General rugby thread
Discussion
irocfan said:
Kermit power said:
Afternoon all...
Fantasy Six Nations group up and running again.
Details here --> https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
got the e-mail thanks - I'll be having a think about my choices Fantasy Six Nations group up and running again.
Details here --> https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...Just went with players I enjoy watching, given the selection constraints - we'll see how they go.
Cheers Kermit power.
JonChalk said:
Signed up for the first time - gave my team all of 10 minutes thought ;-)
Just went with players I enjoy watching, given the selection constraints - we'll see how they go.
Cheers Kermit power.
Tip of the day... You can wait until the starting lineups are announced before choosing if you want! Just went with players I enjoy watching, given the selection constraints - we'll see how they go.
Cheers Kermit power.
for Quins!! 
RDM said:
It’ll be interesting to see the split of the 8 quarter finalists between the big money Gallagher and Top
14 compared to their poorer cousins in the PRO 14.
I don't think it's really about money, especially when you consider the salary cap in the Premiership and the lack of relegation in the Pro 14.14 compared to their poorer cousins in the PRO 14.
Leinster are not far off being Ireland in a different shirt, and they get to rest their international players a lot more. If you look at their average crowds (and Munster's and Ulster's for that matter) plus the central help from the Irish Union, I'm not sure you can consider them a poor cousin anyway.
There have also been times in recent years when Glasgow has been not far off fielding almost the entire Scotland team.
I think a big part of the key to Glasgow and now Edinburgh's success is the fact that with a couple of notable exceptions (Hogg being the most obvious) their individual players aren't actually all that good.
I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but look what happened on the last Lions tour. Despite how well Scotland had been playing, they struggled to get a single player on the pitch for the Lions. Scotland play well not because they can field the best players in any given position, but because having only two professional sides in the country means that their international players play most of their club rugby together as well, and that familiarity gives them an edge. Playing for the same clubs benefits country, and playing for country benefits the clubs. In England and France, international players are spread much more thinly, so they don't get that benefit.
I think the only obviously poorer cousins are the Welsh, and their representation at the top of the tables reflects that.
Even there, though, I don't think it's just about the money. They probably have at least one too many regions for the size of their player pool, and the regions they have got haven't been embraced by the fans of the iconic clubs that were bulldozed to make way for them.
God only knows what's going on with the French though!!
Maybe it's just evidence that having the money to field a team full of All Blacks in the twilight of their careers doesn't get rid the fact that you're fielding a team of players in the twilight of their careers, and ones with no link to club or country to boot?JonChalk said:
The Mad Monk said:
Nobody there, though!
Had same discussion with a Falcons fan last week after their win in front of what looked like 5000.We (Glos) sold out a Friday evening match to lose to Munster. I don't quite know how some of the Northern / Scottish / Welsh teams survive.
Derek Smith said:
A bit in The Times today about relegation in the 6N. The idea, still to be finalised, seems to revolve around a 12N format. It's interesting, but I wasn't aware the 6N broke.
The one good thing about the ideas emanating from the RFU is that they are always so well evidenced.
Early days from what I've read but no mention of the benefits of gaining promotion to the 1st division other than playing the top teams (getting thrashed and relegated).The one good thing about the ideas emanating from the RFU is that they are always so well evidenced.
Looks like it would effectively mean Italy, Fiji, Japan, Samoa and Tonga fighting relegation/promotion year in year out.
The way I read it, it also wouldn't actually change the 6N from the current participants - but maybe I'm wrong.
LivingTheDream said:
Early days from what I've read but no mention of the benefits of gaining promotion to the 1st division other than playing the top teams (getting thrashed and relegated).
Looks like it would effectively mean Italy, Fiji, Japan, Samoa and Tonga fighting relegation/promotion year in year out.
The way I read it, it also wouldn't actually change the 6N from the current participants - but maybe I'm wrong.
I saw Japan playing in the RWC in 2015. There's no doubt in my mind that they would beat Italy, and maybe another country in the 6N.Looks like it would effectively mean Italy, Fiji, Japan, Samoa and Tonga fighting relegation/promotion year in year out.
The way I read it, it also wouldn't actually change the 6N from the current participants - but maybe I'm wrong.
LivingTheDream said:
Derek Smith said:
A bit in The Times today about relegation in the 6N. The idea, still to be finalised, seems to revolve around a 12N format. It's interesting, but I wasn't aware the 6N broke.
The one good thing about the ideas emanating from the RFU is that they are always so well evidenced.
Early days from what I've read but no mention of the benefits of gaining promotion to the 1st division other than playing the top teams (getting thrashed and relegated).The one good thing about the ideas emanating from the RFU is that they are always so well evidenced.
Looks like it would effectively mean Italy, Fiji, Japan, Samoa and Tonga fighting relegation/promotion year in year out.
The way I read it, it also wouldn't actually change the 6N from the current participants - but maybe I'm wrong.
I can see the attraction to playing all the top tier nations every year in a competitive tournament, and the notion of having promotion and relegation coming into it as well also seems like a good idea, but would it be worth doing away with the tradition of the 6 Nations?
Having said that, the 6 Nations itself has been a bit of a failure in that respect, given that in effect it's still the 5 Nations plus the game against Italy which everyone gracefully sacrifices to show their wives that it's not all about the rugby, and sometimes it's about them too, plus if they're still playing each other once a year as part of the larger competition, presumably there's no reason not to have the 6 Nations within the bounds of that larger competition in the way that we do now with the Triple Crown?
In fact, would it not be likely that one half of the competition would be effectively 6N and RC, with the other half of the competition the North vs South fixtures alternating home and away each year? They could hardly have England playing Ireland on Saturday and NZ the following Saturday, for example, so would presumably need to mix them up in this fashion.
Looking at the current World rankings, you'd presumably get the following:
| Northern Tier 1 | Southern Tier 1 |
|---|---|
| Ireland | New Zealand |
| Wales | South Africa |
| England | Australia |
| Scotland | Fiji |
| France | Argentina |
| Japan | Tonga |
| Northern Tier 2 | Southern Tier 2 |
|---|---|
| USA | Samoa |
| Georgia | Uruguay |
| Italy | Namibia |
| Romania | Brazil |
| Russia | Chile |
| Canada | Kenya |
The observations I would draw from that are....
1. Italy have absolutely no place whatsoever being in a tier 1 tournament. They've had almost 20 years of constant exposure to Tier 1 nations, yet are still behind Japan, the US and Georgia, who rarely get to play them.
2. For all that the big three in the SH have a powerful record, there is precious little in the way of second tier quality to call on. Whereas in the NH, there are probably 4 teams with a good chance of trading that 6th place and hopefully thus pushing each other to improve, who in SH tier 2 can truly hope to compete? You'd just get Samoa swapping with one of the teams above them on a yearly basis, rather than maybe half the teams in NH tier 2 pushing for the promotion spot.
3. There would have to be some serious money pumped in from the tier 1 to the tier 2 nations. Does anyone really think someone like Kenya could afford to travel to Samoa, Russia and Uruguay in the same year, for example?
Kermit power said:
2. For all that the big three in the SH have a powerful record, there is precious little in the way of second tier quality to call on. Whereas in the NH, there are probably 4 teams with a good chance of trading that 6th place and hopefully thus pushing each other to improve, who in SH tier 2 can truly hope to compete? You'd just get Samoa swapping with one of the teams above them on a yearly basis, rather than maybe half the teams in NH tier 2 pushing for the promotion spot.
Isn't something like 90% of the world's population in the northern hemisphere? Not sure how it breaks down by countries or even rugby-playing countries but it seems an odd split.768 said:
Kermit power said:
2. For all that the big three in the SH have a powerful record, there is precious little in the way of second tier quality to call on. Whereas in the NH, there are probably 4 teams with a good chance of trading that 6th place and hopefully thus pushing each other to improve, who in SH tier 2 can truly hope to compete? You'd just get Samoa swapping with one of the teams above them on a yearly basis, rather than maybe half the teams in NH tier 2 pushing for the promotion spot.
Isn't something like 90% of the world's population in the northern hemisphere? Not sure how it breaks down by countries or even rugby-playing countries but it seems an odd split.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff