General Rugby Discussion 3

Italy is an odd one, they bring next to nothing to either the URC or the 6N but kicking them out just lessens the amount of countries playing at the top level, I don’t see Georgia actually overtaking them but then without the advantages Italy have they can’t really improve.

ultimately I think a grand plan is needed to bring the second tier of European nations along but it would take a huge leap in funding to make that go anywhere.

Controversially I also believe Italy always losing actually is good for everyone. 5 game round robins are inherently unfair because some teams get 3 home games and others only get 2. It is balanced by the fact that everyone always had their third game against Italy (whether is home or away). So every country effectively has 2 material home games, 2 material away games. And one exhibition match for their seconds.

The success of their U20 teams gives hope that they aren't too far away from competing. Particularly if they've finally found some quality half backs.

What's your measurement of success here? Do they need to win it to stay in? Do they need to win a certain % of games?

Because whatever metric you choose, their "successor" will sure as day fail it too.

Not only that, you can't have an "Italy metric", so the metric will need to apply to all teams. So if one of the other teams has a bad year, will they be dumped out?

Ther record over the past few years has been shocking , nothing against Italy ther victory against Wales was brilliant - but I dont agree with closed shop competition , the bottom team in 6 Nations should play the winners of the confernce, in a 2 legged playoff , isnt that what competition is about, ther has to be consequences, or should be.

I get the argument that there's no jeopardy but introducing jeopardy won't change a thing. Having two teams perpetually rotate in and out is only going to weaken Italy further. I fully agree that the improvements made by Italy are either glacial or non-existent depending on the year but they'll only get worse if you take away facing 6N sides every second year.

The other side of it is the commercial aspect. Six Nations will never ever risk one of its members not qualifying for its competition. The impact (albeit unlikely) of an England or France not being in the competition is unfathomable commercially. And it was only 9 years ago that France came last in the Six Nations. A change ain't gonna happen.

it could be made to work and give every team 5 games. Top 2 from each group go into a semi and then a final/3rd place playoff. And bottom 2 go into their own comp.

So each team gets 3 group games, a semi and then another game to determine final positioning. You'd obviously lose the triple crown but would maintain the 5 games.

Source?

Yeah, it's hard to see any version of events in which IRFU swap a game against England for a game against Georgia

But why would IRFU want to give up on the thousands and thousands of Scots who travel over for games compared to the tiny number of Georgians who would come to games here. We have people complaining about prices of tickets. you wouldnt expect 6 Nations tickets for a Georgian game to be at the same price as the others.

There is a huge difference between Scotland and Georgia. If you are losing annual games against your traditional rivals and not guaranteeing fixtures every year and repllacing them with games against Georgia etc then you are not going to get that much extra money if any. It doesnt make sense to do it

I thought this 20s tournament was just a placeholder for the covid cancelled 20s World Cup rather than a conscious change of direction?

If South Africa were to join what evidence is there that they would add a second to balance things at an even number? Georgia have won every title since 2006 bar 2 in the european nations cup and theyve played the 6 nations sides feck all times in that time especially out of games in world cup group stages. So what gives you the idea the 6 Nations have any interest in adding them to their main earner of the year?

As said already very easy to add a team to play 20s. The world cup at 20s has teams playing 5 games in 17/18 days. There is nothing to suggest the 6 nations are going to change anything from their conservative nature and add Georgia.

Far more likely Spain or Portugal would join before Georgia.

"South Africa have told the southern hemisphere’s governing body they are exploring their option of joining the Six Nations after 2025 as plans for a major overhaul of the global calendar gather pace."

"committed to the Rugby Championship" isn't quite how I'd describe that.

With their club teams already playing here in the URC & ERCC its the only logical/practical outcome though really. Nevermind the huge additional timezone and financial considerations (for both SARU and the existing 6N countries) that also support the move. Its more a matter of 'when' than 'if' at this stage.

Yeah, that's having their cake and eating it, they can f off tbh. There is no reason we should pander to SA by providing them 11 competitive tier 1 and highly commercially valuable fixtures per year while everyone else only gets 5 / 6.

Portugal will give them a tough time - assume only one qualifier