Should 6nations be a European Tournament?

Question

Should countries like Romania, Spain and London be included?

For Feck's sake.. I know London isn't a country, but I think it ought to be, alright.. Now ANSWER!!!

(sorry, let myself go a bit)

Answer 1

Romania used to be as worthy, if not more so, than Italy. Now they are not. In fact I'd suggest Georgia (former USSR republic, not US state) are better than Romania. There are tenative plans to, at some point include Argentina, but base them and have them play in Spain. I'd welcome that. They ARE good enough.

Answer 2

It sort of already is. The 6 Nations is the top division. There is a second competition, called the European Nations Cup. Rugby World magazine often refers to this as the 2nd division 6 Nations, though it's an imperfect match, since the season and structure differs. The second-six are currently Spain, Portugal, Romania, Georgia, Russia and the Czech Republic.

Rugby World also frequently puts forth the idea of promotion and relegation between the 6 Nations and the second-six. I would love to see this in my lifetime, but currently, there is much too wide a gap in the quality of rugby among these countries.

Answer 3

No. I think six is enough. When you introduce teams that aren't very good, you just get a predictable result every year, like what happened with Italy when they first joined.

No-one (apart from the Italians) enjoys the Italy games because unless your team is having a particularly bad season, you know you're going to win.

Also, there are none of the old rivalries like we have with the other nations currently in the tournament. There is no passion in a match with no rivalries.

Saying that, nowerdays, I feel Italy are improving all the time and play interesting rugby.

But I don't want any more nations in the squad. Sorry.

And your London suggestion is ridiculous, since most players on London teams already have a nation to play for!

Answer 4

They should be able to take part if their Rugby was up to the standard of the competing nations, but when did you last see Romania or Spain ( I'll leave London out for obvious reasons ) do well in a tournament. See how they fare at this years World Cup and then ask, that of course provided they qualified!!!!!

Answer 5

Uh, A London is a city in England, one of the teams. And B, Romania and Spain arn't good enough. France etc... need some competition from teams like Australia and New Zealand.

Answer 6

If other countries become good enough to play then yes but I think it should still be the 6 nations with the last team being dropped and someone else coming in ie: italy out and spain in for the next year.
no comment on the london bit however most of leicester seem to already be playing..as usual

Answer 7

London is not a country but the capital and largest city of Great Britain. Having said that, extending that tournament to other countries could be good in terms of increasing its popularity outside of Britain, Ireland, and France, but there would inevitably be an increase in weak, hopelessly overpowered teams. Look at how Italy has struggled to avoid finishing dead last since it started taking part a few years ago.

Answer 8

It wouldn't be the six nations then would it?
Though it used to be the five nations before Italy joined. No other European country would be good enough to compete against the others - and London is not a country!!!!!

Answer 9

the teams outside the 6 nations aren't good enough to compete, they do have a lower competition which involves, spain, romania, portugal etc. The most dissapointing thing is that argentina don't get many games, with more internationals they would be up there with the southern hemisphere teams

Answer 10

When did London become a country?