2017 Six Nations
Discussion
skahigh said:
Hence why I'm sure you noted that I stated relegation and not expulsion.
Admittedly, I did state Italy where what I really meant was 'The worst side in the competition each year', it happens that that has been Italy on 12 out of 18 occasions so I did incorrectly conflate the two.
The problem, as I keep pointing out, is that whoever is promoted from the second tier will simply be relegated the following year.Admittedly, I did state Italy where what I really meant was 'The worst side in the competition each year', it happens that that has been Italy on 12 out of 18 occasions so I did incorrectly conflate the two.
People keep raving about Georgia. Guess what. They lost their championship title to Romania at the weekend. So if Italy entered a playoff against Romania and somehow conspired to lose over two legs, are we really suggesting that the admission of Romania to the 6N would improve the competition?
Joey Ramone said:
skahigh said:
Hence why I'm sure you noted that I stated relegation and not expulsion.
Admittedly, I did state Italy where what I really meant was 'The worst side in the competition each year', it happens that that has been Italy on 12 out of 18 occasions so I did incorrectly conflate the two.
The problem, as I keep pointing out, is that whoever is promoted from the second tier will simply be relegated the following year.Admittedly, I did state Italy where what I really meant was 'The worst side in the competition each year', it happens that that has been Italy on 12 out of 18 occasions so I did incorrectly conflate the two.
People keep raving about Georgia. Guess what. They lost their championship title to Romania at the weekend. So if Italy entered a playoff against Romania and somehow conspired to lose over two legs, are we really suggesting that the admission of Romania to the 6N would improve the competition?
Both they and Georgia won all but one of their games in the tournament, with Romania taking the title from Georgia, despite having a worse points difference and fewer tries, presumably because the first criterion in the event of a finish on equal points was the result of the head to head match between the two teams, which Romania won at home by a single point, with an unconverted try and a penalty against a converted try.
Bearing in mind that Italy rarely play teams ranked below them in the rankings (so can gain plenty of points with their occasional victories) and neither Georgia nor Romania tend to ever really get the opportunity to play matches against sides above them (meaning they can rarely gain points, I'd say it would be a very close call on whether Italy would beat either of them in a play-off.
Would either of them thrive in the Six Nations if they were promoted? I don't know, but they could hardly do worse than Italy, and at least it would provide somewhere new for travelling fans to visit, wonderful though Rome is!
I think the main question for Italy is how long Parisse has left in him? They're woeful enough when he is playing, but they're absolutely dismal without him, and if they can't find an equally talismanic heir to the crown before he retires, I can't see how they're going to do anything other than sink into obscurity, and if the Six Nations hasn't made a change before that happens, I predict we'll revert to a Five Nations within a few years after he does retire, as Italy's presence will just become ever more embarrassing.
As for the promoted side always getting relegated in a playoff situation, I guess you're probably right. After all, remember when that jumped up little team of Wurzels got promoted to the Premiership and the same thing happened to them? What was their name again??? Exeter or something! Whatever happened to them, I wonder?
Kermit power said:
Romania are one point and one place behind Italy in the World rankings and four places behind Georgia, with a pretty long, established rugby tradition of their own.
Both they and Georgia won all but one of their games in the tournament, with Romania taking the title from Georgia, despite having a worse points difference and fewer tries, presumably because the first criterion in the event of a finish on equal points was the result of the head to head match between the two teams, which Romania won at home by a single point, with an unconverted try and a penalty against a converted try.
Bearing in mind that Italy rarely play teams ranked below them in the rankings (so can gain plenty of points with their occasional victories) and neither Georgia nor Romania tend to ever really get the opportunity to play matches against sides above them (meaning they can rarely gain points, I'd say it would be a very close call on whether Italy would beat either of them in a play-off.
Would either of them thrive in the Six Nations if they were promoted? I don't know, but they could hardly do worse than Italy, and at least it would provide somewhere new for travelling fans to visit, wonderful though Rome is!
I think the main question for Italy is how long Parisse has left in him? They're woeful enough when he is playing, but they're absolutely dismal without him, and if they can't find an equally talismanic heir to the crown before he retires, I can't see how they're going to do anything other than sink into obscurity, and if the Six Nations hasn't made a change before that happens, I predict we'll revert to a Five Nations within a few years after he does retire, as Italy's presence will just become ever more embarrassing.
As for the promoted side always getting relegated in a playoff situation, I guess you're probably right. After all, remember when that jumped up little team of Wurzels got promoted to the Premiership and the same thing happened to them? What was their name again??? Exeter or something! Whatever happened to them, I wonder?
I'm not so sure about Parisse. He's their one great player. Everything depends on him. All play is organised around him. If he is negated in some manner, they've nothing else.Both they and Georgia won all but one of their games in the tournament, with Romania taking the title from Georgia, despite having a worse points difference and fewer tries, presumably because the first criterion in the event of a finish on equal points was the result of the head to head match between the two teams, which Romania won at home by a single point, with an unconverted try and a penalty against a converted try.
Bearing in mind that Italy rarely play teams ranked below them in the rankings (so can gain plenty of points with their occasional victories) and neither Georgia nor Romania tend to ever really get the opportunity to play matches against sides above them (meaning they can rarely gain points, I'd say it would be a very close call on whether Italy would beat either of them in a play-off.
Would either of them thrive in the Six Nations if they were promoted? I don't know, but they could hardly do worse than Italy, and at least it would provide somewhere new for travelling fans to visit, wonderful though Rome is!
I think the main question for Italy is how long Parisse has left in him? They're woeful enough when he is playing, but they're absolutely dismal without him, and if they can't find an equally talismanic heir to the crown before he retires, I can't see how they're going to do anything other than sink into obscurity, and if the Six Nations hasn't made a change before that happens, I predict we'll revert to a Five Nations within a few years after he does retire, as Italy's presence will just become ever more embarrassing.
As for the promoted side always getting relegated in a playoff situation, I guess you're probably right. After all, remember when that jumped up little team of Wurzels got promoted to the Premiership and the same thing happened to them? What was their name again??? Exeter or something! Whatever happened to them, I wonder?
If Italy have to play without him, which looks probable for next season, then they might develop as a team.
I would think that a match plan against the current Italian side is easy enough; keep Parisse quiet. Having no central point might be the making of Italy.
But then, they might indeed sink into obscurity.
On the plus side, it's been a privilege to watch him play over the years. I'll be sad to see him go.
phil_cardiff said:
Ken Owens had a good tournament and there a real lack of options at hooker so he probably goes as one of the 3.
I disagree - we've already got Hartley & George from England (not to mention Tommy Taylor from wasps - who seems to be having a storming season), Best and even Ford. That's K O ko'd right thereKermit power said:
Joey Ramone said:
skahigh said:
Hence why I'm sure you noted that I stated relegation and not expulsion.
Admittedly, I did state Italy where what I really meant was 'The worst side in the competition each year', it happens that that has been Italy on 12 out of 18 occasions so I did incorrectly conflate the two.
The problem, as I keep pointing out, is that whoever is promoted from the second tier will simply be relegated the following year.Admittedly, I did state Italy where what I really meant was 'The worst side in the competition each year', it happens that that has been Italy on 12 out of 18 occasions so I did incorrectly conflate the two.
People keep raving about Georgia. Guess what. They lost their championship title to Romania at the weekend. So if Italy entered a playoff against Romania and somehow conspired to lose over two legs, are we really suggesting that the admission of Romania to the 6N would improve the competition?
Both they and Georgia won all but one of their games in the tournament, with Romania taking the title from Georgia, despite having a worse points difference and fewer tries, presumably because the first criterion in the event of a finish on equal points was the result of the head to head match between the two teams, which Romania won at home by a single point, with an unconverted try and a penalty against a converted try.
Bearing in mind that Italy rarely play teams ranked below them in the rankings (so can gain plenty of points with their occasional victories) and neither Georgia nor Romania tend to ever really get the opportunity to play matches against sides above them (meaning they can rarely gain points, I'd say it would be a very close call on whether Italy would beat either of them in a play-off.
Would either of them thrive in the Six Nations if they were promoted? I don't know, but they could hardly do worse than Italy, and at least it would provide somewhere new for travelling fans to visit, wonderful though Rome is!
I think the main question for Italy is how long Parisse has left in him? They're woeful enough when he is playing, but they're absolutely dismal without him, and if they can't find an equally talismanic heir to the crown before he retires, I can't see how they're going to do anything other than sink into obscurity, and if the Six Nations hasn't made a change before that happens, I predict we'll revert to a Five Nations within a few years after he does retire, as Italy's presence will just become ever more embarrassing.
As for the promoted side always getting relegated in a playoff situation, I guess you're probably right. After all, remember when that jumped up little team of Wurzels got promoted to the Premiership and the same thing happened to them? What was their name again??? Exeter or something! Whatever happened to them, I wonder?
Challo said:
Hold on. You cannot compare club rugby and international rugby. Exeter have the chance to pick and choose which players play for them and can bring in players from various countries. International rugby you only have a limited personal to choose from.
That's true to a certain extent, but for years it didn't stop lots of people from claiming that promotion to the Premiership should be scrapped because the promoted side always got relegated again.Also, with the notable exception of Exeter, it is pretty much always the same small group of teams propping up the bottom of the table in the Premiership of beating the crap out of everyone in the Championship.
In theory, as you say, there's nothing to stop a newly promoted club buying in external talent and building themselves a competitive squad, but none of them have done so, and whilst Exeter have made some marquee signings, most of their players are still homegrown.
In some ways, I'd say it's actually easier for a country - especially one with a large diaspora such as Italy - to buy themselves a national team than it is for a lower level club.
Given a bit of cash, it's pretty easy for a country to go along to players who have, let's say, one Italian grandparent and three Kiwi ones and point out that whilst they might never quite break in to the All Blacks team, Italy can offer them an opportunity to play against the best in the World on a regular basis. It's much harder for a smaller club to attract the big or potentially big players, as what have they really got to offer compared to Sarries or Wasps et al?
irocfan said:
phil_cardiff said:
Ken Owens had a good tournament and there a real lack of options at hooker so he probably goes as one of the 3.
I disagree - we've already got Hartley & George from England (not to mention Tommy Taylor from wasps - who seems to be having a storming season), Best and even Ford. That's K O ko'd right thereI'd have given it to Launchbury but understand why people voted for Hogg.
He always looks to attack, he runs at and beats defenders and he has fantastic hands passing and offloading. He's exciting to watch.
He'll always get the vote of people who don't understand the game enough to appreciate the work the tight forwards do.
He always looks to attack, he runs at and beats defenders and he has fantastic hands passing and offloading. He's exciting to watch.
He'll always get the vote of people who don't understand the game enough to appreciate the work the tight forwards do.
Kermit power said:
Romania are one point and one place behind Italy in the World rankings and four places behind Georgia, with a pretty long, established rugby tradition of their own.
Both they and Georgia won all but one of their games in the tournament, with Romania taking the title from Georgia, despite having a worse points difference and fewer tries, presumably because the first criterion in the event of a finish on equal points was the result of the head to head match between the two teams, which Romania won at home by a single point, with an unconverted try and a penalty against a converted try.
Bearing in mind that Italy rarely play teams ranked below them in the rankings (so can gain plenty of points with their occasional victories) and neither Georgia nor Romania tend to ever really get the opportunity to play matches against sides above them (meaning they can rarely gain points, I'd say it would be a very close call on whether Italy would beat either of them in a play off
As for the promoted side always getting relegated in a playoff situation, I guess you're probably right. After all, remember when that jumped up little team of Wurzels got promoted to the Premiership and the same thing happened to them? What was their name again??? Exeter or something! Whatever happened to them, I wonder?
Fine. Let's follow this logic through, shall we? Romania are promoted, and Italy relegated. Romania now 'do an Exeter' and manage to finish fourth in the following Six Nations. This year, obviously, Wales would have gone down but just for fun, let's say France are relegated in their place (entirely feasible according to the logic of your reasoning; if Romania can win enough games to stay up, France can lose enough to go down). You now have a Six Nations of England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Romania and Georgia/Italy.Both they and Georgia won all but one of their games in the tournament, with Romania taking the title from Georgia, despite having a worse points difference and fewer tries, presumably because the first criterion in the event of a finish on equal points was the result of the head to head match between the two teams, which Romania won at home by a single point, with an unconverted try and a penalty against a converted try.
Bearing in mind that Italy rarely play teams ranked below them in the rankings (so can gain plenty of points with their occasional victories) and neither Georgia nor Romania tend to ever really get the opportunity to play matches against sides above them (meaning they can rarely gain points, I'd say it would be a very close call on whether Italy would beat either of them in a play off
As for the promoted side always getting relegated in a playoff situation, I guess you're probably right. After all, remember when that jumped up little team of Wurzels got promoted to the Premiership and the same thing happened to them? What was their name again??? Exeter or something! Whatever happened to them, I wonder?
That's an improvement on the current state of affairs is it? Absolute cobblers.
Edited by Joey Ramone on Sunday 26th March 17:08
More the point is whether you want Rugby to develop further as an international sport ?
Italy have improved very substantially as a result of playing in the Six Nations and have invested the money earned back into training, coaches and to some extent the domestic game.
Romania and Georgia even if they only lasted a season would get some substantial financial assistance from those games and so development and a powerful incentive to carrying investing would be there.
If you are a talented 16 year old athlete, you are good at say football and rugby and you are Romanian - which sprot would you pick ?
If nothing changes then the game cannot develop as an international sport. (look at cricket dying out in some of its "home turf" )
Gargamel said:
More the point is whether you want Rugby to develop further as an international sport ?
Italy have improved very substantially as a result of playing in the Six Nations and have invested the money earned back into training, coaches and to some extent the domestic game.
Romania and Georgia even if they only lasted a season would get some substantial financial assistance from those games and so development and a powerful incentive to carrying investing would be there.
If you are a talented 16 year old athlete, you are good at say football and rugby and you are Romanian - which sprot would you pick ?
If nothing changes then the game cannot develop as an international sport. (look at cricket dying out in some of its "home turf" )
Actually, Italy haven't developed. Or rather they have, but simply not at the same pace as the other nations. And that's partially the point as to why increased funding doesn't automatically improve performance. Fact of the matter is that Conor O'Shea is presently confronting two decades of corruption and mismanagement on the part of the FIR, and an absolute lack of focus on their part upon structured development. Going by the lesson that Italy have provided, there are absolutely no guarantees that any amount of money pumped into Romanian rugby wouldn't be siphoned off, misdirected or simply wasted by idiots.Italy have improved very substantially as a result of playing in the Six Nations and have invested the money earned back into training, coaches and to some extent the domestic game.
Romania and Georgia even if they only lasted a season would get some substantial financial assistance from those games and so development and a powerful incentive to carrying investing would be there.
If you are a talented 16 year old athlete, you are good at say football and rugby and you are Romanian - which sprot would you pick ?
If nothing changes then the game cannot develop as an international sport. (look at cricket dying out in some of its "home turf" )
Ultimately, If you want to develop International rugby, how does relegating teams aid that process? However you argue the permutations, promotion/relegation in the Six Nations entails costs that cancel out whatever benefits there may theoretically be.
Edited by Joey Ramone on Sunday 26th March 17:31
Joey Ramone said:
Actually, Italy haven't developed. And that's partially the point as to why increased funding doesn't automatically improve performance. Fact of the matter is that Conor O'Shea is presently confronting two decades of corruption and mismanagement on the part of the FIR, and an absolute lack of focus upon structured development. There are absolutely no guarantees that any amount of money pumped into Romanian rugby wouldn't be siphoned off, misdirected or simply wasted.
If you want to develop International rugby, I fail to see how relegating teams helps that process? However you argue the permutations, promotion/relegation in the Six Nations entails costs that cancel out whatever benefits there may theoretically be.
Well I disagree, I don't like the aspect of the Six Nations that it is preserved in apsic for all time. If you aren't good enough to be there, then let someone else in Europe have a crack at it. As fans we want to see the best teams playing. I don't want to watch Italy getting humped by 30 points for five matches. If you want to develop International rugby, I fail to see how relegating teams helps that process? However you argue the permutations, promotion/relegation in the Six Nations entails costs that cancel out whatever benefits there may theoretically be.
Georgia or Romania bring a different style and challenge, and if they are good enough sides, they deserve to be there.
By that logic, London Welsh were good enough to be in the Premiership
Except they weren't. Not by a long shot.
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/history/
There's the record for promotion/relegation over the past 3 decades. If promotion/relegation led to 'development' then the various Premiership and Championship teams would be constantly intermingled across both leagues over time, and a significant proportion of 'championship' teams would not only have been promoted, but would by now have established themselves in the Premiership. Except of course money/resources/players gravitate to certain teams, so it doesn't work like that. Instead, all you get is established Premiership teams being relegated but bouncing straight back up, and brave Championship teams getting promoted, spanked and relegated straight away. Exeter are the only team to have bucked that trend. Romania aren't Exeter because, by any stretch of the imagination, there is not a worse rugby team than them in the 6N.
I would suggest that, rather than simply being
s, the 6N committee are simply rational human beings who realise that while the present situation ain't great, the alternatives offer nothing different except a novel experience for the fans who get to see a new city.
Except they weren't. Not by a long shot.
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/history/
There's the record for promotion/relegation over the past 3 decades. If promotion/relegation led to 'development' then the various Premiership and Championship teams would be constantly intermingled across both leagues over time, and a significant proportion of 'championship' teams would not only have been promoted, but would by now have established themselves in the Premiership. Except of course money/resources/players gravitate to certain teams, so it doesn't work like that. Instead, all you get is established Premiership teams being relegated but bouncing straight back up, and brave Championship teams getting promoted, spanked and relegated straight away. Exeter are the only team to have bucked that trend. Romania aren't Exeter because, by any stretch of the imagination, there is not a worse rugby team than them in the 6N.
I would suggest that, rather than simply being
s, the 6N committee are simply rational human beings who realise that while the present situation ain't great, the alternatives offer nothing different except a novel experience for the fans who get to see a new city.Edited by Joey Ramone on Sunday 26th March 17:54
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Wouldn't it be the side that finishes bottom that gets relegated?
According to Kermit Power Romania, as Italy's replacement, would have played such a blinder that they would have avoided last place (and thus relegation). Going on that, and going on this years results as an example, the last placed team (and thus relegated) would have been Wales.Edited by Joey Ramone on Sunday 26th March 18:51
Joey Ramone said:
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Wouldn't it be the side that finishes bottom that gets relegated?
According to Kermit Power Romania, as Italy's replacement, would have played such a blinder that they would have avoided last place (and thus relegation). Going on that, and going on this years results as an example, the last placed team (and thus relegated) would have been Wales.I've said above that I fully agree with the suggestion that the bottom team in the Six Nations should have a promotion/relegation play off match against the winner of the Tier Two competition.
I've also said that I think that play off should be a home match for the incumbent Six Nations team.
If that meant Romania playing and beating Italy in Rome, then yes, Romania should be promoted and Italy relegated, but the odds would be stacked in Italy's favour, and there's absolutely no guarantee, or even strong probability, that a team would be relegated in any given year.
Equally, if it meant Romania beating England at Twickenham, then yes, that should mean England being relegated. Tradition is all well and good, but why should any nation - even the one which invented the game - have a God given right to remain in the tournament for ever if they're simply not good enough?
The Six Nations claims to be the best annual rugby tournament in the world, and so it should be. Unfortunately, at the moment, it's a Five Nations plus a perennial loser artificially ring fenced in there, devaluing the integrity of the competition.
Bring in the opportunity for promotion, and at least having the weaker nation in there serves a purpose in growing the reach of the game.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff