonsense?

I repeat myself because you seem to think its easy. It really isn't.

And I agree that European rugby needs to sort itself out and that means a full restructure, including moving the 6N to later in the season.

Not saying it would be easy. Nothing in rugby these days is. But it is most certainly doable. & I think 'full restructure' is stretching it a little, as only 1 current 6 Nations side would be involved - in one fixture (at home). What is certain, however, is that this is by far the easiest way to unify European rugby, and that's what's being called for right now, one way or the other. It can only be a matter of time. I'm old enough to remember the naysayers telling us a World Cup was absolutely impossible. & there are many more examples besides that one.

I totally agree. Squeezing in an extra test at the end of the 6N or start of the Summer would cause some problems (what change doesn't?) but is doable, and a simple way to open up the 6N. Let's do it.

[Digby]

I totally agree. Squeezing in an extra test at the end of the 6N or start of the Summer would cause some problems (what change doesn't?) but is doable, and a simple way to open up the 6N. Let's do it.

The test teams adding another game and ring fencing another game that clubs must release their players for isn't a change, it's more business as usual. It does push back quite strongly on the club season too.

[rowan]

Providing the vast majority of European nations the opportunity to compete at the top level is 'business as usual' in your opinion? What planet are you on, Digby? That's clearly progress, and depriving them of such an opportunity is clearly ultra-conservative elitism. Let them eat grass! eh, That seems to be your view on things. & there's no question the time could be found for a solitary fixture that would only involve one 6 Nations team and one ENC team per year. The ring-fencing talk is pure waffle; reminiscent of the World Cup phobia in the early 80s. This is actually a very minor issue. The elite nations would squeeze it in quick enough if they regarded it as advantageous to themselves, and you know it.

[Digby]

Adding another test fixture that would one assume be covered by IRB9 it the BAU part.

And my view was and remains there should be promotion and relegation, but that it should just simply happen, i.e. no need for a qualifier. So very much not let them eat grass. I also happen to think that outside the 6N there needs to be a much fairer fixtures list, Romania I think for example hasn't played a tier 1 test nation outside the WC in over a decade. We (England) will talk about wanting to play Autralia, South Africa and NZ to improve, but that's just not a piece of thinking which extends downward.

[rowan]

Automatic promotion relegation would not be a practicable solution in the foreseeable future due to the vast gulf which has emerged between the elite playing nations and the chasing pack in the professional era. This would mean Romania, who lost to Germany earlier this year and has 10 K registered players, competing in next year's 6 Nations at the expense of Italy, who beat South Africa last year and has almost 90 K registered plyers - to say nothing of the considerable differences in average attendances, etc. Regrettably, the solitary promotion-fixture would be a necessary nuisance to begin with, but could certainly be dispensed with once a greater degree of parity between the two competitions is attained. The point is, the mere possibility to progress is absolutely vital.

[Digby]

Allowing direct promotion and relegation isn't as feasible 'cause there is a gulf, and adding another game isn't as feasible in an already crowded season. You picks your horse you makes your choice. I'd say simply if Italy don't want to be relegated after beating SA then they shouldn't have finished bottom and go with the direct approach, adding another game seems more protectionism and a little mealy-mouthed . Either solution would be better than the current ring-fencing

[rowan]

It's not a black and white issue and there is no necessity to take the extreme view in either direction. The one-off promotion fixture is the most practical solution as it provides the possibility of progress to the ENC teams, while at the same time ensuring a team which is promote is worthy of the challenge and is not simply going to be humiliated. In fact, I doubt very much that an ENC team would win such a fixture within the next decade. Georgia is improving (not so sure about current ENC champions Romania), but Italy has vastly superior player stocks and would actually be spurred on by the prospect of relegation - which would be in the best interests of the 6 Nations itself. That battle to avoid the wooden spoon would suddenly be come a great deal fiercer.

[Digby]

A team winning promotion is worthy of promotion, even if they then perform like London Welsh, none of the other teams had to show they were worth inclusion on such basis, and not having an extra test game fed into the calendar comes with the very practical advantage of not having to have another fight with the clubs. The T14 is already a crowded season, the AP along with the Anglo-Welsh is crowded, and the Pro 12 is now the Pro 14. So 'simply' slotting in another test game is far from simple and thus comes with its own practical problems. One could say in response well we'll trim the number of clubs, but that's going to come with a fight attacked to it too.

[rowan]

You're still making a mountain out of a mole hill, reminiscent of the World Cup phobia brigade in the early 80s. Only recently a prominent rugby figure called for an annual championship fixture between the respective Rugby Championship and 6 Nations winners, and little concern was expressed about finding a suitable time slot. If you think it would have been a good idea to have Romania promoted to next year's 6 Nations, while Italy were dispatched to compete with the likes of Belgium and Germany, fine. You're entitled to your view. But I'd much rather have seen Italy and Romania square off in a promotion-relegation battle, which the Azzurri would probably have won comfortably enough. International rugby needs to take more of a 'trade not aid' approach to its self-proclaimed 'globalization' agenda.

[Digby]

I don't want Italy demoted or Romania promoted, it just so happens in this instance it wold have been those teams. Once you have promotion and relegation the teams that move up/down might well not be the ones you'd hope for, but that's just how it is.

As it happens I'd loathe the idea of a match featuring the RC winners and 6N winners, though in practical terms that's quite likely to happen anyway given just how limited the tier 1 fixture list is.

[rowan]

Your first comment seems a little self-contradictory there, because if you support automatic promotion-relegation, Italy's demotion and Romania's promotion this year are precisely what you'd be advocating.

An RC v 6N winner fixture would probably have to be woven into the AIs for it to be feasible, as the summer tours Down Under usually entail series' which need to be scheduled years in advance. But one of the shortcomings of the AIs is that the Southern Hemisphere teams are arriving at the end of a long season, often in the absence of a number of top players. It might also be a further case of overkill, draw criticism for its elitist nature, and even detract from the World Cup itself. But I don't recall finding a time slot for it being among the concerns raised.

[Digby]

I'm trying to say it's immaterial who will promote/relegate, to me it's only key it's in place, and then whoever moves is what it is

[rowan]

But closing your eyes doesn't make the problem go away. The consequence of what you propose would mean that next year Romania, which was beaten by Germany this year, would be playing in the 6 Nations, while Italy, which beat South Africa 9 months ago, would be competing in the ENC first division with the likes of Germany and Belgium. You can't support a concept without acknowledging its consequences, and if you don't advocate the consequences you can't say you support the concept. I would actually be in favor of automatic promotion-relegation in most cases where there were not a yawning gulf between divisions, but in this instance I have exercised a little foresight and acknowledged its potentially farcical outcome.

On the other hand, a promotion-relegation fixture would have been quite intriguing, given the closeness of Italy and Romania in the rankings right now. Does that mean they are at the same level? Not at all. Italy have slipped down the ladder as a result of their poor form in the 6 Nations, while Romania have climbed mostly as a result of their wins in the ENC - notwithstanding the defeat to Germany. I'd rate Italy 20 points better on their home ground (where the hypothetical promo-relegation fixture would have been played), and 10 points better away. But we'll never know - at least, not this year, anyway.

[Digby]

What problem? If Romania are that bad they'd relegate again, so the 'problem' is already catered for by having promotion and relegation. I'd agree there was a problem if we changed a team and then sat fixed again for another decade but we're not talking about doing that.

If the problem is there'd be one sub-standard team in the 6N, well we've sadly had a number of those over the years, it happens, frankly many seasons about 3 or 4 teams have stank the place out enough they couldn't have complained had they relegated.

[rowan]

But we could be talking three digit scorelines here. It's happened before - not just to Romania, but if you put Italy in the ENC. I don't think that's going to help anyone at all. & remember that Scotland have finished 6 Nations spooners on several occasions, while both Wales and France have collected it once apiece during its 17-year history. What I'm suggesting is a merit-based system that would virtually eliminate the prospect of humiliating scorelines, and that entire system involves only one match. Nothing simpler. In fact, the ENC have already implemented this, and there was no big hullabaloo over finding a time slot for it either...

[Digby]

What the ENC do is like a butterfly flapping its wings in the Philippines. The ENC isn't where the problem lies in scheduling another fixture.

And still, if Romania ship three figure scores they'll relegate and the problem will be solved. It's not like every game is that competitive as things stand so I still don't feel such concerns should be held against teams who've never even had the chance to show if it'd be an issue.

The one big concern I'd have if relegation was brought in is would for instance Italy send out star players Vs England and Ireland, or might they just rest for the Scotland game? So if the concern is one sided games then the spectre of relegation might deliver just that, which would suggest if the concern is relegation one might scrap the idea of relegation to avoid that chance.

[rowan]

The problem will be solved - like it was in Super Rugby, you mean? I'm amazed that you would even countenance the idea of a team like Romania going up to 6 Nations automatically at the risk of being thrashed week in, week out, after we've just seen how much lopsided results have contributed to the demise of Super Rugby. End result, crowds would suffer and the 6 Nations would lose credibility. I'd be the first to admit that I'm a bit naive on financial issues (which hold no interest for me) and tend to be a little overly idealistic myself at times, but even I can see that there would be economic concerns involved as well, were Romania to replace Italy or one of the other incumbents.

Yes, I desperately want to see ENC teams given the possibility to earn promotion (thereby unifying European competition in the process). no, I do not want promotion gifted to them at the risk of humiliating results that might destroy credibility. So I think there absolutely must be a promotion-relegation fixture in place for the foreseeable future to avoid the latter scenario. But, I'd also be happy to see it dispensed with once the ENC obtains greater parity an starts winning the promotion-relegation fixtures to prove it.

On your final point, I don't think it's realistic to suggest Italy or Scotland, for example, would start to 'throw' games in order to focus on the proposed promotion-relegation fixture. Their encounters with the likes of England and France are undoubtedly the pinnacle of every season bar World Cup years. & at this point, with due respect, they wouldn't be too troubled by the ENC winner's challenge. If & when that situation changes, it will be a positive step for international rugby.

[Digby]

So teams that throw matches at the WC wouldn't do so in the big one that's the 6N?

And you seem a little obsessed with Romania, would you be okay were it Georgia? And really this is a feature of promotion and relegation, that sometimes you end up with a team in the wrong league, but the advantage of promotion and relegation is it's a self-correcting system, if the possibility of a team in the wrong league worries you then maybe it's not the system for you

[rowan]

Teams do not throw games in World Cup matches, but in a tournament where they are required to front up twice a week at times there is a necessity to rest players and that comes down to strategical decision-making. That's the nature of the World Cup tournament. The 6 Nations is a very different proposition, with games generally held one or two weeks apart, so that resting top players in not necessary. This is an entirely doom & gloom perspective you have.

Romania are the current ENC champs, so that's the obvious example to give at this point. You're clutching at straws by suggesting I seem obsessed by using them as such. Yes, sometimes you end up with a team in the wrong league and it doesn't matter. Sometimes it does, as we saw in Super Rugby when blowouts became a more regular occurrence than competitive games. An automatic promotion-relegation system would correct itself after the damage is done. The elephant in your room is the vast gulf that continues to exist between the 6 Nations & ENC competitions (regrettably). A series of blowouts in both championships would cause irreperable damage to their credibility, and would likely be repeated in alternate years. The solitary promotion-relegation match stands as a guardian against that. It's extremely unlikely Romania - or Georgia - would overcome the Azzurri in Italy (for example) in such a crucial fixture right now, and they might well get thumped. Thus the prospect of their receiving a series of even greater thumpings in the 6 Nations is eliminated. Nothing simpler.

[Digby]

What you call strategical decision making has at times in the WC equated to throwing a match, whether for valid reasons or not. Might as well call a spade a spade. To avoid relegation I don't see how we avoid teams doing similar in a 6N they could drop out of, they can bring in rules to say you must for the integrity of the competition select your best XV, but (a) who wants to ban players making their debut and (b) all players carry niggles and who's to say from outside a team why they might need to miss a game, even if it just happens to coincide with what gives the appearance of resting players.

And adding another game isn't simple, saying it is over and over doesn't change it's not. I'm not in all instances averse to seeing the national sides take on the clubs, but this just seems a needless fight to have. Yes we might have some uneven matches, but if that's a reason not to allow games then its a reason not to expand the calendar of tier 2/3 teams ever getting to play tier 1 sides for exposure and money, and it might even be a reason to cancel some currently scheduled RC and 6N games, some of those are already far from even.

Also the 6N isn't going to lose its credibility, to suggest otherwise is just being melodramatic, and the ENC barely has any to begin with. What might worry the 6N is if they had 2-3 years out of 5 where they didn't have an England or France given commercial implications, but that's not enough of a concern for me not to want to see promotion/relegation.

[rowan]

Wrong - resting top players at certain times in a World Cup situation is strategical decision making. If you're playing twice a week you need to do this. Pure and simple. It's not about throwing games at all. That's being melodramatic. & if you don't see how they could avoid doing so in the 6 Nations just because a promotion-relegation fixture against a tier 2 (or 3) team is tagged onto it, you are in dire need of a visit to the nearest optician's. The rest of your first paragraph is entirely nonsensical.

No adding another game is not simple, but it is doable, and the solution, therefore, is simple. And there is a big difference between some 'uneven matches' and a series of potential blowouts. Your logic really is getting murkier and murkier here, but it is crystal clear you have long since run out of sensible arguments. You bring tier 2/3 teams up to speed by providing them with opportunities in non-competitive fixtures before throwing them into the lion's den of organized competition. A two-year-old could work that out. & talk of cancelling some Tri Nations v 5N games was certainly on the agenda back in the shamateur era when there were regular blowouts. In fact, the NZRFU were even talking about ditching the Bledisloe Cup in the early 70s due to the lopsided nature of the results at that time. Nobody but nobody wants to see blowouts, which is precisely why a one-off promotion-relegation match is so vital to form any link between ENC and the 6 Nations.

The 6 Nations will obviously lose credibility if there are a series of blowouts and to suggest otherwise is myopic denialism. Meanwhile, you dismiss the ENC which has gone from strength to strength over the years in terms of developing European rugby - something the Home Unions have inexplicably neglected throughout their history (despite wanting to be involved in hosting practically every second World Cup). But this is an especially ironic comment, even by your standards, because you are the one advocating automatic promotion to the 6 Nations from the ENC !!

[Son of Mathonwy]

The prime concern is that we ensure that the 6N is the premier European* competition.
For it to be the premier competition, it needs to consist of the top 6 national teams. Inasmuch as it it fails to identify and include the best 6 teams, it fails to be the premier competition.
Hence, the purpose of any proposed promotion and relegation is to maintain the above. All teams deserve access to the 6N only if they can demonstrate that they are comparable to teams in the 6N. Being the top team in the ENC Championship (Level 1) does not ensure this, since there is a significant gap in quality between this and the 6N. Merely winning the lower competition should not give the right to promotion.
If there were to be promotion/relegation without a play-off match, the last decade's results strongly suggest that Italy and Georgia would swap places each year (with Scotland and Romania occasionally getting involved instead). Would the inclusion of Georgia instead of Italy every other year help make the 6N the top European competition? Unlikely (quite the opposite, in fact) - unless Georgia could show itself to be comparable or better to Italy. How to do this: practically, a single play-off match seems like a reasonable price to pay (the clubs releasing their Italian and Georgian players for this should be compensated in part from the profits of the play-off match).
Without a play-off match we have the prospect of a "self-correcting" system which oscillates from "correct" to "incorrect" every year, ie is incorrect half of the time. This would dent the credibility of the 6N, and the ENC too.

Additionally, enforced relegation would be far less attractive to existing 6N teams, particularly for those usually in the drop zone. A play-off match makes this a safer option and hence one more likely to be agreed to in practice.


* Even better would be to be the top NH competition, but this is more difficult under the current system - so let's leave this for another day.

[rowan]

Well said.

Just in reference to your footnote, I have raised before the possibility of either a European or NH championships being held quadrennially in a tournament format. slotting in between World Cups (as of 2021, for example).

The European model could involve two groups of four, leading to semis and a final. Obviously these would be the 6 Nations plus top two ENC teams (the latter competition thereby serving as a qualification tournament). Remember, the football Euros was an eight-team tournament right up until the late 1990s - and now its expanded to 24! This would require 2 to 3 weeks to complete and be the perfect kind of event for Italy, Georgia or Romania to host on their own, or even one of the Celtic nations, for example.

The NH alternative could involve 4 groups of 3 lading to semis and a final. These could be the 6 Nations plus two teams apiece from North America, Asia and the ENC. Aside from the above-mentioned European nations, the US and Canada would obviously be ideal candidates to host such a compact event.

[Digby]

The prime concern is that we ensure that the 6N is the premier European* competition.
For it to be the premier competition, it needs to consist of the top 6 national teams. Inasmuch as it it fails to identify and include the best 6 teams, it fails to be the premier competition.
Hence, the purpose of any proposed promotion and relegation is to maintain the above. All teams deserve access to the 6N only if they can demonstrate that they are comparable to teams in the 6N. Being the top team in the ENC Championship (Level 1) does not ensure this, since there is a significant gap in quality between this and the 6N. Merely winning the lower competition should not give the right to promotion.
If there were to be promotion/relegation without a play-off match, the last decade's results strongly suggest that Italy and Georgia would swap places each year (with Scotland and Romania occasionally getting involved instead). Would the inclusion of Georgia instead of Italy every other year help make the 6N the top European competition? Unlikely (quite the opposite, in fact) - unless Georgia could show itself to be comparable or better to Italy. How to do this: practically, a single play-off match seems like a reasonable price to pay (the clubs releasing their Italian and Georgian players for this should be compensated in part from the profits of the play-off match).
Without a play-off match we have the prospect of a "self-correcting" system which oscillates from "correct" to "incorrect" every year, ie is incorrect half of the time. This would dent the credibility of the 6N, and the ENC too.

Additionally, enforced relegation would be far less attractive to existing 6N teams, particularly for those usually in the drop zone. A play-off match makes this a safer option and hence one more likely to be agreed to in practice.


* Even better would be to be the top NH competition, but this is more difficult under the current system - so let's leave this for another day.

The 6N isn't going to stop being the primary rugby tournament in Europe if the 6th placed team changes. Though tbh I don't watch it as it's the primary tournament, I watch it 'cause its the event England play in

If the 6N remains closed on the basis that the team below aren't up to scratch, then to a degree fair enough providing the remainder of the fixture list and by extension revenue sharing becomes much more equitable. And then we can revisit the 6N question every 5 years as to whether it should include other sides.

And it's not just about sharing monies from the 6N with the clubs, though I'd guess it would come down to that, to get the release in place for a play-ff, it's that the test scene has continually expanded leaving less space for the club sides.