Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

 

 

In the 1980s Romania were a likely candidate but fell away badly. To the inexpert eye Georgia look not bad but I’m not enough of a rugger chappie to say how close they really are.

Can they do any worse than Italy. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gribz said:

Can they do any worse than Italy. ?

Probably not.

 

It’s like relegating County and promoting Caley. Dross for dross. (Forgive the intemperate language. Ancient tribalism.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for the likes of Georgia is being denied the chance to play top level teams other than at world cups. Like the Pacific Islands, too many of their best players end up representing other countries or playing in foreign league systems, to the detriment of their domestic game. There's an increasing call for an enlarged international format in the northern hemisphere that would allow the best sides - USA, Canada, Georgia and Russia - to develop their game faster. Japan could be part of it too for obvious climate/geographical reasons. In the southern hemisphere countries like Uruguay, Chile, PNG and several African countries would also benefit from greater access.

 

Regarding Italy, their big problem has been trying to break into the top tier in the professional era when all the other countries have also developed rapidly. Despite results, Italy's progress has actually been reasonably good, if somewhat slow. It's worth remembering how long it took Argentina and France to reach anything like a competitive level and that was in the quasi-amateur era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott7 said:

Argentina’s rugby pedigree is better established than Italy’s. Must be all the Welshmen in Patagonia.

 

In the 1980s Romania were a likely candidate but fell away badly. To the inexpert eye Georgia look not bad but I’m not enough of a rugger chappie to say how close they really are.

If you want a prop forward, and can't afford the flight to the South Sea Islands, get a Georgian. French rugby seems to be full of them.

Traditionally, going back centuries, the Georgians played "Lelo" or "Lelo Burti", a game, of sorts, often described as resembling rugby, but, as far as I can see, would  best be described as a hybrid of rugby and fighting, contested between settlements, across fields, marshes, streams, and hills. 

Unfortunately, The Soviet government saw fit to standardise, codify, and , well, sanitise, the game. It is played on a standard sized pitch, and tactics such as jumping on one's opponent are outlawed. 

In rugby terms, Georgia is probably the best of the rest, in the N Hemsphere, outside the 6 Nations. It may even be better than Italy, although it might take regular competition to prove that. As for replacing Italy in the 6N, we would do well to remember that Georgia is really quite far away, and that blazers and supporters do enjoy a long week-end in Rome, every couple of years. 

 

In 1984, Scotland won the Grand Slam, and that summer went to Romania, to be turned over by the hosts. I don't know to what extent the players took the trip seriously, but they were well beaten. At that point, Romanian Rugby was on the jup and up. Subsequently, it has fallen away.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott7 said:

Probably not.

 

It’s like relegating County and promoting Caley. Dross for dross. (Forgive the intemperate language. Ancient tribalism.)

Probably wouldnt mate. I do see your comparison though. It was just purely a thought that they might advance more than Italy. I have been in Georgia a few times and know they like rugby. Logistically its an hour or 2 tops extra than Rome so thats no issue.

Its something I think would make the 6 nations more attractive - Italy are always on the 'put off' time for game slot and they are on the wrong side of a hiding most games.

 

I suppose Rugby are at the disadvantage of a gap between top nations and mid / bottom nations compared to football. i.e. there is no middle ground teams like Sweden / Poland / Switzerland who can give a game on home territory.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

In rugby terms, Georgia is probably the best of the rest, in the N Hemsphere, outside the 6 Nations.

Japan is now far ahead of Georgia, which may be the best of the rest but is probably not much better than Canada, Russia, Romania, and the USA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bill said:

Japan is now far ahead of Georgia, which may be the best of the rest but is probably not much better than Canada, Russia, Romania, and the USA. 

In rugby terms, Japan seems to be aligned more with the S Hemisphere.

The Sunwolves, of Tokyo, and Singapore, polayed in Super Rugby for a couple of seasons, but are now no more. 

I can't see Japan, for purely logistical reasons, joining the 6 Nations, or an expanded competition based around it. 

At one point, it seemed possible that Argentina might come in, as it had so many European based players; it would base itself in S France, or Spain. It didn't happen, and it now contests with OZ, NZ, and SA (although Covid kept SA out of the last Championship, I think).

 

I would hazard a guess that, of teams likely to be interested in joining the 6 nations, Georgia is the best bet. However unless there is a proper professional Division 2 or Conference 2, which is unlikely for crude financial reasons, and due to self interest of the current members, it is difficult to make a hard/fast judgement. (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Germany, Spain as a first guess). 

It is all down to money, of course, as the Pacific Islands know too well. If you have a competitive and professional product you can attract TV, advertisers, sponsors, etc. and sell merchandise, but you need income from these sources to have a competitive and professional product. A Catch 22, if you will, but one where you can't shout, "Mark!"

 

I don't know where Canadian and US rugby go, in regular competitive terms, apart from entertaining touring sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought the First Minister would  have a photo opportunity with the Calcutta Cup winners by now? Those courageous lads have vanquished perfidious Albion in their own midden and Nicola must bathe in reflected glory.

 

However, it has not occurred, has she even offered congrats?

 

Maybe the refusal so far to re-name the cup, 'Kolkata' has upset the woke FM, or is it because only four Scots internationals from the initial fifteen took the knee in homage to BLM? Further, why have Indian Gov't so far refused to ask for the collection of Rupees to be repatriated to the sub continent?

 

Still, it's appropriate the designer of the trophy included the FM's venom spitting likeness in the cup's three handles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Uilleam said:

In rugby terms, Japan seems to be aligned more with the S Hemisphere.

The Sunwolves, of Tokyo, and Singapore, polayed in Super Rugby for a couple of seasons, but are now no more. 

I can't see Japan, for purely logistical reasons, joining the 6 Nations, or an expanded competition based around it. 

At one point, it seemed possible that Argentina might come in, as it had so many European based players; it would base itself in S France, or Spain. It didn't happen, and it now contests with OZ, NZ, and SA (although Covid kept SA out of the last Championship, I think).

 

I would hazard a guess that, of teams likely to be interested in joining the 6 nations, Georgia is the best bet. However unless there is a proper professional Division 2 or Conference 2, which is unlikely for crude financial reasons, and due to self interest of the current members, it is difficult to make a hard/fast judgement. (Georgia, Romania, Russia, Germany, Spain as a first guess). 

It is all down to money, of course, as the Pacific Islands know too well. If you have a competitive and professional product you can attract TV, advertisers, sponsors, etc. and sell merchandise, but you need income from these sources to have a competitive and professional product. A Catch 22, if you will, but one where you can't shout, "Mark!"

 

I don't know where Canadian and US rugby go, in regular competitive terms, apart from entertaining touring sides.

Japan is currently viewed as a southern hemisphere nation although it is, of course, nothing of the kind. It joined the souther hemisphere pack of nations for the simple reason that was the only option presented to it, even though the distances are still significant. Being in the northern hemisphere, Japan's seasons are completely at odd with Aus, NZ, RSA, Arg playing seasons and that already causes problems.

 

The bottom line is rugby is an emerging global sport that needs to decide where it's going. You could look at regional league systems but that makes no sense when so many of the top nations are clustered in a couple of geographical regions. The fact is that emerging nations need what the tri-nations and five-nations had, which was frequent games against teams of top stature. Unless you can come up with a way to have Georgia, Canada, etc regularly play the top tier countries then you condemn them to an endless future at a lower standard. In the short term it seems inevitable that countries are going to have to cope with the distances involved.

 

For these reasons I think a tiered league system like football would be a disaster for rugby. If it's going to be split up then it would have to be different conferences, like Baseball or American football, which would allow all teams to compete against the big boys without any restriction of geography. Like most countries, Georgia's ranking goes up and down significantly but is actually no better than a few other countries and it's hard to see on what basis they deserve to jump any queues. What the game needs is not about which country is first in line, it's about finding a formula that allows 12 or so emerging countries to join the current 11 test nations. The six nations as a concept has to go if rugby is going to fulfil its potential and so, I believe, does the current World Cup format, which is little more than an uncompetitive four-yearly confirmation of entrenched status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.