PDA

View Full Version : [RBS 6 Nations] Bonus point trial in 2017



L'irlandais
22-01-17, 16:01
Hello, it's been a while since we've had a poll.

Bonus point trial in this year's 6 nations (http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/30434.php#7wBOQLjF6We2E3SW.97)

This system will be implemented on a trial basis in all three Championships in 2017 and will be reviewed post Championships.

The BBC asks if it's a gimmick or overdue modernising? (http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38161179). What do you think?

This ESPN article (http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/18178251/six-nations-bonus-points-ireland-wales-france-won) looks at some previous tournaments results, in light of the bonus point trial.

didds
22-01-17, 17:01
*shrug*

whatever.

Do 6N sides really not try to score tries until the final second? Unless 30 points ahead so just kick it off the park?

And what about the fans that actually now want to get to the pub instead of watching another 8 minutes of wide trench defense until somebody knocks on?



didds

- - - Updated - - -

you need a 3rd option

* I don't GAF

didds

OB..
22-01-17, 17:01
Since Italy joined, there have been 153 home wins, 98 away wins, and 5 draws. The 6N is not a home-and-away competition, so each season there is a built-in advantage already, which would be increased by bonus points.

It is essential that whatever system is used does not allow a Grand Slam winner to be beaten by their closest rival because of bonus points. In 2002 France won all 5 games (10 points) plus 1 try bonus for 11 points. England won 4 games (8 points) plus a losing bonus against France and 4 try bonuses from the other matches: total 13 points.

The current points difference system is an incentive to beat Italy (usually seen as the weakest team) by as many as possible.

There is a reasonable case for using bonus points as a tie-breaker.

The main argument for bonus points is that it provides an incentive to a losing team, who might manage to salvage a point. A try bonus merely rewards a team who dominance is already represented in the number of points scored. (The occasional try fest might give both sides a try bonus - 4 times in 255 matches so far)

Ian_Cook
22-01-17, 19:01
Six times in in the 17 seasons since Italy joined, teams that won the 6N did so by points difference, that is just over 1/3 of the time

First team listed won 6N - next team(s) listed finished on the same table points

2001 - England - Ireland
2006 - France - Ireland
2007 - France - Ireland *
2013 - Wales - England
2014 - Ireland - England
2015 - Ireland - England - Wales

* In 2007 the result might have changed. Ireland would have got two try bonus points and one close loss bonus point to France's single try bonus point and one close loss bonus point, so Ireland would probably have won the 6N in that year.

I say "might" and "probably" because you cant just go back and add bonus points to rework results after the fact. Knowing that bonus points were needed, teams might have played differently, e.g. kicking for the corner late in the game rather than taking an easy three.

Rushforth
22-01-17, 20:01
* I don't GAF

IIRC there is a fudge factor for achieving the GS - oh it can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Six_Nations_Championship "Additionally, to ensure that a team winning all of its five matches (a Grand Slam) will also win the Championship, three bonus points will be awarded for this achievement.[1][2]"


Three bonus points suffices because 5*4+3 > 4*5+2, where the two is the maximum number of points (for both bonuses) that a losing side can achieve.

L'irlandais
22-01-17, 20:01
- - - Updated - - -

you need a 3rd option

* I don't GAF

diddsNot sure how to edit the poll to add that third option.

DocY
23-01-17, 09:01
I don't see what problem bonus points would solve.

Yes, you get the odd boring match (e.g. Wales v France last year), but I'm not sure bonus points would improve that - and the year before you have Wales v Ireland: hugely exciting with one try and one penalty try.

And look back to 'Super Saturday' two years ago. No bonus points, but so many tries scored it was farcical!

Sure, England won with a round to spare last year, but that was down to Wales and Ireland drawing, and they'd still have won with a round to spare even with bonus points.

OB..
23-01-17, 12:01
Three bonus points suffices because 5*4+3 > 4*5+2, where the two is the maximum number of points (for both bonuses) that a losing side can achieve.
Using the intended system, if a team wins a Grand Slam without getting any try bonuses, they will get 20 points plus the GS bonus = 23. The second team could get 4 * 4 points = 16, plus 5 try bonuses and one losing bonus =22. Hence the need for a 3 point GS bonus.

didds
23-01-17, 13:01
Using the intended system, if a team wins a Grand Slam without getting any try bonuses, they will get 20 points plus the GS bonus = 23. The second team could get 4 * 4 points = 16, plus 5 try bonuses and one losing bonus =22. Hence the need for a 3 point GS bonus.

In a non GS year you could have team A win 4 games with no bonuses = 16 points. Another team winning 3 games and losing 2 of them could however pick up 3 try bonuses and 2 losing bonuses = 3*4 = 12 + 5 = 17.

Did I understand that right? So it would be possible for a team winning only 3 matches to win the 6N and beating a team that won 4 matches ?

didds

DocY
23-01-17, 13:01
In a non GS year you could have team A win 4 games with no bonuses = 16 points. Another team winning 3 games and losing 2 of them could however pick up 3 try bonuses and 2 losing bonuses = 3*4 = 12 + 5 = 17.

Did I understand that right? So it would be possible for a team winning only 3 matches to win the 6N and beating a team that won 4 matches ?

didds

Yep, that's my understanding, too.

There might be benefit in using them as a tie breaker (as OB suggests), but it can result in 'interesting' outcomes if used as stated.

What you don't really want is a team losing on the last weekend, but still winning the trophy, and bonus points will make this more likely.

E.g. if Ireland need to score four tries and beat England by more than 7 on the last weekend (and stop England scoring 4 tries, not a terribly unlikely situation) and they win comfortably, but only score three tries, who's going to be satisfied with the results?

I realise you can get this situation at the moment, but the only factor is points difference. When you add in other ways for the loser to win the competition, you increase the likelihood of it happening.

didds
23-01-17, 13:01
I have a vague recollection of something odd like this in the first year of bonus points in competiton in the UK, being the Welsh premier league as was based around club sides; my vague recollection from 20 years ago was that the team that finished second had won more games than the team that came first. Googling however suggests this was 1996/97, won by pontypridd but the team that came second was way below them in terms of games won so I'm not sure what I am recollecting now!

didds

DocY
23-01-17, 14:01
I have a vague recollection of something odd like this in the first year of bonus points in competiton in the UK, being the Welsh premier league as was based around club sides; my vague recollection from 20 years ago was that the team that finished second had won more games than the team that came first. Googling however suggests this was 1996/97, won by pontypridd but the team that came second was way below them in terms of games won so I'm not sure what I am recollecting now!

didds

IIRC the Welsh premiership didn't introduce bonus points before regional rugby took over, but it's certainly happened in the English premiership. Less of an impact when you have end of season playoffs, though (which I'm also not a fan of).

Perhaps the points should be re-jigged so you get 8 for a win, so bonus points would likely only come into question in the event of a tie.

didds
23-01-17, 14:01
Yep, that's my understanding, too.

.


Hmmm... so do we think the average supporter would accept that situation I described above in #9?

Cos I don't!

I remember the fallout of Wasps winning the English title from finishing in IIRC 6th place in the table and Glaws missing out having finished top of the log by some considerable distance. Even though top of the log purely meant an easier path to the premiership final.

In short that playoff system reduced the league to a qualifying competition - but that wasn't being fully appreciated. In a similar vein bonus points in a very limited competition like the 6N reduces it to a competition that rewards tries scored over actual results

didds

didds
23-01-17, 14:01
IIRC the Welsh premiership didn't introduce bonus points before regional rugby took over

ah - it was before it was called the premiership I thin - apolgies, my confusion.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rugby.union/1996$2F97$20welsh$20league%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.rugby.union/1AQoaTZwXXk/Alawk6zHQasJ

Unless that was a revamped bonus point system and there was an older one? One of the posters in that usenet tyhread mentions something about an old bonus points system?

didds

DocY
23-01-17, 15:01
ah - it was before it was called the premiership I thin - apolgies, my confusion.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rugby.union/1996$2F97$20welsh$20league%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.rugby.union/1AQoaTZwXXk/Alawk6zHQasJ

Unless that was a revamped bonus point system and there was an older one? One of the posters in that usenet tyhread mentions something about an old bonus points system?

didds

My bad - that's the era I was thinking of when I referred to the premiership. No memory of the bonus points, though!

L'irlandais
23-01-17, 15:01
I find it interesting that encouraging try scoring is seen as one benefit of the bonus point system.
Yet this short study of one of last year's EPCR pools (http://www.rugbytoday.com/columns/bonus-points-system) suggests that that just isn't so. Surely points difference must be taken into consideration?

DocY
23-01-17, 15:01
I find it interesting that encouraging try scoring is seen as one benefit of the bonus point system.
Yet this short study of one of last year's EPCR pools (http://www.rugbytoday.com/columns/bonus-points-system) suggests that that just isn't so. Surely points difference must be taken into consideration?

Yes, that was a strange one - it also shows bonus points not helping give a clear winner!

Does anyone know of any trials done with different bonus point systems? All I'm aware of (other than the 'old system' didds mentions above - and I don't know about that) is the Super 12 having 4-try and losing-by-7 bonus points and that same system being copied everywhere else, until it's possibly changing to a 4-try difference this year.

It seems strange that no other systems have been tried.

L'irlandais
23-01-17, 16:01
The French Top 14 And ProD2 is slightly differentFrench system awards points in this manner: 4 points for a win. 2 points for a draw. 1 "bonus" point for winning while scoring at least 3 more tries than the opponent. 1 "bonus" point for losing by no more than a 5 point margin.So à try fest of say 5 tries To 6, then neither team would be awarded a try bonus, nor a Loosing bonus.

Balones
23-01-17, 16:01
My understanding is that the bonus point system is an attempt to encourage more try scoring. If this is the case perhaps we should take this down to a more base level and simply get the 6 Ns to pay for tries!

I don’t know what the winning team gets for winning the 6Ns apart from a trophy but I know the players tend to get a financial bonus from their country. Perhaps a very simple points system for the ‘league’ would suffice and the winning team would get the trophy and the honour of winning. To encourage more tries the 6Ns could pay each country per try which in turn would go to the players in the squad on the day. At the end of the tournament the country scoring the most tries would earn (win) a bonus which would be split between the whole squad. (And coaches to encourage them as well)

If the result of the game towards the end is in no doubt then teams would be encouraged to go for the extra money. Of course the downside to this is that we could then have some devious players agreeing amongst themselves to score five tries apiece in the last ten minutes to earn their ‘bonus’.:)

Where is the tongue in cheek icon?

OB..
23-01-17, 17:01
What you don't really want is a team losing on the last weekend, but still winning the trophy.
Wales achieved that in 1994 which was IIRC the first year an actual trophy was presented. They lost 15-8 to England at Twickenham, but England needed to beat them by 16 to lift the trophy themselves. It must have been a little embarrassing to receive the trophy immediately after the match under those circumstances!

didds
23-01-17, 17:01
I recall watching that match in a hotel room in Haslemere OB - none of the town pubs seems to be showing the game or were attractive enough to do so there!

didds

DocY
23-01-17, 17:01
Wales achieved that in 1994 which was IIRC the first year an actual trophy was presented. They lost 15-8 to England at Twickenham, but England needed to beat them by 16 to lift the trophy themselves. It must have been a little embarrassing to receive the trophy immediately after the match under those circumstances!

I was there!

It was quite a strange atmosphere - the Welsh were disappointed because we'd just lost and the English were disappointed because they'd not won the championship!

As a Welshman, the trophy was little consolation (even Ieuan Evans looked like he was just going through the motions at the presentation). You're right that it was the first year there was a trophy - before that the championship was shared.

Ian_Cook
23-01-17, 18:01
I find it interesting that encouraging try scoring is seen as one benefit of the bonus point system.
Yet this short study of one of last year's EPCR pools (http://www.rugbytoday.com/columns/bonus-points-system) suggests that that just isn't so. Surely points difference must be taken into consideration?

The only problem I see (if it even IS a problem) is that in the 6N, three of the teams get the advantage of an extra home game. Add to that, if any of those teams gets a home game against the traditional whipping boy, Italy, then that is going to be quite a big advantage in terms of points for/against.

It would be interesting to see how may time teams have won it with three away games compared with winners with three home games, as well as where Italy fits in.

OB..
23-01-17, 19:01
I was there! So was I. (North Stand, IIRC).

OB..
23-01-17, 19:01
It would be interesting to see how may time teams have won it with three away games compared with winners with three home games, as well as where Italy fits in.
Of the 17 6N Championships since Italy joined, 10 teams have won with three home games and 7 with two home games.

Italy have twice won 2 matches. In 2007 they beat Wales at home and Scotland away; in 2013 they beat France and Ireland, both at home.

didds
24-01-17, 00:01
It would be interesting to see how may time teams have won it with three away games compared with winners with three home games, as well as where Italy fits in.

England last year for starters, including playing Italy away!

didds

crossref
24-01-17, 08:01
Italy is the confounding factor in these analyses of home and away

The reality is : each team plays 2 home games, 2 away games, and Italy.

L'irlandais
24-01-17, 13:01
Georgia want in (http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38030651), that'd probably suit Italy. They could start winning Year in Year out then.

Italy's Golden Era against Ireland (http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby-world-cup/2011/0929/285413-rwc_blog_italy_ireland_oshea/), Italy has some world class players, all they need is financial backing and a bit of belief in themselves. The professional era raised Irish rugby to a new level, and arguably successive EPCR wins gave us the financial clout to win our first grand slam in the 2009 RBS 6 Nations. Georgia on the other hand already have the backing of a Billionaire, richer than USA's Gonald Drump.

DocY
24-01-17, 14:01
Georgia want in (http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38030651), that'd probably suit Italy. They could start winning Year in Year out then.


Depends if it means relegation!

"The Seven nations" doesn't have a great ring to it. Mind you, I said that about the Six Nations!

L'irlandais
24-01-17, 14:01
Relegation, now there's a thought! (http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35961499) (Quote from outgoing World Rugby chairman Bernard Lapasset: )
A play-off would be between the team finishing bottom of the Six Nations and the winners of the second-tier European Nations Cup, which Georgia won this year.

Why not introduce a McMahon system tournament for 8 teams (as suggested elsewhere on RRF) Then the four strongest Nations play each other, and the four weakest Nations play each other. 1-4 from each pool play their opposite number.

Or even adopt the Cup, Plate, Bowl and Shield format from Sevens.
That way even the weaker teams get to play for some silverware. RBS Eight Nations 2018
Romania and Georgia could slug it out to avoid the Wooden Spoon.

Rushforth
24-01-17, 19:01
Why not introduce a McMahon system tournament for 8 teams (as suggested elsewhere on RRF) Then the four strongest Nations play each other, and the four weakest Nations play each other. 1-4 from each pool play their opposite number.

I'd not previously come across McMahon, but am familiar with Swiss tournaments. I can't see any kind of Swiss working on a home and away basis, because of travel/accommodation bookings and such. There are no pools in Swiss, nor in McMahon as far as I can see. The only difference is on initial ranking for the bottom teams, which is somewhat ok for #6 of 6N, but potentially harsh for the #5, particularly in terms of gate revenue. That said, a Swiss system only takes three rounds to get "a" winner when there are eight teams competing.

No country wants to lose out on matches against the others, particularly home matches for Home Nations and France. However, team sides losing players don't want even more matches.

So pools it has to be, somehow. How? A double four nations, isles and continent, using the middle weekends for matches that don't count towards competition.

Weekends 1 & 2 for the home nations, would be against two of the other home nations, on a rotating basis, one home and one away, in a six-year cycle. France and Italy would host the top other continental countries one year for these first two weekends, and play each other on the second weekend, alternating home and away in a four year cycle.

In week 3 - currently the first rest weekend - the home nations would play their final home nations match on a 'friendly' basis, but still very much for ancient trophies, and perhaps as a tie-breaker if bonus points don't suffice.

The schedule for weeks 4-7 would depend on results from the previous years, on a 12-year cycle, with weekend 5 being a special case in which the French and Italians would compete with the two lowest-ranked home nations on a friendly

Obviously this isn't a complete proposal, but the essence of it is to split the competition in to four Swiss-style pools that each have four teams and hence only two rounds, which are played in weeks 1&2 of the previous year and weeks 6&7 of the current year. Week 4 remains preserved so that the current six nations are likely to play each other competitively. The greatest weakness of the system is that France probably only plays three of the Home Nations, but it - like Italy - is guarantueed two home fixtures which in the case of France could be used to give promising young internationals a place in the starting side. Both are guarantueed their place in the top 8 for all time, but neither can pick a B team in the opening weeks either.

It would make sense to have the final two weeks end in #1v#2 and then #1v#1 of the different pools, which makes week 4 be #1v#3 and #2v#4 cross-pool matches. Calling them H and C for home and continent, that makes week 4 be 1Hv3C, 2Hv4C, 3Hv1C and 4Hv2C; week 6 becomes 1Hv2C, 2Hv1C, 3Hv4C and 4Hv3C, and finally week 7 be 1Hv1C etc. Of course this makes being #1H likely to play France last....

Although this isn't a fully serious proposal either, it could be run for a transitional period of 12 or even 6 years before transitioning to a Europe-wide system of 4-country groups with relegation and promotion on a play-off basis, and either a home-and-away structure of 6 matches or traditional matches such as the Culcutta Cup being played as pre-tournament friendlies.

OB..
24-01-17, 21:01
I hadn't heard of McMahon either, but it turns out I had re-invented it for use in local rugby. However the logistics of international rugby mean you have to plan too far ahead for such a system to be practicable.

Any pool system needs to be seeded to prevent the best teams all being in one pool, and logistics again might get in the way.

It would be nice if we could have a relegation system with a playoff between the bottom team and the challenger (to prevent flip-flopping). I suspect that isn't practicable either.

A quick check found 4 matches between Italy and Georgia (1998, 2000, 2003, 2010). Italy won all four times, but things may have changed now.

Rushforth
25-01-17, 02:01
IF (that's a big if, not a typo) international rugby were the be-all and end-all, even IF only for a limited number of matches, then groups of 4 would make sense, more than once a year.

I'm more interested now though in the reinvention of a format of Swiss. Did it last long?

didds
25-01-17, 10:01
It would be nice if we could have a relegation system with a playoff between the bottom team and the challenger (to prevent flip-flopping). I suspect that isn't practicable either.


It would add another game to what for most if not all players is an already full calendar. Fort the players involved it impacts their clubs more than anything who now lose them for another week (or two for training etc?) .

then there is the possible impact on whatever plans go into place for 12 months hence or even longer - Im thinking logistics and the knock on effects into the tourism trade here, but I may be over egging the pudding here of course.

didds

didds
25-01-17, 10:01
Added to which while it doesn't address the issues of the Italy situation, nor aid development to the upper tier of the likes of Georgia, I doubt there is any interest from the supporters or the nations already involved, to change things. The 5/6N has its own cachet, and altering its format and coverage drastically would I feel be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I have no ideas of how to overcome the Italy/Georgia scenarios I confess. The nearest I get to is OBs suggestion, which we have identified is probably unworkable.

didds

DocY
25-01-17, 11:01
I can see a playoff between the bottom of the Six Nations and the top of the second tier Six Nations potentially working well. I think there should be some mechanism to allow teams access to the Six Nations - growing the game and all that.

TBH, I think the problem is Italy - they're probably somewhere between the two leagues. I realise they haven't played Georgia recently, but looking at other results I get the impression Italy would win comfortably (Georgia were thumped by a second-string Scotland - admittedly, I don't know how strong a Georgia team that was).

Perhaps they could defer the whole relegation/expansion question by playing a post-Six Nations friendly against Georgia (or whoever wins the second tier) - if Italy dish out a hammering, the whole question will go away for several years and if it is a close game (or Georgia win), it will expedite discussions.

Perhaps they don't want to take the risk!

Ian_Cook
25-01-17, 12:01
Georgia were thumped by a second-string Scotland - admittedly, I don't know how strong a Georgia team that was).

This is a list of the 15 Georgian players that I know of who play in the French Top 14. There are likely to be even more in the ProD2 and I don't know how many more play the the Pro12 and/or AP

Karlen Asieshvili (Brive)
Jaba Bregvadze (Stade Toulousain)
Levan Chilachava (Toulon)
Mamuka Gorgodze (Montpellier)
Giorgi Jgenti (Montpellier)
Vasil Kakovin (Brive, Stade Toulousain)
Davit Khinchagishvili (Brive)
Viktor Koleilishvili (Clermont)
Davit Kubriashvili (Montpellier)
Konstantin Mikautadze (Toulon)
Mikheil Nariashvili (Montpellier)
Anton Peikrishvili (Agen)
Goderzi Shvelidze (Clermont)
Zurab Zhvania (Stade Français)
Davit Zirakashvili (Clermont)

Looking at the team lists... http://www.autumn-internationals.co.uk/2016/scotland-v-georgia.html ...there appear to be quite a few off that list present, so the Georgian team looks close to full strength, however, I don't think you can really call that a second-string Scotland team either.

DocY
25-01-17, 12:01
I don't think you can really call that a second-string Scotland team either.

Fair point! My memory let me down!

didds
25-01-17, 12:01
The issue with that friendly proposal is that Italy wold have nothing to gain really over the status quo, but everything to lose. Why wold they play it?

And all those club contracted players now have to find time away from their clubs .Which is the issue with the play-off game scenario also more generally speaking.


didds

L'irlandais
29-01-17, 16:01
This is a list of the 15 Georgian players that I know of who play in the French Top 14. There are likely to be even more in the ProD2 and I don't know how many more play the the Pro12 and/or AP

Karlen Asieshvili (Brive)
Jaba Bregvadze (Stade Toulousain)
Levan Chilachava (Toulon)
Mamuka Gorgodze (Montpellier)
Giorgi Jgenti (Montpellier)
Vasil Kakovin (Brive, Stade Toulousain)
Davit Khinchagishvili (Brive) @ Bayonne
Viktor Koleilishvili (Clermont)
Davit Kubriashvili (Montpellier)
Konstantin Mikautadze (Toulon)
Mikheil Nariashvili (Montpellier)
Anton Peikrishvili (Agen)
Goderzi Shvelidze (Clermont)
Zurab Zhvania (Stade Français)
Davit Zirakashvili (Clermont)

Looking at the team lists... ...The situation is a little different this season, some players you've listed have either left or changed clubs. Although I am still missing some Georgians of my list :

[U]Top 14 (23)
Davit Khinchagishvili (Bayonne)
Kakha Asieshvili (Brive)
Soso Bekoshvili (Brive)
Vasil Lobzhanidze (Brive)
Davit Zirakashvili (Clermont)
Otari Giorgadze (Clermont)
Viktor Kolelishvili (Clermont)
Lekso Kaulashvili (La Rochelle)
Giorgi Javakhia (Lyon OU)
Zaza Navrozashvili (Lyon OU)
Tornike Mataradze (Lyon OU)
Shalva Mamukashvili (Montpellier)
Gagi Bazadze (Montpellier)
Davit Kubriashvili (Montpellier)
Mikheil Nariashvili (Montpellier)
Shalva Mamukashvili (Montpellier)
Konstantine Mikautadze (Montpellier)
Davit Papavadze (Stade Français)
Zura Zhvania (Stade Français)
Giorgi Melikidze (Stade Français)
Badri Alkhazashvili (Toulon)
Levan Chilachava (Toulon)
Mamuka Gorgodze (Toulon)
Vasil Kakovin (Toulouse)

Pro D2 (21)
Vokhtangi Akhobadze (Agen)
Giorgi Margvelani (Agen)
Giorgi Tetrashvili (Agen)
Tamaz Mchedlidze (Agen)
Giorgi Zakashvili (Aix-en-Provence)
Khvicha Bujashvili (Albi)
Beka Sheklashvili (Albi)
Nikoloz Khatiashvili (Aurillac)
Giorgi Sharashidze (Aurillac)
Levan Datunashvili (Aurillac)
Merab Sharikadze (Aurillac)
Lasha Lomidze (Bézier)
Giorgi Natsarashvili (US Carcassonne)
Elizbar Kuparadze (Dax)
Tariel Ratianidze (Narbonne)
Irakli Mirtskhulava (Oyonnax)
Giorgi Vepkhvadze (Oyonnax)
Lasha Tavberidze (Soyaux Angoulême)
Shalva Sutiashvili (Soyaux Angoulême)
Vakhtang Maisuradze (Vannes)
Archil Bezhiashvili (Vannes)

Fédérale 1 (at least half a dozen)
Gagi Bazadze (Lille)
Georgi Chkaidze (Lille)
Beka Gigashvili (Chambéry)
Beka Bitsadze (Chambéry)
David Balanchivadze (Vienne)
Simon Maisuradze (Avenir valencien)

L'irlandais
29-01-17, 17:01
Aviva Premiership (1)
Giorgi Nemsadze transfered to Bristol after his club in France were relegated to semi-pro status.

Guiness Pro12 (2)
Shalva Mamukashvili left Sale for Glasgow.
Anton Peikrishvili signed for Cardiff

One problem doing an online census like that is clubs don't keep their squads updated. Montpellier still list Shalva Mamukashvili in their squad for this season. Is he on loan?

One thing is sure not all the Georgians in France are not getting sufficient gametime. Sounds like a lose/lose situation for both National squads. French players not getting game time at certain posts, because of the huge numbers of imports. Some Georgians not getting any game time, because they are playing second (or third) violin.

OB..
05-02-17, 17:02
A curious statistic: this weekend, 5 teams scored exactly 3 tries each.

Ian_Cook
05-02-17, 19:02
A curious statistic: this weekend, 5 teams scored exactly 3 tries each.

Not what I have read

Wales 3
Scotland 3
Ireland 3
Italy 1
France 1
England 1

OB..
05-02-17, 21:02
Not what I have read

Wales 3
Scotland 3
Ireland 3
Italy 1
France 1
England 1No idea where I got 5 from!

My intended point was that THREE teams got 3 tries without managing the 4th. (Wales came closest). I do hope the 6N does not depend on who beats Italy with 4 tries.

Pegleg
07-02-17, 19:02
If it does, wales may regret failig to take early 3 point offerings instead of establishing a lead and putting Italy under pressure to play a running game to chase the result.