BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 14 comments are related to an article called:

Italy

Page 1 of 1

comment by Jimmy (U1686160)

posted Mar 21, 2009

Hi there,

interesting comments - i was thinking exactly along the same lines.

Surely All this talk of expanding the tri-nations to include the likes of Japan/Pacific Island teams, should look to the Italian example for perhaps what could be complete waste of time.

Argentina obviously is a whole different ballgame as they actually are competitive, but there's a whole other set of problems there (physical location, players in Europe etc)

It's been almost 10 years since Italy made the 5 nations 6 - and continually they are the whipping boys. I think 2007 they came 4th in a tournament where Scotland were dreadful, and Wales were disjointed.

France are currently hammering Italy - and I mean no disrespect to the Italians - but perhaps they would be better off creating a European tournament with the likes of Portugal, the Ukraine, and themselves.


| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

And Mauro Bergamasco has just screwed up, a key player of theirs obviously past his best. I don't think things look good for Italian rugby.

| complain about this comment

comment by Dr Webb (U1763043)

posted Mar 21, 2009

It's true the only teams they've got decent results against are Scotland and Wales, but I don't think we should give up on them.

Not sure how we put pressure on them, as they still need to grow the game and don't have much funding.

Personally I've felt for a few years now there should be promotion and relegation across two tiers. Allowing the likes of Georgia, Spain, Russia and Portugal to have a crack if they're good enough - in addition to Italy.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

People forget that it took France 10 years to win ONE match in the old 5 Nations.

Give Italy time, rugby is really taking off at grassroots level there, in a few years we will really start to see the benefits.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

This topic has come up time and time again:

2008 Six Nations:

Ireland 16 - 11 Italy
Italy 19 -23 England
Wales 47 - 8 Italy
France 25 - 13 Italy
Italy 23 - 20 Scotland

Italy have only one week to prepare for the six nations where as every other team as two. This is usually because nearly all of their players play abroad. This is always emphasised by every coach that has taken charge of Italy.

If we want rugby to become a global sport then it would be pointless in 'kicking out' Italy. When they were in the Nation's cup they were constantly the best with the French A side.

With your comment on Mauro Bergamasco, he has constantly proven he is one of the best forwards in the Italian line-up with the highest amount of tackles only beaten by Parisse.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

bear in mind that for years italy's most potent attacking weapon was their rolling maul. this has now been nullified by the IRB because southern hemisphere audiences suffer from low IQs and short attention spans (not to mention the fact that the aussies have no fwds).

give them time.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

It did take France a long time to get a win but I think there is a big difference with Rugby now and Rugby back then, they aren't comparable.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

This season, without Parise, they're a pub side. Mind you, nice try - Parise of course.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

They have had far more success against Wales than England have of late.

| complain about this comment

comment by Jimmy (U1686160)

posted Mar 21, 2009

No ones suggesting prohibiting Italy from playing rugby - just not in the 6 nations - it means you get in this ridiculous situation where that unless you win a grand slam, the winner is decided by how many points Italy manage to ship ..

Its not entertaining and does nothing for the sport either inside or outside of Italy.

Not when its scores like today. I remember playing in a team of amateurs that continually got beaten by 20+ and we learned nothing from that. it does the confidence no good neither.

How did Italy even manage to get Test match status?

| complain about this comment

comment by Jimmy (U1686160)

posted Mar 21, 2009

comment by ború82 (U13222467)

Not sure what your trying to prove by posting the 2008 results - that Italy lost every match bar one?

Most of the other test teams were experimental sides rather than full strength.

I'm not anti-Italy. I just don't think they're gaining anythign from this. I think another tier tournament in Europe could be worthwhile.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

I'm in Italy at the moment and I can tell you it's a much more conservative country than northern european countries, so new ideas take a long time to sink in.

So the government couldn't care less about rugby and put all the money into football. That's basically the reason why.

However, there's no need to panic: Italy has such a huge population (60 million) that there is a lot of room for expansion (The Welsh population is 3 million). So as long as it continues to grow, however slowly, it will eventually get there.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 21, 2009

This is just for you eurojimmy....

Ireland 16 - 11 Italy

Ireland: Dempsey, Trimble, B O'Driscoll (capt), D'Arcy, Murphy, O'Gara, Reddan; Horan, Best, Hayes, O'Callaghan, O'Kelly, Easterby, D Wallace, Leamy.


Italy 19 - 23 England

England: Balshaw, Sackey, Noon, Flood, Vainikolo, Wilkinson, Gomarsall, Payne, Regan, Stevens, Shaw, Borthwick, Haskell, Lipman, Easter.


France 25 - 13 Italy

France: Floch; Rougerie, David, Jauzion, Malzieu, Trinh-Duc; Yachvili, Barcella, Szarzewski, Mas, Nallet, Thion, Diarra, Ouedraogo, Picamoles.


Italy 23 - 20 Scotland

Scotland: Southwell, Danielli, Webster, Morrison, Parks, Paterson, Blair, Jacobsen, Thomson, Murray, Hines, MacLeod, Strokosch, Hogg, Taylor.


Dont know where you get your information from but as you can see all sides had their first team out and Italy were no way played off the park apart from the GS champions Wales.

Do you think Italy would've got these results before they joined the 6 Nations?

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 22, 2009

What do you mean give Italy time? How much more time can the IRB afford to give this fledging 2nd tier rugby nation? For goodness sake, they have already had 10 years and in my eyes have hardly progressed. As the statistics will show, they are making no progress what so ever and in something like 48 Six Nations matches since their introduction into the tournament in 1999, they have only won 7 matches or something ridiculous. That is an utterly pathetic record and just shows how out of their depth Italy are. What is the point in them continuously getting hammered every single time they step onto a rugby pitch? They just have not got the player resources or the correct infrastructure in place to mount any sort of good enough challenge on the rest of rugby's elite. I can probably name the word class players they have on one hand. Here I go - Mauro Bergamasco, Mirco Bergamasco, Sergio Parisse. These are genuinely the only players who would get into the other 5 sides. Maybe the likes of Nieto, Castrogiovanni and Bortolami would push close BUT that is not the point.
They don't seem to have enough younger players coming through and rugby is not the country's national sport. With a national stadium having a capacity of 30,000, that really just tells you all you need to know.
John Kirwin has failed, and now Nick Mallett is failing in the job. Really through no fault of their own. I think the future for Italian rugby looks bleak and I do not know where they go from here. To be honest, I think the 6 Nations would be made a stronger and more respectable competition were Argentina to replace Italy. It would certainly put the struggling Italians out of their misery.

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 1

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead