3 Feb: Italy v France
3 Feb: England v Scotland
4 Feb: Wales v Ireland
10 Feb: England v Italy
10 Feb: Scotland v Wales
11 Feb: Ireland v France
24 Feb: Scotland v Italy
24 Feb: Ireland v England
24 Feb: France v Wales
10 Mar: Scotland v Ireland
10 Mar: Italy v Wales
11 Mar: England v France
17 Mar: Italy v Ireland
17 Mar: France v Scotland
17 Mar: Wales v England



Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France
Capacity: 79,959
Opened: 1998
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3803/190mm9.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9796/2vn9.jpg





Millenium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales
Capcity: 74,500
Opened: 1999
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1136/125du9.jpg

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8548/the2xe1.jpg





Twickenham Stadium, Twickenham, England
Capacity: 82,000
First Opened: 1909
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2820/1mq0.jpg

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7848/thenumber2jw2.jpg





Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland
Capcity: 82,500
First Opened: 1913
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5233/crokepark1pu0.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/Croke_park.jpg/800px-Croke_park.jpg





Murrayfield, Edinburgh, Scotland
Capcity: 67,800
First Opened: 1925
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1073/18kj2.jpg

http://www.rugbybasel.ch/photos/Summertour13.jpg





Stadio Flaminio, Rome, Italy
Capcity: 24,973
First Opened: 1959
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5907/romaflaminiozt4.jpg

http://www.nordostfussball.de/stadien/steuropa/ita_stadio_flaminio/images/flaminio05.jpg

i should say as well that obviously croke park's only a temporary venue. ireland's real home, lansdowne road, is undergoing redevelopment to go from looking like this:

http://www.teamtalk.com/Images/43560.jpg

to this:

http://www.lrsdc.ie/_fileupload/INT_FOOT%201200%20x%20874.jpg

:cheers:

I voted for Stade de France of course but I like Millennium Stadium too.
I never understood why so many british stadium are built with only 3 sides on the same level like Murrayfield, Twickenham or Croke Park.

The new Lansdowne Road look nice and would be able to host major events such has RWC 2015: England could get WC 2018 (soccer) and Celtic nations could get RWC 2015 with an oppening match in Cardiff and the final in Dublin.

^They have nearly finished the new stand at Twickenham, it is a complete bowl now.

Stade de France - Nice roof. I don't like the inside, though.
Millenium Stadium - Best looking stadium but I think it looks strange with the largest tier being the top one.
Twickenham - Hate the outside. The inside is a bit boring aswell.
Murrayfield - I like the stands and the rest of the inside apart from the stupid running track. Similiar outside to Twickenham.
Croke Park - Would be better without the one small stand. Boring inside and I'm not too fond of the outside.
Stadio Flaminio - Boring

Millenium Stadium gets my vote.

Twickenham for me, it's the only one on the list i've been to and I think it has the best interior appearance of the stadiums listed.
I know the exterior of the stadium is is not great, but this should improve with the comletion of the south stand and anyway the exteriors of the other stadiums apart from the Millennium are no better.

Its between the millenium stadium and stade de france with stade de france as the winner.

This one is no brainer right now! Twickenham is right now the best six nation tournament stadium. But when new Landsdowne will be erected it will be tough to beat. Although I still don't understand why they haven't made it a levelled bowl.

Millenium has the techie roof. Stade de France the techie removable stand system. Murreyfield has a great atmosphere but is just functional. Flaminio is cute. but the winner rigth now yeah it's the dark green giant

millstad by a mile.

Twickenham atmosphere is a bit hit n' miss sometimes i find. Not as hit n' miss as the french atmosphere mind

Millenium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales

I voted for Stade de France of course but I like Millenium Stadium too.

Millenium Stadium - Best looking stadium but I think it looks strange with the largest tier being the top one.

I know the exterior of the stadium is is not great, but this should improve with the comletion of the south stand and anyway the exteriors of the other stadiums apart from the Millenium are no better.

Its between the millenium stadium and stade de france with stade de france as the winner.

Millenium has the techie roof.

Aaarrrggghhhh!!! There are two Ns in Millennium!

Good for you.

:D my first ever chaliep warning for poor spelling! :banana:

millstad by a mile.


clever, avoiding having to spell it...

Aaarrrggghhhh!!! There are two Ns in Millennium!
Sorry: it's corrected in my post.

sorry about the "n" thing. But I still go with the 82000 seater Twick

Millennium looks great, and is a fantastic stadium to watch sport in, been then and the stadium, and the location is brilliant

Stade de France looks great, never been, but yeah from pictures it looks huge/stylish

Twickenham is a boring bowl on the inside, which has only it's size going for it, the outside is vomit-inducing

Murrayfield is fairly impressive, though the outside is as bad as Twickenham, and the inside isn't level

Croke Park is huge but again, mismatched

and Flaminio is basically pathetic

I went for Murrayfield, simply because it is one of the few stadia out there to successfully negotiate large changes in stand height / tier angle.

I find Twickenham and Croke Park excessively boring stadia in all respects, Twickenham more so. The pitch of the lower tier at Millenium Stadium creates terrible, terrible views as anyone that has sat half way back behind one of the goals will tell you. And while I understand the reasons as to why, I really dislike the saddle-line upper tiers so many stadia have. I find the inside of Stade de France somewhat boring as well. Stadio Flaminio is quaint, nice, but very small and nothing terribly special.

I won't even include the debacle that is the new Lansdowne Road in a list of criticism - given how bad it is, I wish they'd just left the old one alone.

None of them are great stadia. Murrayfield and Twickers look awful from the outside. I don't like the gap between the roof of the Stade de France and the top the tier. I don't like the end at the millennium that has two tiers when all the the other stands have three and the height of the stands also means that the pitch is usually in poor condition. The open end at Croke Park has been woefully mismanaged and the Stadio Flaminio is atmospheric but is of little architectural interest.

Think I'll go with the Stade de France, because it does look amazing when its lit up at night.

I think probably Milennium Stadium is the best looking out of the lot. Twickenham, eventhough the outside is fairly average, is still up there.

But when new Landsdowne will be erected it will be tough to beat. Although I still don't understand why they haven't made it a levelled bowl.

Lansdowne Road is in a rather nice, leafy area of Dublin. D4 is basically the embassy belt and is home to some very nice and very expensive houses. Some of which are behind the North End at Lansdowne Road. The house owners are very rich and these houses are listed buildings. As such, there are, for many reasons, direct limitations on how developed the IRFU / FAI / Irish Government can make the North End - it has to be below a certain height or planning legislation and powerful residents groups will oppose the development.

I'm surprised that the IRFU didn't attempt to build and open terrace at the North End, to be honest. There's no real stipulation about terraces in rugby, seating at the North End in the present guise wouldn't add significantly to capacity by being unusable for football, it would have increased capacity for rugby (much needed) significantly and given the slope of the stands and roof, it could easily be made to look like a design feature if the roof dovetailed out and down to the ground.

It would improve the situation dramatically.

^^ I agree with you NeilF. The little stand at the new Landsdowne Road looks ridiculous - like somebody very fat has sat on the end of the stadium and driven two of the tiers below ground. Lots of North American stadia have a horseshoe shape with one end open and still manage to look pretty good. Perhaps they could have done something similar to German stadia and install seats on the standing terraces when the stadium is being used for football.

Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
82,300 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/3316148682_71a37006ec_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3316148634_ce2c7d69fc_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3493/3316148582_2793d462c7_o.jpg

Edinburgh, Scotland
Murrayfield
67,800 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3315321033_68c5ee195d_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3316148448_a2938b7b7d_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3316148880_6bd452c577_o.jpg

Cardiff, Wales
Millennium Stadium
74,500 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3315321765_925629f3a1_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3315321695_9d6ca12a74_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3316149030_03cff7233e_b.jpg

London, England
Twickenham Stadium
82,000 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3315321141_a0a2d9cb02_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3315321067_20301d2bb2_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/3315321091_179770c30d_b.jpg

Paris, France
Stade de France
81,338 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/3285793073_bdf4abd74d_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3286254078_33dcc6a843_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3289676714_f6bd7d5f6e_b.jpg

Roma, Italy
Stadio Flaminio
24,973 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3316148236_2007435c83_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3316148784_17f3904ae3_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3315321567_a318e50c95_o.jpg

Why do the Italians play in such a small stadium, surely their are bigger stadiums in Rome, and what about San Siro ?

Rugby is not that popular in Italy

Rugby is not that popular in Italy

I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?

Rugby is not that popular in Italy

Hmmm it's a shame =(. So in Europe rugby is a big thing only the UK, France and Ireland :ohno:

I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?

Stadio Flaminio is actually getting too small in Italy, there are rumours that they are going to use another stadium as Six Nations venue (Olympic stadium in Rome, or move to Genua or Parma, http://www.scrum.com/sixnations/rugby/ground/16198.html).

A great collection of stadiums for a great tournament by the way!

Rugby is popular in only few countries because national teams of England, RSA, Australia, Wales, France or New Zeland don't want to play with countries where rugby is a new sport.They even don't have to play in the qualification round to World Cup.

Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
82,300 Seats

Republic of Ireland.

Why do the Italians play in such a small stadium, surely their are bigger stadiums in Rome, and what about San Siro ?

I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?

For Six Nations games, temporary seating is used at both ends to increase capacity - you can see this in the third photo in post #1 but not the first two. As far as I know they always fill the ground, especially against England.

Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
82,300 Seats

Republic of Ireland.

Not for rugby, the team of Ireland is a selection of best players from Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The anthem played is "Ireland's Call", an anthem for all Ireland. In the tournament, Ireland is United, even during the Northern Ireland conflict.

"Side by side
We stand like brothers
One for all and all together
We will stay united through darker days
And we'll be unbeatable forever

Iiiiireland, Iiiiiiireland !
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We'll answer Ireland's call....."

eIxe5ooQtqI

I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?

Absolutely yes, beacause during 6 nations come from every part of Italy to see the match.

San Siro and Olimpico in Rome are busy always during w.e. and rugby will not fill stadiums so big. For 6 nation in Italy is Ok a stadium with 40 k seats

The others Anthems:

Flower of Scotland

XA6cnXFiE6I

Hen Wlad fy Nhadau

9MVucMaJv8Q

God Save The Queen

Ot8s4mJp1jU

La Marseillaise (Millennium Stadium)

YBunJcr1DP8

Fratelli d'Italia

LC32_4jAweI

Why do the Italians play in such a small stadium, surely their are bigger stadiums in Rome, and what about San Siro ?

Italia doesn't want to play in a bigger stadium (San Siro, Olimpico...) because if they play in a 80 K stadium it will be an away game with 55,000 visitors.

Italia doesn't want to play in a bigger stadium (San Siro, Olimpico...) because if they play in a 80 K stadium it will be an away game with 55,000 visitors.

Yes. 45.000 maybe 50.000 visitors and no more.

A good idea to give more appeal would be to pass from 6 nations to a 7 nations, including Argentina, like was proposed.

Pumas would give a best appeal to this tournment

Italia doesn't want to play in a bigger stadium (San Siro, Olimpico...) because if they play in a 80 K stadium it will be an away game with 55,000 visitors.

Like I said, there is talk that the Italy will move their Six Nations venue to another city like Parma or Genoa. Rugby is more popular in the northern part of Italy in any case, I can imagine they'd attract a larger crowd there than in Rome.

Like I said, there is talk that the Italy will move their Six Nations venue to another city like Parma or Genoa. Rugby is more popular in the northern part of Italy in any case, I can imagine they'd attract a larger crowd there than in Rome.

Yes, for an half. Rugby was more popular in northern part of Italy and idea isn' to move to Parma or Genoa but to Padua or Veneto, but I think will stay in Rome for many years again. The rugby headquartier is there and I think is difficult to move 6 nation to North Italy.

Yes. 45.000 maybe 50.000 visitors and no more.

A good idea to give more appeal would be to pass from 6 nations to a 7 nations, including Argentina, like was proposed.

Pumas would give a best appeal to this tournment

The Pumas are more likely to join the Tri-Nations (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia) then joining the Six Nations. The problem with Argentina is that it doesn't a have a professional league in Argentina, and all good players are playing in France or England...

Some people have argued that if the Pumas were to join the Six Nations, their home venue should be somewhere in Europe, which sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, even though most Pumas are playing for European clubs at the moment. I think it would be much better to develop the game in Argentina, and have some real Argentinian professional teams join the Super 14 in say 5 years. The Pumas can join the Tri-nations at the same time.

The only future expansion of the Six Nations that I can imagine is that one or more of the more succesfull Six Nations B teams would join the Six Nations tournament. Current countries playing in the Six Nations B are:

Georgia
Portugal
Russia
Romania
Spain
Germany

Not for rugby, the team of Ireland is a selection of best players from Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The anthem played is "Ireland's Call", an anthem for all Ireland. In the tournament, Ireland is United, even during the Northern Ireland conflict.

"Side by side
We stand like brothers
One for all and all together
We will stay united through darker days
And we'll be unbeatable forever

Iiiiireland, Iiiiiiireland !
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We'll answer Ireland's call....."

8tckKn2JJ_s

I went to dublin last year, got pissed up and started singing that anthem on the walk home from a night out and nearly got my head kicked in about 20 times in half hour, seems like many people in dublin don't like the anthem.

grumpy twats

Rugby is popular in only few countries because national teams of England, RSA, Australia, Wales, France or New Zeland don't want to play with countries where rugby is a new sport.They even don't have to play in the qualification round to World Cup.

Take a look at this map, and you know your statement makes no sense:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Rugby_world_cup_countries_best_results_and_hosts_rev1.png/800px-Rugby_world_cup_countries_best_results_and_hosts_rev1.png

You're wrong that countries qualify automatically for a rugby world cup. The rule is that the first 3 teams in each pool of the previous world cup automatically qualify for the next world cup. This means that 12 teams have already qualified for the 2011 world cup, but 8 countries can still qualify through playing qualification rounds.
I guess that traditionally, Rugby has only been popular in the UK and it's former colonies, and in France and maybe Argentina and Italy. Increasing the popularity of a new sport in a country isn't something that happens overnight, so you can't expect developing rugby countries like Georgia or Japan to be succesful overnight.
Nontheless, the Rugby world cup is one of the largest sport events in the world.

^^I'm right.France, England, RSA, Australia, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland are already in WC 2011.So they don't have to play with Romania, Georgia, Japan, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic or Portugal.It's not good for development of rugby.

FIFA World Cup without team from top 5 is quite possible but Rugby WC isn't:D

Not for rugby, the team of Ireland is a selection of best players from Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The anthem played is "Ireland's Call", an anthem for all Ireland. In the tournament, Ireland is United, even during the Northern Ireland conflict.

"Side by side
We stand like brothers
One for all and all together
We will stay united through darker days
And we'll be unbeatable forever

Iiiiireland, Iiiiiiireland !
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We'll answer Ireland's call....."

8tckKn2JJ_s

DO you really want to get into a political debate which you will loose?

DO you really want to get into a political debate which you will loose?

WTF mate, who mentioned anything about politics, the only one looking for a debate is you, he simply stated that the Irish Rugby team represent the whole of Ireland, which they do.

loose = lose

Nontheless, the Rugby world cup is one of the largest sport events in the world.

Well, 'large' is subjective. It's probably about as big as the World Ice Hockey Championships or World Baseball Classic. Large? It's top 20 and significant, but like the other ones I've mentioned, doesn't find universal appeal.

Well, 'large' is subjective. It's probably about as big as the World Ice Hockey Championships or World Baseball Classic. Large? It's top 20 and significant, but like the other ones I've mentioned, doesn't find universal appeal.

i'd disagree about the WBC. Which is only 1 tournament old.

European rugby needs to get nations like Spain, Russia, Belgium, Germany and Portugal up to a higher standard.

Maybe have a relegation/promotion setup for the bottom two nations to drop down.

Also, Italy should play in the north, which is where rugby is played.

Personally I would play out of San Siro. It would make a superb rugby ground. Rome ain't a rugby town.

In anycase, Milan is the 'real' capital of Italy. Rome is for the tourists.

^^ A relegation system would be good, Italy never got a chance to build on there two wins from a few years back, now they are going backwards, it took france a very long time to be successful (1950s), they need to plant the game where it is biggest

^^ A relegation system would be good, Italy never got a chance to build on there two wins from a few years back, now they are going backwards, it took france a very long time to be successful (1950s), they need to plant the game where it is biggest

It already exists between a lot of Countries in Europe:

Six Nations B
(At present, there is no promotion or relegation between the Six Nations B and the Six Nations). And, I think, that will not change until the 22nd century ;).

Division 1 (France B played it until 1997)
Georgia
Germany
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain
Division 2A
Belgium
Czech Republic
Moldova
Poland
Ukraine
Division 2B
Croatia
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Sweden
Division 3A
Andorra
Armenia
Lithuania
Serbia
Switzerland
Division 3B
Austria
Denmark
Norway
Hungary
Slovenia
Division 3C
Bulgaria
Finland
Greece
Israel
Luxembourg
Division 3D
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cyprus
Monaco
Slovakia

Winners:


1935-1936 : France
1936-1937 : France
1937-1938 : France
1938-1939 : France
1953-1954 : France B
1966-1967 : France B
1967-1968 : France B
1968-1969 : Romania
1969-1970 : France B
1970-1971 : France B
1971-1972 : France B
1972-1973 : France B
1973-1974 : France B
1974-1975 : Romania
1975-1976 : France B
1976-1977 : Romania
1977-1978 : France B
1978-1979 : France B
1979-1980 : France B
1980-1981 : Romania
1981-1982 : France B
1982-1983 : Romania
1983-1984 : France B
1984-1985 : France B
1985-1986 : France B
1986-1987 : France B
1987-1989 : France B
1989-1991 : France B
1991-1992 : France B
1992-1993 : France B
1993-1994 : France B
1994-1995 : Russia
1995-1997 : Italia
1997-1998 : Spain
1998-1999 : not played
1999-2000 : Romania
2000-2002 : Romania
2002-2004 : Portugal
2004-2006 : Romania
2006-2008 : Georgia
2008-2010 :

^^ yeah but you can't get into the 6 nations which is where it is slightly flawed.

^^
That’s the problem with rugby and the way it's run in general they don’t try to expand it into new markets. This world cup coming up should be going to Japan but instead it's going to New Zealand, by choosing NZ the controlling bodies missed out on a great opportunity to expand the sport into a new market. There is no doubt more needs to be done and I can think of a few things that can be done. Firstly the Italian clubs should bet allowed into the Magners League or the French League, yes I know it doesn't make sense geographically but it would be plausible and it would allow their teams and players to play in a higher quality competition. I think they should let in 1/2 teams from the smaller nations into the Heineken Cup, they should play a tournament between the champions of the teams from the six nations B and below and then let the winner and maybe the runner-up into the Heineken Cup. Also they should play those nations in full tests more often.
And when will they let Argentina into the tri-nations they are clearly good enough so why not let them in?

European rugby needs to get nations like Spain, Russia, Belgium, Germany and Portugal up to a higher standard.

I predict that Russia will qualify for the next World Cup, which should speed up their development no end.

Apparently rugby is the most popular sport in parts of georgia.

Also IRB or whoever shot Romania in the back, in the 1980s they competed, but unlike italy they haven't kicked on, they had the potential.

i agree the game definately should look to expansion rather than consildation!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joop20
Nontheless, the Rugby world cup is one of the largest sport events in the world.

Well, 'large' is subjective. It's probably about as big as the World Ice Hockey Championships or World Baseball Classic. Large? It's top 20 and significant, but like the other ones I've mentioned, doesn't find universal appeal.

Well mate if you do a little reading you will find that the Rugby World Cup is generally considered the 3rd largest Sporting event in the World behind the FIFA WC and the Summer Olympics (obviously then daylight). The last 2 tournaments have reached an audience of over 3.5 billion people and have rivaled the FIFA world cup in average attendences of 38 282 and 47 150 respectively.

Apparently rugby is the most popular sport in parts of georgia.

Rugby is really growing in Georgia - they've had 60,000 plus crowds in Tblisi against Russia, and after RWC 2003 the Georgia president promised to build a number of rugby stadia in the country.

Also IRB or whoever shot Romania in the back, in the 1980s they competed, but unlike italy they haven't kicked on, they had the potential.

Romania were strong in the 1980s because the national team was heavily backed by the Communist party. When Ceaucescu was overthrown and the government collapsed, the Romanian federation effectively lost all its backing and needed the IRB's support to keep it going.

i agree the game definately should look to expansion rather than consildation!!

The game is always looking to expand - just watch Total Rugby (the IRB's weekly TV programme) to see all the initiatives that are happening across the globe...

croke park is my favourite stadium in the tournament..unreal size and very loud too!

Beautiful stadiums, except the Stadio Flaminio. I have never been on any of them, though. However, I may have the opportunity this year.

Well, 'large' is subjective. It's probably about as big as the World Ice Hockey Championships or World Baseball Classic. Large? It's top 20 and significant, but like the other ones I've mentioned, doesn't find universal appeal.

World third largest sporting event....

The 2007 Rugby World Cup is now the world's third-largest sporting event, behind only the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympic Games. Two million tickets have been sold for the tournament with an expected television audience of four billion in over 200 countries.

By comparison, the NFL estimated its worldwide TV audience for Super Bowl XLI at approximately one billion.

University of California, Berkeley.

Rugby World Cup Will Be Largest Global Sports Event This Year
The Rugby World Cup, which begins September 7, will be the “most popular global sporting event of the year,” as it drew a worldwide TV audience of over 3 billion people when it was last held four years ago, according to a cover story by Kemp & Szalai of the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. The event ranks third among the most-watched sporting events worldwide, behind the FIFA World Cup and Summer Olympics. The Int’l Rugby Board (IRB) holds world TV and marketing rights, reportedly worth over $200M. Setanta Sports holds the exclusive rights to live games in the U.S. and Canada, and the net is offering PPV games and broadband subscriptions via Setanta.com. In Demand is offering 23 live matches for $24.95 per game (the final will cost $29.95), or a package for all its coverage for $199.95. Versus will also air some of the tournament.

SPONSOR DEALS: The IRB has signed EDF Energy and Peugeot as its main sponsors for the event, and also has deals with financial service provider Societe Generale, Visa, Heineken, Toshiba, Emirates Airline, telecom firm Orange and consulting firm CapGemini. Meanwhile, the U.S. national team recently signed a deal with Sony to promote its Bravia line of TVs, and England national team member Jonny Wilkinson has been featured alongside Galaxy MF David Beckham in TV ads for adidas (HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, 8/24/2007).

Well, 'large' is subjective. It's probably about as big as the World Ice Hockey Championships or World Baseball Classic. Large? It's top 20 and significant, but like the other ones I've mentioned, doesn't find universal appeal.

Lol...

For last year's tournament, the Stadio Flaminio had its capacity increased by about 6,000 with the addition of extra seating at either end of the stadium. Given that the Stadio Luigi Ferraris only has a capacity of about 36,000, so I don't see why Italy would make the move out of Rome for an extra 6,000 seats. The Stadio Olimpico is probably much too large just now and the athletics track would make it terrible for watching rugby - football in athletics stadia are bad enough but when the ball is almost always in hand or on the ground in rugby, good rugby stadia require a particular set of criteria to be good for watching the sport in. The new Juventus arena is about the only stadium I could think of that it would worth Italy's time moving to at the moment.

Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the refurbishment of Lansdowne Road Stadium (2007-2010)
82,300 Seats

Republic of Ireland.

For the purposes of an all-Ireland rugby team, Croke Park (and Dublin) is in Ireland. To follow the logic of your argument here, you should also suggest that the other stadia be changed to "Cardiff, United Kingdom", "Edinburgh, United Kingdom" and "London, United Kingdom." The teams from England, Scotland and Wales are national representative teams of countries that are not independent sovereign states. Ireland also does not exist as a sovereign state but the rugby team is the national rugby team of the whole island.

Just as Cardiff, Edinburgh and London are in both the United Kingdom and Wales, Scotland and England respectively, Dublin is in both Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Given the area and people the team represents, it's equally as correct to say "Dublin, Ireland" as anything else. Your comment is totally unnecessary for the discussion of these stadia and I'm not sure if it's one made for effect or if it is a serious representation of the insecurity with which a large number of people view the status of Northern Ireland. It's needless on a forum specifically designed for the discussion of sports stadia.

World third largest sporting event....

Thanks for the info, but I'm completely floored that 4 billion people watch this. Where are they all? I'm looking at the countries where rugby is popular and I'm struggling to even get to 1 billion, let alone 4 billion. Are we talking about viewers, or people who have access to a channel that broadcasts this? There's a big difference between availability and actual television audience.

A case in point: the Grey Cup is seen in 140+ countries representing 2 billion people, but the actual number of people that tune into watch it beyond Canada is very small.

The UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Excuse my ignorance, but what significantly large nations beyond these is rugby popular in? It's not my intention to insult, but rugby gets less press than figure skating on this continent. Where is the 4 billion coming from? It's not popular in India or China and that's 2.5 billion out of 6.5 billion right there. 4 billion sounds like a big stretch.

^^ accumalated figure, over the course the tournament...

whats up with the running track at murryfield?

I think its meant to be a warm up track for players. Maybe they hadn't invented exercise bikes or hadn't thought of letting the players warm up in the goal area at each end of the pitch when they built the stadium..... its a bit of a waste of space really

^^

I often wondered the same thing. Having been to the stadium a few times, I think I have the answer but don't take this as definite fact, just a good guess.

Despite how it looks, Murrayfield was developed in three different stages. The East Stand, which is the smaller one, was built first. Before this, the only seating in the stadium was at the West Stand, with a large bowl of terracing on the other three sides:

Before new East Stand was built:

http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo71/anthropocene/OldMurrayfield1.jpg

After new East Stand was built:

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/scot-hastings.jpg

You can sort of see the rather weird design of the West Stand here; a two tiered central portion and one tiered wings as well.

Following the Taylor Report, plans were made to convert the stadium into an all-seated facility. With seating already available on the East and West sides of the ground, the North and South stands were built. Unfortunately, whoever decided to build these stands was rather myopic; while the plans always linked the smaller East Stand with the larger North and South stands, no consideration was given as to future renovation of the West Stand or how to link it with the North and South Stands, so the North and South Stands were built as wide as the available space allowed. As a result, the North and South Stands are wider than the pitch.

As a result, when it came to replacing the old West Stand, designers were faced with a problem; either built a totally separate new stand that didn't connect with the North and South Stands and sacrifice up to about 8,000 seats in the new stadium, or build a new stand with quadrants that would be some distance from the pitch. In the end, they chose the stand with quadrants. Due to the lack of space caused by the width of the North and South Stands, the only way to incorporate quadrants was the design we currently see.

Then, in a bid not to just have a big patch of unused space at the West side of the pitch, the SRU decided to build the running track.

^^

I often wondered the same thing. Having been to the stadium a few times, I think I have the answer but don't take this as definite fact, just a good guess.

<snip>

Following the Taylor Report, plans were made to convert the stadium into an all-seated facility. With seating already available on the East and West sides of the ground, the North and South stands were built. Unfortunately, whoever decided to build these stands was rather myopic; while the plans always linked the smaller East Stand with the larger North and South stands, no consideration was given as to future renovation of the West Stand or how to link it with the North and South Stands, so the North and South Stands were built as wide as the available space allowed. As a result, the North and South Stands are wider than the pitch.

Good guess, but in fact the North and South Stands were only built as wide as the pitch:

http://www.treasuredplaces.org.uk/img/large/357578.jpg

Looking at the stadium today, you can still see where they stretched to, as there are two large gaps on the lower level - the West Stand was deliberately built set back from the pitch, with the upper tier wrapped around to meet the North and South Stands.

I have a couple of different theories - if you stand outside the East Stand it's clear to see that there's no room on that side for expansion, given the slope of the ground and neighbouring properties. Building the West Stand further away gives the potential to move the pitch in the future and build a larger East Stand. Secondly, Murrayfield has a long history of holding sprinting events, although I'm not sure to what extent that still happens...

can i just add that the capacity of croke park is actually between 82,500 and 83,000 and not the 82,300 suggested..kinda irrelivent but it is said that with the terracing on the hil 16 side it has the capability toswell past its original size

The Stadio Olimpico is probably much too large just now and the athletics track would make it terrible for watching rugby - football in athletics stadia are bad enough but when the ball is almost always in hand or on the ground in rugby, good rugby stadia require a particular set of criteria to be good for watching the sport in.

Not only that - the athletics track limits the size of the pitch. IAAF rules say that it must be a 400 m circuit, but not how long the straights and curves are. If you consider that 2x + Pi.y = 400 (where x is the length of the straights and y the distance between them), a track with 100 m straights will only have a separation of 63.66 m.

can i just add that the capacity of croke park is actually between 82,500 and 83,000 and not the 82,300 suggested..kinda irrelivent but it is said that with the terracing on the hil 16 side it has the capability toswell past its original size

From crokepark.ie

Match day capacity: 82,300 people

So I don't know, maybe the all-seater capacity ???

Seated capacity at Croker is about 73,500. I think what the poster was suggesting is that while official capacity at Croke Park is 82,300, the stadium is capable of holding more fans than that because of available space on the terrace. Having been to Croke Park for a rugby game and seen the security systems around the stadium, I can't see anyone without a ticket getting in, however.

Not only that - the athletics track limits the size of the pitch. IAAF rules say that it must be a 400 m circuit, but not how long the straights and curves are. If you consider that 2x + Pi.y = 400 (where x is the length of the straights and y the distance between them), a track with 100 m straights will only have a separation of 63.66 m.

Quite an interesting point. I had assumed that the Stadio Olimpico would just about manage the 70m width required for international rugby because, if it's capable of hosting the Champions League final, it's playing surface is at least 68m wide. Having looked at pictures of the football layout, however, that isn't the case - the corner flags are but a few inches in from the track and there is, perhaps, 2m behind each goal. At 105m long (again a guess based on hosting the Champions League final), plus this little extra, there also wouldn't be room for the minimum in-goal areas.

Thinking about it, it would seem almost impossible to fit an international rugby union pitch inside an athletics track without some modification. With that being the case Italy's Rugby World Cup bid could begin to look a little sparse.croke park

Thanks for the info, but I'm completely floored that 4 billion people watch this. Where are they all? I'm looking at the countries where rugby is popular and I'm struggling to even get to 1 billion, let alone 4 billion. Are we talking about viewers, or people who have access to a channel that broadcasts this? There's a big difference between availability and actual television audience.

A case in point: the Grey Cup is seen in 140+ countries representing 2 billion people, but the actual number of people that tune into watch it beyond Canada is very small.

The UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Excuse my ignorance, but what significantly large nations beyond these is rugby popular in? It's not my intention to insult, but rugby gets less press than figure skating on this continent. Where is the 4 billion coming from? It's not popular in India or China and that's 2.5 billion out of 6.5 billion right there. 4 billion sounds like a big stretch.

The 4 billion figure is a cumulative figure for all matches during the tournament I suppose. Note that 2,263,223 actually attened a match during the 2007 Rugby World cup, which means an average of 47,150 per match.

I can imagine that the scale of a Rugby World cup or even a Six Nations tournament is hard to imagine for someone from North America, but you might say the same for NFL (and CFL) - it has hardly any popularity outside North America, while NFL is the most popular league in the USA. Actually, of the 4 major North American sports, NFL is the least popular outside North America I guess. To use your words - NFL gets less press then figure skating in the rest of the world :)

Outside the countries you mentioned, rugby is also quite popular in countries like Argentina, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations, etc etc. Add to this that a tournament like the Rugby World Cup attracts a larger audience then just the traditional following. In my country, the Netherlands, we normaly don't get any live rugby on TV, but the top matches from the Rugby World cup were broadcasted live.

^^ accumalated figure, over the course the tournament...

OK, thank you. That makes far more sense.

The 4 billion figure is a cumulative figure for all matches during the tournament I suppose. Note that 2,263,223 actually attened a match during the 2007 Rugby World cup, which means an average of 47,150 per match.

I can imagine that the scale of a Rugby World cup or even a Six Nations tournament is hard to imagine for someone from North America, but you might say the same for NFL (and CFL) - it has hardly any popularity outside North America, while NFL is the most popular league in the USA. Actually, of the 4 major North American sports, NFL is the least popular outside North America I guess. To use your words - NFL gets less press then figure skating in the rest of the world :)

Outside the countries you mentioned, rugby is also quite popular in countries like Argentina, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations, etc etc. Add to this that a tournament like the Rugby World Cup attracts a larger audience then just the traditional following. In my country, the Netherlands, we normaly don't get any live rugby on TV, but the top matches from the Rugby World cup were broadcasted live.

Thank you for the explanation. So, we're talking 4 billion viewers spread over 48 games, or an average of 83 million viewers/game? In view of that, it makes a little more sense. Shouldn't they be using the 83 million figure though? That's how most sports count their viewership.

The 4 billion figure is more useful in terms of marketing potential to advertisers than a measure of global appeal. It would be like counting viewership at the Winter Olympics by counting the cumulative numbers for all 84 events. If there were on average 100 million viewers around the world per event, you've got 8.4 billion viewers. You could do the same for the 62 events of the World Aquatics Championships, the 39 games of the World Baseball Classic, the 75 games of the World Basketball Championships, the 52 games of the World Ice Hockey Championships.

Aquatics wouldn't stack up well to rugby despite the number of events, but the others would. In each, you're talking about popularity in a number of countries with very large populations.

Baseball: US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, then an interest in a lot of smaller nations.
Hockey: US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, then a passing interest in a lot of other nations.
Basketball: US, Canada, China, Russia, Spain, France; really an endlessly long list.

In each case, we're talking about a core support of countries that have a far larger population than that for the core support of countries for rugby. Surely, at least the cumulative figure for basketball would outstrip that of rugby?

whats up with the running track at murryfield?

When Murrayfield was built originally it had a 100 yard sprint track in front of the main stand. This was due to the popularity of professional sprint races. These are different to normal athletics, with the sprinters having handicaps / "head starts" and people bet on the sprinters. I don't no whether these are still run, but they obviously decided to keep that facility with the redevelopment.



Still run: http://www.sportingworld.co.uk/newyearsprint/index.html

Thinking about it, it would seem almost impossible to fit an international rugby union pitch inside an athletics track without some modification. With that being the case Italy's Rugby World Cup bid could begin to look a little sparse.croke park

Stade de France has an athletics track.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3328556426_3189783cd6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3327721275_6801af08f8_o.jpg

croke park is my favourite stadium in the tournament..unreal size and very loud too!

Nothing to do with you being Irish, of course. ;)

Stade de France has an athletics track.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3327721275_6801af08f8_o.jpg

Fair point (though you can see how they've had to lay carpet in the corners as the grass doesn't completely fill the in-goal areas, and the pitch won't be anywhere near the 70 m maximum width).

In each, you're talking about popularity in a number of countries with very large populations.

Baseball: US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, then an interest in a lot of smaller nations.
Hockey: US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, then a passing interest in a lot of other nations.
Basketball: US, Canada, China, Russia, Spain, France; really an endlessly long list.

In each case, we're talking about a core support of countries that have a far larger population than that for the core support of countries for rugby. Surely, at least the cumulative figure for basketball would outstrip that of rugby?

What hasn't be mentioned is that Rugby Unions traditional strength still to this day is Internationals. Rugby national squads play many serious games annually, essentially in a mini league. I can imagine only rivaled by the cricketing tours as another sport which places so much emphasis on national teams. The aspiration of the elite player is to represent ones country as opposed to a powerful club. The sports you mentioned are dominated by powerful leagues and clubs with International comming second, though I'm aware that Hockey internationals are picking up. My point is that Basketball, Baseball and Hockey may have following' from larger population bases but they don't have the same culture of international competition as the Rugby Union nations who have been playing almost constantly for 120 years. Hockey is picking up on the International more, Basketball is club dominated and while its World Championships have been around a while, they can't hold a candle to the Rugby World Cup. Baseball may begin to embrace the international more and that would be great but at the moment all is dictated by the league's as in Rugby Union the league's are all directed at producing talent for the national teams.

I've just done a bit more "research", and while my algebra was correct it was based on an incorrect assumption. It turns out that IAAF tracks usually have 85 metre straights (which I should have realised, since 100 m sprinters start before the curved lines merge with the straight lines), which means there's a grass area 73.21 m wide in the middle of the track. Obviously you can't use the entire width without making the pitch 15 m too short, but given the large radius of the curves at each end, bringing the touchlines in a bit gives you quite a bit more length.

According to Pythagoras, a 70 m wide pitch could be 85 + 2 x sqrt (36.6^2 -35^2) = 106.40 m long before hitting the athletics track. So it works fine if the pitch is slightly under 70 m wide or you carpet the in-goal area...

I'm surprised the Italian stadium is as big as it is. Will they be able to fill it?

It's usually sold out months in advance.
We definitely need a bigger stadium.

Good guess, but in fact the North and South Stands were only built as wide as the pitch:

http://www.treasuredplaces.org.uk/img/large/357578.jpg

Looking at the stadium today, you can still see where they stretched to, as there are two large gaps on the lower level - the West Stand was deliberately built set back from the pitch, with the upper tier wrapped around to meet the North and South Stands.

I have a couple of different theories - if you stand outside the East Stand it's clear to see that there's no room on that side for expansion, given the slope of the ground and neighbouring properties. Building the West Stand further away gives the potential to move the pitch in the future and build a larger East Stand.

Charlie;

I initially agreed with your assessment here but having thought about this, and noticed a few things while looking at a few pictures of Murrayfield, I'm not sure I do agree.

First of all, there was no sprint track in front of the old West stand. The sprints at Murrayfield were, generally, run on tracks painted onto the pitch. I can see no reason why this would change with the redesign of the West stand - it makes that side of the stadium less desirable to sit in for a majority of the events held at the ground in order to facilitate an incredibly minor function of the stadium that wasn't directly accommodated before.

You are right - the North and South stands only go as far West as the touchline on that side of the pitch, but the quadrants that join the East stand to the North and South stands begins a few metres (maybe as many as five metres) in from the touchline on the east side of the stadium.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/blink118/Murrayfield014.jpg

I know this is the pitch in a football configuration but since the rugby pitch tends to be two metres wider than a football pitch, you should definitely be able to see what I mean; given that the East stand was already in place when the North and South stands and their quadrants were designed, this would suggest, to me, that at least some of the distance between the West stand and the west touchline, can be explained by the width of the previously existing North and South stands.

You also mention that the gaps between the lower tiers of the North & South stands and the West stand is suggestive of a deliberate attempt to set the stand back from the pitch. I'm not so sure; if they were a deliberate attempt to set the West stand back from the pitch, then they wouldn't follow the curvature of the stadium bowl but the gaps do. In other words, it isn't a straight line from the last seat in the North & South stands to the first seat in the West stand. With this being the case, I think these gaps are nothing more than pitch access.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/68748436_1ea9b2ea8f.jpg?v=0

Notice, for example, that the curve of the upper tier begins right where the North and South stands end. In other words, I think the way the North and South stands were designed and built, there was always going to be a larger gap between the West stand and the touchline as there was between the East stand and the touchline.

That said, I'm not sure that this would account for the size of the gap in question. The most easterly part of the straight sections of the North and South stands are, at most, about 10m further west than the front row of the East stand. The gap between the most westerly seats in the North and South stands and the front row of the West stand is clearly much larger than that, so perhaps there is some other reason - your idea of a complete bowl may make sense but I'm not so sure.

Another thing that this thread hasn't touched on is that the front row of the West stand doesn't run parallel to the touchline; it angles away from the pitch as it approaches the half-way line. I see absolutely no aesthetic reason for this and it could only have made the internal design of the stand more difficult than it otherwise would have been, so I think this may suggest that there were problems with joining the West stand to the North and South stands that led to compromises in the way the West stand was built - perhaps suggestive that, had the front row of the West stand been kept parallel to the pitch, it would have had to be set even further back?

To me, the only satisfactory conclusions are either to do with problems joining the existing and new structures, or that there was a plan to move the pitch West as you suggest. The later is actually seeming very possible to me but, given the cantilevered nature of the West stand would probably not have needed such a large gap:

The maximum distance from the front row of the West stand to the touchline is 15m and the minimum distance about 12m. The East stand is about 31m from front to back, the West stand is about 52m but the actual footprint is no greater than the East stand because of the cantilevered upper tier.

The distance between the back of the East stand and the steps down the hill is about 10m, which would have been plenty of room to create access to the upper tier of the new East stand in the same way as access to the upper tier of the West stand, in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't require the extra 12m-15m provided by the athletics track and new West stand. It doesn't make sense, to me at least, to built the West stand so far back from the pitch when, (a) there were never any definite plans to rebuild the East stand and, (b) that extra space may never have been necessary in the first place. So, I'm not so sure that is valid either.

Charlie;

I initially agreed with your assessment here but having thought about this, and noticed a few things while looking at a few pictures of Murrayfield, I'm not sure I do agree.

First of all, there was no sprint track in front of the old West stand. The sprints at Murrayfield were, generally, run on tracks painted onto the pitch. I can see no reason why this would change with the redesign of the West stand - it makes that side of the stadium less desirable to sit in for a majority of the events held at the ground in order to facilitate an incredibly minor function of the stadium that wasn't directly accommodated before.

Ah, OK. I assumed it would have been some kind of cinder track.

You are right - the North and South stands only go as far West as the touchline on that side of the pitch, but the quadrants that join the East stand to the North and South stands begins a few metres (maybe as many as five metres) in from the touchline on the east side of the stadium.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/blink118/Murrayfield014.jpg

I know this is the pitch in a football configuration but since the rugby pitch tends to be two metres wider than a football pitch, you should definitely be able to see what I mean; given that the East stand was already in place when the North and South stands and their quadrants were designed, this would suggest, to me, that at least some of the distance between the West stand and the west touchline, can be explained by the width of the previously existing North and South stands.

I see what you're saying, but when there was an overall "masterplan" for Murrayfield (I remember seeing an artist's impression of the whole stadium before they started on the ends) it seems a bit perverse that the North and South Stands "force" the West Stand further from the pitch, when they could have built them the right shape to start with. Then again, the design of the North Stand is quite different to that of the West (the vomitories are closer together in the upper tier and higher in the lower) so it could be that the original intention was for a stand that hugged the pitch a lot more closely, but it was decided to change the design to increase capacity by fitting more seats in the corners.

You also mention that the gaps between the lower tiers of the North & South stands and the West stand is suggestive of a deliberate attempt to set the stand back from the pitch. I'm not so sure; if they were a deliberate attempt to set the West stand back from the pitch, then they wouldn't follow the curvature of the stadium bowl but the gaps do. In other words, it isn't a straight line from the last seat in the North & South stands to the first seat in the West stand. With this being the case, I think these gaps are nothing more than pitch access.

Ah, you misunderstand, all I was saying is that because the gaps are there, you can see exactly where the North and South Stands were built to - if the lower tier was continuous it wouldn't be so obvious.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/68748436_1ea9b2ea8f.jpg?v=0

Notice, for example, that the curve of the upper tier begins right where the North and South stands end. In other words, I think the way the North and South stands were designed and built, there was always going to be a larger gap between the West stand and the touchline as there was between the East stand and the touchline.

That said, I'm not sure that this would account for the size of the gap in question. The most easterly part of the straight sections of the North and South stands are, at most, about 10m further west than the front row of the East stand. The gap between the most westerly seats in the North and South stands and the front row of the West stand is clearly much larger than that, so perhaps there is some other reason - your idea of a complete bowl may make sense but I'm not so sure.

Another thing that this thread hasn't touched on is that the front row of the West stand doesn't run parallel to the touchline; it angles away from the pitch as it approaches the half-way line. I see absolutely no aesthetic reason for this and it could only have made the internal design of the stand more difficult than it otherwise would have been, so I think this may suggest that there were problems with joining the West stand to the North and South stands that led to compromises in the way the West stand was built - perhaps suggestive that, had the front row of the West stand been kept parallel to the pitch, it would have had to be set even further back?

To me, the only satisfactory conclusions are either to do with problems joining the existing and new structures, or that there was a plan to move the pitch West as you suggest. The later is actually seeming very possible to me but, given the cantilevered nature of the West stand would probably not have needed such a large gap:

The maximum distance from the front row of the West stand to the touchline is 15m and the minimum distance about 12m. The East stand is about 31m from front to back, the West stand is about 52m but the actual footprint is no greater than the East stand because of the cantilevered upper tier.

The distance between the back of the East stand and the steps down the hill is about 10m, which would have been plenty of room to create access to the upper tier of the new East stand in the same way as access to the upper tier of the West stand, in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't require the extra 12m-15m provided by the athletics track and new West stand. It doesn't make sense, to me at least, to built the West stand so far back from the pitch when, (a) there were never any definite plans to rebuild the East stand and, (b) that extra space may never have been necessary in the first place. So, I'm not so sure that is valid either.

I'm really not sure - it was just a bit of conjecture with a lot of wishful thinking involved (mainly because I find the joins in the East Stand corners so jarring). One thing I have spotted though is that the vomitories in the North Stand are exactly symmetrical around the central ones (the layout of the seats hides this a bit), so the pitch is about 3 metres east of the centre line. Not a great deal, mind you, and if the stadium was "completed" with a mirror image of the West Stand, there would be a sizeable gap on both sides!

Maybe the only way to answer the question is to ask the architects! :D

Numbers I'd just found....

The Six Nations Championship has the largest average attendance (per game in history) of International competitions :cheer: :


http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9500/capturedcran20090903104.jpg
(sorry, didn't find any English version)

Translation of Competitions' names :

1 Six Nations (rugby union)
2 FIFA WC
3 Tri-Nations (rugby union)
4 IRB WC (rugby union)
5 UEFA Euro
6 Tri-Nations (rugby league)
7 FIFA women's WC
8 MLB world baseball classic
9 ICC WC (cricket)
10 UEFA women's Euro

Millennium is the best for me. Best atmosphere.

pdp, when the new Landsdowne Road (Aviva Stadium or whatever) is finished, the average attendance will fall because for each Ireland home game, you are losing 33,500 seats. Would it still be no. 1 in 2010 or 2011? I have my doubts because the WC in SA has some big stadiums!

Millennium is the best for me. Best atmosphere.

pdp, when the new Landsdowne Road (Aviva Stadium or whatever) is finished, the average attendance will fall because for each Ireland home game, you are losing 33,500 seats. Would it still be no. 1 in 2010 or 2011? I have my doubts because the WC in SA has some big stadiums!

It's still a big achievement, especially as it happens every year as opposed to every four.

The Millenium Stadium is brilliant, and the atmosphere is superb during big games.

The Six :) : (updated list of 2010)

Dublin, Ireland
Croke Park, during the rebuilding of Lansdowne Road (2007-2011)
82,300 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/3316148682_71a37006ec_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3316148634_ce2c7d69fc_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3493/3316148582_2793d462c7_o.jpg


Edinburgh, Scotland
Murrayfield
67,800 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3315321033_68c5ee195d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3316148448_a2938b7b7d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3316148880_6bd452c577_o.jpg


Cardiff, Wales
Millennium Stadium
74,500 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3315321765_925629f3a1_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3315321695_9d6ca12a74_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3316149030_03cff7233e_b.jpg


London, England
Twickenham Stadium
82,000 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3315321141_a0a2d9cb02_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3315321067_20301d2bb2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/3315321091_179770c30d_b.jpg


Paris, France
Stade de France
81,300 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/3285793073_bdf4abd74d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3286254078_33dcc6a843_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3289676714_f6bd7d5f6e_b.jpg


Roma, Italy
Stadio Flaminio
32,000 seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3316148236_2007435c83_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3316148784_17f3904ae3_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3315321567_a318e50c95_o.jpg

Would it still be no. 1 in 2010 or 2011?

We are in 2010, and it's still the number 1 :cheers: !!!!!! ;)

The Six Nations Championship has the largest average attendance (per game in history) of International competitions

Rugby is very popular in Great Britain, Ireland, France and Italy but in most countries this sport is not big or even doesn't exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup_%E2%80%93_Europe_qualification

The attedance figures are very low.Only in Poland it's 5000-6000 fans per match but rugby in Poland isn't popular at all.

[SIZE="3"]

[B]Roma, Italy
Stadio Flaminio
24,900 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3316148236_2007435c83_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3316148784_17f3904ae3_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3315321567_a318e50c95_o.jpg

Stadio Flaminio seems to be bigger year after year.
In 2009 there was bigger stand behind goal (picture 3, picture 1 and 2 in 2008).
And this year, there is a bigger stand in front of the main stand.

The capacity is maybe of 30,000 seats now.

As anyone a new picture of the stadium and the new capacity ?

^^ The attendance for the Italy v England game was 31,876.

http://i49.tinypic.com/sztybs.jpg

^^ I think it's time for a new Flaminio..... :yes: (45/50K ??)

Temporary stands have served their time, IMO !

There are plans for an expansion but the city of Rome and the heirs of the architect who designed the stadium are opposing it, plus there are many legal hurldes to overcome since the complex is preserved as historical monument.

The new national stadium (cap.55.000) in Warsaw will have enough space for rugby pitch and I hope someday rugby will be huge in Poland but IRB doesn't care about popularity in other countries.They don't support national federations.

^^ I think it's time for a new Flaminio..... :yes: (45/50K ??)

Temporary stands have served their time, IMO !

i hope so!! flaminio is quite miserable confronted to the other 5 stadiums :lol: :lol:

but IRB doesn't care about popularity in other countries.They don't support national federations.

That's not totally true, especially since the World Cup 2019 will be in Japan which is not a big rugby nation and it will be the first non-Six/Tri nations to host.

The choice was made and supported by the IRB which, today, wants to export rugby toward new markets/countries (especially since IRB has a French president) :cheers:

Let's say there was no such thing as NA football and everyone from Canada and the USA instead had to play rugby. Do you think that would change the global positioning of the sport in the world?

I am not trying to undermine the current top rugby countries in the world, but all the top talent in NA goes towards football. I know at my University the stronger more athletic players where all in football and the rugby team was a niche sport.

I guess it is all a moot point, however it would be very interesting to see how the rugby power ranking would be if the United States and Canada put the players, money, and effort into rugby that they do into football.

That's not totally true, especially since the World Cup 2019 will be in Japan which is not a big rugby nation and it will be the first non-Six/Tri nations to host.

But Japan played in all World Cups so it's not a new country in the world of rugby.


The choice was made and supported by the IRB which, today, wants to export rugby toward new markets/countries (especially since IRB has a French president) :cheers:

Where popularity of rugby is growing (outside the 9 nations)?Maybe in Georgia, Namibia and Tonga but its population is very small.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popularity of rugby in Australia and New Zealand is on the wane:

Australia:
http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/rugby-losing-shine-in-australia-3068434

New Zealand:

Where popularity of rugby is growing (outside the 9 nations)?Maybe in Georgia, Namibia and Tonga but its population is very small.

Russia (who have just qualified for the Rugby World Cup).

Kazakhstan (who are bidding to hold the Women's World Cup in 2014).

Kenya (who are now regularly successful on the Sevens circuit).

The popularity of Sevens in particularly should shoot up now it's an Olympic sport.

Russia (who have just qualified for the Rugby World Cup).

They qualified but they played for empty stands and I doubt if any Russian TV showed at live their matches.

Russia - Romania
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mm/photo/tournament/0/russiavictory_9882_sq_full-lnd.jpg

Russia - Portugal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpM1iONqcnM


Kazakhstan (who are bidding to hold the Women's World Cup in 2014).

It does not mean that rugby is popular in this country.For Women's Rugby World Cup you need just a few pitches.
Kenya (who are now regularly successful on the Sevens circuit).

The popularity of Sevens in particularly should shoot up now it's an
Olympic sport.


7s are very good experiment but we have to wait at least 6 years for the results.
Baseball and softball were Olympic sports but they are still niche sports in most countries.

^^ You forgot Argentina..... Which became certainly one of the strongest nations in the world, even stronger than some of the Six Nations such as Scotland, Wales or Italy !

The IRB is even thinking to integrate them into the Tri-Nations or into the Six-Nations (because most of the "Pumas" play in European clubs, especially French ones).


About popularity of the "Pumas" in Argentina:
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9307/pumas.jpg

Pumas vs France
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6220/rugbyargentinafrance.jpg

Pumas vs Ireland
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6088/527098845ff3469f86f.jpg

---------------------------


Edit : :lol:

I also forgot to mention Spain (Basque Country) !
The French Basque clubs are accustomed to cross the border and to play in Donostia/San Sebastian, for their big Top 14 and H cup home games :D :


http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/976/124156494fffdfa4da8ocop.jpghttp://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8554/1241568170e7dddfa4focop.jpg
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/9117/124156636dfee37f36docop.jpghttp://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1262/448455808c2c028deaeocop.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6885/124156828bb7ce937faocop.jpghttp://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1390/124156762fbf606c575ocop.jpg
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5761/1875027855d35467f9ocopi.jpg

how the rugby power ranking would be if the United States and Canada put the players, money, and effort into rugby that they do into football.

Take a look at the results of the early 20th century and you will know, especially during the first olympiads (The US rugby team won 2 gold medals in 1920 and 1924, which makes the American team the most successful one in the Rugby union's olympic history :yes:) ! :lol:

Let's say there was no such thing as NA football and everyone from Canada and the USA instead had to play rugby. Do you think that would change the global positioning of the sport in the world?

I am not trying to undermine the current top rugby countries in the world, but all the top talent in NA goes towards football. I know at my University the stronger more athletic players where all in football and the rugby team was a niche sport.

I guess it is all a moot point, however it would be very interesting to see how the rugby power ranking would be if the United States and Canada put the players, money, and effort into rugby that they do into football.

If rugby was the main winter sport in the US, I would expect them to be the best in the world. They certainly should be given the vast population of the US and the vast resources that it pumps into its major sports.

@parcdesprinces: Unfortunately I dont think rugby is improving in popularity in Spain.

Let's say there was no such thing as NA football and everyone from Canada and the USA instead had to play rugby. Do you think that would change the global positioning of the sport in the world?

I am not trying to undermine the current top rugby countries in the world, but all the top talent in NA goes towards football. I know at my University the stronger more athletic players where all in football and the rugby team was a niche sport.

I guess it is all a moot point, however it would be very interesting to see how the rugby power ranking would be if the United States and Canada put the players, money, and effort into rugby that they do into football.

USA would probably be good an be in the top 5 in the world but i still think the top 3 (new zealand, south africa and australia) would still beat them. i got no idea how canada would do but some of their NHL players are pretty tough and would go well. sometimes you dont have to be an freak athlete that runs a 4.3 in the 40 to be a good rugby player. a good example of this is new zealands captain richie mccaw. though i would love to see some nfl players in rugby such as adrian peterson. and vice versa players like greg inglis and jarryd hayne (NRL players) in the nfl

Millennium by a country mile. This one is a tenner and has everything a stadium should have. I love its "bowl" shape which isn't ruined by too many suites nor a business tier... Fans are very close to the pitch. The retractable roof is tech at its best. They nicely dealt with the constraint of adjacent Arms Park by preserving the north stand of former national stadium, which adds some unique feature to the whole. Last but not least, it is located right off Cardiff's centre! On top of my list, 10/10

Stade de France is a half-success IMO. First of all, I fail to see the necessity for having an athletics track since bidding for the Summer Olympics was a mistake (hope they learnt their lesson :| ) and we already had athletics-dedicated 20K-seater Charléty stadium in Paris for annual track-and-field events (this one was rebuilt in 1994, it was brand new at the time it was decided to build Stade de France!). Consequence of this, the shape is not optimal for pitch games.
Secondly, even though the place is nowadays waaaay better than what it used to be (i.e. a toxical industrial waste) it still lacks the appeal of a true urban centre and there is very little to do apart from having a drink in the two overpriced brasseries facing the gates, or having some dodgy hot dog off a street vendor :runaway:
Thirdly, way too much seats are reserved for business and sponsors, whatever the game or the event is resulting in poor cheering. I know that's how it works now, and it may be the price to pay to fill a 80K, but still...
On the other hand the inside looks very elegant and well proportioned, architecturally it's stunning, access by PT is excellent (2 RER + 1 métro lines), and this part of town definitly needed a good facelift, but still, it could have been better for the reasons I explained above, hence the feeling of a half-success.

Never attended a game at any of the others, but overall we are very lucky to have this quality of stadia for the tournament.

It does not mean that rugby is popular in this country.For Women's Rugby World Cup you need just a few pitches.

My point was that these are countries where the popularity of rugby is growing, which is what I thought you were asking for...

If rugby was the main winter sport in the US, I would expect them to be the best in the world. They certainly should be given the vast population of the US and the vast resources that it pumps into its major sports.

If rugby had become the main winter sport in the USA before gridiron took hold, either rugby would be completely different the world over by now, or they'd have broken away and come up with their own unique sport.

^^ You forgot Argentina..... Which became certainly one of the strongest nations in the world, even stronger than some of the Six Nations such as Scotland, Wales or Italy !

The IRB is even thinking to integrate them into the Tri-Nations or into the Six-Nations (because most of the "Pumas" play in European clubs, especially French ones).

See http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=24723

In Italy there is a growing interest in Rugby, but it still lacks of fundings.
It is probably the fourth most followed game after Football, Basketball, Volleyball...but if you think that even Football faces problems about the development of new stadiums and it is the most funded game, I can't think to any serious plans about new projects involving Rugby. :(

Let's see the future, especially considering that two Italian teams from the Super10 - the major italian Rugby league - will move to the Celtic League.

In Italy there is a growing interest in Rugby, but it still lacks of fundings.
It is probably the fourth most followed game after Football, Basketball, Volleyball...but if you think that even Football faces problems about the development of new stadiums and it is the most funded game, I can't think to any serious plans about new projects involving Rugby. :(

Let's see the future, especially considering that two Italian teams from the Super10 - the major italian Rugby league - will move to the Celtic League.

volleyball? :nuts:

a part from that, I think you're right, the rugby league in italy is not considered at all, the national team is quite important, but if you see the players they all play in france or england

If gridiron had not branched off, we'd be a league nation and thus not relevant to this thread.

Let's see the future, especially considering that two Italian teams from the Super10 - the major italian Rugby league - will move to the Celtic League.
Is that still on, i thought they couldn't come to an agreement

If gridiron had not branched off, we'd be a league nation and thus not relevant to this thread.

league as in rugby league ?

league as in rugby league ?
Yeah. If there was money to be made in sport, America would be doing it.

:D

Six Nations 2010: France's Grand Slam charge can only be halted by massive upset

There are six lessons to be learned from this season's Six Nations Championship, which has two rounds to run before the final match in Paris on March 20.

By Mick Cleary
Published: 8:00AM GMT 02 Mar 2010

1 Un Grand Chelem à la Française?

Well, it will take an upset of considerable proportions for them not to be the grand champions. Two home games to come, against Italy, who have never beaten them, and England, who used to do so regularly – eight times in succession from 1989-95.

It was only 12 months ago that France came to Twickenham and were humiliated, trailing 34-0 after 42 minutes and eventually losing 34-10.

What has Marc Lièvremont done to turn around an ailing vessel? There has been greater consistency in selection and a change of captain from Lionel Nallet to the stylish, all-engaging flanker Thierry Dusautoir, while they now have a tip-top scrum and a balance between brain and brawn. A ninth Grand Slam, their fifth in 13 years, awaits.

2 Jonny Wilkinson's wounded pride is far preferable to an injured body.

No matter the critical stick that Wilkinson is taking, he is in a far better place than he has been for several years. This is one of his longest uninterrupted stretches of rugby since the 2003 World Cup.

Some of those who question his form now have a rose-tinted view of Wilkinson from that era. He was a source of commendable consistency in the England side but only sporadically achieved greatness in the manner that a Dan Carter has done for New Zealand.

Wilkinson has flaws, as he will be the first to tell you. Even his pile-driving defence is not what it was. Yet he tops the list of championship scorers with 38 points. England have not backed Toby Flood to come off the bench in their past two games. Wilkinson remains an important item for England.

3 Centres have to be big Bastareauds.

France's dreadlocked, one-time bad boy making good is the prototype modern centre: powerful as well as speedy.

With Mike Tindall only recently back in club action, England lack such a presence in midfield. Wales have Jamie Roberts and Ireland have Brian O'Driscoll. England's Mathew Tait knows that he has to impose himself more.

Mathieu Bastareaud still needs to show that he can be more than a battering ram. Mind you, his deft out-the-back pass to tee-up a try for Clément Poitrenaud against Ireland was classy stuff. If Bastareaud continues to develop he will be a fearsome specimen.

4 Ping-pong – the end is in sight.

Despite the sterility of England's match in Rome, it appears that the mindless end-to-end kicking game may be on the wane. The Super 14 has tilted the tiller in the right direction, while the Six Nations is showing the first glimpses of a more invigorating approach.

High-risk Wales are in the vanguard, with their kick ratio the lowest of the six teams at 40 per cent. Italy are the chief culprits on 56 per cent, followed by Ireland (52), then England (46). Ireland have made most line-breaks (12), followed by England and France on 11.

5 The southern hemisphere will be envious but not concerned.

Once again, the Six Nations has proven a drawcard. Measure its enduring attraction not by the sold-out stadiums alone, but by the many thousand of away fans. Murrayfield was packed with Frenchmen, the Millennium Stadium too. The backdrops have been vivid, the atmosphere raucous and the on-field action compelling in its many different forms.

The Tri-Nations cannot compete on the commercial front. Small wonder they have to think laterally to generate revenue. However, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa will not have trembled at the quality of play. Only France, and perhaps Ireland, look likely to compete for honours at the 2011 World Cup.

6 France dominate team of the tournament.

The French lead the way with several of their players, such as Poitrenaud, at fullback, and centre Yannick Jauzion in their best form for a good few years. Ireland wing Tommy Bowe is the most clinical finisher in Europe, while Shane Williams's trademark jinking run to the try line against France was a thing of beauty.

telegraph.co.uk

Double post

Is that still on, i thought they couldn't come to an agreement

It is official now:

Two Italian Magners teams next season

The Magners League will be expanded to twelve teams next season to include two Italian "super sides", Celtic Rugby announced on Monday.

The Welsh, Irish and Scottish unions agreed unanimously that Benetton Treviso and Aironi Rugby should join the competition as part of a four-year agreement.

The decision ends a year-long study into the viability of expanding the competition.

"This is another massive step forward for the Magners League," said David Jordan, director of Celtic Rugby.

"As well as providing more fixtures for the teams already involved this will also bring both a major cash injection into the competition and greater exposure across Europe.

"Operationally it will present new challenges, as well as opportunities, but by introducing Italy into the Celtic fold it will also dramatically broaden the appeal of our product.

"It is anticipated that the Italian super clubs will be largely made up of Italian internationals of full, A and under-20 levels, with a sprinkling of top class overseas players set to provide further extra strength and spice to the tournament."

Aironi Rugby, which translates as Heron in English, will be be comprised of players from Viadana, Rugby Parma, Gran Parma, Colorno, Noceto, Reggio Emilia, Modena and Mantova.

"I am very pleased that, after months of intense negotiations, an agreement that will see two Italian teams join the Magners League at the start of next season has been reached," said Giancarlo Dondi, President of Federazione Italiana Rugby (FIR).

"I am sure that the Magners League will bring benefits to all Italian rugby and will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of our national team."

The move is the biggest boost for Italian rugby since the Azzurri's entry into the Six Nations in 2000.

The two Scottish, four Welsh and four Irish clubs have received financial guarantees from the Celtic board.


http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3889_6010504,00.html


Benetton Treviso and Aironi Parma. :cheers:

Yeah. If there was money to be made in sport, America would be doing it.

back up a sec. you do realise there are two types of rugby. rugby league and rugby union (the more popular one) im not taking about a rugby league as in a competition but as the sport of rugby league itself

^^ I think what he is trying to say is that if Walter camp and friends had not developed additional rules for the sport and just played rugby as prescribed by the IRB that when the split occured they (the yanks) would've sided with the northern union instead of with amatuer RFU, because "money is the american way".

Then again with american money backing a split I doubt there would've been one, a compromise similar to what hap.pened in football would surely have been found.

back up a sec. you do realise there are two types of rugby. rugby league and rugby union (the more popular one) im not taking about a rugby league as in a competition but as the sport of rugby league itself


We are playing both kinds here in the USA. The Rugby league is played mainly on the eastern seaboard ( DC area to New England ) and the US national team is named the Tomahawks. There is a team in Jacksonville, Florida also.
Rugby union is played all over the country and the main competition is the Rugby Super league which is struggly financially right now. Two of the greatest teams in the US rugby history have left the competition. We are still amateurs and as players we pay our own airfaire and hotels when we travel. It takes a lot of dedication and a great love for the game to play in the RSL. We train in the evening after work and have no facilities even for changing . My garage is my weight room and high school stadium behind my house is where I run everyday. On game days we draw maybe 400 to 500 spectators including our families and dogs. We play and train in a public park. This year whe have the luxury of two portables bathrooms on matchday. We grill hot dogs and burgers and sell beers and wine on the side of the pitch. This is not the six nations but we play the game with the same pride... For me it is on last season in the sun until I hung these boots ... I am the oldest player in the league.

back up a sec. you do realise there are two types of rugby. rugby league and rugby union (the more popular one) im not taking about a rugby league as in a competition but as the sport of rugby league itself
I'm not an idiot, sir.
^^ I think what he is trying to say is that if Walter camp and friends had not developed additional rules for the sport and just played rugby as prescribed by the IRB that when the split occured they (the yanks) would've sided with the northern union instead of with amatuer RFU, because "money is the american way".
Exactly what I mean.

they are starting a professional rugby league competition this year called NRLUS

There's also a weird proposal to run a new "rugby league" competition on American football pitches, using the existing markings and teams of 11. It doesn't have official recognition, unsurprisingly!

http://www.gridironrugby.com/

There's also a weird proposal to run a new "rugby league" competition on American football pitches, using the existing markings and teams of 11. It doesn't have official recognition, unsurprisingly!

http://www.gridironrugby.com/

Both those proposals emulates from the AMRL and its passionate president David Niu. Unfortunatly, We are far from being there yet. Believe me, I have been trying to develop a rugby league club in Texas for six years now.

The "Six" in their "gardens" :cheers::



Paris (81K+):
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3598/226490741146b9416731bpa.jpg


London (82K+):
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/241/4320785982e5dab565f6o.jpg


Cardiff (75K+):
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9449/4354912236ce5bf261d8oco.jpg


Edinburgh (67K+):
http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/7996/capturedcran20100310065.jpg


Dublin (82K+):
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/5819/3877457575b66aa8bd4o.jpg


Rome (32K):
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9567/4398866863b42b4fa56abco.jpg http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8449/439886790131f0d01c40b.jpg


Miscellaneous:
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4460/433770817102c1b02c2ebco.jpg http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3803/3328751596be1d2b01b7bco.jpg

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8756/4128040508d6b8df1f09b.jpg http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9098/4406222640866f0141c1oco.jpg

Those are not gardens , they are theaters of dreams. Do you have pictures of the old stadiums like Colombe in the 60s, The Arms Park, london and Murrayfield before redevelopment ? Another question for you do you remember the name of that French commentator who used to call the French players " petits " . I remember he used to say " allez les petits" and also " un coup de pied de Mammouth " . I believe he died in the spring of 84...

^^ The name you're looking for is Roger Couderc.

BTW nice experience you've shared with us.

they are starting a professional rugby league competition this year called NRLUS
That was the word about a year ago, but there's been no new info since. Doesn't look good.

^^ The name you're looking for is Roger Couderc.

BTW nice experience you've shared with us.

ah Roger couderc, he is the voice of the 5 nations . I will never forget him. Here I am so far away in time and distance and when I watch the 6 nations on TV I think of him and wish he was commenting every game. I am sure he is watching them right know and will be saying " allez les petits " as the French might win the grand chelem. I hope they win it with a coup de pied de mammouth.... If the French Federation build a stadium in Paris they should name it stade Roger Couderc...

http://www.wat.tv/video/roger-couderc-dprr_co6o_.html

Here you are guys, the voice of the 5 nations tournament. Mr Roger couderc

I’d be more inclined to think the USA would have held on to an amateur game for as long as possible just like the rest of the rugby world (although the game would have certainly gone professional a good 30 years earlier). The northern unions breaking away from the RFU (like in Australia and NZ) was created by players power demanding that they should be paid to play the game at a very high level; player power that is rarely seen in the USA due to the power and influence of the team owners. Given the option of making up some bullshit about ‘the ideals of the amateur game’ or spending large amounts on player’s wages what would you do? More importantly what do you think the Charles Comiskey's of the world would do?
Besides the USA has been able to hold onto amateurism in other sports at a college level so it’s not impossible they could stick to it in other areas, when the country experienced its heyday in Rugby it was largely done so through the Colleges.

Is the Italian national team ever going to consider playing their games in somewhere slightly better?

The Italians have played against NZ in San Siro (80,000). But Italy is the least rugby-centric of all those nations. Whether they would get 80,000 at San Siro, or Stadio Olimpico in Rome against European teams is another question.

Maybe someone else would like to shed some light on this.

The Italians have played against NZ in San Siro (80,000). But Italy is the least rugby-centric of all those nations. Whether they would get 80,000 at San Siro, or Stadio Olimpico in Rome against European teams is another question.

Maybe someone else would like to shed some light on this.

The Italians have played against NZ in San Siro (80,000). But Italy is the least rugby-centric of all those nations. Whether they would get 80,000 at San Siro, or Stadio Olimpico in Rome against European teams is another question.

I reckon they would against England - thousands more fans would happily make the trip to Rome or Milan if more tickets were available, and the home fans always seem to pack Flaminio to the rafters...

I reckon they would against England - thousands more fans would happily make the trip to Rome or Milan if more tickets were available, and the home fans always seem to pack Flaminio to the rafters...

and france! as they absolutely hate each other! also id say they could fill it with scotland because they are always close..and i suppose ireland as the are current champs..we also travel well too

Numbers I'd just found....

The Six Nations Championship has the largest average attendance (per game in history) of International competitions :cheer: :


http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9500/capturedcran20090903104.jpg
(sorry, didn't find any English version)

Translation of Competitions' names :

1 Six Nations (rugby union)
2 FIFA WC
3 Tri-Nations (rugby union)
4 IRB WC (rugby union)
5 UEFA Euro
6 Tri-Nations (rugby league)
7 FIFA women's WC
8 MLB world baseball classic
9 ICC WC (cricket)
10 UEFA women's Euro

I don't know who made this ranking, but it does not show all of the competitions in history. Why is the FIFA World Cup'94 held in the USA left out?? It was the WC with the highest attendance ever recorded. 3,587,538 spectators in total, with an average of 68,991 per match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_1994

I don't know who made this ranking, but it does not show all of the competitions in history. Why is the FIFA World Cup'94 held in the USA left out?? It was the WC with the highest attendance ever recorded. 3,587,538 spectators in total, with an average of 68,991 per match.


I know, that's why I wrote/added "in history" which means the average of all editions (or at least the last decades).

Here is another list which seems much complete:
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/691/capturedcran20100312071.jpg


WC '94 had the best average with 69K, but the overall average attendance of all world cups is much below this number. On the other hand, the Six-Nations which is annual, has an average attendance above 60-65K since decades (including the former Five-Nations Tournament with the terraces in the 5 stadiums)

London, Twickenham (best attendance 75,500):
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/883/79027687.jpghttp://img62.imageshack.us/img62/102/capturedcran20100312084.jpg


Cardiff, Arms Park (best attendance 65,000):
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7223/capturedcran20100312080.jpghttp://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9926/168182copie.jpg


Edinburgh, Murrayfield (best attendance 104,000):
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1481/murrayfieldcopie.jpghttp://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7223/capturedcran20100312080.jpg


Dublin, Lansdowne Road (best attendance 53,500):
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5307/image1copie.jpghttp://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6158/eirelansdowneroadgenera.jpg


Paris, Colombes (best attendance in Five-Nations 63,145)
& the All-seater Parc des Princes from 1972 to 1997 (best attendance in Five-Nations 50,370):
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/6244/capturedcran20100312082.jpghttp://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7223/capturedcran20100312080.jpg

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1006/fil3701copie.jpghttp://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1549/fil13copie.png

Thank you for these beautiful pictures. The Arms Parks was the greatest rugby stadium in the world. What a team Wales was in the 70s with JPR Williams and Gareth Davies and that immortal game of 73 between the All Blacks and The Barbarians. Le Parc des Princes ( For me Jean Pierre Rive's Home just simply become again a temple of Rugby and PSG shall be kicked out and Le Stade Francais should make it its home). Murrayfield, well my best memory was 1984 and the Australian win 37 to 12 to Scotland to complete their grand slam.

It's stupid to compare a neutral-site world cup to the 6N, which has teams playing at home.

^^ No problem: The Six-Nations has also a higher average attendance than any domestic league (where every teams always play at home) :D !

I know, that's why I wrote/added "in history" which means the average of all editions (or at least the last decades).

Here is another list which seems much complete:
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/691/capturedcran20100312071.jpg
^^
How is this more complete? Where did the 2006 football World Cup disappear in this list? Where is the 2002 World Cup, which had also over 2 mil. spectators? I like rugby very much, but if you are trying to convince somebody here, that it's the most popular sport in the world, it won't work. We all know that football competitions (both club and international) are number one in every statistics (more viewers world-wide, more spectators, more professional clubs, more competitions, more money invested, etc.) .
And like "krudmonk" said, you cannot compare the six-nations cup with a football world cup, because in the six-nations there is always a home-team to fill up the stadium. And even so just to bring you an example, in the '94 world cup, the game between Saudi Arabia and Morocco had an attendance of 76.000, even though two not so important football-nations played on a neutral stadium. (there are lots of other such examples: WC'98 Romania-Tunisia 77.000, etc.etc.)
No offense, the Six-Nations Cup is a great competition, don't get me wrong. These are just statistics i was talking about.

^^ Don't worry, my point was (last year btw), that this championship (not rugby in general) is played in some of the largest stadiums of the world (e.g. 3 over 81K) which are always sold out, including thousands of away fans ! All this makes the tournament, one of the most followed competition in the world (wathever the sport). That's it !

And I didn't try to compare it with football, or world cup... You did ;) !

PS: The last list seems to show the best edition of each international competition...

Well alright, then. You're right that this is about stadia, and those are some impressive ones.

:banana: :banana:

The last game, few hours ago at the Stade de France :

aJnXuOJTfNw
2qb-RJIPQC0

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5648/articlerugby.jpg

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/616/francejoie200310.jpg

:banana: :banana:

The last game, few hours ago at the Stade de France :

aJnXuOJTfNw
2qb-RJIPQC0

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5648/articlerugby.jpg

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/616/francejoie200310.jpg

Congrats France from England:)

Congrats from Poland!

Congrats to France. You've deserved win. From an Ireland fan.

I want to talk a bit about Six Nations B. After an awful season, Spain has avoided relegation from Six Nations B. We've only got to win two games, both versus Germany, and we've suffered some humbling defeats. Lot of things must change in Spanish rugby.

Our national stadium is the "Estadio Central" owned by University Complutense, the main in Spain. Capacity 10,000 people

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Espa%C3%B1a-alemania2.JPG/800px-Espa%C3%B1a-alemania2.JPG

Last year born the Liga Superibérica, the first professional league of rugby. The final was played in "Estadio Teresa Rivero", property of Rayo Vallecano. Capacity 15,500 people, I think it'd be a great national stadium.

http://www.as.com/recorte/20090630dasdaiftb_12/XLCO/Ies/estadio_Teresa_Rivero.jpg

How is rugby in Spain going? Is the efforts of the governing body to increase its popularity working? Do ordinary spanish people know about the liga superiberica and are the crowds good?

Guys, do you know why rugby is not popular among black people?In Namibia and RSA national teams nearly all players are white.In football national teams of these countries almost all players are black:)Black people are much stronger than whites so they are born to play rugby...

^^ lol WTF, it's west african's not black people. The black people that populate Brazil, the carribean, USA, England and France are largely of west african decent, the bell curve for people of west african decent in terms of athleticism is far more skewed to athletic than it is for any other demographic.

If you look at all the good football teams in Africa they are the technical/tactical North Africans and the athletic West africans. Southern africans struggle because they aren't big, strong and powerful in as large numbers. I read that South African football in particular suffers because of its wealth which means it employs small technical players that people want to see but because the standard of football isn't great and they aren't used to it they just get bullied off the ball in international competitions.

Obviously this is on average and there will be super athletes from every country, see Brian Habana, but west african's have a greater disposition to be athletic.

More specifically on your point Black people don't play rugby in south africa because it is seen as the white man's game, in England it's because it's the posh boys game, oh and football is better and more fun but that's another debate ;)

How is rugby in Spain going? Is the efforts of the governing body to increase its popularity working? Do ordinary spanish people know about the liga superiberica and are the crowds good?

Nowadays there are 17.000 rugby players in Spain, more than Scotland, and half than Italy. I dont consider a bad amount however there're several reasons why we perfom much worse than countries with less players.

-Amateurism: Although there are players earning money, we're far from having a profesional league. The FER, our governing body, are usually fighting versus the clubs. Now we have two leagues, Superiberica, composed by six franchises, and the División de Honor, organized by the FER.

Clubs created Superiberica in order to become professionals. However I dont trust much on it, attendance keeps very low. We only had 5.000 people in the Final, which was played in Madrid with a team from Madrid.

-Age of begining: Here, usually schools dont have teams of any different sport to Football (soccer) and basketball, and sometimes handball and voleyball. As most children in Spain doing sport uses to do it in his school team there are few children playing rugby. The rugby in Spain has been historically related to Universities, most universities has or have had team. So most players begin to play in the University at 18. For example in my city (200.000 inhabitants with a 13,000 students university) we have 4 teams, one of them for women, but any team for children.

About popularity, most people here doesnt know anything about RU excluding there's a tournament called Six Nations. The NT uses to draw between 5,000 and 10,000 people in Estadio Central But foreign NT are more popular among rugby fans, specially Ireland.

I'm not very optimistic about development of Spanish rugby. I hope than now we have some players on Youth Academies of French teams, or playing in the Top 14, our level will rise up. And I hope that the amount of players signing for French teams will rise up, as French rugby influence in Spanish one is very important (in fact we use French terms, not the English ones)

Finally the Government is not supporting a lot rugby. By law Gvt has to invest more money on olympic sports, so Rugby seven is said to become more important than rugby union.

And I hope that the amount of players signing for French teams will rise up, as French rugby influence in Spanish one is very important (in fact we use French terms, not the English ones)


And you're right !!!! Viva España !!! :D

----------

Anyway: Good news !! :yes:

Please, please, come join us in the centennial fight of rugby: Latin Nations (in fact, only France during 107 years :mad:) vs Brit. Nations !!!!!

As we used to say in France about the former Five-Nations: "We all know that we play 4 times against England in this tournament, but we play the game" :)

......

Thanks for the info Kazurro. I think the development of Rugby 7's will help the 15 man game, as the benefits will flow through. The spanish stars of the Rugby 7's team will move on to Rugby Union.

Thanks for the info Kazurro. I think the development of Rugby 7's will help the 15 man game, as the benefits will flow through. The spanish stars of the Rugby 7's team will move on to Rugby Union.

In fact spanish stars on the 7s are rugby union players. In sevens there are several rugby union prominent players, like Cesar Sempere (who plays for Montpellier in Top 14), or Pablo Feijóo, the captain of Rugby Union NT, who have played for Leicester in Premiership.

@ parcdesprinces, if we get to solve this problems, specially what I explained about the age people begins to play, we can have a good rugby national team. In the 70s we managed to beat Italy, so we have the potential. However I've not seen any improvement during the last decade.

Does players in France begin to play while being children?

About Latins v. Brits... you must know here most rugby fans support Ireland. However France is popular I suppose because the huge influence of French rugby in ours. Also Argentina. And England is not very popular here.

Personally I support Ireland and the Boks in national teams. In Heineken Cup I support Munster and Toulouse, and generally the French ones because I like the way they play. Furthermore Bayonne and USAP are popular in Basque Country and Catalonia, in fact Bayonne uses to play at San Sebastián in Heineken Cup.

PS: Just curiosity, any non-francophone country excluding Spain uses French terminology in rugby or a mixture of French and the local language? I shared team with an Argentinian and was a bit hard to understand him, because they use English terms like scrum or prop, while we say melé or pilier.

The Six :) : (updated list of 2011)

Dublin, Ireland
Aviva Stadium (Lansdowne Road)
51,000 Seats :( ..I already miss Croke Park...

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/3000/capturedcran20100916153.jpg

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8725/4853079211f691f77f69bco.jpg

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/6126/capturedcran20100916155.jpg


Edinburgh, Scotland
Murrayfield
67,800 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3315321033_68c5ee195d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3316148448_a2938b7b7d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3316148880_6bd452c577_o.jpg


Cardiff, Wales
Millennium Stadium
74,500 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3315321765_925629f3a1_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3315321695_9d6ca12a74_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3316149030_03cff7233e_b.jpg


London, England
Twickenham Stadium
82,000 Seats

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8892/capturedcran20100916162.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3315321067_20301d2bb2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/3315321091_179770c30d_b.jpg


Paris, France
Stade de France
81,300 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/3285793073_bdf4abd74d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3286254078_33dcc6a843_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3289676714_f6bd7d5f6e_b.jpg


Roma, Italia
Stadio Flaminio
32,000 seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3316148236_2007435c83_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3316148784_17f3904ae3_o.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/989/sztybs.jpg

great stadiums. i have been to them all and they are superb. does anyone know if the stade de france has had some seats moved around as i thought the capicity was 80k but know its 81k

i love the stadio flaminio but a part of me wished they would play at the san siro for the bigger 6 nations games

as i thought the capicity was 80k but know its 81k

Its official cap has always been 81,338 seats !!!!! ;)

Its attendance record for a sporting event was :

80,832 (2009 Coupe de France Final), followed by: 80,430 (2007 IRB World Cup Final).

I wish Ireland could continue playing at Croke Park, Aviva is a nice stadium, but it does'nt even compare to Croke Park.

I wish Ireland could continue playing at Croke Park, Aviva is a nice stadium, but it does'nt even compare to Croke Park.

^^^^^^

Totally agree, how can you downgrade to a stadium that holds 32,500 people less that croker..in rugby you will always get a full house.
50,000 is the capacity, and the 3 or 4,000 people who bought up the 10 year ticket dont seem to be attending so expect capacities of 45 to 46,000 the whole time, if we couldnt get the 10 year ticket holders to fill it against argentina, manchester united and a euro 2012 qualifier then someting needs to be done about it..big mistake reducing it to this capacity in my openion

^^^^^^

Totally agree, how can you downgrade to a stadium that holds 32,500 people less that croker..in rugby you will always get a full house.
50,000 is the capacity, and the 3 or 4,000 people who bought up the 10 year ticket dont seem to be attending so expect capacities of 45 to 46,000 the whole time, if we couldnt get the 10 year ticket holders to fill it against argentina, manchester united and a euro 2012 qualifier then someting needs to be done about it..big mistake reducing it to this capacity in my openion

I was over for the Scotland game this season (a cracking game that was ;) ), and a lot of the guys I spoke to were convinced the IRFU would be back at Croker the first opertunity they get.

It's a shame though, what we now have is a very ordinary ground that sits on the same site as the original Lansdowne Road, with the same capacity, but without the character of the old ground. I could understand the IRFU playing games with a 50,000 capacity, if it was a ground with the history of the old Lansdowne (It will always be a regret of mine that I didn't make it to Lansdowne when I had the chance - to think I was offered a ticket for the last stand match in 2006!) - but the new ground isn't Lansdowne, it is a brand new build and, in my opinion atleast, they would have been far better moving to a new site and building a ground worthy of being Irelands national stadium.

Unless ofcourse the IRFU and IFA are confident they can get planning permission to 'complete' the stadium in the future? (would that have to include buying land at the North end of the ground?)


As for the others - Italy cannot play at the San Siro because of the groundsharing deal. Since Inter and AC share the ground, there is nearly always a home game each week. The only reason they managed the New Zealand game last season was because it fell on an international weekend. (I don't think there is an international break on any weekend's during the 6 Nations, only midweek ones? but could be wrong there) The same can be applied to the Stadio Olimpico (except it's Roma and Lazio, rather than Inter and AC, obviously)

There are rumours the 2013 Heineken Cup Final might be at the San Siro though! :D (the other grounds mentioned are Brussels' Heysel Stadium, and the Camp Nou)

And on the subject of the game in Spain, USA Perpignan are apparently set to announce they are following the lead of Stade Francais, Biarritz Olympique and Aviron Bayonnaise in playing games outside of France (even if the SF one never actually happened ;) ), and also in fulfilling what has long been reported as a dream of the club, by staging their league clash with Racing Metro at the Nou Camp!


(ps. pedantic point I know, but Murrayfield doesn't hold 67,800 any more - they removed several hundered seats a few years ago to fit permanent big screens, that you can actually see if you are sitting in the crap seats. ie. when you need to be able to see them ;) )

I was over for the Scotland game this season (a cracking game that was ;) ), and a lot of the guys I spoke to were convinced the IRFU would be back at Croker the first opertunity they get.

It's a shame though, what we now have is a very ordinary ground that sits on the same site as the original Lansdowne Road, with the same capacity, but without the character of the old ground. I could understand the IRFU playing games with a 50,000 capacity, if it was a ground with the history of the old Lansdowne (It will always be a regret of mine that I didn't make it to Lansdowne when I had the chance - to think I was offered a ticket for the last stand match in 2006!) - but the new ground isn't Lansdowne, it is a brand new build and, in my opinion atleast, they would have been far better moving to a new site and building a ground worthy of being Irelands national stadium.

Unless ofcourse the IRFU and IFA are confident they can get planning permission to 'complete' the stadium in the future? (would that have to include buying land at the North end of the ground?)


As for the others - Italy cannot play at the San Siro because of the groundsharing deal. Since Inter and AC share the ground, there is nearly always a home game each week. The only reason they managed the New Zealand game last season was because it fell on an international weekend. (I don't think there is an international break on any weekend's during the 6 Nations, only midweek ones? but could be wrong there) The same can be applied to the Stadio Olimpico (except it's Roma and Lazio, rather than Inter and AC, obviously)

There are rumours the 2013 Heineken Cup Final might be at the San Siro though! :D (the other grounds mentioned are Brussels' Heysel Stadium, and the Camp Nou)

And on the subject of the game in Spain, USA Perpignan are apparently set to announce they are following the lead of Stade Francais, Biarritz Olympique and Aviron Bayonnaise in playing games outside of France (even if the SF one never actually happened ;) ), and also in fulfilling what has long been reported as a dream of the club, by staging their league clash with Racing Metro at the Nou Camp!


(ps. pedantic point I know, but Murrayfield doesn't hold 67,800 any more - they removed several hundered seats a few years ago to fit permanent big screens, that you can actually see if you are sitting in the crap seats. ie. when you need to be able to see them ;) )

ya i think the irfu have already put in a masterplan on the stadium to increase the capacity in a few years time to complete the stadium ( in my openion if this is actually true it just shows how badly the stadium was planned)

ya i think the irfu have already put in a masterplan on the stadium to increase the capacity in a few years time to complete the stadium ( in my openion if this is actually true it just shows how badly the stadium was planned)

Unfortunately that's a 100% non-starter. The orignal idea was to flip the pitch 90 degrees and move it up to take in the space behind the old east stand. The numbers being thrown around were anywhere from 60 - 75k in terms of capacity but it was shot down out of hand for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head some of which were:


the argument against this was that access routes could not handle the extra footfall
surrounding houses and residents would be directly affected by the greater capacity
surrounding houses would be negatively affected
by shadows etc

The council also had an issue with the rotation of the pitch which meant the new stadium, essentially had to be built within the same footprint as the old one. What you see today is the best job the designers could do given the stipulations put in place by the council planners.

I'll try and dig out the articles if I can find them

Why is it always the shit photos of Murrayfield that get shown on these forums, voila, best angles of our wonderful national rugby stadium

http://image05.webshots.com/5/6/0/17/64760017ShSwMX_fs.jpg

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/2489-2/MurrayfieldStadium-db58240.JPG

http://www.essex.ac.uk/csee/icdar2003/photos/murrayfield1.jpg

http://www.sykes-gala.com/images/stories/images/murrayfield.jpg

With the room created by the 100m track to the width and the Traditional Rugby Union ingoal areas to the length. They really could re-orientate and sink the Murrayfield pitch around 2m and add a couple more rows or seating making a tighter field which would be more friendly to the fans and the likes of Soccer. Obviously it would also give a higher capacity.

With the room created by the 100m track to the width and the Traditional Rugby Union ingoal areas to the length. They really could re-orientate and sink the Murrayfield pitch around 2m and add a couple more rows or seating making a tighter field which would be more friendly to the fans and the likes of Soccer. Obviously it would also give a higher capacity.

I used to think that Murrayfield could be improved by taking out the running track and continuing the lower West Stand around the other three sides, and the upper North/West/South Stand around to the East, and in fact often wondered if there was a masterplan to do so, but on closer examination I don't think the ends were designed with this in mind...

to be hinest the next thing they should do to it is demolish it (and Hampden), sell the land and move to a new national stadium in the shadow of Stirling Castle.

Football and Rugby should be played there and it should be a truly national stadium the same way MillStad is!

It would be totally neutral, sit in the middel of the country and be equally accessible from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness. The sale of Murrayfield could fund new stadia for the Glasgow and Edinburgh franchises, and pave the way for a joint big for Euro championships with Wales.

Scotland would have 2 stadia in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh (at this stage probably Hibs ground as it is the better of the two) 1 in Stirling and 1 in Aberdeen.

That is 5 venues, Wales would only need to provide three venues, two at a push as Dundee could feasibly host some games in a new all Dundee stadium, that is temporarily expanded for the Euros

I used to think that Murrayfield could be improved by taking out the running track and continuing the lower West Stand around the other three sides, and the upper North/West/South Stand around to the East, and in fact often wondered if there was a masterplan to do so, but on closer examination I don't think the ends were designed with this in mind...

And indeed, a photo you've just posted in another thread helps illustrate my point:

http://stadiumvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/murrayfield-stadium-1.jpg

As far as I can tell from internal pictures, the North Stand (in the centre of this picture) is centrally aligned with the pitch. Had it been built about ten metres or so off-centre, they could remove the track and build a mirror image of the East Stand on the west side.

to be hinest the next thing they should do to it is demolish it (and Hampden), sell the land and move to a new national stadium in the shadow of Stirling Castle.

Football and Rugby should be played there and it should be a truly national stadium the same way MillStad is!

It would be totally neutral, sit in the middel of the country and be equally accessible from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness.

What are the pubs like in Stirling?

Fine, it is not a massive town but big enough to host a party ;-)

and a bloody good one given half the chance

For some reason the best of all of the pictures has not come out, I will try again and if it doesn't post the url to it, so you can see what I mean.

This is a vastly underrated stadium

http://image05.webshots.com/5/6/0/17/64760017ShSwMX_fs.jpg

DOH!

http://image05.webshots.com/5/6/0/17/64760017ShSwMX_fs.jpg

Just a bit of lateral thinking just for fun- imagine all six nations venues are suddenly vapourized!
The point being what venues would you choose instead of these, dont go for easy option like next biggest capacity etc-think about the whole rugby ethos, corporate hospitality, space around ground, clash with football fixtures etc

heres my six

TWICKENHAM............WEMBLEY
STADE DE FRANCE......MARSEILLE
MURRAYFIELD....IBROX
MILLENNIUM.....SWANSEA
ROME....SAN SIRO
DUBLIN AVIVA....CROKE

Just a bit of lateral thinking just for fun- imagine all six nations venues are suddenly vapourized!
The point being what venues would you choose instead of these, dont go for easy option like next biggest capacity etc-think about the whole rugby ethos, corporate hospitality, space around ground, clash with football fixtures etc

heres my six

TWICKENHAM............WEMBLEY
STADE DE FRANCE......PARC des PRINCES
MURRAYFIELD....IBROX
MILLENNIUM.....SWANSEA
ROME....SAN SIRO
DUBLIN AVIVA....CROKE
Corrected for you ;)

Aren't PSG determined to make Parc des Princes unfit for rugby by shortening the pitch when they redevelop it?

^^ Well, today we don't know how exactly it will be redeveloped, but I think there will still remain enough space for a rugby pitch, even if they bring the lower tiers closer :

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6163/image1bqd.jpg

I was just going by comments in the Parc des Princes thread.

If the FFR aren't going to renew their agreement with Stade de France after 2013, and aren't going to play in their new ground until 2017, where are they going to play Six Nations games from 2014 to 2016?

why murrayfield has a track field?

They shouldn't demolish Murrayfield, it's the best stadium in Scotland.

Hampden on the other hand is a hole.

Not massive news but it is something that makes a big difference to my enjoyment of going to watch games at the millennium stadium is the fact that it's gone HD this year, one of only a couple in UK.

The big screens now fill the entire screen box so are about 50% larger than they were before, there are also countless HD flats around the ground and they have a new sound system all to the tune of £2.5 million.

If the FFR aren't going to renew their agreement with Stade de France after 2013, and aren't going to play in their new ground until 2017, where are they going to play Six Nations games from 2014 to 2016?

IMO, they'll still play them at the SdF, but the FFR will rent it game by game.......(just a guess..)

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/561/capturedcran20110206123.jpg

And here we go again... :happy: Six Nations 2011 :banana: :banana: !



http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8992/capturedcran20110602065.jpg
(:(:()


Venues:

Dublin, Ireland
Aviva Stadium aka Lansdowne Road
51,700 seats (I miss Croke Park...:()

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/104/dublinv.jpg




Edinburgh, Scotland
Murrayfield
67,100 seats

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2349/331532103368c5ee195do.jpg




Cardiff, Wales
Millennium Stadium
74,500 seats

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6931/3315321765925629f3a1o.jpg




London, England
Twickenham Stadium
82,000 seats

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8737/stadedetwickenhamlondre.jpg




Paris, France
Stade de France
81,300 seats

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4019/capturedcran20110206132.jpg




Roma, Italia
Stadio Flaminio
32,000 seats (or more ??)

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7384/capturedcran20110226030.jpg
(outdated photo..I know !)


.

stadium is beautifill

^^ Which one ? :|

...

I heard at the french TV, during the Italy vs Wales game, that Stadio Flaminio will be renovated, VIP salons will be added and the capacity will be extended to 48.000...
Do some italian users have more informations on the subject ???

I heard at the french TV, during the Italy vs Wales game, that Stadio Flaminio will be renovated, VIP salons will be added and the capacity will be extended to 48.000...
Do some italian users have more informations on the subject ???

that was reported over here last season - but back then, they said work should have started by now?

del

I heard at the french TV, during the Italy vs Wales game, that Stadio Flaminio will be renovated, VIP salons will be added and the capacity will be extended to 48.000...
Do some italian users have more informations on the subject ???

that was reported over here last season - but back then, they said work should have started by now?

I was wondering the same thing too. Apparently the work started a year ago and will be finished before the start of next year's Championship, so I don't know what's been accomplished so far. Hopefully it will involve more than the temporary extensions you can see on television at present.

Congratulations to the Azzuri yesterday - England are now the only Six Nations team they have never beaten!

England are now the only Six Nations team they have never beaten!

Don't worry, your time will come ! :D

Non mais !! :hahano:

I'm sure it will; Italy have come a long way since they first entered the Six Nations. Doesn't mean we didn't enjoy yesterday's match though! ;)

I was wondering the same thing too. Apparently the work started a year ago and will be finished before the start of next year's Championship, so I don't know what's been accomplished so far. Hopefully it will involve more than the temporary extensions you can see on television at present.

Congratulations to the Azzuri yesterday - England are now the only Six Nations team they have never beaten!

Italy already beat France once before in 1997, but it was not in the Six Nations Championship. So before yesterday's game, England was already the only team that Italy had never beaten among the Six Nations teams.

Moreover, Ireland have never lost against Italy during the Six Nations Championship.

Italy already beat France once before in 1997, but it was not in the Six Nations Championship. So before yesterday's game, England was already the only team that Italy had never beaten among the Six Nations teams.

Of course, in Grenoble. For some reason I thought that was a "non-cap" international.

Moreover, Ireland have never lost against Italy during the Six Nations Championship.

Yes, that's why I phrased it the way I did! ;)

Wow, I didn't see this coming (and I'm pretty sure it's not a joke, despite the date):

Italy to move Six Nations games from Rome to Florence

Italy's home Six Nations matches are set to be played in Florence after rugby bosses lost patience with owners of Rome's Stadio Flaminio.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/12941136.stm

^^Well..I don't really believe it (:dunno:)...

Especially because Artemio Franchi is even worse than Flaminio !

^^ Yep, it really is an awful stadium. :ohno:

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4586/artemiofranchi11024x768.jpg (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/artemiofranchi11024x768.jpg/)

For what I've gathered, it's just a bluff to blackmail Rome's city council and speed up expansion works. Hardly anything serious.

The rugby federation has repeatedly refused to move to Stadio Olimpico as they don't want a shared stadium. It would be exceedingly strange for them to accept to move in a shared stadium, just marginally larger than Flaminio and with 30k less seats than Olimpico, surely not better than them in any other respect, in a city which is much harder to reach for an international fan compared to Rome.

^^ Yep, it really is an awful stadium. :ohno:

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4586/artemiofranchi11024x768.jpg (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/artemiofranchi11024x768.jpg/)

And I thought the RDS was bad! :O

However, it will always hold a special place in my heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdUeHVqkLM

Would have been one of the best in the world back in the '30s, but it doesn't look like much has been done since.

For what I've gathered, it's just a bluff to blackmail Rome's city council and speed up expansion works. Hardly anything serious.

The rugby federation has repeatedly refused to move to Stadio Olimpico as they don't want a shared stadium. It would be exceedingly strange for them to accept to move in a shared stadium, just marginally larger than Flaminio and with 30k less seats than Olimpico, surely not better than them in any other respect, in a city which is much harder to reach for an international fan compared to Rome.

Surely Olimpico would be a nightmare as two soccer teams play there?

Looking at this season's Serie A and Six Nations fixtures:

2 Feb: Roma v Brescia
5 Feb: Italy v Ireland
6 Feb: Lazio v Chievoverona
12 Feb: Roma v Napoli
20 Feb: Lazio v Bari
26 Feb: Italy v Wales
27 Feb: Roma v Parma
6 Mar: Lazio v Palermo
12 Mar: Italy v France
13 Mar: Lazio v Roma

Surely Olimpico would be a nightmare as two soccer teams play there?

Looking at this season's Serie A and Six Nations fixtures:

2 Feb: Roma v Brescia
5 Feb: Italy v Ireland
6 Feb: Lazio v Chievoverona
12 Feb: Roma v Napoli
20 Feb: Lazio v Bari
26 Feb: Italy v Wales
27 Feb: Roma v Parma
6 Mar: Lazio v Palermo
12 Mar: Italy v France
13 Mar: Lazio v Roma

Pretty sure that is the reason they dont play there (or at the San Siro), since there is a game there in every round of Serie A (plus occassional internationals, cup games ect)

The Italy v All Blacks game in Milan the other year was only possible because it was an international weekend.

http://www.gazzetta.it/Sport_Vari/Rugby/20-04-2011/italia-rimane-flaminio-80918723250.shtml

Finally they reached agreement.
Italy will stay at Flaminio even for the next edition.
Renovation and expansion works will begin after the 2012 edition and will end in time for the 2013 edition.

^^ Good news !
Do we know how the "new" Flaminio will look like ?

Still nothing. According to the article the project should be presented in the next few weeks.

Im lucky enough to have been to all of the grounds. Favourites in order -

1. Murrayfield
2. Stade de France
3. Twickenham
4. Millenium Stadium
5. Stadio Flaminio
6. Aviva Stadium

^^ Could you in a few words explain why?

SIX NATIONS MATCHES TO BE PLAYED IN ROME OLYMPIC STADIUM

18:37 12 LUG 2011

(AGI) Rome - Italy will play its 2012 Six Nations rugby matches at the Olympic Stadium in Rome as announced by the Italian Rugby Federation, emphasizing that the decision was made "in agreement with CONI and the Municipality of Rome which will support the Federation in organizing these events." Italy will play England on the Saturday February 11th and Scotland on Saturday March 17th."After eleven years at the Flaminio Stadium, a location that has provided us with unforgettable moments, beginning with our debut against Scotland on February 5th 2000, bringing international rugby's most ancient and prestigious tournament to the most important venue in Italian sport," said the president of the federation, Giancarlo Dondi, "I wish to address a grateful thank you to CONI's president Gianni Petrucci and to the Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, for working so hard to ensure that the next edition of the Six nations will be played at the Olympic Stadium and for guaranteeing their support. I am sure that all together we wil organize two wonderful events at a venue comparable to the great European rugby venues. Choosing the Olympic Stadium is an enthusiastic challenge for Italian rugby for 2012 and we hope that in years to come we will return to a Flaminio Stadium fully equipped for the requirements of the six nations." Season tickets will be on sale tomorrow . .

http://www.agi.it/english-version/sport/elenco-notizie/201107121837-spr-ren1083-six_nations_matches_to_be_played_in_rome_olympic_stadium

Cool! I might try get to tickets for the England game... :)

Does anyone have any pictures of the planned upgrade to the Flaminio Stadium or have any idea what they are planning to do with it?

^^ Could you in a few words explain why?

Ireland 24 - 8 England

Might explain Aviva being last :lol:

http://www.agi.it/english-version/sport/elenco-notizie/201107121837-spr-ren1083-six_nations_matches_to_be_played_in_rome_olympic_stadium

Good news! This proves that the interest for the rugby continues to grow in Italy! I hope they will do a good World Cup to continue on this way !

Btw, is it definitive or just during the works in Flaminio?

Btw, is it definitive or just during the works in Flaminio!

It is still not know. According to the president of the Italian Rugby Federation, if the feedback from the fans will be positive they may think to relocate the matches to Olimpico permanently.

Good news! This proves that the interest for the rugby continues to grow in Italy!

+++1 !!! :cheers:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/561/capturedcran20110206123.jpg

:happy: Six Nations 2012 :banana: :banana: !


The SIX Venues:

Dublin, Ireland
Aviva Stadium aka Lansdowne Road
51,500 seats (I really miss Croke Park...:()

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/104/dublinv.jpg

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8725/4853079211f691f77f69bco.jpg

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/6126/capturedcran20100916155.jpg


------


Edinburgh, Scotland
Murrayfield
67,100 Seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3315321033_68c5ee195d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3316148448_a2938b7b7d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3316148880_6bd452c577_o.jpg


------


Cardiff, Wales
Millennium Stadium
74,500 seats

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3315321765_925629f3a1_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3315321695_9d6ca12a74_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3316149030_03cff7233e_b.jpg


------


London, England
Twickenham Stadium
82,000 seats

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8737/stadedetwickenhamlondre.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3315321067_20301d2bb2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/3315321091_179770c30d_b.jpg


------


Paris, France
Stade de France
81,300 seats

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4019/capturedcran20110206132.jpg

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9426/13923562937841994fe3oco.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3289676714_f6bd7d5f6e_b.jpg


------

Roma, Italia
Stadio Olimpico
72,700 seats

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/436/estadioolimpicoderoman.jpg
it's an old pic, I know...

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4716/unledpanoramar7trd1.jpg