Italy in the 6 nations is time for a rethink

Let's face it, rugby union is really only important in the British Isles (though way behind football), South Africa, Oceania and parts of Southern France, with Italy and Argentina showing a little bit of interest too. Globally it isn't really a very big sport at all.

I think they'd be better off having a World Championship every year involving those 12 teams, sack off all the other tournaments and internationals and then a World Cup every four years with 4 more qualifiers from the less interested countries to give them something to aim at and something for Fiji/Samoa to look forward to.
 
Why would anyone ever discount France? They can be brilliant or awful. Scotland, just average or awful?

E692CE5D-1629-48EB-8AAA-2C537910AAD5.jpeg
 
Last edited:
atypical_boro said:
Let's face it, rugby union is really only important in the British Isles (though way behind football), South Africa, Oceania and parts of Southern France, with Italy and Argentina showing a little bit of interest too. Globally it isn't really a very big sport at all.

I think they'd be better off having a World Championship every year involving those 12 teams, sack off all the other tournaments and internationals and then a World Cup every four years with 4 more qualifiers from the less interested countries to give them something to aim at and something for Fiji/Samoa to look forward to.
Click to expand...
Shall we ignore New Zealand?
 
Nah...the Autumn internationals allow for competition between southern and northern hemisphere's. The 5/6 nations is a fantastic tournament between a lot of old enemies. Doesn't need changing that much.
 
Humpty said:
Nah...the Autumn internationals allow for competition between southern and northern hemisphere's. The 5/6 nations is a fantastic tournament between a lot of old enemies. Doesn't need changing that much.
Click to expand...
Yep, and that’s just a money making exercise. Also makes it stale playing NZ and SA every year. Wales only sell out v NZ usually and close the south stand for the others.
 
atypical_boro said:
Let's face it, rugby union is really only important in the British Isles (though way behind football), South Africa, Oceania and parts of Southern France, with Italy and Argentina showing a little bit of interest too. Globally it isn't really a very big sport at all.

I think they'd be better off having a World Championship every year involving those 12 teams, sack off all the other tournaments and internationals and then a World Cup every four years with 4 more qualifiers from the less interested countries to give them something to aim at and something for Fiji/Samoa to look forward to.
Click to expand...

They really wouldn’t, the six nations had something special about it.

now then: do you honestly think Scotland will NEVER win the six nations? They have shown in the five nations they are capable and they aren’t far off being competitive at the moment
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
They really wouldn’t, the six nations had something special about it
Click to expand...
Well they're about to ruin that by the looks of things.

If it becomes the 7 Nations you're basically looking at everyone in the world that's any good at rugby except New Zealand/Oz. Might as well just add them as well.
 
I agree. Argentina too. Then what? Either way, adding South Africa won’t help develop rugby at all. Which is what world rugby should be concentrating on. The six nations is great because it’s mostly regional battles. Last weeks Calcutta cup was essentially an awful match against two middling teams but because our was a local derby it was actually quite interesting
 
SmallTown said:
I agree. Argentina too. Then what? Either way, adding South Africa won’t help develop rugby at all. Which is what world rugby should be concentrating on. The six nations is great because it’s mostly regional battles. Last weeks Calcutta cup was essentially an awful match against two middling teams but because our was a local derby it was actually quite interesting
Click to expand...
Well it feels like its devaluing the rugby world cup to some extent. But then on the flip side, its always felt like thats really a tournament that consists of New Zealand either turning up or not turning up. If they turn up, its theirs, and thats been the case since it started.

But yeah I agree the Six Nations is about to make a mistake in adding RSA.
 
Between 6 and 8 million people on average watch each 6 Nations match. More people watched Wales v England last year than the free-to-air Man U v Chelsea Cup game and far more than any Sky Premier League match.

It is a popular sport to play and watch in the UK. As it is in many other parts of the world. Almost half the population of Japan watched the last two World Cups. Figures football could only dream of in the UK.
 
atypical_boro said:
Well it feels like its devaluing the rugby world cup to some extent. But then on the flip side, its always felt like thats really a tournament that consists of New Zealand either turning up or not turning up. If they turn up, its theirs, and thats been the case since it started.

But yeah I agree the Six Nations is about to make a mistake in adding RSA.
Click to expand...
New Zealand have turned up at 9 World Cups and won 3, the same as South Africa.
 
atypical_boro said:
Well it feels like its devaluing the rugby world cup to some extent. But then on the flip side, its always felt like thats really a tournament that consists of New Zealand either turning up or not turning up. If they turn up, its theirs, and thats been the case since it started.

But yeah I agree the Six Nations is about to make a mistake in adding RSA.
Click to expand...

You could say that about the vast majority of the elite test rugby nations. New Zealand don't always turn up but consistency at the top level wins you World Cups especially in the latter stages, as South Africa showed last year. New Zealand turned up last year with so did England, neither had the consistency South Africa had.
 
bear66 said:
Between 6 and 8 million people on average watch each 6 Nations match.
Click to expand...

I would guess in England the proportionate figures are much lower. It feels like the 6 Nations is much bigger in the other home nations as its a chance to get one over on England and the rest etc.

So are you saying rugby is bigger in Japan than football is in the UK?
 
bear66 said:
New Zealand have turned up at 9 World Cups and won 3, the same as South Africa.
Click to expand...
indeed but the 6 times they haven't won it its been largely viewed as an 'upset'. I bet they've been bookies favourites to win every single RWC in history. The only time I can think maybe not was 2003.
 
An Ofcom figure came up with 8.9 million per 6 Nations match in the UK (not including Ireland, France or the rest of the world. Another source came up with 6 million per game last season.

By viewing figures rugby is bigger in Japan. By playing figures, it's about a tenth of the UK by population.
 
bear66 said:
An Ofcom figure came up with 8.9 million per 6 Nations match in the UK (not including Ireland, France or the rest of the world. Another source came up with 6 million per game last season.

By viewing figures rugby is bigger in Japan. By playing figures, it's about a tenth of the UK by population.
Click to expand...
I find that hard to believe but I'm not questioning you. Very surprising. I bet PL football is bigger at the very least.

I'm not surprised about the 6m figure that much, but I bet almost all England football matches beat this.

I'm not saying Rugby isn't 'popular' here btw. I was saying globally its not very popular. Its basically the British Isles, a few other nations in the Anglosphere, plus a few latin-based nations who don't take it very seriously. And a few small pacific islands.
 
I'm not sure you can really compare a one off World Cup in your home country. Let's see how they compare next time around.

And the rugby figures in the UK might have been on average higher if they weren't clashing with millions of people going to watch football matches up and down the country as most of the kick-off times overlap at least a little bit.
 
atypical_boro said:
indeed but the 6 times they haven't won it its been largely viewed as an 'upset'. I bet they've been bookies favourites to win every single RWC in history. The only time I can think maybe not was 2003.
Click to expand...
How often have Brazil been pre-tournament favourites at the WC? They've won it twice since 1970.

New Zealand have been top 3 of 7 of the 9 tournaments. They have won 455 out of 588 tests. Only 6 sides have ever beaten them. They have only lost 7 out of 41 games against the Lions. You'd expect them to be bookies favourites for most tournaments but they don't win every game. Their biggest loss ever was to Australia last season.
 
Using rugby's lack of popularity in other parts of the world as an argument to just shut up shop is just baffling in my eyes.

It's got to grow somehow.
Allowing a country like Georgia or Romania to come in would bring consistent top level rugby to another part of the world and would only help to improve its popularity.

Inviting an established "big" team keeps it insular and removes some of the novelty of playing a Southern Hemisphere team, and would just highlight to prospective rugby nations in Europe that it's an old boy's club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top