Georgia 2013-?

[Melhor Time]

The existing format of the Six Nations is great for those who play in it. A great tournament which makes huge revenues for the six unions and sees full houses in the capitals of the six members for virtually all home matches. The problem is Georgia should be added but won´t. Its very similar to the Pacific Islands trying to get into a Tier One competition but the difference being that they can all win and all lose against each other as proven year in, year out in the Pacific Nations Cup. Japan in there helps greatly in making the event bigger. The same cannot be said of the Lelos who are clearly the best European team outside of the 6N but have no way of getting in.

There is no way that any of the Six member unions will vote in a promotion / relegation system for a simple fear of being relegated. So are there any real solutions or will Georgia continue to win by big margins in the ENC and At least the IRB has woken up to the problem in having Georgia play away to Tier Two opposition in June and host the same callibre of opponents in November. Its viable for the next five years but the ENC is not. I would say that for 2015 it is paramount that Scotland and Italy both play in Georgia during the Lions Tour to Australia. It would be a genuine examination of Georgian rugby on and off the field.

Unfortunately for Georgia there is no chance of replacing the Six Nations with a European Cup, similar to that used in soccer. The Tier One orientation of global rugby severly advantages the historical sides while holding back emerging teams to the extent that many don´t know how good others really are. Argentina defeating France in Paris to open RWC 2007 was not a big surprize at all. Argentina had won four of the past five games and the loss was by just a single point. Tell this to the international media though who all responded in shock to Argentina´s win on September 7 2007. The lesson is that only World Cup´s matter. It is only in these matches that the Tier One pay attention and respect. It is no coincidence that Tonga struggled to get any November tests from 2008-2010 despite giving both England and South Africa great games in France 2007. The fact is Tonga were good but didn´t win against Tier one sides at the World Cup. Four years on the same team nocked over France in Wellington in a World Cup match and now has a decent tour lined up this November including tests vs Scotland and Italy. Ideal I would say. Georgia did well vs Scotland in Invercargill but didn´t win and here lies the problem. First Tier sides only do anything for Second Tier sides when they lose.

Making a name for oneself is hard when opportunities are limited. This will only change when the IRB becomes democratic instead of having a system in which the majority have no vote, the old 3N + old 5N all have two votes each but, oddly, Ita + Arg have only one each.

 

[Draggs]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 7 Nations system with promotion relegation.
My thinking is this:
7 Nations (current Six Nations teams + Top Six Nations B team)
Other European tournament, consisting of Six Nations B sides and hopefully others.

How promotion-relegation would be done, I am not sure. I thought about a home/away series between the lowest-placed 7N side and highest side in the other tournament.

 

[psychic duck]

there should be some more rewards for winning the ENC

people will have different opinions on how Georgia would do in the Six Nations,

but all I want there to be is a CLEAR GUIDELINE as to what a team would need to achieve to get in the Six Nations, or get a set number of Tier 1 matches a year

currently, it's just a few random officials in a blazers who's opinions count

I think it would be most sensible to say, if you reach point X, then you can rise above the ENC

e.g. if Georgia win the ENC every year between 2012-2015, they get a playoff with the bottom of the 6N, or something like that

that way takes opinion (which would vary widely between different people) out of it, and would take the vagueness out of it, and would seem most fair, as there would be no debate if Georgia had reached the target or not

I would hope for the same system would it be Russia, Georgia, Spain or Romania also

also finally, something to play for would help teams get players available for the ENC, Georgia currently play the tournament with a team varying in strength for different matches

with the added bonus of some incentives outside World Cup's, it would help players become available in between the four year cycle, for example Georgia have sent an understrength pack of forwards out on the North American tour, if there was a target to be reached then there would be a higher chance that important players like Gorgodze, Kubriashvili and Natriashvili would be released

I'm sure there will be one person somewhere here who will point out that Georgia lost to Spain this year, so therefore would have no chance in the 6N, before somebody says that, I will state it now, that was a reserve Georgian team (no Gorgodze, Zirakashvili, Natriashvili, Kakovin, Jgenti, Kubriashvili, Khinchagishvili, Kolelishvili, Bregvadze, Sutiashvili)

 

[Toko_11]

I've already lost hope about major changes. If they do happen, it wont be any time soon. maybe 5 years after we beat 6n teams on WC and god knows when that will happen. ah very sorry for Gorgodze and the props they could have given a lot of exotic flavor to the international rugby.

 

[psychic duck]

I've already lost hope about major changes. If they do happen, it wont be any time soon. maybe 5 years after we beat 6n teams on WC and god knows when that will happen. ah very sorry for Gorgodze and the props they could have given a lot of exotic flavor to the international rugby.

yes, part of me wanted Gorgodze to play the Georgia matches in June instead of for the Barbarians, but then he has had barely any opportunities to play at top international sides outside World Cups, so it was a chance he had to take

from what I've heard coming from the IRB recently, they've mainly been proposing more matches between Tier 2 sides, which may sound okay on paper

but the problem is that Fiji or Tonga are never going to get a full side to play Georgia, Georgia are never going to get a full side to play Fiji or Tonga, so it doesn't really help that much just like the IRB Nations Cup hasn't really helped any nation

the Pacific Nations Cup is a good example of what happens when Tier 2 nations who have many players based abroad play each other, those matches have a pointless feel to them as the teams are understrength

it's like Australia winning the Tri Nations last year, it felt flat because of the amount of players from the teams who were rested for the World Cup

there should be matches between Tier 2 nations of course, but don't expect them to raise the Tier 2 quality any time soon unless players like Gorgodze, Cudmore, Tonga'uiha, Nalaga, Jacques Burger, Fotuali'i, Ngwenya are available

personally I think more to play for the winners of tournaments would help this, for example if the ENC winner got a chance playing Tier 1 nations, then Russia or Georgia might get players for all the matches

same with the Pacific Nations Cup, if the winner got a fixture against a team from the 4 Nations, then there could be more incentive for players to turn up

 

[Peat]

I believe the IRB have set the touring schedules for the next aeon or so - does anybody know which of them go near Georgia?

 

[Toko_11]

which teams go to Georgia ? Japan Fiji and possibly Tonga.

 

[psychic duck]

I believe the IRB have set the touring schedules for the next aeon or so - does anybody know which of them go near Georgia?

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2037367.html

from the IRB schedule link it mentions "Tests in North America, Japan and the Pacific Islands", but nothing on Tier 2 European Nations

The new schedule meets the IRB's strategic goal of providing the platform to grow and increase the profile of the Game around the world while also recognising the commercial requirements of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Unions.

A core component of the new schedule is an integrated Test schedule for targeted Strategic Investment Unions, providing the platform for increased competition and growth through the delivery of more ranking tests between Tier 2 nations and matches against touring Tier 1 sides for the first time in several years, with Tests in North America, Japan and the Pacific Islands. ​

these are the June tours that I could find from research that are scheduled

South Africa
2013 - Scotland, Italy, A Tier 2 Nation (1 Test each)
2014 - Wales (2 Tests), Scotland (1 Test)
2016 - Ireland (3 Tests)
2017 - France (3 Tests)
2018 - England (3 Tests)
http://www.lionsrugby.co.za/index.p...-springboks-as-tours-return-to-rugby-calendar

New Zealand
2013 - France (3 Tests)
2014 - England (3 Tests)
2016 - Wales (3 Tests)
2018 - France (3 Tests)
http://www.allblacks.com/news/13083/Ireland-France-and-England-to-tour-NZ-from-2012---2014

Scotland
2013 - South Africa + domestic teams
2014 - South Africa, Argentina or North America
2016 - New Zealand, Japan
2017 - Australia + domestic teams
2018 - Argentina, North America
http://www.scottishrugby.org/content/view/1104/2/

Wales
2013 - Japan
2014 - South Africa
2016 - New Zealand
2017 - Pacific Islands
2018 - Argentina
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/8889778.stm

and from that it means ...

England
2013 - Argentina
2014 - New Zealand (3 Tests)
2016 - ?
2017 - ?
2018 - South Africa (3 Tests)

Ireland
2013 - ?
2014 - ?
2016 - South Africa
2017 - ?
2018 - ?

France
2013 - New Zealand
2014 - ?
2016 - ?
2017 - South Africa
2018 - New Zealand

Italy
2013 - South Africa
2014 - ?
2016 - ?
2017 - ?
2018 - ?

Argentina
2013 - England
2014 - Scotland TBC
2016 - ?
2017 - ?
2018 - Scotland, Wales

Australia
2013 - ?
2014 - ?
2016 - ?
2017 - Scotland
2018 - ?

 

[Draggs]

Barbarians matches are a good laugh and all that, but I'd much rather see the likes of Georgia and Russia visit instead.
I just see the Barbarians as increasingly irrelevant in today's rugby, while it would be a greater benefit to rugby globally to have T2/3 nations visit. Even if it was a Wales 'A' side, it would be valuable experience for both sides.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Barbarians matches are a good laugh and all that, but I'd much rather see the likes of Georgia and Russia visit instead.
I just see the Barbarians as increasingly irrelevant in today's rugby, while it would be a greater benefit to rugby globally to have T2/3 nations visit. Even if it was a Wales 'A' side, it would be valuable experience for both sides.

I agree with that.
I do like Baabaas matches, but if we were to stick in a couple of midweeks in November and have Georgia, Japan, USA, Canada and whoever involved .

 

[Peat]

Well that's poor, and the growing countries need inclusion in it - even if it's to give A teams some employment.

I am however militantly against vanishing Baabaas matches. It's an excellent tradition that generates some great rugby, and something that rugby should fight to keep going. Also, to put it selfishly for a moment, I believe England gain more in terms of pre-match prep at the moment from playing the Baabaas, and probably greater revenue as well. There is room for both.

 

[admartian]

Growing countries DEFINITELY need to be included. This is the only way that rugby will be able to grow beyond the top 10/12 nations.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Before we get carried away with ourselves, Georgia certainly have not proven themselves worthy of inclusion into the 6 nations. In the world cup they had three tests against tier one opposition, resulting in three losses. Contrast that to Italy's record before joining the 5 nations as it was then.


Georgia have proven themselves worthy of deserving more test matches again tier one nations, but until they can manage a few wins again the like of Scotland, Italy, Ireland & Wales they cannot say they deserve to be part of the championship.

 

[psychic duck]

In the world cup they had three tests against tier one opposition, resulting in three losses. Contrast that to Italy's record before joining the 5 nations as it was then.

okay then I will contrast it to Italy record to joining the 6 Nations

Italy record vs Tier 1 after 1995 World Cup until the 6 Nations
27 matches, 5 wins

2 against one of he worst Ireland teams ever that had just finished bottom of the 5 Nations
1 against Scotland at home
1 against a France team with 8 changes from the side that played in the 5 Nations the week before
1 against Argentina at home who were arguably not a Tier 1 nation in 1998, at least not as strong as they have been since 1999

Georgia record vs Tier 1 after 2007 World Cup until 2012
3 matches, 0 wins (all matches the World Cup, where they played two of the three matches after half week turnarounds, with a non rested side)

Italy were given far better opportunities, 27 matches in 4 years, and 10 of them at home

if Georgia had 27 matches, I think they could get around about that record Italy have, so I don't think Italy's record can be shown as that much more impressive than Georgia's

also the way Italy joined the 6 Nations is not a way that should be a precedent

all those 5 wins came in 1997 or 1998, but by 1999 they were losing 60-21 to Wales, 74-3 to South Africa, 101-0 to South Africa, 67-7 to England, 101-3 to New Zealand, and struggled in their first seasons in the tournament with some heavy defeats

if Georgia were added now, they would not concede 80 points to England for certain, like Italy did in 2001, or concede 101 points to New Zealand or South Africa, Georgia are better than Italy circa 1999-01

it could have been a weakened Italian side for a couple of those, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the Italian team of that period to know or not, but the last two were World Cup matches where the best team would have surely been played

Georgia have proven themselves worthy of deserving more test matches again tier one nations, but until they can manage a few wins again the like of Scotland, Italy, Ireland & Wales they cannot say they deserve to be part of the championship.

if that's your criteria for entry then matches that as you say Georgia deserve have to be provided, also hosted Georgia a few times as well in front of a home crowd

also history says that "manage a few wins" criteria isn't really the best either,

as shown with Italy and also Argentina as well, they got a team capable of wins, but by the time they were added they had both declined as the team that got those wins was getting old, Italy struggled at the start of the 6N and Argentina are now a low 6N standard team, when in 2006 and 2007 they were a 6 Nations winner standard team, and had beaten the entire 6 Nations

your criteria could possibly mean that all of the current generation careers is spent getting those wins (if they were to get them), and then they would be old and probably declined when added, at least that's what has happened on the previous occasions

learn from history of adding teams to the big tournaments, add them in the moment when they're at their strongest, not wait for a team to finish an era and have them rebuild at a upped standard, which is difficult

 

[admartian]

okay then I will contrast it to Italy record to joining the 6 Nations

Italy record vs Tier 1 after 1995 World Cup until the 6 Nations
27 matches, 5 wins

2 against one of he worst Ireland teams ever that had just finished bottom of the 5 Nations
1 against Scotland at home
1 against a France team with 8 changes from the side that played in the 5 Nations the week before
1 against Argentina at home who were arguably not a Tier 1 nation in 1998, at least not as strong as they have been since 1999

Georgia record vs Tier 1 after 2007 World Cup until 2012
3 matches, 0 wins (all matches the World Cup, where they played two of the three matches after half week turnarounds, with a non rested side)

Italy were given far better opportunities, 27 matches in 4 years, and 10 of them at home

if Georgia had 27 matches, I think they could get around about that record Italy have, so I don't think Italy's record can be shown as that much more impressive than Georgia's

also the way Italy joined the 6 Nations is not a way that should be a precedent

all those 5 wins came in 1997 or 1998, but by 1999 they were losing 60-21 to Wales, 74-3 to South Africa, 101-0 to South Africa, 67-7 to England, 101-3 to New Zealand, and struggled in their first seasons in the tournament with some heavy defeats

if Georgia were added now, they would not concede 80 points to England for certain, like Italy did in 2001, or concede 101 points to New Zealand or South Africa, Georgia are better than Italy circa 1999-01

it could have been a weakened Italian side for a couple of those, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the Italian team of that period to know or not, but the last two were World Cup matches where the best team would have surely been played



if that's your criteria for entry then matches that as you say Georgia deserve have to be provided, also hosted Georgia a few times as well in front of a home crowd

also history says that "manage a few wins" criteria isn't really the best either,

as shown with Italy and also Argentina as well, they got a team capable of wins, but by the time they were added they had both declined as the team that got those wins was getting old, Italy struggled at the start of the 6N and Argentina are now a low 6N standard team, when in 2006 and 2007 they were a 6 Nations winner standard team, and had beaten the entire 6 Nations

your criteria could possibly mean that all of the current generation careers is spent getting those wins (if they were to get them), and then they would be old and probably declined when added, at least that's what has happened on the previous occasions

learn from history of adding teams to the big tournaments, add them in the moment when they're at their strongest, not wait for a team to finish an era and have them rebuild at a upped standard, which is difficult

Agreed.

I think more conutries need more games against top competition.

Even if say the All Blacks field an All Blacks C or D team, to play someone like the Philippines or the USA or something. It would still be win win for everyone involved.

 

[Draggs]

Feic, you cheeky lad, I saw that.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

This old chestnut .... again

 

[djwizard84]

re:

I just want to add, if there is no regular game between any Tier (1, 2 or 3) we will never be able to prove if there is a progress for any nation.

What we see at RWCs sometimes is just unfair how some team have to play without break and not in regular basis. For me RWC is not the time to "review" the development of any nation if they keep it the way it is.

In the Six Nations they don't want to lose their business and of course relegation system will not be an option even if we know that Scotland and Italy can suffer even more than just getting a "wooden spoon". In the Four Nations could be something different with just adding the last winner of the Pacific Nations, but as we saw this year Australia nether NZ sold out their stadiums against Argentina and this just prove how even the fans don't take any serious "the other teams" out of that limited top-side of Tier One group.

I would like to see a more open system now, rather to wait decades to see an extra team on the top and to be able one day to forget there was "tier 1, 2, 3".

 

[Dougydeluxe]

The November Internationals do not give a winner or loser from the matches and are just a money grab. So since tradition here is week, this is where I see the best chance of something to help Tier 2 and 3 out.

My idea is that the winner of the Pacific Cup, ENC, the American Cup, and the runner up to team that won previous year. Play a round robin style game and the winner of that is given a game on the last weekend of November against one of the Big teams, or at minimum there A sides. This tournament would start a week or a couple earlier than the EOYT and that way the winner would be decided before the final weekend. It would be played as mid week games, but the final would be over the weekend.
EX. Canada (AC) vs. Samoa (PC)
Georgia (ENC) vs. Fiji (PC runner up)

And then each team plays each other once, as it would all be located in the UK.

I also believe that lets say that Canada won this round robin and beat Italy in the final November match, then Italy would be forced to play the winner of the round robin again next year. As they do not deserve to play better competitors. Also because Canada moved on past the Round Robin, then the next year there would be two teams from the American Cup.

It is really tough to figure out how it would work, this was a quick idea. But this still has a lot of logistic issues and also will not be a "big money maker".