Many a headline emerged this morning suggesting the Six Nations council were considering moving the tournament to April – a rumour that has been met with interest by rugby fans not only in Europe, but across the globe.
In reality, the Six Nations bigwigs meet every year at this time, to discuss potential improvements to the tournament. On the agenda also will be the potential introduction of bonus points, and the removal of the ring fence that currently means there’s no way for the likes of Georgia or Romania to join the elite competition.
So, it’s a meeting that happens every year to discuss such improvements, and yet the notion that has captured headlines and social media buzz alike this morning has been the potential move to a later date. Why is this?
Put simply, we’ve just had a gruellingly long rugby season, that commenced with the World Cup last year and only finished a couple of weeks ago for those on June tours. It’s brought the well-known issue of player welfare and burnout even more sharply into the public eye.
Loading ...The benefits are obvious – it would mean players stayed with their clubs through to the end of March, when the domestic season could end two months earlier than it does now. The Six Nations could then be played throughout April and May, immediately before the Northern Hemisphere nations jet off on tour.
@thepaulwilliams The truth!! Be flipping awesome. Straight from 6N to SH for June internationals
— Front Row Grunt (@FrontRowGrunt) July 18, 2016
So, national coaches would have their players together as a group for three months on end, rather than for a few weeks here and there throughout the season, as is the current case. You could even make an argument for tacking the Autumn Internationals onto the back of The Rugby Championship, so you had a completely separate club and country seasons (although that would be unlikely to help with the player burnout issue).
The weather in April/May is typically better than in February/March, too – one of the rods used to beat the Six Nations’ back at the moment is that the quality of rugby on show is adversely affected by the weather conditions. A move to later in the year would remove that as an excuse for the sometimes dour fare on show.
The Six Nations as an organisation is wary of change, however, and you can understand why – to a degree. It calls itself “Rugby’s Greatest Championship”, and while that is often a touch on the hyperbolic side, it does yield packed out stadiums and monumental TV figures year after year. So from their point of view, and with no obligation to think of anything other than what is best for their tournament, why would they fix something that isn’t broken?
Ultimately though, most rugby folk are realising that a globally aligned season is towards the top of the agenda, and a move to April for the Six Nations would be a good way to start down this road.
What do you think? Would you like to see the Six Nations move to later in the year? Vote in the poll above and leave your thoughts below.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
The more interesting poll for me would be which do people think would be the best improvement to 6N as it stands as there are so many that have been floating around over the years:
1. Introduction of bonus points
2. Introduction of promotion/relegation OR
3. Expansion to 7N
4. Alignment to a global calendar
5. Removal of the Fallow weeks to compact the tournament OR
6. Home and away fixtures to remove the years in which one country has a perceived advantage
The only issue I can see with moving to April are that international rugby will only ever be played between April and November leaving me with 5 months of speculation as to where this England team actually stands
For me personally
1. Bonus points is essential to improve the tournament.
2/3. Including Georgia and longer term perhaps Romania will be important for growing the game and has to be considered sooner rather than later.
4. A global calendar makes sense but needs to come from the IRB down rather than everyone tourney taking it upon themselves to move things around.
5. I have never understood why we have fallow weeks they are pointless and stretch out the international window for clubs unnecessarily.
6. Low priority and probably a non starter due to player burnout but something isn’t quite right with the format as it stands
I think the bonus points are a must have for the benefit of the tournament.
Also wouldn’t the introduction of one more country like Georgia mean that each team gets three home games and three away games. I know some teams will have tougher away games than others, but at the moment the country playing three home games are perceived to have the advantage. Personally I think Georgia would give Italy a good run for their money and give them more of an incentive to improve.
It should be moved for sure with many benefits as ready mentioned For me however there should be promotion ,relegation to keep them all on their toes! Have the bottom team in six nations play top team in lower competition to see who moved up or otherwise.
Generally a fan of the idea but being dopey I have two questions:
‘When the domestic season could end two months earlier than it does now.’
How would that work?
Also on the burn out issue, if the internationals then have to play the full domestic season plus the 6N that will only exacerbate it, surely?
I think without the 6N in Feb/March you could get rid of the LV Cup and just play domestic leagues and Euro Cups through to their completion by the beginning of April (you’re right though, I didn’t male that clear in the article).
As for the second issue, you’re right, it wouldn’t necessarily help with burnout – but I think if both club and international coaches had their squads together without disruption for the whole season, rotation/resting players would be much easier. Right now both the domestic and international seasons are so disjointed that it becomes difficult for the top guys to ever get a break.
Fair enough. I think ultimately it makes sense, as you say it will just require a rethink from coaches on the patterns of who plays when and how often.
It would be interesting to see how the French react to having to constrict their ever lengthening season. Worth doing just to wind them up.
Judging by past performance the FNR response would be to add in a round of 16 to the knockout phase including the top two teams from the ProD2 to extend the season by a week and make the lengthy league season even more meaningless.