• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Should the 6 nations be opened up

rob39

Academy Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
27
Country Flag
Scotland
Club or Nation
Doncaster
Hi all
Should the 6 nations be opened up to tier 2 teams within the next 4-6 years?? for instance the bottom team in the 6 nations could enter in a play off league with the top 2 euro teams in the autumn and play for a place in the 6 nations. Why 4-6 years hopefilly with more funding over the next 4-6 years the likes of Georgia, Russia, Spain, Portugal could improve enough to contest for the 6 nations
 
Yes!

But for commercial reasons it won't happen until I think until 4 team are really knocking at the door by proving able to beat the top of the 6 nations. To give you some idea of the gap Italy have never beaten England. Argentina who just pummelled Georgia have 4 wins against, 2 of which were hardly against England's best players.

Instead I recommend more regular matches with at least top tier 1 sides as possible warm up games and minor tours.
@TIGs_Man came up with fairly decent idea for development in the Japan joining the RC thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something I'd like as a "quirky" event maybe once a year is to have a big European mix, so form 2 teams each taking x number of players from each country in tier 1 and tier 2 of the European cups. Sort of like the Lions but much less serious as a way to allow Tier 2 players to play with tier 1 players and mix things up more. Daft idea I know but it's something I'd kinda like to see.

I'd be kinda in favour of promotion/relegation except all that it would realistically be is Italy and Georgia playing against each other each time and yo-yoing between leagues or changing nothing at all.
 
YES its necessary. But all european rugby organization is to rethink. From that useless european cup, to that restrictive 6 nations. Having a new nation added but with no real club in the country to play regularily a top level, is suicide.
Japan, with its team in SR, can see futur in a positive way. Italy still struggle to not be ridiculous in ERC.
The amateur Club system of france and uk kills that futur for newcomers. Franchise system, in a big european championship, woudl allwo some countries like roumania or georgia to have one big team in it. And then only, addin hte national team can be think about.
Hockey devellops really well usin this system. Small countries like Croatia improve a lot by havin a team in KHL.
So it wont happen until a real competition exists, also when France , uk, ireland stop be so amateur in all its organization.
 
It should be the 6 nations but home and away and then a second tier 5 or 6 nations (depending on who stands up) with one team relegated and one team promoted each year.
Then watch the nations involved improve and the cream rise to the top.
That would be meaningful compelling viewing.
 
It should have been tried years ago, but the 'closed shop' that is the 6N is very protective of anything surrounding it.
A league 2 where the winner played home and away against the bottom team in the 6N could work.
Like everything, it all relies on financing of the teams, but Russia, Georgia etc are not short of rich sponsors.
The 6N need to expand and deepen the countries playing the game, which has the effect of increasing the interest and TV subscriptions
in those countries and overall.
 
It won't happen but in the long term, a two tier system with promotion and relegation would help the developing nations to gain on the establishment.
If you look back at how long France took to get on a level footing, and Italy more recently, you have to understand that it takes decades, not a few years to truly compete. The money will come, especially if Russia are involved.

The best solution imho is two tiers, 5 teams in each (so yes, probably Italy, maybe Scotland, maybe even one of the others if they have a bad year, will end up in the lower tier) and the four highest ranked teams join them in tier 2. It's probably predictable that Italy spend a lot of time yo-yoing between the two levels and that maybe one other team (Georgia as it stands) might be swapping most years; but think about it. If Italy pull out a big win somewhere, they keep in the top 5 and send someone else down - over the 15 years of the 6 nations, Italy were not bottom 6 times. The lower teams then start getting the "bigger" opponents which will help profile and development, the team that's on the lower tier has a chance to blood new players, implement style, change coaches etc and hopefully redevelop.....but at some point someone is going to do them and head up to the big boys....Similarly, the team that comes up will only have to pick up one big result - knock off one of the establishment in front of a noisy home stadium as Italy have done - and then they stay up and have a second year in the top with the big guns to further enhance their team and profile, and know that it might not be the other old 6N team coming back up.
There's no reason why within a few years it might not be Wales, France, Ireland, Italy, Georgia in the top 5 (yeah had to put England down - sorry!!! but given the game today! etc) and England and Scotland might put Romania, Spain and Russia to the sword in level 2; but can you imagine the magnitude of the game at Murrayfield to get back to the top??
It would take a long development time; and it would need a level of commitment from the top 6 that I don't believe is there; but it will make European and World Rugby stronger and that can only be a positive thing.
Most suggestions I've heard involve the smaller teams in their own league and a playoff (usually 2 legged) to see if they can get into the top. This is, I feel, too unlikely to see movement to the top flight (I'd wager once in 10 years) and the following year, it's tough to see the team that has gone up not go straight back down.
Make it one up, one down, no excuses, no get out clauses (and no bloody European club tournament calling shots!) and it will work. Teams will stay on the gas every game in both tiers, every game matters more, and as time goes on (we're talking uber-long term) then tier 3 comes in or you expand it to tiers of 6; possibly 6 in the top and 8 lower down.

I hear good things about German rugby, how much are they going to throw at the idea that they can play their way into a 2nd tier, and on the back of a good season, be playing in the top flight....they'd push like mad. Russia would throw money at the national team and buy in the players to develop a club game if they saw the same prize.
As I see it there are more benefits than problems....touring big SH sides would be more likely to play some of the current tier 2 sides if they knew they were more hardened to playing at a better level. The likes of Samoa, Tonga, USA, Uruguay, Japan, Namibia can come and play 3/4 tests against similar calibre opponents in established rugby stadiums and in front of big crowds. If the game grows, how long before we see Moscow stadium hosting the all blacks?? THAT is what world development should be about.

As I'd mentioned, it's going to take the big boys to take the hit early on; and given that a lot of the higher echilons are still an old boys club and bowing down to the Guiness and Heineken dollar, it won't happen, but something like it SHOULD....
 
Last edited:
Just as an aside - the real aim should be for another international tournament whose participants no longer feel like they need to be "promoted" to the 6N.
 
I just wonder how big an effect relegation would have on Scottish rugby could be extremely damaging IMO.

Wouldn't that in itself be motivation enough? Scotland are long enough established to stay fairly strong and spend far more time in the top tier than below....and by the time they are regularly down there (if they would be?) then tier 2 would be stronger and the same teams moving would become less and less likely...

- - - Updated - - -

Just as an aside - the real aim should be for another international tournament whose participants no longer feel like they need to be "promoted" to the 6N.

Not sure I'm getting the understanding of this right? Are you say they go and play on their own and never aspire to be in the top flight? Surely the aim of any sportsperson and sports team is to play at the highest level they can rather than saying "we're happy being at the second level"
 
No:
1. Fixture congestion is a real problem, adding teams wouldn't work
2. Breaking down into pools is not an alternative. England-Wales, England-Ireland etc. is a guaranteed fixture once a year because of the 6N. Nobody wants less tier one intra-hemisphere rugby than there already is.
3. Promotion-relegation can mess up any kind of progress in Italy/Scotland
4. Six Nations is an elite tournament, it shouldn't be opened up because one team looks slightly promising for a small amount of time.

But this is the ideal:
Just as an aside - the real aim should be for another international tournament whose participants no longer feel like they need to be "promoted" to the 6N.

A global tier two tournament could be a good idea.

Perhaps a rugby-equivalent of the "Euros" during the Lions tour.
 
Before this happens, I think that prospective Tier 2 teams wanting to be involved in 6N really need be consistently ranked up near the bottom teams of the 6N. The reality of the situation is that some are there now

Currently, 6N hold rankings of 3, 4, 5 7, 12 & 15

Prospects are

Georgia 13
Romania 17
Spain 21
Russia 22

But will they still be in these positions in 12 months time... or 24 months time?
 
Not sure I'm getting the understanding of this right? Are you say they go and play on their own and never aspire to be in the top flight? Surely the aim of any sportsperson and sports team is to play at the highest level they can rather than saying "we're happy being at the second level"

No - that there is another European tournament that is of equal quality to the 6N.
 
Before this happens, I think that prospective Tier 2 teams wanting to be involved in 6N really need be consistently ranked up near the bottom teams of the 6N. The reality of the situation is that some are there now

Currently, 6N hold rankings of 3, 4, 5 7, 12 & 15

Prospects are

Georgia 13
Romania 17
Spain 21
Russia 22

But will they still be in these positions in 12 months time... or 24 months time?
Worth pointing out that Scotland and Italy "funnel" into those low rankings because they play like 90% of their games against Tier One teams who are better than them. If Scotland and Italy had regular games against Georgia, Romania etc., I think a clear gap would open up between the Six Nations and those below.
 
Last edited:
No - that there is another European tournament that is of equal quality to the 6N.

The point of which is what? If they aren't playing against each other, how do you say they are equal quality? Or do you mean the coverage, TV etc is the same.....confused now.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how I can explain it any more simply - it's not exactly rocket science... :(
 
That's the kind of 'protectionist' talk that stops development in it's tracks every time.
Of course it would affect any country who goes down, but the dame applies to any team who has a
bad year. I seem to remember France had the wooden spoon a few years back.
There is nothing to saythat England won't have some bad years.
There is also the possibility of top in league 2 playing bottom of league 1 as a decider.
If there is too much of a gap, then they stay. Simples.
 
I don't know how I can explain it any more simply - it's not exactly rocket science... :(

Two annual tournaments, same level of play (somehow?) with no interaction?

That seems to be what you mean, but what is the purpose of it?
 
This again eh? People are operating under the assumption that getting into the 6N will suddenly make teams like Georgia or Romania a lot better by virtue of giving them more exposure to to higher level rugby. Well it wont. Look at Italy, they've been in the tournament for 15 years now and have made very little progress. If we're serious about advancing rugby in the tier two nations we need to work on improving the structures below the national team. Actively helping Romanian and Georgian players find professional contracts, investing heavily in youth structures, etc. would do more to help the emerging nations than simply throwing them to the wolves before they're ready.

Anyway, the 6N can't support and more crap teams atm. Scotland and Italy will have to become regularly competitive before any expansion can be considered, and even then scheduling would make it very prohibitive.
 
So what are you saying?
Let's make them/help them, develop a professional infrastructure at various levels before we allow them to compete?
Isn't this the chicken being born ahead of the egg?
Exposure allows competition, infrastructure and revenue (not always in that order).
It can't happen as you suggest. Either that or you're just prevaricating because you don't like the idea.

I also remember that not so long ago Ireland couldn't buy a win. I don't remember anyone
saying then, that we can't have more teams playing until the current tems are more competitive.
 

Latest posts

Top