ComeOnYouSaints.com - N Hemisphere - is Six Nations the only way?

N Hemisphere - is Six Nations the only way?

By RedSaint
February 3 2009
Paul Flatt wrote a thread prompted by an Eddy Butler article discussing the meaning of life and the Six Nations, From 3000 miles to the east, where, if we think it's cold here we don't know we're born, RedSaint highlights some of the goings on in the lower ranked countries, and discusses how they might become more involved.

England Saxons v Portugal.

As Portugal couldn't beat London Welsh (before they started taking things seriously), it's not going to be much of a competition, but it is a step in the right direction.

Georgia got beaten 69-3 by Scotland A, and Georgia are a lot better than Portugal, but it's a good mirror of the problem with the ambitious NL1 clubs (ok, just Exeter and Leeds really).

Georgia are starting to break away from the rest of Europe's second tier, there's serious investment (as much as such a thing exists in Georgia) going into Georgian rugby, which was already the standout at 6NB level.

How do you involve them and spread the game?

Obviously, promotion to the 6N proper is a non-starter, but with the lack of A games, sticking the Saxons in with the 6NB could be a viable alternative, beneficial to both sides.

Behind Georgia, Steve Diamond's Russia are realistically next in line, or soon will be - investment and the domestic structure are now far in advance of Romania - though losing Saurel was a setback. Portugal are behind both of them, and Spain are again looking like they might return to being Iberia's best team. Germany are a little adrift in terms of the 6NB, but should probably beat at least one of the Iberian teams in Heidelberg.

Portugal themselves are seeing their golden generation wane a little - they're not as good as the team that sneaked into RWC07, a team which themselves were not the 2004-6 class. Still, if there's one thing they are it's proud and they'll be competitive for at least the first half - 60 minutes. Again, expect it to be a mirror of any of the Saints home games in NL1 last year.

There are plenty of Georgians and Romanians playing in France, and now Portuguese and Russians are starting to join them it's clear they're starting to advance as rugby-playing nations. There's at least one Uva at Montpellier, so Saints fans will have had recent sightings of Portugal's best player. Games like this Saxons one, however tedious it is for England fans, are essential to continue this process.

As is the Saints friendly against Russia in Moscow this August that I'm sure Mssrs Mallinder and Diamond are arranging as I type...

So, let's have a bit of a ramble...

The whole situation is very similar to the conundrum what to do to accommodate the premiership 12, the 13th team, perennial second-besters Exeter, and those stretching out far below them.

Two main schools of thought are normally presented as solutions with regards to both problems:

1. Make the 6N, the 7N, the 8N, etc. (Make the GP 10, 14, whatever) and keep the top tier as the closed shop of the elite. Every league below can have promotion and relegation and amateur status. The status quo remains unless some upstart can jump through a million different hoops and somehow prove itself worthy of a place at the top (cf. France, Italy, Romania, Worcester).

2. Make entry to the top level open to all, even if this means only having the 6 best nations/12 best GP teams in the top league once every two years. One team adjusts itself as the yo-yo (cf. Leeds, would probably be Italy/Scotland at 6N level) and is replaced every other year by one of a small handful of probables below who spend the next year conceding cricket scores (cf. Rotherham, Exeter) and returning from whence they came, only without the confidence and positive balance sheets.

Certainly, from the first idea - we can see some success with Italy. Much to every neutral's glee/Schadenfreudeist's pleasure, they can now beat Scotland and Wales, well done, and annoy the other three on occasion, but not actually trouble them.

We can also see how a failure to incorporate 1970/80s Romania and 1930/50s Germany effectively killed off the game in both countries when both would have been perfectly capable of competing at 5N level. These two examples serve as the big loud flashing red siren with the letters A-r-g-e-n-t-i-n-a stuck on it.

Has the second option, bringing lower quality through for a year of embarrassment at a time proved as successful? I doubt the Titans and Bedford even would agree, but going just one level lower, maybe our friends in Launceston possibly would. If only they're allowed the chance to come back after a year of recording cricket scores in their favour this time.

The current European international system has 8 tiers. Aside from no passage between tiers 1 (6N) and 2 (The European Nations Cup Division 1), there is promotion and relegation between all other tiers on a two-year, home-and-away cycle, encompassing 42 nations. Missing only are Belarus, Estonia, Albania and some other Balkans, Iceland, Turkey and Cornwall. In addition to these 6N equivalents, there is an increasingly popular 7s circuit, with a lot of the lower ranked countries putting in performances belying their lowly statuses.

The most recent cycle of the ENC ended in the summer of 2008. This saw Georgia ranked 7th best team in Europe and Russia 8th. I believe Azerbaijan were ranked lowest. The Czech Republic were relegated from tier 2 to 3, being replaced by Germany who came through some mathematical calculations to pip Belgium and Moldova, both of whom benefit from large ex-pat populations from their rugby playing neighbours.

Should Georgia have replaced Italy? The last result between the two was a Georgia 25 - Italy A 3 scoreline at last year's Nations Cup. Georgia also have that performance against Ireland at the world cup to dine out on. Is it likely they could repeat that? A whole host of things would have to change before a 1 in 100 result is changed into a 1 in 50. Georgia's most recent result against a founding union was a 67-3 loss against Scotland A.

Georgia are certainly the difficult one to call. Without a doubt they are the strongest tier 2 European nation. The IRB currently ranks them at 14th, just below Tonga and just ahead of Canada. This would seem to be a fairly accurate ranking. They will only get stronger, and I would imagine they fancy a clean 10 out of 10 wins in the 2008-10 ENC1. At what stage does moving them up and making them winless for however long become beneficial?

For more on Georgian rugby, I refer you to my article from the summer - likewise those from the archive on Germany and Russia for a detailed look at those nations, although these will be somewhat out of date now. Russia would probably be next in line after Georgia, but they're very close to Romania - however, Russia are moving forwards, Romania backward and their policy to only pick players playing in the domestic league is backfiring. If they call back players from France this time round, and RWC11 qualification is at stake, then they should join Georgia as automatic qualifiers, pushing Russia into repecharge, but there's no guarantee NZ won't be the first world cup without the Oaks' participation.

Below the leading three are the Iberian teams, a floundering Portugal (who will now no doubt replace Holland as the team everyone wants to see make up a 7N because they've now played England on Sky) and a resurgent Spain, both with World Cup experience, but with much smaller and less developed grass roots supports than any of their eastern counterparts. Germany is again covered in a past article, but they're unlikely not to be going straight back down. They should put on a better display than the Czechs did last time though.

At the top of tier 3, probably the most interesting level in terms of emerging interest in the game and in competitiveness (after 2 rounds no one is undefeated) Belgium and Moldova are being pushed by Poland and Ukraine as well as the Czechs. Belgium missed out on promotion by virtue of a 5-point aggregate deficit to Germany last time out and recently hosted the Barbarians. Jacques Rogge is a former capped international with the Black Devils, as is Joe Worsley's Moscow-based uncle. Moldova made their debut in world 7s last year, and are pretty good at 15s. Moldova came third in the European 7s series last year, and regularly hammer France at the shortened version of the game - hurrah! They actually started their rugby union out of a group of ex-track sprinters and prospects from the national sports academy's sprint team. They don't play like England.

Any one of the 5 teams could drop to tier 4, where long forgotten Neil Back fodder the Netherlands are the big player. Below tier 4, most of the nations have played less rugby than England-qualified academy prospects, but the one to watch is Armenia which has secured several promotions on the bounce and is benefiting from close links with Georgia. They are a small but important success story for the promotion/relegation/variety camp.

Going back to the original point - promotion/relegation between tier 1 and 2 seems a non-starter. Even Martin Johnson's England would expect a 60+ point win over Georgia - the gap is currently too wide. The ENC divisions system works well (although they need to change from 3 pts for a win, 2 for a draw, 1 for a loss) and the divisions are normally of similar standard throughout. The IRB's recent push for more top level competition for tier 2 is well-meant and actually well-deployed. Indeed, as I see it, the best progression would be to meld the Nations Cup (which is a free trophy for the Emerging Springboks) with the current ENC or along the lines of the Pacific 6N. If England and Ireland do want to persist with their A teams, Georgia and Russia would happily provide competition for them. 66-0 might not have done the Saxons any favours, but it will have Portugal. If not the Saxons, an England Counties team spatchcocked into some European tournament could work, or the under 20s. No one outside the 3N and 6N has enough international games, but these 9 have the resources to bring forward other unions. With the loss of the A teams (another problem mirrored at GP level), there is no reason Georgia et al couldn't fill the void.

And as an end note - of much more relevance to Saints, the Russian Rugby Union is trying to get its champions (inevitably VVA, who now have a pitch with undersoil heating so advanced you can play it in the midst of a Podmoskovye winter, unlike the English champions) into the ECC a la Bucharest. Now that would be a draw worth enduring another of the competition for...

In the meantime, Saturday's big game is Portugal vs. Steve Diamond's Russia in Lisbon. A loss for Los Lobos and they won't be doing two World Cups on the trot...

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

N Hemisphere - is Six Nations the only way?

Posted by: ComeOnYouSaints.com (IP Logged)

Date: 03/02/2009 23:38

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:02:03:23:40:44 by St Marlowe.

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message