2017 Six Nations
Discussion
I'd like Italy to stay up because, if the FIR can get their arse in gear there's potentially a very good rugby team to add to the list of very good other European teams. Relegation won't help that.
However, my overriding priority is not to turn the competition into a lesser rugby product. At the moment, the 6N is piss poor if judged by the standard of the games played. It does absolutely nothing to improve the rugby played by the teams involved. The Australia tour last year was a real step forward for England but the 6N is a retrograde standard. I really couldn't care less about what's 'fair'. If things were fair then every nation would have precisely the same resources to throw at their team. But they don't. The only way that replacing Italy with a team like Romania would benefit the 6N is if Romania provided a stiffer test. And I'm sorry but they don't. And in order to 'develop' them till they did, you'd have to suspend relegation for a decade on the off chance that they justified that faith lest you get the endless revolving door. And if they did, then you'd have to get used to watching England or Scotland or Wales, for example, playing Germany or Belgium and putting 200 pointment on them. Ludicrous.
However, my overriding priority is not to turn the competition into a lesser rugby product. At the moment, the 6N is piss poor if judged by the standard of the games played. It does absolutely nothing to improve the rugby played by the teams involved. The Australia tour last year was a real step forward for England but the 6N is a retrograde standard. I really couldn't care less about what's 'fair'. If things were fair then every nation would have precisely the same resources to throw at their team. But they don't. The only way that replacing Italy with a team like Romania would benefit the 6N is if Romania provided a stiffer test. And I'm sorry but they don't. And in order to 'develop' them till they did, you'd have to suspend relegation for a decade on the off chance that they justified that faith lest you get the endless revolving door. And if they did, then you'd have to get used to watching England or Scotland or Wales, for example, playing Germany or Belgium and putting 200 pointment on them. Ludicrous.
Edited by Joey Ramone on Sunday 26th March 21:05
Joey Ramone said:
I'd like Italy to stay up because, if the FIR can get their arse in gear there's a very good rugby team to add to the list of very good other European teams. Relegation won't help that.
However, my overriding priority is not to turn the competition into a lesser rugby product. At the moment, the 6N is pretty piss poor if judged by the standard of the games played. It does absolutely nothing to improve the standard of the teams involved. I really couldn't care less about what's 'fair'. If things were fair then every nation would have precisely the same resources to throw at their team. But they don't. The only way replacing Italy with a team like Romania would benefit the 6N is if Romania provided a stiffer test. And I'm sorry but they don't. And in order to 'develop' them till they did, you'd have to suspend relegation for a decade on the off chance that they justified that faith. And if they did, then you'd have to get used to watching England or Scotland, for example, playing Germany or Belgium. Pointless.
How do you know Romania - or more realistically Georgia - wouldn't pose a stiffer test than Italy?However, my overriding priority is not to turn the competition into a lesser rugby product. At the moment, the 6N is pretty piss poor if judged by the standard of the games played. It does absolutely nothing to improve the standard of the teams involved. I really couldn't care less about what's 'fair'. If things were fair then every nation would have precisely the same resources to throw at their team. But they don't. The only way replacing Italy with a team like Romania would benefit the 6N is if Romania provided a stiffer test. And I'm sorry but they don't. And in order to 'develop' them till they did, you'd have to suspend relegation for a decade on the off chance that they justified that faith. And if they did, then you'd have to get used to watching England or Scotland, for example, playing Germany or Belgium. Pointless.
If they could beat Italy in Rome to gain promotion, and then consistently beat them in Budapest or Tiblisi in subsequent years to stay up, the it's reasonable to assume they'll also pose a stiffer challenge to the other nations than Italy currently do. If they can't, then they'll get relegated and Italy will get another go at it.
Georgia are already ranked several places above Italy in the world rankings, and that's in a ranking system which is heavily biased in Italy's favour and against Georgia, so it's reasonable to assume that Georgia would be a stronger challenge to the other five nations than Italy are.
Which major rugby nations have Georgia or Romania beaten in the last 20 years? They consistently play teams far worse than them and accrue victories. Italy found themselves playing England, Ireland, South Africa, Argentina and the All Blacks over the course of a few months. Of course they have a lower ranking.
If you want either a) a constantly revolving door or b) a home nation playing in the second tier against really s
t teams then yeah, brilliant, let's have relegation and promotion. Im guessing, however, that the two above scenarios are the reason that we don't.
If you want either a) a constantly revolving door or b) a home nation playing in the second tier against really s
t teams then yeah, brilliant, let's have relegation and promotion. Im guessing, however, that the two above scenarios are the reason that we don't. Joey Ramone said:
Which major rugby nations have Georgia or Romania beaten in the last 20 years? They consistently play teams far worse than them and accrue victories. Italy found themselves playing England, Ireland, South Africa, Argentina and the All Blacks over the course of a few months. Of course they have a lower ranking.
I'm not sure you understand how the rankings are calculated?A team cannot gain points for beating a team more than a few points below them, nor do they lose points for losing to teams more than a few points above them. As such, Georgia rarely get the opportunity to gain any points, whilst Italy rarely risk losing any, yet Georgia still manage to be ranked well above Italy.
Asking how which major nations Georgia have beaten in recent years is also a pretty disingenuous question, given that very few major nations will ever agree to play them at all. Having said that, they have in recent years beaten Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Japan, all of whom have also beaten Italy in recent years.
Joey Ramone said:
If you want either a) a constantly revolving door or b) a home nation playing in the second tier against really st teams then yeah, brilliant, let's have relegation and promotion. Im guessing, however, that the two above scenarios are the reason that we don't.
You're really wilfully not listening, aren't you?t teams then yeah, brilliant, let's have relegation and promotion. Im guessing, however, that the two above scenarios are the reason that we don't. If Italy are that much better than Georgia, they're not likely to lose to them in a play off match in Rome, are they, so hardly a revolving door?
If, on the other hand, Italy do lose a play off match in Rome, why would you think they're likely to win a play off the following year in Tiblisi? Still not a revolving door.
The Six Nations should be a tournament between the top six nations in Europe but it's not. It's a tournament between the top five and the seventh, and it'll only take a couple more wins for Romania before it's a tournament between the top five and the eighth best.
How much further would Italy have to drop in the rankings before you'd accept that they should be relegated? Below Spain? Below Russia?
Kermit power said:
You're really wilfully not listening, aren't you?
If Italy are that much better than Georgia, they're not likely to lose to them in a play off match in Rome, are they, so hardly a revolving door?
If, on the other hand, Italy do lose a play off match in Rome, why would you think they're likely to win a play off the following year in Tiblisi? Still not a revolving door.
The Six Nations should be a tournament between the top six nations in Europe but it's not. It's a tournament between the top five and the seventh, and it'll only take a couple more wins for Romania before it's a tournament between the top five and the eighth best.
How much further would Italy have to drop in the rankings before you'd accept that they should be relegated? Below Spain? Below Russia?
I fully understand how rankings work. Lets reverse the situation and put Italy in the second tier of `European rugby, and Georgia in the 6N. I suspect that, given the teams that each would have to play as a consequence, that Italy would end up with a higher ranking for exactly the reasons you pointed out. Which would prove what exactly?If Italy are that much better than Georgia, they're not likely to lose to them in a play off match in Rome, are they, so hardly a revolving door?
If, on the other hand, Italy do lose a play off match in Rome, why would you think they're likely to win a play off the following year in Tiblisi? Still not a revolving door.
The Six Nations should be a tournament between the top six nations in Europe but it's not. It's a tournament between the top five and the seventh, and it'll only take a couple more wins for Romania before it's a tournament between the top five and the eighth best.
How much further would Italy have to drop in the rankings before you'd accept that they should be relegated? Below Spain? Below Russia?
My point about the revolving door scenario, which you appear to misunderstand, doesn't centre on Italy. It centres on the likelihood of whatever team is promoted from the 2nd tier being immediately relegated the following year. The issue here,which I've been patiently trying to explain, is that the gulf between the two tiers of European rugby i.e. between 5th and 6th (whoever that 6th team is) is too big to be solved by a system of promotion or relegation from the 6N. Unless, of course, in an effort to avoid the above mentioned revolving door, you guarantee the new entrants' place in the competition for a number of seasons. Which completely undermines the 'fairness' argument.
Joey Ramone said:
I fully understand how rankings work. Lets reverse the situation and put Italy in the second tier of `European rugby, and Georgia in the 6N. I suspect that, given the teams that each would have to play as a consequence, that Italy would end up with a higher ranking for exactly the reasons you pointed out. Which would prove what exactly?
One thing that is certain is that Georgia would get some games in which they could actually gain some points. In this year's tier 2 tournament, the only match in which they could gain any at all was the match against Romania. They could, however, have lost lots of points if anyone else had beaten them.Likewise, Italy have exactly the same number of points as they did at the start of the tournament, as even though they got whitewashed, every team they lost to was too far above them to matter.
If Italy did get relegated, then they'd stand to lose points if they lost any matches in the tier 2 nation, so could potentially slip further down the rankings, but it's pretty unlikely that even with a grand slam, they'd manage to get back above Georgia in the rankings, as they're still far enough above the other nations except Romania not to gain any points for beating them.
Joey Ramone said:
My point about the revolving door scenario, which you appear to misunderstand, doesn't centre on Italy. It centres on the likelihood of whatever team is promoted from the 2nd tier being immediately relegated the following year. The issue here,which I've been patiently trying to explain, is that the gulf between the two tiers of European rugby i.e. between 5th and 6th (whoever that 6th team is) is too big to be solved by a system of promotion or relegation from the 6N. Unless, of course, in an effort to avoid the above mentioned revolving door, you guarantee the new entrants' place in the competition for a number of seasons. Which completely undermines the 'fairness' argument.
How many times does it need repeating? Nobody on here is suggesting automatic relegation as a scenario.Bottom team in the Six Nations plays a home match against the top side in tier 2, with the winner playing in the Six Nations the following year. That heavily favours the status quo, and if the bottom team in the Six Nations can't win that match, then they should absolutely be relegated.
Setting Italy aside as you wish, do you really honestly believe that if any one of the other five finished last in the table, they wouldn't be able to beat Georgia or Romania at home?
Kermit power said:
How many times does it need repeating? Nobody on here is suggesting automatic relegation as a scenario.
Bottom team in the Six Nations plays a home match against the top side in tier 2, with the winner playing in the Six Nations the following year. That heavily favours the status quo, and if the bottom team in the Six Nations can't win that match, then they should absolutely be relegated.
Setting Italy aside as you wish, do you really honestly believe that if any one of the other five finished last in the table, they wouldn't be able to beat Georgia or Romania at home?
And how many times does it need repeating that the issue isn't the format by which relegation is decided that is the issue? You can have a 7 way play off on Mars for all I care. The fact remains that this year you would have had two scenarios. Either Italy win their playoff and remain in the 6N, or they don't, and are replaced by a team that is pretty much of the same standard, possibly even worse on their day if we're talking about this year's champions Romania, who have zero chance of doing anything but finishing bottom. You basically replace one team that's out of their depth with another, and the administrative and broadcasting logistics of accommodating those sorts of changes, potentially on a yearly basis, are simply not feasible. If one of the other nations was to face the champions in a playoff, when exactly does that happen? Do you just tack it onto the end of the 6 Nations? Just chuck another international game into the players schedules?Bottom team in the Six Nations plays a home match against the top side in tier 2, with the winner playing in the Six Nations the following year. That heavily favours the status quo, and if the bottom team in the Six Nations can't win that match, then they should absolutely be relegated.
Setting Italy aside as you wish, do you really honestly believe that if any one of the other five finished last in the table, they wouldn't be able to beat Georgia or Romania at home?
Joey Ramone said:
And how many times does it need repeating that the issue isn't the format by which relegation is decided that is the issue? You can have a 7 way play off on Mars for all I care. The fact remains that this year you would have had two scenarios. Either Italy win their playoff and remain in the 6N, or they don't, and are replaced by a team that is pretty much of the same standard, possibly even worse on their day if we're talking about this year's champions Romania, who have zero chance of doing anything but finishing bottom. You basically replace one team that's out of their depth with another, and the administrative and broadcasting logistics of accommodating those sorts of changes, potentially on a yearly basis, are simply not feasible. If one of the other nations was to face the champions in a playoff, when exactly does that happen? Do you just tack it onto the end of the 6 Nations? Just chuck another international game into the players schedules?
Italy have had 17 years of playing stronger teams and learning from them, having a share of the revenue and everything else that comes with membership of the Six Nations. They have squandered it and delivered absolutely nothing.Georgia and Romania, on the other hand, have played in the International wilderness for the last 17 years, hardly ever get to play anyone better, and have still managed to respectively be three places above and one behind Italy in the rankings.
Sure, if Georgia (or even Romania) came up, they might well be hammered, but at least they'd have the excuse of being the newbies rather than a perennial laughing stock, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they managed to keep Italy out for long enough to really improve.
Given the way Georgia in particular have improved over the last decade compared to Italy, who have miserably failed despite being handed opportunity on a plate, all your whinging about logistics should be considered utterly irrelevant when compared to the unfairness of a demonstrably inferior team being kept where they don't belong at the expense of another doing everything to show that the situation should be reversed.
Parisse can't go on forever, though, and I suspect that once he retires, the slump in form will accelerate so alarmingly that the organisers will be left with no alternative but to make changes, rather than let Italy make the tournament even more of a laughing stock than they currently are.
Kermit power said:
Italy have had 17 years of playing stronger teams and learning from them, having a share of the revenue and everything else that comes with membership of the Six Nations. They have squandered it and delivered absolutely nothing.
Georgia and Romania, on the other hand, have played in the International wilderness for the last 17 years, hardly ever get to play anyone better, and have still managed to respectively be three places above and one behind Italy in the rankings.
Sure, if Georgia (or even Romania) came up, they might well be hammered, but at least they'd have the excuse of being the newbies rather than a perennial laughing stock, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they managed to keep Italy out for long enough to really improve.
Given the way Georgia in particular have improved over the last decade compared to Italy, who have miserably failed despite being handed opportunity on a plate, all your whinging about logistics should be considered utterly irrelevant when compared to the unfairness of a demonstrably inferior team being kept where they don't belong at the expense of another doing everything to show that the situation should be reversed.
.
Ok, so now you're moving the goalposts. What you are talking about now isn't relegation, but substitution. Basically, your argument is that Georgia are good enough to justify being in the 6 Nations instead of Italy, and so we should swap one for the other. Except of course Georgia rather inconveniently lost their title to Romania this year, so the 'fair' thing to do in actual fact would be to replace Italy with the latter and leave Georgia in the 2nd tier, unless you want to bring both of them up for a laugh?Georgia and Romania, on the other hand, have played in the International wilderness for the last 17 years, hardly ever get to play anyone better, and have still managed to respectively be three places above and one behind Italy in the rankings.
Sure, if Georgia (or even Romania) came up, they might well be hammered, but at least they'd have the excuse of being the newbies rather than a perennial laughing stock, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they managed to keep Italy out for long enough to really improve.
Given the way Georgia in particular have improved over the last decade compared to Italy, who have miserably failed despite being handed opportunity on a plate, all your whinging about logistics should be considered utterly irrelevant when compared to the unfairness of a demonstrably inferior team being kept where they don't belong at the expense of another doing everything to show that the situation should be reversed.
.
So, in actual fact, you don't favour relegation/promotion. Simply hoofing one team out and bringing another in in their place? Am I right?
Edited by Joey Ramone on Monday 27th March 13:39
DocJock said:
That's not the way it reads to me, and he's stated his view several times.
Seems fairly clear that he is arguing for promotion and relgation, with the playoff weighted in favour of the incumbent 6 Nations side.Seems perfectly reasonable to me except the powers that be are s
t scared of a chain of events that sees one of the "5" relegated.Fine
My point is simply that if you want relegation or promotion, either straight up and down or via a playoff, then you have to be prepared for outcomes which might indeed involve Georgia coming into the 6N and maintaining their place there. But it might easily also see Italy straight back up and then back down again, Romania in instead of Georgia (as would have happened this year, potentially) and then getting pasted, or Georgia forcing Scotland or Wales, as most likely alternative relegation candidates, into a tournament playing against Belgium, Spain and Germany. If you're happy with those alternative scenarios then fine, go for it. I suspect certain home Unions are perfectly happy not to open this particular pandoras box, regardless of how much they go on about global development, and how much sympathy they express for the tier two teams.
My point is simply that if you want relegation or promotion, either straight up and down or via a playoff, then you have to be prepared for outcomes which might indeed involve Georgia coming into the 6N and maintaining their place there. But it might easily also see Italy straight back up and then back down again, Romania in instead of Georgia (as would have happened this year, potentially) and then getting pasted, or Georgia forcing Scotland or Wales, as most likely alternative relegation candidates, into a tournament playing against Belgium, Spain and Germany. If you're happy with those alternative scenarios then fine, go for it. I suspect certain home Unions are perfectly happy not to open this particular pandoras box, regardless of how much they go on about global development, and how much sympathy they express for the tier two teams.
Joey Ramone said:
Kermit power said:
Italy have had 17 years of playing stronger teams and learning from them, having a share of the revenue and everything else that comes with membership of the Six Nations. They have squandered it and delivered absolutely nothing.
Georgia and Romania, on the other hand, have played in the International wilderness for the last 17 years, hardly ever get to play anyone better, and have still managed to respectively be three places above and one behind Italy in the rankings.
Sure, if Georgia (or even Romania) came up, they might well be hammered, but at least they'd have the excuse of being the newbies rather than a perennial laughing stock, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they managed to keep Italy out for long enough to really improve.
Given the way Georgia in particular have improved over the last decade compared to Italy, who have miserably failed despite being handed opportunity on a plate, all your whinging about logistics should be considered utterly irrelevant when compared to the unfairness of a demonstrably inferior team being kept where they don't belong at the expense of another doing everything to show that the situation should be reversed.
.
Ok, so now you're moving the goalposts. What you are talking about now isn't relegation, but substitution. Basically, your argument is that Georgia are good enough to justify being in the 6 Nations instead of Italy, and so we should swap one for the other. Except of course Georgia rather inconveniently lost their title to Romania this year, so the 'fair' thing to do in actual fact would be to replace Italy with the latter and leave Georgia in the 2nd tier, unless you want to bring both of them up for a laugh?Georgia and Romania, on the other hand, have played in the International wilderness for the last 17 years, hardly ever get to play anyone better, and have still managed to respectively be three places above and one behind Italy in the rankings.
Sure, if Georgia (or even Romania) came up, they might well be hammered, but at least they'd have the excuse of being the newbies rather than a perennial laughing stock, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they managed to keep Italy out for long enough to really improve.
Given the way Georgia in particular have improved over the last decade compared to Italy, who have miserably failed despite being handed opportunity on a plate, all your whinging about logistics should be considered utterly irrelevant when compared to the unfairness of a demonstrably inferior team being kept where they don't belong at the expense of another doing everything to show that the situation should be reversed.
.
So, in actual fact, you don't favour relegation/promotion. Simply hoofing one team out and bringing another in in their place? Am I right?
1. No, I'm not suggesting substitution. Where have I said that? I'm suggesting a play-off between top of Tier 2 and bottom of Six Nations.
2. If there was promotion/relegation this year then yes, it would be Romania getting their shot at it, but there isn't, and for something like 9 out of the last 10 years, it would've been Georgia, so it makes more sense for the theoretical discussion to be around Georgia.
3. I am not saying that Georgia are definitely good enough to replace Italy in the Six Nations. I'm saying that they are probably good enough, and that it is unfair that they are not being given an opportunity to prove it.
Let's make it visual for you. Below are the relative world rankings of Georgia and Italy on the last Monday in March since the rankings were first available in 2004 (and yes, I know, they started in 2003, but not as early as March). Obviously lower is better.
How long does this trend need to continue before you would accept that continuing to give Italy all the ring-fenced benefits of Six Nations membership is a travesty which should not be allowed to continue unless they can prove they're there on merit?
Joey Ramone said:
Fine
My point is simply that if you want relegation or promotion, either straight up and down or via a playoff, then you have to be prepared for outcomes which might indeed involve Georgia coming into the 6N and maintaining their place there. But it might easily also see Italy straight back up and then back down again, Romania in instead of Georgia (as would have happened this year, potentially) and then getting pasted, or Georgia forcing Scotland or Wales, as most likely alternative relegation candidates, into a tournament playing against Belgium, Spain and Germany. If you're happy with those alternative scenarios then fine, go for it. I suspect certain home Unions are perfectly happy not to open this particular pandoras box, regardless of how much they go on about global development, and how much sympathy they express for the tier two teams.
I didn't see this post before posting my previous post. If one of the home nations ends up playing against Belgium and Spain because Georgia or Romania beat them on their own turf then so be it.My point is simply that if you want relegation or promotion, either straight up and down or via a playoff, then you have to be prepared for outcomes which might indeed involve Georgia coming into the 6N and maintaining their place there. But it might easily also see Italy straight back up and then back down again, Romania in instead of Georgia (as would have happened this year, potentially) and then getting pasted, or Georgia forcing Scotland or Wales, as most likely alternative relegation candidates, into a tournament playing against Belgium, Spain and Germany. If you're happy with those alternative scenarios then fine, go for it. I suspect certain home Unions are perfectly happy not to open this particular pandoras box, regardless of how much they go on about global development, and how much sympathy they express for the tier two teams.
Joey Ramone said:
Fine
My point is simply that if you want relegation or promotion, either straight up and down or via a playoff, then you have to be prepared for outcomes which might indeed involve Georgia coming into the 6N and maintaining their place there. But it might easily also see Italy straight back up and then back down again, Romania in instead of Georgia (as would have happened this year, potentially) and then getting pasted, or Georgia forcing Scotland or Wales, as most likely alternative relegation candidates, into a tournament playing against Belgium, Spain and Germany. If you're happy with those alternative scenarios then fine, go for it. I suspect certain home Unions are perfectly happy not to open this particular pandoras box, regardless of how much they go on about global development, and how much sympathy they express for the tier two teams.
I don't see why any of what you're suggesting in that last paragraph is "wrong" for the game. (Nor why you've been unable to understand what KP has been saying!).My point is simply that if you want relegation or promotion, either straight up and down or via a playoff, then you have to be prepared for outcomes which might indeed involve Georgia coming into the 6N and maintaining their place there. But it might easily also see Italy straight back up and then back down again, Romania in instead of Georgia (as would have happened this year, potentially) and then getting pasted, or Georgia forcing Scotland or Wales, as most likely alternative relegation candidates, into a tournament playing against Belgium, Spain and Germany. If you're happy with those alternative scenarios then fine, go for it. I suspect certain home Unions are perfectly happy not to open this particular pandoras box, regardless of how much they go on about global development, and how much sympathy they express for the tier two teams.
IF a team from the 2nd tier were good enough not only to get promotion in a weighted play off, BUT to also finish 5th the next year AND the other "home nation" (every team is a home nation to someone...is what you mean a "founding nation"/"original nation"?) is not good enough to then beat a team in a weighted play off then fair play to the two "previously second tier" teams now in the 6N.
What better incentive is there to improve for the "original nations" than to not fall into that abyss? And what better incentive to improve for the currently second tier teams than to be in with the big boys?
What KP is suggesting makes an extreme amount of sense. Unless you're an Italy supporter! (Or perhaps Welsh this year. Or Scottish a few years ago!). I'd actually upset you even more by suggesting the play off shouldn't be weighted. It should be home and away with points difference deciding a win each. Any team being promoted will play both home and away so why limit the playoff?
One of the most fun rugby weekends I've had was in Rome the other year when it snowed. I took my OH to her first international against Italy at Twickenham. I would miss them not being there. But keeping them there just because they were part of the original 6 is nonsensical. They don't seem to be improving and are reliant on other teams doing worse. It'd almost be better to go back to 5 teams than leave it as it is and have them as the whipping boys every year. Would this help overall standards at the other end of the table? I doubt it. But I also don't see it would harm them either.
Murph7355 said:
every team is a home nation to someone...is what you mean a "founding nation"/"original nation"?)
The original tournament - before France was admitted to create the Five Nations - was called the Home Nations Championship. The Home Nations are England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales.Murph7355 said:
I don't see why any of what you're suggesting in that last paragraph is "wrong" for the game. (Nor why you've been unable to understand what KP has been saying!).
.
I understand it. I just don't accept it. And neither does the 6 nations committee, who presumably can spot an absolute clusterf.
k from a mile off.Personally, and contrary to the b
ks spouted above, I'd have no real problem with Italy being removed from the 6 Nations. It would take them out of the firing line, and give them a chance to get some proper structures in place domestically without being humiliated every time they have to take to the pitch against teams with vastly bigger resources such as England or France. But if anyone thinks that such a move will turn the tournament into a sparkling paradigm of sporting fairness then they'll have to take the rough with the smooth. Which may mean that the new team actually performs worse than Italy (perfectly feasible when the heat of a tournament is on them) or they do well and one of the home nations or France gets relegated and Scotland plays Belgium in Liege while England plays Romania at Twickenham and tries to beat their previous score of 134-0. Personally, I'd have the TV off at that point, and the broadcasters know it. Joey Ramone said:
I understand it. I just don't accept it. And neither does the 6 nations committee, who presumably can spot an absolute clusterfk from a mile off.
Personally, and contrary to the bks spouted above, I'd have no real problem with Italy being removed from the 6 Nations. It would take them out of the firing line, and give them a chance to get some proper structures in place domestically without being humiliated every time they have to take to the pitch against teams with vastly bigger resources such as England or France. But if anyone thinks that such a move will turn the tournament into a sparkling paradigm of sporting fairness then they'll have to take the rough with the smooth. Which may mean that the new team actually performs worse than Italy (perfectly feasible when the heat of a tournament is on them) or they do well and one of the home nations or France gets relegated and Scotland plays Belgium in Liege while England plays Romania at Twickenham and tries to beat their previous score of 134-0. Personally, I'd have the TV off at that point, and the broadcasters know it.
As noted, as a means of improving quality in an upward direction across the board I doubt it would work. The only way to do that would be to play the better teams more regularly. Which means Southern Hemisphere (and specifically NZ). And that isn't going to happen.k from a mile off.Personally, and contrary to the b
ks spouted above, I'd have no real problem with Italy being removed from the 6 Nations. It would take them out of the firing line, and give them a chance to get some proper structures in place domestically without being humiliated every time they have to take to the pitch against teams with vastly bigger resources such as England or France. But if anyone thinks that such a move will turn the tournament into a sparkling paradigm of sporting fairness then they'll have to take the rough with the smooth. Which may mean that the new team actually performs worse than Italy (perfectly feasible when the heat of a tournament is on them) or they do well and one of the home nations or France gets relegated and Scotland plays Belgium in Liege while England plays Romania at Twickenham and tries to beat their previous score of 134-0. Personally, I'd have the TV off at that point, and the broadcasters know it. It should help improve the lower nations though IMO. And if playing Romania is a direct result of Scotland not being good enough, why is it worse seeing Romania beat 134-0 than seeing Scotland beat 140-0 (as if they were worse than Romania to the extent they were relegated, that's the logical conclusion)? (Apart from the obvious pleasure of beating Scotland of course
). Seeing any team have their arses handed to them is limited on the fun/amusement front. Maybe the real answer is that there simply aren't 6 top flight nations in just the NE.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff