In June 1999, while studying journalism in Grahamstown, South Africa, a few friends and I piled into a venerable diesel Mercedes W123 and chugged our way to Port Elizabeth for South Africa’s rugby test against Italy.
Once we arrived at the mean old Boet Erasmus Stadium, I picked up the first international rugby accreditation of my career. It took the form of a tiny pink piece of paper somebody had popped into an envelope and left on the gate. A simple phone call to the Eastern Province Rugby Union was all it had taken. (Note to younger readers: yes, there really was a time when you didn’t need to create accounts on platforms and have to supply a ton of irritating paperwork to get anything done in life!)
While it was a fine evening out for a group of students, the rugby itself was hardly a spectacle. The Boks cantered to a 74-3 win, and the most memorable on-field moments were probably Breyton Paulse’s post-try gymnastics. A week later in Durban, South Africa put 101 unanswered points on the board. It was unsatisfying stuff for all concerned.
Why am I telling you all this? Because nearly a quarter of a century has gone by and – their sweet revenge in Florence in 2016 notwithstanding – we’re still talking about Italy being crap. Italy were admitted to the Six Nations just months after that debacle in South Africa. And while they have had their moments in the competition, they haven’t won since their trip to Edinburgh seven years ago. We’re now in a situation where any Italy game on a Six Nations weekend is the obvious time to mow the lawn or clear out the garage.
This week, Six Nations Chief Executive Ben Morel moved again to defend ongoing Italian participation in the tournament. Though he didn’t shy away from the reality of the Azzurri’s performances, his quotes can mostly be summed up as ‘they’re in the club and we’ve got their backs.’
You can understand where this is coming from. If you set a precedent of kicking a side out on the basis of performance, or establish relegation and promotion, you create a danger for all the others. What if Ireland or England or France go on a six-year losing streak some time in the future? They’ll never get thrown out, but they’d have charges of double standards to deal with.
But we have a situation in the here and now to deal with. A rugby quality problem that’s unlikely to strike one of the bigger countries in the foreseeable future. So I say let’s deal with that issue and let precedents be what they will.
Here’s my solution: Don’t throw Italy out immediately, but do put them on the clock.
After all, Morel claimed “…they have got young talent, they are performing well in the under-20s regularly, and there is some conversion to the senior team. Their struggle is well-identified and they are putting a lot more resources behind it.”
So fine, let’s take him at his word. Give Italy another three years – maybe four at a push – for all this “conversion to the senior team” to occur and for the increased “resources” to bear fruit on the field. If they haven’t sorted things out by then, nobody can say they weren’t given fair warning.
How to define ‘sorting things out’ is an interesting question. I’d say they should produce three wins in three years, or four wins in four. Also, their average defeat margin over the entire period should come down to a defined target – let’s say 12 points. The sample period would be long enough for that to be a meaningful statistic.
It’s not an unreasonable level of performance to ask from a side with a standing invite to an exclusive six-team competition. Let’s not forget, Italy games are 33% of all Six Nations games. That’s a huge chunk of your tournament for people to not bother watching.
Apropos the big switch-off, setting targets for Italy ought to counteract that. It would inject an exciting new narrative into their games. Italy need one more win in the final year to ensure their survival? Worth watching! Italy have to get within seven in their last game to remain in the Six Nations? Exciting! These storylines sell a lot of tickets in football, after all.
I’m not suggesting a straight relegation system at this point. It would be unfair to all concerned to start toying with ideas about who would replace Italy when they’re still fighting for their lives. That can be dealt with if and when the time comes. Maybe there doesn’t even need to be an immediate replacement. The Five Nations did all right for the better part of a century, after all.
(I’m aware there’s a much bigger discussion to be had around opportunities for second-tier rugby countries to get regular game time against decent opposition, as well as amongst each other. Italy should certainly be part of that conversation – but the fact remains that on current form they do not belong in the Six Nations in its existing guise. I’ve limited this article to a fair way of tackling that issue.)
Any true rugby aficionado wants nothing more than to see Italy compete once again. (Even if for no other reason than a trip to Rome for a quality game of rugby is a brilliant weekend away.) But when morale is low, maybe the players themselves need a reason to give that little bit extra on the pitch. And to keep pushing even when a game is lost. Could putting some genuine heat on their place in the Six Nations be the very thing to put fire in their bellies?
While we’re on the topic of mismatches, cricket fans may want to take a look at my thoughts on how Ashes series in Australia ought to play out in the future. That article is here.