• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Should the 6 nations be opened up

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.

Ireland fixed their youth systems and have improved due to this. Had we kept our amateur set up we'd be in the **** just like the Scots. Teams who haven't been in top class competitions have been competitive in the past, Argentina, Canada, Romania etc... Because they got their set ups right, produced a generation of good players and pushed on from there, unfortunately due to varying reasons Canada and Romania couldn't sustain this.

Any European side outside the 6n right now would beat Scotland and Italy 30% of the time at the very best and not get near the any of the rest. Rather than putting all their resources into the top level they should focus on their youth systems and experience fast improvement like Argentina and Ireland have in the past, then look at getting into a top tier competition.
 
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.
.

100% correct!

We should be looking for less international rugby not less!
 
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.

How so? I'm saying you improve youth coaching and facilities and help more players secure pro contract so they're playing all year round, as opposed to simply giving them 5 matches a year that they'll most likely lose badly. While playing in the 6 nations would increase exposure and probably revenue, we've seen from the case of Italy that it really doesn't help to improve the national squad if you don't have good systems in place underneath the facade.

Ireland are actually a pretty good example of this. We were terrible in the 90's despite having as much exposure to top tier rugby as anyone. What changed was the development of the provinces in the early 2000's into proper professional organizations. The domestic game was streamlined and a heavy emphasis was placed on bringing in foreign expertise to bring up the standard of coaching and management. The academies have been completely overhauled and are probably the best run systems in the Celtic nations at least. The difference these changes have made to the quality and quantity of player available to the national team have been far more important that a couple of extra test matches. If the IRB can help the like of Georgia to set up similar systems then they're onto something. Just putting them into the 6 nations and hoping they become good seems pretty poorly thought out, and damaging to the competition.

The 6 nations is the premier competition in northern hemisphere rugby. It's not a bloody development league. To remain a meaningful competition it needs be fiercely competitive. As things stand there are two sides in the competition who haven't been genuinely competitive for at least 10 years. Is it in anyone's interests to further dilute the quality? I'd be very happy to see Georgia and Romania in the picture in the future, but not as just another inevitable win for the big 4 every year. I want to see that they're producing players capable of challenging the likes of Wales and Ireland occasionally and Italy and Scotland regularly before we tinker more with the most prestigious competition in world rugby. And that's reflected in their youth sides and the number of players they have playing professionally.
 
So the big boys, have their ball and if it doesn't it all go their way, they are going home.

The big nations with their 6 figure salary players and multi millions in sponsorship and back up and everything else are worried about having to trot out for more games....ah but wait, it won't be more, it will be the same per team possibly less if you got to a 5 nation top tier - there will be more internationals which get noticed (i.e, established nations against the developers) rather than our 5 games in winter/spring and 4 autumn internationals. Why can't there be 4 in the new format, and then include one of the tier 2 Europeans along with some of the big boys touring. When the world cup rolls around, there will be more competitive games, more results like Georgia and Japan last weekend and the whole tournament improves, both as a spectacle and for the teams involved....

I love the game and always have, but I'm not sure I think that it's wonderful that Wales' opponents in the last opponents since the end of the last world cup and Uruguay last week consisted of 23 vs other 6N teams, 12 against NZ/OZ/SA, 2 v Arg, 2 v Japan (with a basically 2nd string on tour), and 1 each v Fiji, Samoa and Tonga....37 v the big boys, 5 v the minnows.
Now I'm not saying we should swap the current autumn fixtures for Portugal, Russia, Holland and Georgia....but could we send a under 23's, or a 'possibles' squad to tour a few of these guys? Or slide an odd autumn friendly against someone a little more local? Let's face it, there's only really one team that are truly at the top CONSISTENTLY (don't get upset OZ/SA) and All of the 6 nations teams have had a significant blip over the last few decades.

There will come a time when great players emerge from developing teams, and in the current system they get drafted in to the big boys in order to make sure the split remains. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen. I'm sure you're all lining up to shoot me down, but there are south sea islanders playing for SH teams - with the knock on effect that potential all blacks etc end up playing for the home nations etc; I can't give a specific example, but I'm sure there are Romanians/Georgians as well as many other nations and the like who ended up playing with France/Italy/home nations. It's a small point, but it all just points to the top tier looking after number one. It's Jam now, don't worry about jam later....we'll stop anyone else having any by nicking theirs.

Unless of course the big 10 want to keep a bit of separation between themselves in the game so that they are always the big boys....and if the smaller nations started coming through, the lack of regular competition to drag them up would make it doubly difficult.

The world view is to help the emerging teams in EVERY way. Could you imagine the boost these teams would get by playing big teams? TOURING there? The current situation? We'll take our big games thankyou, keep the big gate receipts, keep the TV money, keep the sponsorship, and the rest of you can work a full time job and try and compete with South Africa and France etc when the World Cup rolls round.

I'm probably on a bit of a rant now, but in for a penny, in for a pound......

I agree that the main infrastructure of the game needs sorting at all levels, but lets be honest, name the countries that truly have this going on....if you can name 7 or 8 I'd probably agree, if you name 10 you are stretching, and any more than a dozen I'd say you are dreaming. The structure of rugby isn't really right in Wales, Scotland, Italy or Argentina; and there's probably an argument to say that France, England, NZ, OZ, SA paper over the cracks with £50 notes. Everyone got it somewhere between fairly wrong and disastrous when they went pro, and now some are getting there, but in many cases there are still issues. The bottom line is that big games, and big results will boost the number of players in a country far more than anything else....how many Japanese kids asked their parents for a rugby ball in the last 7 days....I suspect far more that when a solid business plan for a league was green lighted....so give them the games, give them something to shoot for and give them time. France took 45 years for their first tournament win in the 5 nations (admittedly some years spoiled by some kerfuffle with Germany) but is there not a scenario where Italy get 2/3 world stars and plenty of solid squad members at the same time and pull one out of the bag in 2032? So who's to say that in 30 years there are as many players in Georgia as in Scotland, or more in Spain than in Ireland?

The truth of it is, the IRB wouldn't put their (or more accurately, other people's) money where their mouth is and make it happen. Here's to another 50 years of seeing the Quarter Finals of the world cup being contested by maybe 12 nations AT THE MOST. And the worst thing about it, most fans will gladly agree. Would I like to see Wales have a crack at beating the All blacks every year, hell yes. In a freaky year we win the 6N and knock off the SH teams too? I'd be in paradise....but that's the insular view. Surely it would be just as good for me to see England in the second tier tournament for a year, or to see a more regular occurrence of last week's shocks. I'd love to see the day the Aussies need to make sure they put a good squad out against Russia, because they're second string might not do the job. Isn't that more important that each individual teams success.

Gah! I've made myself all annoyed now. I should probably delete this and go back to my hole, but it's said, feel free to tell me how wrong I am.

And on top of this, Wales are probably going to lose tonight. Maybe if we'd played Romania in the warm up instead of Ireland (a-****ing- gain), 1/2p wouldn't have played and he'd be kicking tonight.....AAAARRRGGGHHH

PS...C'mon Canada - one big play at the end!
 
Let's be honest people, Italy do not deserve to be in the 6 N, at this moment.

Because maybe Georgia should be there instead? Maybe you are right....

Because they aren't good enough and it should only be five? Hell no.

Italy's win % in the competition = 15%
Argentina's win % since joining the tri nations (now Rugby championship) = just under 10%....

Go figure...
 
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

I don't think this would be possible in the next 10 years. If Argentina couldn't enter after having beaten France in Paris twice, beat England in Twickenham,beat Wales in Cardiff, and beat Ireland in 2 WCs
 
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 bud I totally agree. I think that Georgia and Romania should come into the competition after the next RWC and the 6 Nations competition should be made into 2 pools of 4 and then a semi final and final. A brutal tournament format but there's no way that you can have 7 games for each team is there? 2 pools with everyone playing each other then a semi and final. Also no bonus points in the pool stage- too messy.
 
Yes bud I totally agree. I think that Georgia and Romania should come into the competition after the next RWC and the 6 Nations competition should be made into 2 pools of 4 and then a semi final and final. A brutal tournament format but there's no way that you can have 7 games for each team is there? 2 pools with everyone playing each other then a semi and final. Also no bonus points in the pool stage- too messy.

That would lead to far too many pointless games which would achieve nothing other than weakening NH international rugby!!
 
A thought no more automatic qualification for the RWC and use part of the summer/autumn internationals for qualification games. It would ensure regular meaningful games against top tier opposition.
 
Because maybe Georgia should be there instead? Maybe you are right....

Because they aren't good enough and it should only be five? Hell no.

Italy's win % in the competition = 15%
Argentina's win % since joining the tri nations (now Rugby championship) = just under 10%....

Go figure...

Lol at comparing 6N's win rate to Rugby championships LOlOlOLololololollololololololoollll

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahah

Lol

What the NH win rate against aus, SA and NZ.

Lol.
 
Yes bud I totally agree. I think that Georgia and Romania should come into the competition after the next RWC and the 6 Nations competition should be made into 2 pools of 4 and then a semi final and final. A brutal tournament format but there's no way that you can have 7 games for each team is there? 2 pools with everyone playing each other then a semi and final. Also no bonus points in the pool stage- too messy.
Result: Less money for Ireland, Wales, Scotland and makes those nations less competitive while it still takes Georgia and Romania 15+ years to meet them in the middle. They should catch up and make the 6 nations take notice rather than try to get a pity entry to the elite European competition. Once they become sides that'd be lucrative for the 6 nations sides to play they'll get their entry, right now they're neither good enough nor interesting enough to join so the competition can do without them.
 
TBF I think Georgia could do well in the 6N's

Have a good pack an improving back line, promising U20 group.

Throw in a billionaire back which they have, lack of a major football team and Rugby could become massive there IMO given the right handling.
 
Result: Less money for Ireland, Wales, Scotland and makes those nations less competitive while it still takes Georgia and Romania 15+ years to meet them in the middle. They should catch up and make the 6 nations take notice rather than try to get a pity entry to the elite European competition. Once they become sides that'd be lucrative for the 6 nations sides to play they'll get their entry, right now they're neither good enough nor interesting enough to join so the competition can do without them.

I suppose, I never really thought about it from a business stand point but to honest I don't really care. I just want a bit of refreshment and I would love to see new teams in there, new whipping boys haha. We will get to see some fantastic ass whuppings for a few years at least!

Btw man, who said that in your sig? "My gin and tonics are better than your ***s" Is it a Dylan Moran quote?
 
I suppose, I never really thought about it from a business stand point but to honest I don't really care. I just want a bit of refreshment and I would love to see new teams in there, new whipping boys haha. We will get to see some fantastic ass whuppings for a few years at least!

Btw man, who said that in your sig? "My gin and tonics are better than your ***s" Is it a Dylan Moran quote?
Fair enough, it'd get boring soon enough though!

It's my quote, I make great G&T's in my far from humble opinion!
 
Because maybe Georgia should be there instead? Maybe you are right....

Because they aren't good enough and it should only be five? Hell no.

Italy's win % in the competition = 15%
Argentina's win % since joining the tri nations (now Rugby championship) = just under 10%....

Go figure...

In the RC, Argentina have to play only three sides, all of which have been consistently top 5 in the world. We don't have a Scotland or an Italy in our comp.

In the 6N, Italy have five sides to play, two of which have occupied rankings 6 to 12.

There is no comparison
 
In the RC, Argentina have to play only three sides, all of which have been consistently top 5 in the world. We don't have a Scotland or an Italy in our comp.

In the 6N, Italy have five sides to play, two of which have occupied rankings 6 to 12.

There is no comparison

And the Argies will be hard as ****ing nails in 5 years time. A real force.
 
That would lead to far too many pointless games which would achieve nothing other than weakening NH international rugby!!
utter BS... each and every 6N team has had more than enough time and resource to overtake the 4N but have they ??? umm no ?

there is a huge untapped market in Europe and the fact that this close doors system keeps everyone out IS the reason NH rugby has slacked... people know they won't be accepted so they don't bother.. why would they when there is a fair and open competition in form of Football and Basketball and ton of other sports that don't have the archaic system..

of-course it takes a hugely stubborn Georgia to compete and keep pushing the elites where everyone else would've just given up ages ago.

so lets look at the arguments against Georgia in this case...
1. Fixture congestion is a real problem, adding teams wouldn't work ?
ok fine
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.
- Bulll****e! the whole reason in expansion is more competition.. if you think Georgia are going to remain tier 2 level for a decade after the inclusion you are from another planet... Georgia will play JWC and you can see the example for yourself.. Georgians have raised talents that are as good as any tier 1 at the 17-21 age range, (Case in poitn: Vasil Lobzhanidze 18yr Merab Sharikadze 21yr Tamaz Mchedlidze 22yr. All putting great performancess on the world cup) its after that they find difficulties and fall behind due to the lack of exposure to the top club rugby.. but that will change soon as Georgia was recently allowed to compete internationally!

if England skips a year of playing Wales it won't end the friggin world as we know it.. in fact there will be more interest in the game whenever they do get to play and Georgia will not only bring more quality and entertainment but also a whole different style of rugby! The problem that rugby is facing now is the one that football faced in 40s and 50s... that tells you something about the outdated thinking of these rugby communities...
3. Promotion-relegation can mess up any kind of progress in Italy/Scotland.

I'm not in the relegation camp but if the whole country system depends on the performance of the national team on the 6N than THAT IS A CRAP SYSTEM! that needs to be changed overhauled or otherwise fixed. if they are not self sufficient after all these years that means they've been slacking too much.. how is it that Georgia can produce better talents at age grade as well as better forwards on any grade with minimal funding.. a fraction compared to Italy and Scotland really ? It's the enthusiasm that keeps them going and they don't look at the empty pocket every time you ask them to leave Clermont or Toulon for a month to go play with Russia in some village of siberia on a muddy and snowy stadium! risking injuries and what not... yet some 6N participants can't be bothered to get their hands dirty while being comforted and fed with a wooden spoon!

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.

Slightly promising for a short amount of time ? yes the constant progress for 20 years, the regular attendance of 40k + growth in the player base, huge imrovement in infrastructure and investments, self sufficient system and passionate fan-base makes for "slightly promising look for a small amount of time"/// that kind of attitude is all due to the myths and legends spread by lousy journalists that assume we practice rugby on parking lots and use tractors as scrum machines!

in fact by next year we would have completed 14 brand new venues all across the country add to that 3 already functioning Rugby venues and 2 35k and 50k national stadiums all of which will meet every international standard of WR and even UEFA - as some of the fields will be rented to local football clubs because Rugby infrastructure has overtaken every sport in the country be it in quality or quantity!! all these venues will be showcased in the JRWC which will be hosted by Georgia in 2017... and Georgia will bring out the squad that Beat Ireland and Italy on the u18 euros as well as the u19 squad that won JWRT to qualify for the 2016 JWRC...

If Georgia Doesn't deserve to play top rugby at this point than no team in the world does... including half of the 6N sides!
And if after all this you still think adding teams like Georgia will weaken the NH rugby... I say hi Mr. Feehan
 
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.

This. Why do they have to get into the 6N? make their own 6N. Georgia should join up with Romania, USA, Japan and Canada and there's a 5N tournament right there. Russia could join in a few years to make it six when they improve. Top teams can get games v touring sides in the Autumn windows.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top