Jenuall wrote:Yes the individual teams need some recovery time, I'm not really disputing that. Although it should be noted that in the Rugby World Cup teams play every week...
It's the organisation of the competition that is the failure, there are just not enough teams to sustain things and having arbitrary weeks where nothing happens kills the buzz. The Rugby World Cup is exciting because there is something to watch every day during the groups and they still manage to maintain momentum going into the knockouts.
I mean, you say you're not disputing that but then you've just called the weeks off arbitrary... They're not. There aren't anymore teams to add to the competition anyway. They could replace Italy with Georgia but that's about it from a competitive perspective and it wouldn't change that much.
But why are you calling it a failure? You may not like it, but it's not a failure. It's a hugely popular annual competition with matches that sell out and generates huge buzz every year. Apart from Italy, most the matches are very competitive too. You're comparing it to the World Cup but there are many meaningless and uncompetitive matches due to a drop off in quality outside the top teams. And because of the nature of the sport and scoring, upsets very rarely happen-unlike in football where a team can nick a goal and hold on to win.
Jenuall wrote:But the 6 nations is so stop/start that the tension and excitement doesn't build up - everyone just goes "how strawberry floating long is it until the next match again?". There are so few teams that within a couple of weeks it can be pointless for all but a couple of teams to even try and sustain interest
I mean, that's very specific to you. Millions in the UK are invested in the tension and excitement each year. Infact you admit you've seen that yourself...
Jenuall wrote:I grew up in Gloucester where rugby is basically the only thing anyone talks about, I've been to "The Shed" and experienced the excitement. I've lived about ten years of my life in Cardiff where massive international games are indeed a big deal - I understand that there can be a huge buzz on match day. Rugby can be a fantastic spectacle as a match, and a competition like the RWC is great to appreciate as it plays out, but that doesn't stop the 6 nations from being a damp squib by comparison.
so I don't see how you can question it other than to say you don't personally like it. Because it's clearly something the competition isn't struggling with.
Jenuall wrote:This years RWC and 6 Nations both last the same number of days (44) - one features 20 teams playing in that time, the other features just 6!
Honestly, this is just a silly comparison. The number of teams is irrelevant. It's about the number of matches each team play that is of concern. If you get to the final you play 7 matches. But that includes two group games against much poorer opposition, who realistically many teams will rest players for. So you're playing your best squad for 5 matches in all likilihood. And that's just 2 teams who get to the final. Yes the top teams will probably have a more gruelling schedule then the six nations but it's only once
every 4 years, where teams have prepared their squads specifically for it. Plus the Six Nations is right in the middle of the domestic season-schedules for the players are adjusted for a RWC which they can do...because it's once every 4 years. The Six Nations is annual, and I can guarantee, if they started talking about dropping the weeks off, there would be an outcry because of concerns over player health. And why would they? It's not a problem that needs fixing even if you don't personally like it.