The RugbyRebels Messageboard
http://rugbyrebels.club/
Sorry, but you did.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Georgia don't compete in a level playing field in RWCs because they get payments from the irb that I believe aren't available to Italy.
From an England-centric viewpoint you might be right, at least in the early days. Scotland and Georgia have similar population sizes, although from a "market" pov Georgia would have Caucasus spill-over. The population of Romania is 4 times that of Scotland. Scotland in Georgia or Romania would sell out (50,000+), Georgia or Romania in Scotland probably wouldn't. There are dedicated rugby TV programmes in both countries. If you define audience as to what English people would prefer to watch then you have a very narrow world view.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:If you genuinely think there's a bigger audience for England v Romania or England v Spain than England v Scotland then fair play to you but I think you are way way way out on your own..
My previous flights to Tbilisi involved a short stop in Armenia en route. It added about an hour to the over all journey so not a huge problem. I suspect that if the demand was there, a direct flight would be forthcoming.Big D wrote:No direct flights to Tiblisi is going to be a ball ache for fans. 7+hour flights and longer journeys will be hard on fans who make a Friday - Sunday of 6N weekends. Hopefully there will be some joined up thinking will happen to have direct flights from main 6N cities or some suitable solution found.
I agree it shouldn't be a barrier buy something to be ironed out.Sandydragon wrote:My previous flights to Tbilisi involved a short stop in Armenia en route. It added about an hour to the over all journey so not a huge problem. I suspect that if the demand was there, a direct flight would be forthcoming.Big D wrote:No direct flights to Tiblisi is going to be a ball ache for fans. 7+hour flights and longer journeys will be hard on fans who make a Friday - Sunday of 6N weekends. Hopefully there will be some joined up thinking will happen to have direct flights from main 6N cities or some suitable solution found.
Any Georgian home games would have to be on a Saturday - Fridays and Sundays just wouldn't work for traveling support. But I don't think logistics should be a bar to their entry to the top level. They deserve a shot, its just how to manage it fairly without giving Italy, or whoever finishes bottom, a huge kicking financially.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Sorry, but no I didn't.Mellsblue wrote:You said you can't compare Georgia v Italy during the RWC as Italy are comparitively under funded - an assertion I would guess not to be true. Yet, you want Georgia to prove they deserve access to the 6N by playing AIs against the 6N when they would be comparitively under funded. That's either hypocrisy or a request for financial parity.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: No I didn't demand financial parity. I just pointed out that insofar as the RWC indicates that they are doing better than Italy that there's a financial context which I wouldn't expect to continue.
The financial context you mention is because they can't access the 6N income due to it being a closed shop. When they are given financial parity in RWC years they perform comparably to Italy. If they had a constant stream of funding you would assume their performances would increase. Italy get a 6N income that, based on any results metric, they don't warrant.
If you genuinely think there's a bigger audience for England v Romania or England v Spain than England v Scotland then fair play to you but I think you are way way way out on your own..old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:This usual, "we're too good, don't let them in" rubbish has nothing to do with the reality of the situation and is counter-productive for the future of the game. It is also a "short-term" view of a maturing product.
It is time for a proper European Championship where all rugby playing nations in Europe have the opportunity to play others and come out on top. Only exposure to top competition will countries be able to improve. It shouldn't be restricted to RWC every 4 years for the opportunity to shine. The 6 Nations is a closed shop club, it is like royalty that are there by birth right and don't want their place at the table challenged. There are not a lot of things I like about football, but at least they have got this right.
If really necessary you can still have the 6 nations in the in between years of a real European Championship. A European Cup with qualification pools on a 4 year cycle between RWCs would eventually capture the imagination, and the viewers. Bigger audiences, improvements in player quality and prospects. It will take time but just as the gap at the RWC has closed from the massive "walk-overs" of only a few years ago, so to will the quality of all national teams improve. Our international windows are used as money making exercises for the SH teams with no real long-term positive development for us. The closed shop 6 Nations is archaic and elitist.
The 6 nations, other than France, are even afraid to play U18 European championships for fear of relegation. Time for a re-think and create a system where all European rugby playing nations have the opportunity, no matter how remote, to make it to the top.
How do you explain the similar results for the previous five years? I've generously given them 10 years to bring themselves up to standard before expecting them to do anything other than be cannon fodder. Secondly, I'm not sure anyone thinks Georgia would immediately do much better but they should at least be given the opportunity to give it a go.16th man wrote:A point regarding competitiveness:
Italy gave France a really good run, but picked up a lot of knocks doing it. They were then stubborn against us, but a stead flow of injuries really weakened them. They proceeded to lost more players as the tournament went on.
If the Georgians were to suffer injuries at the same rate as the Italians, and I think, given the step up they would be looking at as least as many, what comes after their first XV / XXIII? Because I suspect it is probably worse than Italy were able to field this time around. The results might not be pretty if they were up against England / Wales / Ireland, first game up on the last weekend, with a load of injuries and the hosts needing to rack up points difference for a shot at the title.
Twickenham doesn't sell out for Fiji with dropped prices does it? I'd be surprised if Georgia were more of a draw to the stadium. Still less a draw to switch on the tv.Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Sorry, but no I didn't.Mellsblue wrote:
You said you can't compare Georgia v Italy during the RWC as Italy are comparitively under funded - an assertion I would guess not to be true. Yet, you want Georgia to prove they deserve access to the 6N by playing AIs against the 6N when they would be comparitively under funded. That's either hypocrisy or a request for financial parity.
The financial context you mention is because they can't access the 6N income due to it being a closed shop. When they are given financial parity in RWC years they perform comparably to Italy. If they had a constant stream of funding you would assume their performances would increase. Italy get a 6N income that, based on any results metric, they don't warrant.
If you genuinely think there's a bigger audience for England v Romania or England v Spain than England v Scotland then fair play to you but I think you are way way way out on your own..old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:This usual, "we're too good, don't let them in" rubbish has nothing to do with the reality of the situation and is counter-productive for the future of the game. It is also a "short-term" view of a maturing product.
It is time for a proper European Championship where all rugby playing nations in Europe have the opportunity to play others and come out on top. Only exposure to top competition will countries be able to improve. It shouldn't be restricted to RWC every 4 years for the opportunity to shine. The 6 Nations is a closed shop club, it is like royalty that are there by birth right and don't want their place at the table challenged. There are not a lot of things I like about football, but at least they have got this right.
If really necessary you can still have the 6 nations in the in between years of a real European Championship. A European Cup with qualification pools on a 4 year cycle between RWCs would eventually capture the imagination, and the viewers. Bigger audiences, improvements in player quality and prospects. It will take time but just as the gap at the RWC has closed from the massive "walk-overs" of only a few years ago, so to will the quality of all national teams improve. Our international windows are used as money making exercises for the SH teams with no real long-term positive development for us. The closed shop 6 Nations is archaic and elitist.
The 6 nations, other than France, are even afraid to play U18 European championships for fear of relegation. Time for a re-think and create a system where all European rugby playing nations have the opportunity, no matter how remote, to make it to the top.
England would sell out those games at Twickenham same as they would if it was Scotland or Ireland etc etc so the audience would be the same. Overseas might be a different matter though.
I think we should kick Italy out and tell both them and Georgia that we won't invite them in until they finish third in a World Cup, and then only after a 5 year wait. Once they start improving we'll then claim that is because we let them join the competition and nothing to do with their own, internal advances. Finally, we'll let the leagues in the other hemisphere employ the vast majority of their playing squad but we'll still claim all credit for their improvement.Lizard wrote:I'm not sure that the convenience for traveling fans should even be a factor. The current 6N teams have been lucky in that they tend to be right next door to each other, which is nice but not necessary for an international tournament. The 3N/RC is probably at the other extreme (other than for Auckland to Sydney) and it works (and done a better job of bringing on Arg than the 6N has with Italy).
The arrival of Michael Portillo's olde railwayes made it possible originally..now we've got the big birds..CONVEX HULL wrote:It is not fortune that the countries are close together, it is the very reason that the competition exists.
I think you're being rather dismissive, the last 5 years have given Italy their best 6 Nations placing (equaling 2007). In my opinion they are going through a generation change. Hopefully as they move away from having a strong pack to a more rounded game.Mellsblue wrote:
How do you explain the similar results for the previous five years? I've generously given them 10 years to bring themselves up to standard before expecting them to do anything other than be cannon fodder. Secondly, I'm not sure anyone thinks Georgia would immediately do much better but they should at least be given the opportunity to give it a go.
(0.83' wins)I am happy for whoever comes bottom of the table to be relegated. I was merely counteracting the argument that Italy were poor this year due to injuries.Mr Mwenda wrote:I think you're being rather dismissive, the last 5 years have given Italy their best 6 Nations placing (equaling 2007). In my opinion they are going through a generation change. Hopefully as they move away from having a strong pack to a more rounded game.Mellsblue wrote:
How do you explain the similar results for the previous five years? I've generously given them 10 years to bring themselves up to standard before expecting them to do anything other than be cannon fodder. Secondly, I'm not sure anyone thinks Georgia would immediately do much better but they should at least be given the opportunity to give it a go.
Out of interest I looked up the results for the last few years (for some reason the 6 Nations haven't stuck in memory as they once did....)
Italy rankings in 6 nations 2011-6:
2016 6th (0 wins)
2015 5th (1 win)
2014 6th (0 wins)
2013 4th (2 wins)
2012 5th (1 win)
2011 6th (1 win)
Av: 5.3'th
I think it 's correct that in the last couple of seasons Italy's squad has shown their average age and this is reflected in the results.
For comparison, Scotland rankings in 6 Nations 2011-6:
2016 4th (2 wins)
2015 6th (0 wins)
2014 5th (1 win)
2013 3rd (2 wins)
2012 6th (0 wins)
2011 5th (1 wins)
Av: 4.83' (1 wins)
So Scotland have performed a bit better than Italy overall but I don't think there's much in it really. I do feel that Italy's right to be at the table is questioned using different standards to the other countries. 7 nations for me in a rearranged season would be the ideal. Maybe every four years the 6 Nations could be expanded to include other nations with the aim of establishing a top 6 which would remain in the 6 Nations for four years? Then all teams would be at risk and have a chance to book their seat at the Championship.....