Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
6 nations to 12 nations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Colombia" data-source="post: 610324" data-attributes="member: 63025"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I wasn't arguing otherwise. My comment on the ENC was a question.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Colombia, post: 610324, member: 63025"] 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. 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). I wasn't arguing otherwise. My comment on the ENC was a question. 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
6 nations to 12 nations
Top