Rugby Euros - why not?

[rowan]

So the much-anticipated, expanded 24-team Euros will kick off next week with particular excitement over the inclusion of rank outsiders Iceland, Albania & Wales. The tournament began in 1960 and included only 4 teams right up to 1980, then just 8 until 1996. Now it is the second most-watched football competition in the world, drawing 300 million TV viewers for the last of its 16-team installments four years ago. This year it will be staged in France, and in 2020 there will be a pan-European tournament with matches staged across the continent, culminating in the semis and final in England.

Could rugby implement some kind of similar quadrennial tournament, perhaps beginning eight 8 teams? This would certainly help quell Eastern European frustrations at their continued exclusion from the annual 6 Nations tournament, despite Georgia being ranked ahead of Italy at present. A quadrennial rugby Euros could slot in between World Cups from 2021 onward, and include the 6 Nations and top 2 ENC division 1 teams. Alternatively, the bottom and perhaps 2nd-bottom 6 Nations could be forced to play qualifiers against the 3rd and 4th-placed ENC division 1 teams respectively.

This would at least ensure the likes of Georgia and Romania meaningful competition against tier 1 opposition on a biennial basis, given their regular involvement in the World Cup itself. & who knows? Give it 20 years and the rugby Euros, also, might be ready to double the number of teams - and by midway through the centuy it might even have grown to 24.

[Adder]

So the much-anticipated, expanded 24-team Euros will kick off next week with particular excitement over the inclusion of rank outsiders Iceland, Albania & Wales. The tournament began in 1960 and included only 4 teams right up to 1980, then just 8 until 1996. Now it is the second most-watched football competition in the world, drawing 300 million TV viewers for the last of its 16-team installments four years ago. This year it will be staged in France, and in 2020 there will be a pan-European tournament with matches staged across the continent, culminating in the semis and final in England.

Could rugby implement some kind of similar quadrennial tournament, perhaps beginning eight 8 teams? This would certainly help quell Eastern European frustrations at their continued exclusion from the annual 6 Nations tournament, despite Georgia being ranked ahead of Italy at present. A quadrennial rugby Euros could slot in between World Cups from 2021 onward, and include the 6 Nations and top 2 ENC division 1 teams. Alternatively, the bottom and perhaps 2nd-bottom 6 Nations could be forced to play qualifiers against the 3rd and 4th-placed ENC division 1 teams respectively.

This would at least ensure the likes of Georgia and Romania meaningful competition against tier 1 opposition on a biennial basis, given their regular involvement in the World Cup itself. & who knows? Give it 20 years and the rugby Euros, also, might be ready to double the number of teams - and by midway through the centuy it might even have grown to 24.

Can't see the French agreeing to this until they reform their domestic championship. Clubs are already angry about summer tours and top14 players are already overplayed.

Sent from my LG-H320 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

Wouldn't hurt to drop the Spring tours once every four years and replace it with this. Just like they drop the Autumn tours once every four years and stick in a Rugby World Cup. Meanwhile, the SANZAR nations could make themselves useful by playing the Pacific Islands and other southern neighbours.

[Sandydragon]

Do you mean in addition to the 6nations? If so then I'd be happy enough with that idea, provided something gave elsewhere. Summer tours at least. Only snag is that with the RWC and aLions tours, that's two year out of four with a busier schedule, the rugby euros would make it three from four. As much as I like the idea in principle, something has to give, and I don't think dropping a summer tour of three tests would be sufficient.

[rowan]

I think finding viable alternatives to the spring and autumn tours should be on World Rugby's agenda. Let's face it: they're meaningless. All that hype over Ireland's successes against South Africa and Australia during last year's Autumn tours, which moved them up to second or third place in the rankings. But the Antipodean giants were closing out another long and arduous season and simply weren't at their best. They solitary objective was to make money and the results were both deceptive and entirely meaningless. Meanwhile, during the 2014 spring tours Ireland had gone down to Argentina and won a couple of tests against mostly locally-based players. Ah, so the South American bubble has burst, everyone thought. The Argies reached their apogee and are on their way down again. That, too, was entirely deceptive and meaningless. So, yes, eventually, in the interests of turning rugby into a genuine world game and accommodating the increasing number of competitive playing nations, these often pointless tours ought to give way to more open and meaningful events - and a Rugby Euros would be an excellent place to start. Btw, the concept of annual autumn and spring tours is actually quite new. Prior to the professional age they tended to be more quadrennial than annual (per team), and going back a little further they might only occur once or a decade. Indeed, the Lions tours themselves came about because it was impossible for the individual Home Nations to undertake tours of the Southern Hemisphere more than about once a decade at most. So I don't actually see any problem here. Something has to give, and that's quite obviously the spring and autumn tours.

[Sandydragon]

So the AIs go as well? That would free up 6-7 international games over a calendar year, but it would still need a calendar reshuffle to accommodate a major tournament which the domestic teams would have to buy into.

The money from the AIs and summer tours also needs to be considered, most unions rely heavily on those, so anything new would need to meet or better existing incomes.

[rowan]

The money from the AIs and summer tours also needs to be considered, most unions rely heavily on those, so anything new would need to meet or better existing incomes.

Yep. That's the only reason those tours happen. Some of the touring players would clearly not have to do them at the end of a long season. So, again, the objective should be to find something equally lucrative but less arduous for them to do instead. A Rugby Euros would be more inclusive and therefore aid the global development of the game and lead to unimaginable future benefits. & if it became even half as popular as the 8-team football equivalent was in the late 80s & early 90s, you'd be onto a winner.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Why not? I like the current rugby calendar. Most people like the current rugby calendar - that's why it makes money. That money funds professional rugby. An actual european championship means qualification groups which would produce a lot of entirely pointless matches. A "European Championship" without qualification isa pointless replication of the 6N. I

IIf youwant more fixtures against tier 1 teams for Georgiaa then organise more fixtures against tier 1 teams for Georgia and persuade their players to actually turn out for them rather than playing for their french clubs. A bogus structure is not the way to do this.

[Stones of granite]

I think finding viable alternatives to the spring and autumn tours should be on World Rugby's agenda. Let's face it: they're meaningless. All that hype over Ireland's successes against South Africa and Australia during last year's Autumn tours, which moved them up to second or third place in the rankings. But the Antipodean giants were closing out another long and arduous season and simply weren't at their best. They solitary objective was to make money and the results were both deceptive and entirely meaningless. Meanwhile, during the 2014 spring tours Ireland had gone down to Argentina and won a couple of tests against mostly locally-based players. Ah, so the South American bubble has burst, everyone thought. The Argies reached their apogee and are on their way down again. That, too, was entirely deceptive and meaningless. So, yes, eventually, in the interests of turning rugby into a genuine world game and accommodating the increasing number of competitive playing nations, these often pointless tours ought to give way to more open and meaningful events - and a Rugby Euros would be an excellent place to start. Btw, the concept of annual autumn and spring tours is actually quite new. Prior to the professional age they tended to be more quadrennial than annual (per team), and going back a little further they might only occur once or a decade. Indeed, the Lions tours themselves came about because it was impossible for the individual Home Nations to undertake tours of the Southern Hemisphere more than about once a decade at most. So I don't actually see any problem here. Something has to give, and that's quite obviously the spring and autumn tours.

You make a big deal about AI's being meaningless, while the games in your proposed European tournament would be "meaningful", but it begs the question, to whom.
As a Scotland supporter, AI games against any of the big 4 Southern Hemisphere nations have far more meaning to me than a game against Spain, Portugal or whoever, regardless of the context.
Sorry, I don't see the point of your proposal.

[rowan]

I think finding viable alternatives to the spring and autumn tours should be on World Rugby's agenda. Let's face it: they're meaningless. All that hype over Ireland's successes against South Africa and Australia during last year's Autumn tours, which moved them up to second or third place in the rankings. But the Antipodean giants were closing out another long and arduous season and simply weren't at their best. They solitary objective was to make money and the results were both deceptive and entirely meaningless. Meanwhile, during the 2014 spring tours Ireland had gone down to Argentina and won a couple of tests against mostly locally-based players. Ah, so the South American bubble has burst, everyone thought. The Argies reached their apogee and are on their way down again. That, too, was entirely deceptive and meaningless. So, yes, eventually, in the interests of turning rugby into a genuine world game and accommodating the increasing number of competitive playing nations, these often pointless tours ought to give way to more open and meaningful events - and a Rugby Euros would be an excellent place to start. Btw, the concept of annual autumn and spring tours is actually quite new. Prior to the professional age they tended to be more quadrennial than annual (per team), and going back a little further they might only occur once or a decade. Indeed, the Lions tours themselves came about because it was impossible for the individual Home Nations to undertake tours of the Southern Hemisphere more than about once a decade at most. So I don't actually see any problem here. Something has to give, and that's quite obviously the spring and autumn tours.

You make a big deal about AI's being meaningless, while the games in your proposed European tournament would be "meaningful", but it begs the question, to whom.
As a Scotland supporter, AI games against any of the big 4 Southern Hemisphere nations have far more meaning to me than a game against Spain, Portugal or whoever, regardless of the context.
Sorry, I don't see the point of your proposal.

Spain and especially Portugal would be extremely unlikely to qualify at this stage. It would almost certainly be Georgia and Romania, though Russia might have an outside chance of heading off the latter. Who would a rugby Euros be meaningful? I think that's exactly the question they used to ask about the football equivalent. Let's see how meaningful that appears to the fans over the next few weeks or so.

An actual european championship means qualification groups which would produce a lot of entirely pointless matches. A "European Championship" without qualification isa pointless replication of the 6N

I'd go with two simple qualification ties between the 5th and 6th-ranked 6 Nations teams and the 3rd & 4th-ranked ENC division 1 teams. That's all you'd need at this stage. No problem.

[Stones of granite]

I think finding viable alternatives to the spring and autumn tours should be on World Rugby's agenda. Let's face it: they're meaningless. All that hype over Ireland's successes against South Africa and Australia during last year's Autumn tours, which moved them up to second or third place in the rankings. But the Antipodean giants were closing out another long and arduous season and simply weren't at their best. They solitary objective was to make money and the results were both deceptive and entirely meaningless. Meanwhile, during the 2014 spring tours Ireland had gone down to Argentina and won a couple of tests against mostly locally-based players. Ah, so the South American bubble has burst, everyone thought. The Argies reached their apogee and are on their way down again. That, too, was entirely deceptive and meaningless. So, yes, eventually, in the interests of turning rugby into a genuine world game and accommodating the increasing number of competitive playing nations, these often pointless tours ought to give way to more open and meaningful events - and a Rugby Euros would be an excellent place to start. Btw, the concept of annual autumn and spring tours is actually quite new. Prior to the professional age they tended to be more quadrennial than annual (per team), and going back a little further they might only occur once or a decade. Indeed, the Lions tours themselves came about because it was impossible for the individual Home Nations to undertake tours of the Southern Hemisphere more than about once a decade at most. So I don't actually see any problem here. Something has to give, and that's quite obviously the spring and autumn tours.

You make a big deal about AI's being meaningless, while the games in your proposed European tournament would be "meaningful", but it begs the question, to whom.
As a Scotland supporter, AI games against any of the big 4 Southern Hemisphere nations have far more meaning to me than a game against Spain, Portugal or whoever, regardless of the context.
Sorry, I don't see the point of your proposal.

Spain and especially Portugal would be extremely unlikely to qualify at this stage. It would almost certainly be Georgia and Romania, though Russia might have an outside chance of heading off the latter. Who would a rugby Euros be meaningful? I think that's exactly the question they used to ask about the football equivalent. Let's see how meaningful that appears to the fans over the next few weeks or so.

An actual european championship means qualification groups which would produce a lot of entirely pointless matches. A "European Championship" without qualification isa pointless replication of the 6N

I'd go with two simple qualification ties between the 5th and 6th-ranked 6 Nations teams and the 3rd & 4th-ranked ENC division 1 teams. That's all you'd need at this stage. No problem.

So, what you're saying is, your proposal is just a contrived way to get Georgia to play two AI's against 6N opponents, rather than those 6N countries playing SANZAR or PI opponents.

The 6N countries will really jump at that one.

[rowan]

No, I'm saying the top 2 ENC nations should join the 6 Nations (not withstanding the above-mentioned qualifiers between the 5th & 6th placed 6 Nations teams and the 3rd & 4th placed ENC teams, which would admittedly be a formality at present) in a quadrennial Rugby Euros, replacing the spring tours that particular year, which might eventually evolve into a major international event in its own right, and one that would be open to all European teams and ultimately assist the development of the international game. That's what I'm saying.

[Stones of granite]

No, I'm saying the top 2 ENC nations should join the 6 Nations (not withstanding the above-mentioned qualifiers between the 5th & 6th placed 6 Nations teams and the 3rd & 4th placed ENC teams, which would admittedly be a formality at present) in a quadrennial Rugby Euros, replacing the spring tours that particular year, which might eventually evolve into a major international event in its own right, and one that would be open to all European teams and ultimately assist the development of the international game. That's what I'm saying.

What spring tours?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, every 4 years, immediately after Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Italy and England have played each other in the 6N, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Italy and England would play each other again, with Georgia and Romania thrown in for cannon fodder?

Sorry, that won't fly.

[rowan]

It would be a few months after actually. Stop nitpicking. Also, two groups of four means the 6 Nations teams would not all play each other again. With an ENC qualifier in each group, that would mean only two cerrtain games against fellow 6 Nations teams for 6 Nations teams. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be a problem for them to play loads of extra matches against each other in the World Cup warm-ups. I'd have thought if they were so sick and tired of each other, as you infer, that might have been a good time to go play the likes of Georgia or Romania in Eastern Europe - where they'd be sure to get a reasonable work-out. But, nah, they'd rather just keep playing each other - or the Southern Hemisphere giants, who they can learn from.

[Stones of granite]

It would be a few months after actually. Stop nitpicking. Also, two groups of four means the 6 Nations teams would not all play each other again. With an ENC qualifier in each group, that would mean only two cerrtain games against fellow 6 Nations teams for 6 Nations teams. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be a problem for them to play loads of extra matches against each other in the World Cup warm-ups. I'd have thought if they were so sick and tired of each other, as you infer, that might have been a good time to go play the likes of Georgia or Romania in Eastern Europe - where they'd be sure to get a reasonable work-out. But, nah, they'd rather just keep playing each other - or the Southern Hemisphere giants, who they can learn from.

Ah "nitpicking". You mean you realise that there might be some problems in the details. Let's see what other nits are to be picked.

"It would be a few months after actually"

The "Spring tours" are normally in June, so a few months after would be......yes, right when the leagues start up again

"it doesn't seem to be a problem for them to play loads of extra matches against each other in the World Cup warm-ups". Once every 4 years. Now you wish to add to this so that it would be happening every two years.

"play the likes of Georgia or Romania in Eastern Europe - where they'd be sure to get a reasonable work-out"
Or, they could play SANZAR or PI teams and get a proper work-out.

"But, nah, they'd rather just keep playing each other - or the Southern Hemisphere giants, who they can learn from"
...and there you have it.

[rowan]

Details, yes. But no insurmountable problems, no.

It would be a few months after the 6 Nations, yes. This year that tournament finished in March. The spring tours are beginning now, in June. 3 months later. What part of that confuses or troubles you?

You seem to have made the assumption that I am a fan of 6 Nations teams playing each other in World Cup warm-ups. You are very wrong. I'm no fan of that and would rather see them taking the opportunity to play fellow qualifiers in Eastern Europe - the sort of thing they do in football, you know. In fact, that was evident in my earlier post, so I suspect you are deliberately misconstruing this for argument's sake. The only point I was making, quite clearly, was that if they are so happy to play each other again in a World Cup year (both in warm-ups and possibly at the event proper itself), your argument that they would be too fed up with with the sight of each other to play each other in a meaningful Euros competition simply doesn't hold water.

Your idea is they might prefer to keep playing SANZAR and PI teams. Not sure about the latter, but the former represents a myopic attitude which further excludes the rest of the growing international rugby community, thereby ensuring that the gap between the haves and have nots remains - and perhaps widens. Brilliant!

The above also applies to your final comment. With thinking (if it can be called that) like yours international rugby is going nowhere, and in a hundred years we'll have pretty much the same pecking order as we have today; in other words, much the same as it was a century ago.

[Stones of granite]

Details, yes. But no insurmountable problems, no.

It would be a few months after the 6 Nations, yes. This year that tournament finished in March. The spring tours are beginning now, in June. 3 months later. What part of that confuses or troubles you?

You seem to have made the assumption that I am a fan of 6 Nations teams playing each other in World Cup warm-ups. You are very wrong. I'm no fan of that and would rather see them taking the opportunity to play fellow qualifiers in Eastern Europe - the sort of thing they do in football, you know. In fact, that was evident in my earlier post, so I suspect you are deliberately misconstruing this for argument's sake. The only point I was making, quite clearly, was that if they are so happy to play each other again in a World Cup year (both in warm-ups and possibly at the event proper itself), your argument that they would be too fed up with with the sight of each other to play each other in a meaningful Euros competition simply doesn't hold water.

Your idea is they might prefer to keep playing SANZAR and PI teams. Not sure about the latter, but the former represents a myopic attitude which further excludes the rest of the growing international rugby community, thereby ensuring that the gap between the haves and have nots remains - and perhaps widens. Brilliant!

The above also applies to your final comment. With thinking (if it can be called that) like yours international rugby is going nowhere, and in a hundred years we'll have pretty much the same pecking order as we have today; in other words, much the same as it was a century ago.

So, in summary, you expect the 6N countries to agree to sweeping changes in the Rugby calendar so that the "pecking order" can be changed.

Really?

[rowan]

So, in summary, you expect the 6N countries to agree to sweeping changes in the Rugby calendar so that the "pecking order" can be changed.

Not sure I'd describe sacrificing the spring tours once every four years for an 8-team Rugby Euros that might develop into something much bigger within a few decades (the way football's has) as "sweeping changes," but I do believe a more panoptic approach to international rugby is the most effective way to bring new teams up to speed and create a much broader and more competitive rugby community at the top level, yes.

[Stones of granite]

So, in summary, you expect the 6N countries to agree to sweeping changes in the Rugby calendar so that the "pecking order" can be changed.

Not sure I'd describe sacrificing the spring tours once every four years for an 8-team Rugby Euros that might develop into something much bigger within a few decades (the way football's has) as "sweeping changes," but I do believe a more panoptic approach to international rugby is the most effective way to bring new teams up to speed and create a much broader and more competitive rugby community at the top level, yes.

Which isn't quite what you said. You said that the "pecking order" would change. What are the arguments to be put to the 6N to persuade them to accept changes, of whatever magnitude, that have as their objective an overturning of the current "pecking order"?

[rowan]

You said that the "pecking order" would change

On the contrary. I said it wouldn't change with 'thinking' like yours.

What are the arguments to be put to the 6N to persuade them to accept changes

That a Rugby Euros is a more exciting and meaningful event that could evolve into something as spectacular in the future as the football Euros, which ought to fill stadiums if marketed properly- while at the same time saving a bundle on travel - and would embrace and help develop new teams which would be an investment in the future of the European game. Nice break every 4 years from going Down Under for the annual thrashings, I'd say

[Stones of granite]

You said that the "pecking order" would change

On the contrary. I said it wouldn't change with 'thinking' like yours.

What are the arguments to be put to the 6N to persuade them to accept changes

That a Rugby Euros is a more exciting and meaningful event that could evolve into something as spectacular in the future as the football Euros, which ought to fill stadiums if marketed properly- while at the same time saving a bundle on travel - and would embrace and help develop new teams which would be an investment in the future of the European game. Nice break every 4 years from going Down Under for the annual thrashings, I'd say

As International Rugby moves ever closer towards being a franchise circus along the lines of American Football, I would say that your fantasy outcome is extremely unlikely. Money and commercial interests now dominate over all things in deciding which teams are successful, and of the non-6N European teams, only Georgia has the depth of popular interest that commands the interest of investors.
(I was in Romania on a business trip shortly before the 6N, and chatted with my Romanian customers over dinner about sport. They are aware of Rugby and the history of Rugby in Romania, but it comes behind Football, Handball and Basketball in the public consciousness and the vast majority of people aren't remotely interested in it.)
If you doubt this, have a look at the make up of the top teams. They all have a substantial number of players qualifying on technical grounds such as residency, and the Celtic Unions (not so much Wales) make little secret of their recruitment of project players. The recent rise of Japan is a case in point. It is this evolution from a sport to an entertainment industry that is creating an ever increasing gap between the soon-to-be franchise nations and the rest of the world, creating a gap that will never be able to be closed.
You made a comment about my thinking, but in fact, I believe that it is your thinking that is rooted in the pre-professional era, when simple sporting endeavour could be enough. The new reality is that money and commercialisation calls the shots.

"Nice break every 4 years from going Down Under for the annual thrashings"
I'm not going to "nit-pick" the obvious semantic error, but I would like to point you towards the results from last weekend, and perhaps you can show us where the "annual thrashings" were.

[rowan]

"Nice break every 4 years from going Down Under for the annual thrashings"
I'm not going to "nit-pick" the obvious semantic error, but I would like to point you towards the results from last weekend, and perhaps you can show us where the "annual thrashings" were.

Well, they were thrashings last year and my memory on Spring tours doesn't go back very far because I take little interest in them even when they are on. But the remark was only tongue-and-cheek. Nonetheless, I deserve to be pulled up on it.

Regarding your remaining comments, there was little if anything there that I wasn't already aware of. You are obviously quite certain of your viewpoint that rugby is now slave to the dollar (or euro or whatever), and you may well be right about that, to an extent. But there is an international governing body with a self-professed mandate to globalize the game, and without a little idealistic thinking in that direction we can be certain that the game will go nowhere. For sure it will never remotely reach its potential with a myopic approach that fails to discern the long-term benefits of expanding the field. Anything else might well be a case of shooting oneself in the foot, because there in reality there are only five teams capable of winning the World Cup, and that hasn't changed since South Africa returned from isolation at the end of the amateur era.

[rowan]

Oh, and btw, incorporating Georgia and Romania isn't my idea. It's as much their own as anybody's, so far as I can tell. I'm just coming up with an alternative way of achieving this, since they appear unlikely to be added to the 6 Nations - due mostly to the factors you mentioned.