• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

6 nations to 12 nations

The question is who are on Georgia's level...clearly Romania are close, Portugal is a tough game looking at results and obviously Samoa, Tonga, Fiji are a challenge. Georgia need to organise something for themselves, they can't rely on the IRB or they'll be waiting forever.
I agree in part. More fixtures against teams like Fiji, Tonga, Japan, USA and Canada who are roughly on the same level will help Georgia. Samoa, Italy, Scotland, Argentina and Ireland is the next step up. I think some home summer fixtures against teams like the 6 Nations countries and Argentina could really help Georgia make a step up. They'd lose a few games but how is that any different to, say, Italy losing all their Autumn tests every year?!

Georgia have great potential and it should be nurtured over and beyond the ENC.
 
And don't tell me now that Pumas will be no better than before agains ABs on pool stage of RWC 2015, after their exposure to ABs on Tri (Four) Nation Cup
Well this is it...the Pumas have supposedly been playing against better teams in the 4N, so we expect them to have improved when they come North to play weaker NH teams but if anything, they're worse right now.

I believe Argentina would have been much better to join the 6N against teams on their own level, they would get some big wins to enthuse their fans and generate interest. Right now, losing test after test in the 4N is demoralising and would surely not encourage people to play.
 
well you saw the result of match against Samoa, that doesn't mean we became top 10 team ever, but never refuses our abilities

P.S I do not think NH teams are weaker ;) despite all the RWCs' gold going to SH and only once England changing the flow of history
 
If the ENC is so boring why is rugby growing fast in Georgia?



Seems at odds with your previous comment about rugby growing. Like I said above, Georgia can't rely on the IRB, they have to organise a tournament for themselves.


World cup and November tests have contributed to the growth, For example there were total of 2000 registered(including youth) players in Georgia before 2007 WC, after 2007 the number grew to 3,500, and from the last years census there are 7000+ players so that is a perfect example. also the attendance figures are growing for November tests while have greatly shrunk for the ENC games.
I don't know what is so hard to understand here, I think you just want to find counter arguments instead of having a reasonable discussion.

And if we organize a tournament who will join it ? 6N teams ? TRI nations ? or Pacifics ? I doubt any of them will and organizing a new tournament with turkey, Ukraine and Russia just useless..
Considering we have won ENC 5 out of 6 times in last years with our reserve side I don't really need to find proofs for that being a waste of time.

If you have any info on teams ranked higher than us wanting to create new competition tell us and i will call GRU immediately they will be more than happy about that.
 
I think this is a myth. Playing against better teams and losing repeatedly does not make a team grow, it turns fans off reduces interest. No one wants to watch their team lose all the time. At present Georgia aren't good enough for the 6N, joining it would be damaging for the 6N and for Georgian rugby. They need to play teams on their own level, win matches, fill stadiums, grow their player pool and eventually they'll have enough good players to win big matches at the World Cup. After that, they would maybe get considered for 6N. Perhaps not even then, because let's face it, it's full.

The question is who are on Georgia's level...clearly Romania are close, Portugal is a tough game looking at results and obviously Samoa, Tonga, Fiji are a challenge. Georgia need to organise something for themselves, they can't rely on the IRB or they'll be waiting forever.


If the ENC is so boring why is rugby growing fast in Georgia?



Seems at odds with your previous comment about rugby growing. Like I said above, Georgia can't rely on the IRB, they have to organise a tournament for themselves.

Italy have clearly improved over the years in the 6 Nations, both in on the pitch and interest in terms of off the pitch crowds, when they started the 6 Nations they played in a 27,000 Stadio Flaminio now they play in the 70,00 stadium and ship 40 or 50 points or more far less often. And your point on Argentina is wrong, they are worse because they have a poor coach, a split in the camp and are now entering a transition. They would decline in standard in this period regardless of who they played. They will get much better in the future because of the RC, not least because it gets them a lot more money to the UAR than before and looks likely to lead to some sort of Super Rugby inclusion.

Also the ENC is indeed dull. Georgia have won 5 of the last 6 editions, and they and a rejuvenated Romania (who won the other edition) can say with complete confidence they will be Europe #1 and #2 for RWC qualification. Georgia's progress quickened after their maiden RWC appearance and the 2007 World Cup than anything to do with the ENC. The November matches with Canada, Samoa, Fiji or Japan are much more interesting than the ENC, which Georgia won this year despite playing some of the worst rugby I've seen for a long time from them.
 
I've seen Georgia thrice against Spain. I've seen Romania as many times too.

Even the worst version of Georgia, was always dominant (despite one match lost against Spain) strong, keen, accurate, fierce, reckless...at least more than Romania.

You just can't keep Georgia out of real competition. Eventually, it becomes an inconvenient truth known by everybody as it was with Italy back in the '90s or Romania in the '80s. The romanian issue was just unfair that would have stirred up public opinion in Internet Era if something like this would have happened today. Justice was done with Italy. It's about time to realize Georgia is The Elephant in european rugby.

From Iberian Peninsula, all my support to Caucasian Iberia :p
 
Last edited:
Italy have clearly improved over the years in the 6 Nations, both in on the pitch and interest in terms of off the pitch crowds, when they started the 6 Nations they played in a 27,000 Stadio Flaminio now they play in the 70,00 stadium and ship 40 or 50 points or more far less often.

Italy have improved, but directly as a result of playing better teams? not imo. It is often said they were better in the 90s with no 6N tournament just as Argentina were better team without the RC (or at least prior to). I think you've said before that Argentina should've been included sooner (and I agree)....and why? because they were more competitive back then. Being competitive and winning increases interest, losing consistently decreases it or at least slows it down significantly.

I think Italy have gained in terms of exposure resulting in greater crowds and financial return, but teams like Georgia and Romania don't need the 6N for exposure, Georgia can fill stadiums already and afaik their matches are televised. Let's be honest, their chances of ever joining the 6N are slim to none, they need to try to organise something else. I appreciate that's easier said than done.

And your point on Argentina is wrong, they are worse because they have a poor coach, a split in the camp and are now entering a transition. They would decline in standard in this period regardless of who they played. They will get much better in the future because of the RC, not least because it gets them a lot more money to the UAR than before and looks likely to lead to some sort of Super Rugby inclusion.

Which is my point. Losing consistently to better teams does not magically make you better. As a rugby fan I'd love to see Georgia in the 6N, ditto Romania and Canada but I'm realistic enough to know it will never happen (sure Argentina were admitted to the 3N, but there were less teams and more calendar room).

Also the ENC is indeed dull. Georgia have won 5 of the last 6 editions, and they and a rejuvenated Romania (who won the other edition) can say with complete confidence they will be Europe #1 and #2 for RWC qualification. Georgia's progress quickened after their maiden RWC appearance and the 2007 World Cup than anything to do with the ENC. The November matches with Canada, Samoa, Fiji or Japan are much more interesting than the ENC, which Georgia won this year despite playing some of the worst rugby I've seen for a long time from them.

I wasn't arguing otherwise. My comment on the ENC was a question.

I've seen Georgia thrice against Spain. I've seen Romania as many times too.

Even the worst version of Georgia, was always dominant (despite one match lost against Spain) strong, keen, accurate, fierce, reckless...at least more than Romania.

You just can't keep Georgia out of real competition. Eventually, it becomes an inconvenient truth known by everybody as it was with Italy back in the '90s or Romania in the '80s. The romanian issue was just unfair that would have stirred up public opinion in Internet Era if something like this would have happened today. Justice was done with Italy. It's about time to realize Georgia is The Elephant in european rugby.
From Iberian Peninsula, all my support to Caucasian Iberia :p

It would, but nothing would be done because the truth is the 6N is a successful financial model benefiting those already in it. They turned down Argentina already.
 
Last edited:
There's no way to improve your level by fighting the bad teams rather than the good ones over and over and over again.

Keeping aside the good ones being you another, isn't a good idea either.
 
Last edited:
Italy have improved, but directly as a result of playing better teams? not imo. It is often said they were better in the 90s with no 6N tournament just as Argentina were better team without the RC (or at least prior to). I think you've said before that Argentina should've been included sooner (and I agree)....and why? because they were more competitive back then. Being competitive and winning increases interest, losing consistently decreases it or at least slows it down significantly.

Italy are miles better now than they were in the 90's, and it is directly related to entry to the 6 Nations. Just last year they very nearly drew with Australia, an equivalent result in the 90's against a top 3 side was unimaginable. In the 95 World Cup they shipped 40 points to Samoa and lost to Tonga in 99 with a three figure loss to New Zealand. Crowds for internationals have massively increased since admission, they have much more money and the side is much better. None of this was really apparent however after 2 years in the competition, which makes your thoughts on Argentina flawed. The rise in revenue, soon to be increased professional system and consistent exposure to top level rugby will be seen in the long term.

The line about interest declining is wrong as well. New Zealand are the biggest brand in the sport, them visiting sells the most tickets even though most Argentines would know they probably won't win. Italy lost the vast majority of games some by large margins in the 6N for the first 5 or so years. They now sell out 70,000 stadia from the previous 28,000 ground.

I think Italy have gained in terms of exposure resulting in greater crowds and financial return, but teams like Georgia and Romania don't need the 6N for exposure, Georgia can fill stadiums already and afaik their matches are televised. Let's be honest, their chances of ever joining the 6N are slim to none, they need to try to organise something else. I appreciate that's easier said than done.

I agree the chances are slim to none and that they should lobby the IRB to get an alternative improved tournament, but your getting several things wrong. Romania play in a very small 5,000 ground, a bigger team could sell out one of the bigger football stadiums. Likewise Georgia, Samoa and Canada got 20 odd thousand, but a bigger team would likely fill the 60,000 stadium. Matches with Ukraine in the ENC are not comparable, nearer 2,000.

Which is my point. Losing consistently to better teams does not magically make you better. As a rugby fan I'd love to see Georgia in the 6N, ditto Romania and Canada but I'm realistic enough to know it will never happen (sure Argentina were admitted to the 3N, but there were less teams and more calendar room).

Playing harder opposition consistently does indeed make you better. Not "magically" better straight away in the first 2 years, but it does over a longer period of time. There is a good argument that there should be a balance between playing better teams and weaker teams, but never exposing yourself to a higher level will mean it is much more difficult when it comes World Cup time.
 
The fact that Georgia can't enter 6N yet is clear and no question rises about it, unfortunately rugby world is quite rude and closed, it is impermeable until you smash your head against the door :D that's somehow OK

No special need to enter 6N, we have many other problems to manage yet and it will take time, these problems aren't easy going ones

But whenever we speak bout equality and brotherhood and respect spirit of rugby, my mind is stirred with icy facts of modern rugby feudalism ;)

Every big tam looking from above on the minnows, and if minnows manage to bleed their nose, referees will stand on higher side, that happens and I have seen it with my eyes not once (!)

What is main is to keep rugby clean, clean not only from steroids and gambling, but also from grabbing the spirit it has!!! that's the main issue

Otherwise who we will play and how many times, that's a matter of our and others' well being

Da Grappla thanks brother for these words, hats off to Spanish Lion

spanish_ferderacion_rugby.jpg
 
Italy are miles better now than they were in the 90's, and it is directly related to entry to the 6 Nations. Just last year they very nearly drew with Australia, an equivalent result in the 90's against a top 3 side was unimaginable. In the 95 World Cup they shipped 40 points to Samoa and lost to Tonga in 99 with a three figure loss to New Zealand. Crowds for internationals have massively increased since admission, they have much more money and the side is much better. None of this was really apparent however after 2 years in the competition, which makes your thoughts on Argentina flawed. The rise in revenue, soon to be increased professional system and consistent exposure to top level rugby will be seen in the long term.

The line about interest declining is wrong as well. New Zealand are the biggest brand in the sport, them visiting sells the most tickets even though most Argentines would know they probably won't win. Italy lost the vast majority of games some by large margins in the 6N for the first 5 or so years. They now sell out 70,000 stadia from the previous 28,000 ground.

Australia 23-20 Italy 1994, away wins over France and Ireland too. Romania without 6N admission weren't far away from Italy at all in '07 (23-18), or beating 6N side Scotland at the WC so I don't think admission to the 6N or 4N is essential to performance. As you've alluded to, progress is mainly rooted in financial and structural spin-off benefits.

I agree the chances are slim to none and that they should lobby the IRB to get an alternative improved tournament, but your getting several things wrong. Romania play in a very small 5,000 ground, a bigger team could sell out one of the bigger football stadiums. Likewise Georgia, Samoa and Canada got 20 odd thousand, but a bigger team would likely fill the 60,000 stadium. Matches with Ukraine in the ENC are not comparable, nearer 2,000.

These sides need to become the "bigger" team, get a good annual competitive tournament going and market it well. The old 5N weren't the best sides in the world but people watched because it was a good tournament. These Eastern European sides have to do this because they're simply not going to get 6N access (much as I would like to see their entry).

Playing harder opposition consistently does indeed make you better. Not "magically" better straight away in the first 2 years, but it does over a longer period of time. There is a good argument that there should be a balance between playing better teams and weaker teams, but never exposing yourself to a higher level will mean it is much more difficult when it comes World Cup time.

Well many (most?) play club rugby in France, so they're all playing at the same club level as 6N sides anyway. I've never bought the notion that playing superior sides makes you better...ultimately better players makes you better. You get better players by increasing player numbers, you increase player numbers by generating interest and winning in competitive, entertaining matches.
 
Last edited:
Well I agree Colombia when he states that increasing number of skilled players makes teams better

That's a reason Georgia, Romania and other ENC teams advanced that fast, most of our guys are trained in French/British teams

But you can't stick to one tournament and one atmosphere only, changes and fighting big teams is necessary for better results - you may not agree this idea but I think much of the evidence and arguments had been vited here about the positive sides of playing against giants
 
Do we want to start a petition on this or maybe have a protest march? We need a revolution in rugby, who's with me?
 
Um lets be brutally realistic here folks. European rugby is a closed shop, in fact they are trying to trim things down to just Ireland England France and Wales. In fact lets start referring to the six nations as the four nations and then Scotland and Italy may take the hint and just go away on their own accord. I mean that's what we all want right? Because nobody else seems to raising their voices in protest are they?

Georgia! Oh boy. Nevermind lads, Santa will be delivering you some prezzies in 20 days time, don't forget to put out some milk and cookies for him.
 
santa comes here in January

well thats good if people realize how open the European rugby system is
 
Um lets be brutally realistic here folks. European rugby is a closed shop, in fact they are trying to trim things down to just Ireland England France and Wales. In fact lets start referring to the six nations as the four nations and then Scotland and Italy may take the hint and just go away on their own accord. I mean that's what we all want right? Because nobody else seems to raising their voices in protest are they?

Georgia! Oh boy. Nevermind lads, Santa will be delivering you some prezzies in 20 days time, don't forget to put out some milk and cookies for him.

Not at the expense of enlarging the 6N and thereby introducing more international matches on the top of 6N, Autumn Internationals, Tours and British Lions...............if there were a legitmate secondary 6 N for other european nations by all means!

Indeed, on second thoughts, why not make it the 4N with two dropping down to the second tier and that becoming a four team competition also?

Ergo...............
 
same issues, same talks, same definitions and arguments

nothing will be done

quite a long time ago discussions started about facing off last 6N teams with first ranking ENC teams, who cares...
 
same issues, same talks, same definitions and arguments

nothing will be done

quite a long time ago discussions started about facing off last 6N teams with first ranking ENC teams, who cares...

Believe me, the fans care. Not just the Georgian fans but all committed rugby fans. It's just that the powers that be don't care about Georgia, or at least don't seem to care. USA, Japan, Canada, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji are all being given shots at tier 1 countries... Why can't Georgia be added to this mix? I really can't wrap my head around it. I understand that the financial benefits of spreading the game in Canada and the USA are much bigger than spreading the game in Georgia, but if it's only about the money why do give opportunities to the likes of Fiji?
 
Um lets be brutally realistic here folks. European rugby is a closed shop, in fact they are trying to trim things down to just Ireland England France and Wales. In fact lets start referring to the six nations as the four nations and then Scotland and Italy may take the hint and just go away on their own accord. I mean that's what we all want right? Because nobody else seems to raising their voices in protest are they?

Georgia! Oh boy. Nevermind lads, Santa will be delivering you some prezzies in 20 days time, don't forget to put out some milk and cookies for him.

and then Scotland, Italy, Georgia and Romania can start their own competition.
 
Believe me, the fans care. Not just the Georgian fans but all committed rugby fans. It's just that the powers that be don't care about Georgia, or at least don't seem to care. USA, Japan, Canada, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji are all being given shots at tier 1 countries... Why can't Georgia be added to this mix? I really can't wrap my head around it. I understand that the financial benefits of spreading the game in Canada and the USA are much bigger than spreading the game in Georgia, but if it's only about the money why do give opportunities to the likes of Fiji?

anyhow close years won't bring any news for expansion or access to any other big tournaments. that's obvious.

like I said before only thing we have to do is to develop country's potential in rugby as much as possible day by day

and be like Fiji, where the quality of play doesn't give officials opportunity to keep you away just because of money

Canada Russia USA Japan and many others, yeap big money is accessible there (anyway with big potential as well I don't say these guys are bad and its just their money that favors their rugby) unlike Georgia :)
 

Latest posts

Top