Guinness SIX Nations 2021

walshb

What station is showing France v Scotland?

TheCitizen

Why is France Scotland off? Surely that game should be moved to a neutral venue. It makes no difference where it's played with no crowds etc.

Dubinusa

Italy have had some good u20 sides recently. Some of these lads are capped and hopefully they begin to play better. I hope they improve and add something to the championship.

sydthebeat

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why is France Scotland off? Surely that game should be moved to a neutral venue. It makes no difference where it's played with no crowds etc.

covid outbreak in french squad

Digifriendly

sydthebeat wrote: »

The very first one in 2000 in my opinion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Six_Nations_Championship_squads

Troncon, dominguez, bergamasco, mazzi,

Beat Scotland well and put 31 points up on France in Paris

In 2013 they beat both France and Ireland.

sydthebeat

Digifriendly wrote: »

In 2013 they beat both France and Ireland.

2013 france was a completely different kettle of fish to 2000 france

i still think that original Italian squad was the best in the 6N

Lost Ormond

sydthebeat wrote: »

2013 france was a completely different kettle of fish to 2000 france

i still think that original Italian squad was the best in the 6N

Very much so. Theyd beaten us several times. Beaten Scots a few times. If theyd had teams in celtic league from start it may have been quite a different first 20 years in 6 nations. Domingeuz, Le Cicero and others far better than the current players

fonecrusher1

hahashake wrote: »

A shame that they have been whipping boys for a while, I know rugby is a minor sport there but they have a large population and it is fairly popular in the northeast.

21 years 15 wooden spoons and very little progress to speak of. In fact you could say they're getting worse with 30 losses on trot now. We've been waiting for them to push on year after year. How long more to wait until they become an actual attribute to the Nations competition? And I don't mean push on and win I mean just offer some sort of challenge to the other teams on consistent basis. I say give Georgia, Romania or some other European national team a crack.

OldRio

Oh dear.

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1366304522981752842?s=20

lawred2

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

21 years 15 wooden spoons and very little progress to speak of. In fact you could say they're getting worse with 30 losses on trot now. We've been waiting for them to push on year after year. How long more to wait until they become an actual attribute to the Nations competition? And I don't mean push on and win I mean just offer some sort of challenge to the other teams on consistent basis. I say give Georgia, Romania or some other European national team a crack.

not a hope

seriously - at least Italy brings money, a bit of glamour and trips to Rome to the competition..

There's no value to the six nations in replacing Italy with Georgia or Romania

Podge_irl

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

21 years 15 wooden spoons and very little progress to speak of. In fact you could say they're getting worse with 30 losses on trot now. We've been waiting for them to push on year after year. How long more to wait until they become an actual attribute to the Nations competition? And I don't mean push on and win I mean just offer some sort of challenge to the other teams on consistent basis. I say give Georgia, Romania or some other European national team a crack.

There is absolutely no point in giving any one else "a crack". They certainly won't be better for at least 5 years, and probably an awful lot longer.

Sangre

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is absolutely no point in giving any one else "a crack". They certainly won't be better for at least 5 years, and probably an awful lot longer.

The solution to this problem always seems to be to replace Italy with a worse team with less financial resources. As much as it annoys people, bar the odd upset Italy are the best of the second tier in Europe.

One point that gets overlooked a lot in my opinion when looking at Italy's track record is that the rest of the six nations are better rugby nations than 2000 as well. Of course there are ups and downs but Ireland and Scotland in particular are simply much better teams than they were 20 years ago.

Dickie10

Dickie10 wrote: »

can wales beat england? i think its 50-50 game. would love if they pulled it off, could go down to wire on last day then, wales v france in paris both going for the slam it would a classic, wales v france games usualy are. i have a sneaky feeling scotland could turn france over they were not brilliant against ireland , should have put 35 points on ireland , 15 was poor return. wales wont gove england much room they have blueprint from scotland on how to go about beating england

not surprised Wales did a job on england, luck or not putting 40 points on england is unheard of in 6 nations rugby usually. This Welsh team are no mugs only media are who ever thought they were a dud. too many payers who love the big occassion and have seen and done it all. it was a brilliant win. i get the distinct whiff off irish media and even some irish fans that they would have liked to see England and Eddie Jones win?! what the heck is that all about? please God wales go on now and finsh the job.

thomond2006

There will be very little TV money from Romania or Georgia and there would be big travel costs travelling to Georgia.

CONSI

Would the solution be to bring South Africa in as team 6 at Italys expense, with the SA's continued connection with european rugby...Italy play in a tier 2 competition, win games and then have a playoff against the team that come last in 6 nations to come up...

CONSI

CONSI wrote: »

Would the solution be to bring South Africa in as team 6 at Italys expense, with the SA's continued connection with european rugby...Italy play in a tier 2 competition, win games and then have a playoff against the team that come last in 6 nations to come up...

Just like the AI Hurling(Munster more so), it's all well and good until the second tier team puts one of the traditional teams down, then it'll be a problem.

Can you imagine if we got relegated and spent a min of a year out?.

aloooof

Sangre wrote: »

The solution to this problem always seems to be to replace Italy with a worse team with less financial resources. As much as it annoys people, bar the odd upset Italy are the best of the second tier in Europe.

One point that gets overlooked a lot in my opinion when looking at Italy's track record is that the rest of the six nations are better rugby nations than 2000 as well. Of course there are ups and downs but Ireland and Scotland in particular are simply much better teams than they were 20 years ago.

In terms of growing the game, I wonder would Italy ever be a candidate for hosting the RWC? I'd imagine they'd need a good number of football stadiums on board, which could be difficult in September/October.

Bridge93

14 of the Italian 6N squad is 23 or younger. Minozzi/Polledri/Steyn missing for various reasons. Would be interesting to see whether there is an improvement over the next few years in them. But they cant just keep getting hammered week after week

TomsOnTheRoof

OldRio wrote: »

Oh dear.

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1366304522981752842?s=20

What's especially galling is that they put forward a number of theories about how it got into camp, one of them being that they contracted it from us. Laporte had no issue causing massive disruption on our end just to muddy the waters and protect Galthie.

fonecrusher1

lawred2 wrote: »

not a hope

seriously - at least Italy brings money, a bit of glamour and trips to Rome to the competition..

There's no value to the six nations in replacing Italy with Georgia or Romania

So your contributions are do nothing so. Just keep it as it is.....

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is absolutely no point in giving any one else "a crack". They certainly won't be better for at least 5 years, and probably an awful lot longer.

I'd rather see another team get better after 5 yrs than wait another 20 years for Italy to catch up.

awec

If Italy haven't improved after 20 years then other teams certainly aren't going to after 5. Italy are crap, it seems obvious now they'll always be crap. Georgia and Romania are both worse, and the Georgians have the added complication of being geographically isolated which makes integration into the league difficult (and this would have to be a prerequisite to them joining the 6N).

The only potential team to join who would have instantly improved things was South Africa but they've recently committed to the Rugby Championship until 2030.

Tommybojangles

This might seem naive, but what is the harm in Italy? I always watch their games, in fact I enjoy them because any Italy score is to be celebrated. Its 3 games a weekend instead of 2. They improved slowly for a while and peaked in 2013, then fell away again. Personally I reckon they'll be competitive to that level again in a few years, and I'd love to see it but it doesn't stress me too much if they get the wooden spoon.

The inclusion of other countries is a bit moot really, Georgia etc. Worse than Italy were when they joined, worse now and would contribute half as much to the tournament in terms of cash, interest etc.

Go Italy!

Podge_irl

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'd rather see another team get better after 5 yrs than wait another 20 years for Italy to catch up.

But why would Georgia or Romania improve any quicker? There is absolutely no logical reason to think they would.

fonecrusher1

Podge_irl wrote: »

But why would Georgia or Romania improve any quicker? There is absolutely no logical reason to think they would.

I don't know that they would improve any quicker. How are you able to say with such conviction that they would not? Is it not worth consideration?

I know its great to see Ireland pile on the points against Italy and pat each other on the back but really a win against them especially this year essentially means nothing. Other than adding to our points tally. I suspect some people enjoy this contribution that Italy makes more than anything.

I was delighted to see Italy introduced in 2000 and i've always cheered them on but they've been nothing more than whipping boys for 95% of the last 20 years with some minor and temporary improved patches occasionally.

Was it not the intention of adding Italy so that they would eventually improve and somewhat match the other teams thus offering another northern hemisphere rugby force?

lawred2

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

So your contributions are do nothing so. Just keep it as it is.....



I'd rather see another team get better after 5 yrs than wait another 20 years for Italy to catch up.

It's not about me.

But show me what the benefits are to the six nations in replacing Italy with Romania or Georgia?

Dr. Bre

lawred2 wrote: »

It's not about me.

But show me what the benefits are to the six nations in replacing Italy with Romania or Georgia?

Replace them with Safrica and a grand slam will never be done again . Well maybe Safrica could !

Podge_irl

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I don't know that they would improve any quicker. How are you able to say with such conviction that they would not? Is it not worth consideration?

Because they have worse underage structures, they have fewer professional teams, they have fewer professional players, they have displayed nothing like the level that Italy displayed in the 90s before their accession into the 6N, they have smaller local markets and less money.

There is absolutely no logical reason to expect Georgia or Romania to be anything but somewhat to significantly worse than Italy.

fonecrusher1

Podge_irl wrote: »

Because they have worse underage structures, they have fewer professional teams, they have fewer professional players, they have displayed nothing like the level that Italy displayed in the 90s before their accession into the 6N, they have smaller local markets and less money.

Yet Italy are still the whipping boys for the last 20 yrs.

You're happy to leave things as they are so?

irishbucsfan

There’s absolutely no argument whatsoever for adding Romania or Georgia if your target is to improve the quality or profitability of the 6 Nations in the short term.

ionadnapokot

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

What's especially galling is that they put forward a number of theories about how it got into camp, one of them being that they contracted it from us. Laporte had no issue causing massive disruption on our end just to muddy the waters and protect Galthie.

I think France might have to forfeit the the Scotland game now.

fonecrusher1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There’s absolutely no argument whatsoever for adding Romania or Georgia if your target is to improve the quality or profitability of the 6 Nations in the short term.

I'm not necessarily saying it has to be Georgia or Romania. I'm just saying change needs to happen.

fonecrusher1

lawred2 wrote: »

It's not about me.

But show me what the benefits are to the six nations in replacing Italy with Romania or Georgia?

Again not saying it has to be Romania or Georgia. What are the benefits of having Italy as whipping boys for another 20 years?

BonnieSituation

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Just like the AI Hurling(Munster more so), it's all well and good until the second tier team puts one of the traditional teams down, then it'll be a problem.

Can you imagine if we got relegated and spent a min of a year out?.

Probably shouldn't have been so shíte to finish bottom then and then lose a playoff to the euro championship winner.

BonnieSituation

ionadnapokot wrote: »

I think France might have to forfeit the the Scotland game now.

I think they should be kicked out. Yes. That should do it.

ionadnapokot

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I think they should be kicked out. Yes. That should do it.

Then Wales would win it!!

lalababa

There should be a tier 2 european competition before the six nations with the winner getting into the six nations. This would engender competition with reward and also give Italy a leg up gametime /tactictime wise. Win win.

irishbucsfan

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'm not necessarily saying it has to be Georgia or Romania. I'm just saying change needs to happen.

What change in that case?

irishbucsfan

lalababa wrote: »

There should be a tier 2 european competition before the six nations with the winner getting into the six nations. This would engender competition with reward and also give Italy a leg up gametime /tactictime wise. Win win.

Then there’s a real chance you would end up with amateur and semi-pro players playing in the 6 Nations

lawred2

lalababa wrote: »

There should be a tier 2 european competition before the six nations with the winner getting into the six nations. This would engender competition with reward and also give Italy a leg up gametime /tactictime wise. Win win.

The winner should at best get a two leg tie against the bottom team of the six nations

UAEguy2020

I don’t remember this same chatter about tier 2 games when France beat Italy just as badly...

Podge_irl

Italy have won more games in their first 21 seasons than France did in theirs...

I'm far from happy with Italy's performances. But unless your suggestion is replacing them with SA by some feat of voodoo, then the only realistic option should be further investment in Italian rugby. Because there is no better team sitting there waiting to be unleashed on the European stage.

awec

Tommybojangles wrote: »

This might seem naive, but what is the harm in Italy? I always watch their games, in fact I enjoy them because any Italy score is to be celebrated. Its 3 games a weekend instead of 2. They improved slowly for a while and peaked in 2013, then fell away again. Personally I reckon they'll be competitive to that level again in a few years, and I'd love to see it but it doesn't stress me too much if they get the wooden spoon.

The inclusion of other countries is a bit moot really, Georgia etc. Worse than Italy were when they joined, worse now and would contribute half as much to the tournament in terms of cash, interest etc.

Go Italy!

I find most of their games boring tbh cause the result is a foregone conclusion the majority of the time.

It's just a question of how badly they're going to be humped.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

Italy have won more games in their first 21 seasons than France did in theirs...

I'm far from happy with Italy's performances. But unless your suggestion is replacing them with SA by some feat of voodoo, then the only realistic option should be further investment in Italian rugby. Because there is no better team sitting there waiting to be unleashed on the European stage.

I think if there was the slightest chance of SA being available for the 6 Nations Italy would be dropped as quickly as legally possible

BonnieSituation

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Then Wales would win it!!

I completely forgot my weekends. Scratch that. Eugh.

ionadnapokot

I assume you aren't Scottish "Bonnie"! .....right now yet another GS looks inevitable for Wales!

But..... if France have to forfeit Scottish game - Scotland have a good chance of winning the Championship.
(if given the full 5 pts)

Redpath looks the real deal at 12. Although he may still be out injured for Ireland game

penybont exile

ionadnapokot wrote: »

I assume you aren't Scottish "Bonnie"! .....right now yet another GS looks inevitable for Wales!

But..... if France have to forfeit Scottish game - Scotland have a good chance of winning the Championship.
(if given the full 5 pts)

Redpath looks the real deal at 12. Although he may still be out injured for Ireland game

I'd take my chances with that if it gets the whole thing done and dusted on March 20th ......

fonecrusher1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What change in that case?

Add another team & possibly introduce some sort of 2 tier system or relegation type feature. Its worth consideration at least. Anything to offer some sort of incentive for them (Italy) to do better.

Other than being great for scalping points between the genuinely competitive games I can't see how changing nothing and having another 20 years of Italy as whipping boys is going to benefit the competition.

Podge_irl

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Add another team & possibly introduce some sort of 2 tier system or relegation type feature. Its worth consideration at least. Anything to offer some sort of incentive for them (Italy) to do better.

You think they're not doing better cause they just couldn't be bothered?

Lost Ormond

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Add another team & possibly introduce some sort of 2 tier system or relegation type feature. Its worth consideration at least. Anything to offer some sort of incentive for them (Italy) to do better.

Other than being great for scalping points between the genuinely competitive games I can't see how changing nothing and having another 20 years of Italy as whipping boys is going to benefit the competition.

Adding another team isnt going to help anyone. Opening up promotion and relegation between the 6 Nations and the rest of europe's international rugby teams which all have promotion and relegation in the european nations cup sounds great but you have to figure out how to replace the income from not playing in the 6 nations to do that considering how vital the 6 nations is to all the unions.
Italy didnt have their club teams playing celtic league until 10 years ago which didnt help them at all in the 6 nations. Replacing Italy with sides that arent going to be stronger than them does nothing to benefit the 6 nations overall.

All the european nations need to play the next best far more. Georgia have played full 6 nations sides feck all times. Most theyve played any country is 5 times. They need yearly tests in Autumn and Summer against the best.

TomsOnTheRoof

ionadnapokot wrote: »

I think France might have to forfeit the the Scotland game now.

To be honest I think it's only fair. Otherwise the Scots are going to be without their French and English contingents.