Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Guinness SIX Nations 2021

1202123252644

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭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...


  • Posts: 6,455 [Deleted User]


    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?.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,518 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭TomsOnTheRoof


    OldRio 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Administrators Posts: 55,018 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 460 ✭✭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!


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,741 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,838 ✭✭✭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 !


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭ionadnapóca


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭fonecrusher1


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭ionadnapóca


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

    Then Wales would win it!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,759 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,741 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,119 ✭✭✭UAEguy2020


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


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Administrators Posts: 55,018 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭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


Advertisement