If New Zealand were to join the 6 nations...

Thought experiment ... what would be the result this year in the new 7 nations? And what would be the results in subsequent years? Let's pretend like the other nations they have half their fixtures home and half away.

I genuinely think NZ wouldn't win the 2012 7N. I'm inventing that Ireland have them at home and beat them and France beat them away. France to take the title despite losing to England.

Scotland and Italy torn a new one by the new competitor.

Well, Ireland have never beaten NZ.

France are the only team that would stand a chance of beating NZ away from home, and nobody would be able to beat them consistently home or away.

Well, seeing that the All Blacks have done a NH grand slam in the autumn internationals a few times (albeit only playing 3 or 4 games), I think they'd manage to win it fairly easily. But then they are consistently the number one team in the world, whereas the usual 6N is contested by teams consistently between 4 and 9 in the world, so you'd expect them to dominate.

What the interesting thing for me would be is if this hypothetical tournament happened every year in place of the tri nations, I'd like to see if it led to a slip in All Black standards. I reckon that the reason the top 3 teams are the top 3 teams (Oz, SA, NZ) is because they play each other so often so their standards remain high. I hypothesise that the All Blacks stepping down to play only teams ranked much lower than them would make them drop in standards, so that they are only competent at competing consistently at 6N level. Controversial!

They've lost 21 times to all those teams in history. I'd say they'd win three out of four competitions if they had a streak. Griff has a point but NZ is dominant at 3N level so I'd say they'd be even more dominant obviously with the teams being of lesser quality than SA and Australia.

My hypothesis is that everyone in sight (i.e. not scotland and italy) would step up their game for new zealand specifically and that's why NZ would struggle to win every tournament. 50% of the tournaments sounds about right.

I also agree with Griff, that NZ would slowly slip in standards (but the other nations would get a little better too). If you wanted the top 7 countries to be at very similar levels this would actually be the way to do it (assuming Argies make the new try nations with AUS & SA).

On a side note, Scotland & Italy could do with going to the pacific islands and playing a separate tournament with them. Scotland would dominate that tournament completely but it would give them some confidence at least! [This last suggestion is a joke by the way - I'm Scottish!]

Theyd win a grand slam in their first couple of seasons and then see it as a development tournament for their young players and any NH victory would be slightly hollow

Well if started this year NZ would already have an advantage given we play a virtual 6N away every year in the AIs now anyway. Its not the same intensity as the 6N for the home sides but then its not the 3N for NZ either.

Altering the same AIs then add in Italy and have half the matches instead at home makes it easier in a logical sense but then again somehow i dont think it would be that easy and we never play jan feb tests these days.

Just to be clear I know it won't happen and I don't want it to either - looking forward to Rugby Championship this year though

This is as likely about as likely as a player representing his country in an RWC tossing a dwarf.

That's what I just said ^

or a player representing his country at an RWC jumping off a ferry

Gatts wrote:or a player representing his country at an RWC jumping off a ferry

Or a player drunkenly driving a golf buggy on the motorway . Or jumping on cars after an early RWC'07 (Howlett) exit. Or ...

What on earth is that drool face doing there

New Zealand Maoris would be more than competitve in 6 nations...I just cant remember them ever beating France.

Pretty sure the maoris havent beaten Wales either. 2-0 to wales I believe but Im sure an NZ poster can correct me if Im wrong

Tycro
Perhaps I should have written,I cant remember them beating Wales or France....
They dont look so competitive all of a sudden...But they'd be good at the travelling bit..

Gatts wrote:or a player representing his country at an RWC jumping off a ferry

You are drooling over men jumping off ferries? Oooh suits you sir

I'd be all for a New Zealand exiles team joining the 6Nations comprising players no longer eligible for NZ selection because they're playing for NH clubs.

I know that would never happen because these players are largely viable to the clubs due to their uninterupted availability for the club season. But if we got our season sorted out so that this wasn't an issue it would be an interesting addition. Certainly more interesting than the current irrelevance of Scotland v Italy live from a half full Murrayfield.

New Zealand grand slam easily...
Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy are terrified of them, they'd be beaten before the Haka finished.

England are a mess at the moment, so you'd have to think only France could give them a game.

Aside from the controversial 2007 RWC Quarterfinal, France have beaten NZ only once in twenty years and that was against an injury hit and rotated NZ squad missing Richie McCaw, Daniel Carter, Ali Williams, Rodney So'oialo, Conrad Smith, Sitiveni Sivivatu among others.

Personally I feel that the more regularly NZ played France, the more likely NZ would be to win any individual match. At the moment France manage to raise for a game against the Kiwis more than any other nation seems able against any other opposition. That's all fine if you really only meet in World Cups.

miteyironpaw wrote:Personally I feel that the more regularly NZ played France, the more likely NZ would be to win any individual match. At the moment France manage to raise for a game against the Kiwis more than any other nation seems able against any other opposition. That's all fine if you really only meet in World Cups.

I tend to agree with your assessment. Currently the odd occasion seems to lift the French when they play New Zealand. If it were to be regular occurence the French may not be able to lift themselves as much as now.

Having said that, New Zealand doesn't lose at home to te other two Tri Nation sides on a regular basis either, SA managed to win there in 2008 and 2009, but sill New Zealand seems to be difficult to beat at home. I doubt the Six nation teams will be able to win there for quite some time.

The benefit for the NH teams are they will get used to playing the All Blacks which would take some of the awe away.

It as always been said the NH play a lesser type of rugby that the SH teams do. (Every SH payer that comes to the NH) loses some of his talent that he had before he came over here.

So if NZ joined the 6ns, they may well win the first couple of 6ns, but then what with playiong in the NH regulary they would start to play NH style of Rugby, so would become like any other NH team, and maybe, just maybe finish above Wales but below England, Ireland, and France.

This thread makes as much sense,as the Boks joining the NH NONE.
The logical step would be a 10 nation setup,home and away alt seasons.
No July,or AIs ,6Ns or4Ns.
Of course the RWC would then have no real relevance and could be discarded.
Then of course super 15,heineken ,plus leagues would`nt see many of there test players.
Tests could then be reduced to 12 a year,and lesser sides tour or meet Tier 2 sides.
Income would probably be lost,and the little cabal of 4 or 5 countries hosting a nonexistent RWC would end.
So at least there would be some good,and a league time series may erode SH dominance.BUT I doubt it because it will never happen.

if NZ played in the 6n they would win every year and grand slam most

I think - that at the end of the competition, everyone would be actually f**ked from jet lag and there would be loads of injuries and potential fatalities due to deep vain thrombosis.

I just wonder if every one is giving New Zeland a little too mutch repsect.

Yes they do need to be given respect because they are WORLD CHAMPIONS
right, right, but in all honesty New Zealand have been one of the best teams in the world since the very first rugby world cup was staged. But it has taken them (New Zealand ) 24 years to win a second rugby world cup.

So their is no garuntee that they would win every 6ns every year. And certainly no garantee they would do a Grand Slam every year either.

Majestic, I don't think they are getting too much respect because they are world champions.

These are the facts.

Over the last ten years the All Blacks have played 55 test matches against the Six Nation sides.

England and France have each won twice against them.

It took arguably the best english test side ever to beat them in 2002 and 2003, since then England only came within a score on one occassion in 2005.

France was the All black's bogey team in 2007, but we all know what happened there. The other win was in New Zealand when Medard intercepted and ran over half the field to score a converted try. It also happened at the time when Carter and McCaw was injured.

The point is, irrespective of being world champions (that is just a title they will carry for the next four year), their reputation against NH opposition is near invincible.

It takes special teams to beat the All Blacks, and sadly currently, only Wales might be building something special.

Majestic
The Abs were one of the best teams in the world before the first World Cup as well.....

This is such a dumb thread. We might as well be asking what would happen if South Africa had been at the 1987 RWC....

Good question Gatts

Look we all know that the only reason England dont win every test match is that other side raise their game for them but its ridiculous to suggest that New Zealand would suddenly start losing to NH sides just because they are bored of beating them so often.
The few wins the NH sides have had over them in the past decade have almost exclusively come in non comeptitive fixtures. Only France, have turned them over in a world cup, and that was as much Wayne Barnes as anything else and at a time when NH rugby was relativly strong.

Gatts wrote:This is such a dumb thread. We might as well be asking what would happen if South Africa had been at the 1987 RWC....

Or 1991 presumably? As an England fan it doesn't bear thinking about. Rather than going out at the Quarterfinals in '87 we might not have made it out of our group! or in '91 we might have met SH opposition prior to the final and then where would our WC record be at?

Stop this line of thought all together and get back to the soothing notion that the only reason we don't beat the SH very often is that we're too focussed on the 6N. There, calm restored.

This thread is more fantastical than hypothetical but it does raise some interesting points.

Firstly, NZ tend to have much better success at imposing their will on teams ranked much lower than them. When SA or Australia tend to tour Scotland, they tend to be brought down to the Scottish level and get caught up in a war of attrition. With NZ, however, at near full strength, Scotland seem incapable of containing the AB backline. Why is this? Is it deer caught in the headlights syndrome. Does the fact that you have never beaten a side make them so daunting to face that you forget they're just a normal rugby team, albeit a very effective one? Certainly France have that ability to raise their game and the French players admit in their philosophical style that they do so out of fear. But England have also beaten NZ and indeed Wales yet seem far less capable of breaking the AB domination. Is this because some teams do better than others against certain teams or is it down to attitude? Whatever the answer may be, I just don't see NZ playing worse because the team they face is better. There is that ruthless edge NZ have to play the perfect game that makes them punish teams where other teams are more circumspect and more reserved when they get on top.

When you look at a side like Ireland who have never beaten the ABs, they´ve actually faced one another very few times. Nowadays in a couple of years, Australia and SA seem to meet one another as many times as Ireland and NZ have faced one another in their entire history. So if NZ were to face the likes of Ireland more times, from a purely statistical point of view the chances would be greater of breaking the hoodoo.

It's true that NZ likes to play on dry grounds but it's often a misconception that they don't play well in the wet. It rains a lot in NZ as well and the skill base demands that wet weather is not an excuse for poor handling.

So whilst I don't think that NZ would be troubled much in the 6N by the likes of Scotland, Italy and to a lesser extent Wales, England and Ireland, the way the French play against the other teams doesn´t make me think that their return would be any different than the much more demanding 3N. That said, I´d expect the likes of Ireland and Wales to improve their game against NZ with much more frequent matches. When you look at the 3N, whilst there have been dominant teams, there has never been an easy beat in the comp. This makes me think that regular competition against the best sides does indeed raise your own game and make you more difficult to beat against other sides. I guess this theory will easily be tested by the introduction of Argentina in the 4N. You might say that Italy has not improved with the introduction into the 6N but let me ask the question, do you honestly think they could´ve beaten France before their introduction into the 6N? That's what they did last year and though they find themselves at the bottom of the comp regularly, from where they came from 5th or 6th is a step up.

miteyironpaw wrote:Stop this line of thought all together and get back to the soothing notion that the only reason we don't beat the SH very often is that we're too focussed on the 6N. There, calm restored.

they raise their game when they play us