International Rugby

[Jon Crofts]

Not a big Rugby fan at all but do watch a few more of the games when the 6 nations is on.

When was the last time out of interest a national team won the competition when they had just 2 home games in their fixture list....England always seem to win it when they're scheduled with 3 home games although I could be completely wrong on that! (Which I am given they won it last year).

I'd much rather see if it was possible them all to play 3 home and 3 away in the tournament. It's a bit like 10 premier league sides playing more homes and the other 10 teams have one more away game, it just distorts things a little bit as we saw tonight how massive home advantage is in Rugby.

Each team only plays 5 games, so it's  difficult to play 3 & 3 😊

England won it last year with 2 home games and I fully expect them to do the same next year.

[paul_e]

Not a big Rugby fan at all but do watch a few more of the games when the 6 nations is on.

When was the last time out of interest a national team won the competition when they had just 2 home games in their fixture list....England always seem to win it when they're scheduled with 3 home games although I could be completely wrong on that! (Which I am given they won it last year).

I'd much rather see if it was possible them all to play 3 home and 3 away in the tournament. It's a bit like 10 premier league sides playing more homes and the other 10 teams have one more away game, it just distorts things a little bit as we saw tonight how massive home advantage is in Rugby.

Each team only plays 5 games, so it's  difficult to play 3 & 3 😊

I was on more about the posters below are saying...let in Georgia and then you can have 3 home and aways with one team not playing each weekend (although it would stagger the competition out a bit longer).

I think that and remove the break weekends or add Georgia and another (Russia/Romania) and have 2 groups and then playoffs/finals would be my choice.

[AV82EC]

Not a big Rugby fan at all but do watch a few more of the games when the 6 nations is on.

When was the last time out of interest a national team won the competition when they had just 2 home games in their fixture list....England always seem to win it when they're scheduled with 3 home games although I could be completely wrong on that! (Which I am given they won it last year).

I'd much rather see if it was possible them all to play 3 home and 3 away in the tournament. It's a bit like 10 premier league sides playing more homes and the other 10 teams have one more away game, it just distorts things a little bit as we saw tonight how massive home advantage is in Rugby.

Each team only plays 5 games, so it's  difficult to play 3 & 3 😊

I was on more about the posters below are saying...let in Georgia and then you can have 3 home and aways with one team not playing each weekend (although it would stagger the competition out a bit longer).

I think that and remove the break weekends or add Georgia and another (Russia/Romania) and have 2 groups and then playoffs/finals would be my choice.

Agree with this, 2 groups of 4 then top 2 in each group into semis and a Final, bottom 4 into play offs to avoid relegation. Romania have beaten Georgia today to finish top of the Champnship so them and Georgia could quite easily step up and have a go. Think that would guarantee everyone 5 games.

Then again this is Rugby, it'll never happen.

[nigel]

Not a big Rugby fan at all but do watch a few more of the games when the 6 nations is on.

When was the last time out of interest a national team won the competition when they had just 2 home games in their fixture list....England always seem to win it when they're scheduled with 3 home games although I could be completely wrong on that! (Which I am given they won it last year).

I'd much rather see if it was possible them all to play 3 home and 3 away in the tournament. It's a bit like 10 premier league sides playing more homes and the other 10 teams have one more away game, it just distorts things a little bit as we saw tonight how massive home advantage is in Rugby.

Each team only plays 5 games, so it's  difficult to play 3 & 3 😊

I was on more about the posters below are saying...let in Georgia and then you can have 3 home and aways with one team not playing each weekend (although it would stagger the competition out a bit longer).

I think that and remove the break weekends or add Georgia and another (Russia/Romania) and have 2 groups and then playoffs/finals would be my choice.

Agree with this, 2 groups of 4 then top 2 in each group into semis and a Final, bottom 4 into play offs to avoid relegation. Romania have beaten Georgia today to finish top of the Champnship so them and Georgia could quite easily step up and have a go. Think that would guarantee everyone 5 games.

Then again this is Rugby, it'll never happen.

Don't think the clubs would be happy at losing their best players for so long.

[paul_e]

Not a big Rugby fan at all but do watch a few more of the games when the 6 nations is on.

When was the last time out of interest a national team won the competition when they had just 2 home games in their fixture list....England always seem to win it when they're scheduled with 3 home games although I could be completely wrong on that! (Which I am given they won it last year).

I'd much rather see if it was possible them all to play 3 home and 3 away in the tournament. It's a bit like 10 premier league sides playing more homes and the other 10 teams have one more away game, it just distorts things a little bit as we saw tonight how massive home advantage is in Rugby.

Each team only plays 5 games, so it's  difficult to play 3 & 3 😊

I was on more about the posters below are saying...let in Georgia and then you can have 3 home and aways with one team not playing each weekend (although it would stagger the competition out a bit longer).

I think that and remove the break weekends or add Georgia and another (Russia/Romania) and have 2 groups and then playoffs/finals would be my choice.

Agree with this, 2 groups of 4 then top 2 in each group into semis and a Final, bottom 4 into play offs to avoid relegation. Romania have beaten Georgia today to finish top of the Champnship so them and Georgia could quite easily step up and have a go. Think that would guarantee everyone 5 games.

Then again this is Rugby, it'll never happen.

Don't think the clubs would be happy at losing their best players for so long.

3 group games, a semi and a final (with every team playing for ranks for the next season). 5 games just like now.  I wouldn't add relegation as described though, I'd do it after a world cup year and have is a cumulative 4 year cycle.

[nigel]

It's starting to sound a little complicated now.
There's not a great deal wrong with how it's run at the moment.

There's a case for dropping Italy as they just haven't improved over the years. They did start to, but the last two years they seem to have gone backwards. It would be a shame, but, They won't improve by getting thumped every game.
I think Italy, and other emerging nations, should look at Argentina's model. What a success story that is.

My view is along the lines of:
1/Go back to the original 5 nations
2/Drop Italy into a second division with the likes of Georgia, Romania and a couple of others. With the World being a pretty small place these days even Canada and Japan could be thought of.
3/No automatic promotion, but, If a 2nd tier team wins it, say, 3 on the bounce they get a crack at the bottom team above. Home and away.

[peter w]

I wouldn't want Italy dropped out of it because rugby needs to expand rather than constrict. There is a case for Georgia at the moment but what is their infrastructure like? Are they just in the throes of a purple period, such as Romania enjoyed in the 80s? If the latter adding them will bring nothing. I think adding one more would be okay but would a 7 Nations really be viable over a longer period - or attractive enough? I wouldn't have relelgation otherwise we may as well scrap the Northern and Southern Hemisphere competitions and just have a top 8 World Rugby League. Then the bottom could play top of a feeder. But would Georgia be able to fund trips to Fiji, Samoa, Tonga And vice versa?

So that is unworkable. If it is to be a European League then the 6 Nations should be the pinnacle of the sport. 6 it is. The emerging nations can have a shadow contest - I don't know - Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the regularity and strength in that contest could see top lay botom f 6 Nations. Eventually. Test matches need to be found in the summer, though, for matches against georgia ad the like. Even if it is B teams.

[paul_e]

The thing is the smaller teams won't improve by being in a league 2 and one of them playing a big boy every 5-6 years.  If we really want to see major improvement we need to make the competition bigger and get more of the smaller sides playing against the big teams regularly.  As you said, Italy had improved a lot before this recent slump through the exposure to the higher level of competition, unfortunately they're in a slump right now because they have a lot of players who aren't ready for internationals yet but who are playing.  Take the weekend for example, they missed 3 fairly straightforward penalties when the game was still tight.  If Canna had put the 3rd of those over it'd have been 15-9 and you're looking at a different game.

I'd like to see them have a chance at winning a game a little more often but I'd rather do that by expanding rather than making things more elitist at the top.  A possible alternative could be to have 1 in 4 that's the expanded version.  I think a minimum 4 year cycle is important though, teams need to be given time to adapt to the higher standard and any swapping around before that would just be pointless.

[UK Redsox]

I wouldn't want Italy dropped out of it because rugby needs to expand rather than constrict. There is a case for Georgia at the moment but what is their infrastructure like? Are they just in the throes of a purple period, such as Romania enjoyed in the 80s? If the latter adding them will bring nothing. I think adding one more would be okay but would a 7 Nations really be viable over a longer period - or attractive enough? I wouldn't have relelgation otherwise we may as well scrap the Northern and Southern Hemisphere competitions and just have a top 8 World Rugby League. Then the bottom could play top of a feeder. But would Georgia be able to fund trips to Fiji, Samoa, Tonga And vice versa?

So that is unworkable. If it is to be a European League then the 6 Nations should be the pinnacle of the sport. 6 it is. The emerging nations can have a shadow contest - I don't know - Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the regularity and strength in that contest could see top lay botom f 6 Nations. Eventually. Test matches need to be found in the summer, though, for matches against georgia ad the like. Even if it is B teams.

The structure is already in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Rugby_Europe_International_Championships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Europe_International_Championships


I'd like to see the winners play the 6 Nations 6th place finisher in a playoff for a place in the next 6 Nations

[paul_e]

I wouldn't want Italy dropped out of it because rugby needs to expand rather than constrict. There is a case for Georgia at the moment but what is their infrastructure like? Are they just in the throes of a purple period, such as Romania enjoyed in the 80s? If the latter adding them will bring nothing. I think adding one more would be okay but would a 7 Nations really be viable over a longer period - or attractive enough? I wouldn't have relelgation otherwise we may as well scrap the Northern and Southern Hemisphere competitions and just have a top 8 World Rugby League. Then the bottom could play top of a feeder. But would Georgia be able to fund trips to Fiji, Samoa, Tonga And vice versa?

So that is unworkable. If it is to be a European League then the 6 Nations should be the pinnacle of the sport. 6 it is. The emerging nations can have a shadow contest - I don't know - Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the regularity and strength in that contest could see top lay botom f 6 Nations. Eventually. Test matches need to be found in the summer, though, for matches against georgia ad the like. Even if it is B teams.

I missed this one, you must've posted whilst I was replying to Nigel.  Georgia has the infrastructure, they have a 50k+ stadium and regularly sell out games, put them against the big european sides and they'd fill it with ease.  It's their main national sport so the recognition of being a top tier side would be huge for them.  On top of that they have, in my opinion, one of the best 8s of all time as their current captain, anyone who's watched any French rugby in the last decade will know that Gorgodze is a force of nature.

[nigel]

The thing is the smaller teams won't improve by being in a league 2 and one of them playing a big boy every 5-6 years.  If we really want to see major improvement we need to make the competition bigger and get more of the smaller sides playing against the big teams regularly.  As you said, Italy had improved a lot before this recent slump through the exposure to the higher level of competition, unfortunately they're in a slump right now because they have a lot of players who aren't ready for internationals yet but who are playing.  Take the weekend for example, they missed 3 fairly straightforward penalties when the game was still tight.  If Canna had put the 3rd of those over it'd have been 15-9 and you're looking at a different game.

I'd like to see them have a chance at winning a game a little more often but I'd rather do that by expanding rather than making things more elitist at the top.  A possible alternative could be to have 1 in 4 that's the expanded version.  I think a minimum 4 year cycle is important though, teams need to be given time to adapt to the higher standard and any swapping around before that would just be pointless.

Fair points,  Paul.
I think if you asked 100 people you'd get 100 different solutions.

Maybe something along the lines of 2 'divisions' but the 2nd tier teams have to be invited to play at least two games in the Autumn internationals. I think that's a long the route Argentina took, although I'm not 100% sure of that.

[paul_e]

The thing is the smaller teams won't improve by being in a league 2 and one of them playing a big boy every 5-6 years.  If we really want to see major improvement we need to make the competition bigger and get more of the smaller sides playing against the big teams regularly.  As you said, Italy had improved a lot before this recent slump through the exposure to the higher level of competition, unfortunately they're in a slump right now because they have a lot of players who aren't ready for internationals yet but who are playing.  Take the weekend for example, they missed 3 fairly straightforward penalties when the game was still tight.  If Canna had put the 3rd of those over it'd have been 15-9 and you're looking at a different game.

I'd like to see them have a chance at winning a game a little more often but I'd rather do that by expanding rather than making things more elitist at the top.  A possible alternative could be to have 1 in 4 that's the expanded version.  I think a minimum 4 year cycle is important though, teams need to be given time to adapt to the higher standard and any swapping around before that would just be pointless.

Fair points,  Paul.
I think if you asked 100 people you'd get 100 different solutions.

Maybe something along the lines of 2 'divisions' but the 2nd tier teams have to be invited to play at least two games in the Autumn internationals. I think that's a long the route Argentina took, although I'm not 100% sure of that.

Absolutely, that's what makes it so difficult, no one wants to see a team lose most of their games (like Italy) but teams winning most of their games against poor teams with no hope of being allowed to play at a higher standard is just as bad.  I really feel for sides like Georgia/Romania (and Canada/USA/Japan) because they have the talent and infrastructure to progress but even when they do play the big sides it tends to be a XV rather than the first choice team so they learn nothing other than they're not far off competing with the Irish Wolfhounds, etc.  Then we get a world cup they put in 1 or 2 decent performances and people act surprised before ignoring them for another 4 years.  The attitude needs to be far more inclusive if the sport is to develop further.

[nigel]

The thing is the smaller teams won't improve by being in a league 2 and one of them playing a big boy every 5-6 years.  If we really want to see major improvement we need to make the competition bigger and get more of the smaller sides playing against the big teams regularly.  As you said, Italy had improved a lot before this recent slump through the exposure to the higher level of competition, unfortunately they're in a slump right now because they have a lot of players who aren't ready for internationals yet but who are playing.  Take the weekend for example, they missed 3 fairly straightforward penalties when the game was still tight.  If Canna had put the 3rd of those over it'd have been 15-9 and you're looking at a different game.

I'd like to see them have a chance at winning a game a little more often but I'd rather do that by expanding rather than making things more elitist at the top.  A possible alternative could be to have 1 in 4 that's the expanded version.  I think a minimum 4 year cycle is important though, teams need to be given time to adapt to the higher standard and any swapping around before that would just be pointless.

Fair points,  Paul.
I think if you asked 100 people you'd get 100 different solutions.

Maybe something along the lines of 2 'divisions' but the 2nd tier teams have to be invited to play at least two games in the Autumn internationals. I think that's a long the route Argentina took, although I'm not 100% sure of that.

Absolutely, that's what makes it so difficult, no one wants to see a team lose most of their games (like Italy) but teams winning most of their games against poor teams with no hope of being allowed to play at a higher standard is just as bad.  I really feel for sides like Georgia/Romania (and Canada/USA/Japan) because they have the talent and infrastructure to progress but even when they do play the big sides it tends to be a XV rather than the first choice team so they learn nothing other than they're not far off competing with the Irish Wolfhounds, etc.  Then we get a world cup they put in 1 or 2 decent performances and people act surprised before ignoring them for another 4 years.  The attitude needs to be far more inclusive if the sport is to develop further.

That's right, Paul, I reckon between us we could restructure World Rugby. 

[paul_e]

The thing is the smaller teams won't improve by being in a league 2 and one of them playing a big boy every 5-6 years.  If we really want to see major improvement we need to make the competition bigger and get more of the smaller sides playing against the big teams regularly.  As you said, Italy had improved a lot before this recent slump through the exposure to the higher level of competition, unfortunately they're in a slump right now because they have a lot of players who aren't ready for internationals yet but who are playing.  Take the weekend for example, they missed 3 fairly straightforward penalties when the game was still tight.  If Canna had put the 3rd of those over it'd have been 15-9 and you're looking at a different game.

I'd like to see them have a chance at winning a game a little more often but I'd rather do that by expanding rather than making things more elitist at the top.  A possible alternative could be to have 1 in 4 that's the expanded version.  I think a minimum 4 year cycle is important though, teams need to be given time to adapt to the higher standard and any swapping around before that would just be pointless.

Fair points,  Paul.
I think if you asked 100 people you'd get 100 different solutions.

Maybe something along the lines of 2 'divisions' but the 2nd tier teams have to be invited to play at least two games in the Autumn internationals. I think that's a long the route Argentina took, although I'm not 100% sure of that.

Absolutely, that's what makes it so difficult, no one wants to see a team lose most of their games (like Italy) but teams winning most of their games against poor teams with no hope of being allowed to play at a higher standard is just as bad.  I really feel for sides like Georgia/Romania (and Canada/USA/Japan) because they have the talent and infrastructure to progress but even when they do play the big sides it tends to be a XV rather than the first choice team so they learn nothing other than they're not far off competing with the Irish Wolfhounds, etc.  Then we get a world cup they put in 1 or 2 decent performances and people act surprised before ignoring them for another 4 years.  The attitude needs to be far more inclusive if the sport is to develop further.

That's right, Paul, I reckon between us we could restructure World Rugby. 

I'd love to, first order of business would be feeding at the scrum, followed by throwing straight at the line out and lots of videos of why Richie McCaw is a fucking cheat.

[nigel]

The thing is the smaller teams won't improve by being in a league 2 and one of them playing a big boy every 5-6 years.  If we really want to see major improvement we need to make the competition bigger and get more of the smaller sides playing against the big teams regularly.  As you said, Italy had improved a lot before this recent slump through the exposure to the higher level of competition, unfortunately they're in a slump right now because they have a lot of players who aren't ready for internationals yet but who are playing.  Take the weekend for example, they missed 3 fairly straightforward penalties when the game was still tight.  If Canna had put the 3rd of those over it'd have been 15-9 and you're looking at a different game.

I'd like to see them have a chance at winning a game a little more often but I'd rather do that by expanding rather than making things more elitist at the top.  A possible alternative could be to have 1 in 4 that's the expanded version.  I think a minimum 4 year cycle is important though, teams need to be given time to adapt to the higher standard and any swapping around before that would just be pointless.

Fair points,  Paul.
I think if you asked 100 people you'd get 100 different solutions.

Maybe something along the lines of 2 'divisions' but the 2nd tier teams have to be invited to play at least two games in the Autumn internationals. I think that's a long the route Argentina took, although I'm not 100% sure of that.

Absolutely, that's what makes it so difficult, no one wants to see a team lose most of their games (like Italy) but teams winning most of their games against poor teams with no hope of being allowed to play at a higher standard is just as bad.  I really feel for sides like Georgia/Romania (and Canada/USA/Japan) because they have the talent and infrastructure to progress but even when they do play the big sides it tends to be a XV rather than the first choice team so they learn nothing other than they're not far off competing with the Irish Wolfhounds, etc.  Then we get a world cup they put in 1 or 2 decent performances and people act surprised before ignoring them for another 4 years.  The attitude needs to be far more inclusive if the sport is to develop further.

That's right, Paul, I reckon between us we could restructure World Rugby. 

I'd love to, first order of business would be feeding at the scrum, followed by throwing straight at the line out and lots of videos of why Richie McCaw is a fucking cheat.

Richie McCaw, a cheat?? Never 😊