Edwards says grandslam harder get than making world cup final

Sean Edwards has said that its harder for a side to win the grandslam (i.e. go undefeated in the 6 nations) than make the world cup final. He also says that tri nations teams have an advantage outside of the cups due to preperation. Here's the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jan/19/six-nations-harder-world-cup-final ). Now, I 'm sure this is a bit of attention seeking to highlight the up coming competition but does he have a point?

Is the grandslam harder? Maybe if you are England or France. I'm not sure if the same holds true for the others.

Italy. No 6 nations grandslam and have never made it to the quarter finals of the world cup. The chances of either are a fairy story at the moment.
Scotland. 1 Grand slam since 87 (26 attemps). Made the quarters 6 times (out of 7), and semi's 1. I'm saying WC final is probably harder.
Ireland 1 grandslam since 87. Made the quarters 5 times. Making a world cup final is harder for Ireland.
Wales 2 grandslams since 87. Made the quarters 4 times and semis 2 times. A world cup final is probably harder for Wales.
England 4 grandslams since 87. Made the quarters 7 times, semis 4 times, finals 3 times and won once. Maybe a grandslam is harder.
France 6 grandslams since 87, Made the quarters 7 times, semis 6 times, finals 3 times. A grandslam is harder for France.

It's also worth remembering that you usually have to beat at least one tri nations side to get to the final. That's a big call for the Celts given there record since the start of 87 - Wales (4 wins out of 56 games), Scotland (3 wins out of 44) and Ireland (6 wins out of 44).

The other question is whether the trinations teams have an advantage due to the timing of the tournement. My feeling is they actually are significantly disadvantaged. A fair comparision would be a tournement staged in April/May, with no tour of europe in November the year before. The provincial tournements could finish with their internationals, who could then have a proper break, go into camp, build up fitness, stength, conditioning and technique, play 3 or 4 games in March and hit the world cup. Less injuries, fresher minds and bodies, more muscle mass, etc. 3 more games in the pools before the knockout. That's pretty much optimal preperation for a tournement. On the other hand, the European teams would be coming in straight from end of their year, carrying injuries, tired, etc.

Your thoughts?

Edwards has never made a RWC final so how can he make that comment?

Its just mind games I think to draw a line under the RWC. Clearly the RWC is dependent on the draw and location.

It's complete bull. Generally given out by people involved with a team that's never been to/won a Wc final.

As for the SH teams having a benefit, well don't they always? During the Summer (NH) our guys go down there at the end of a hard season and they're all knackered, whereas the SH teams are fresh but fit after the S15. In the Autumn (NH) our guys are rusty after only 2 months of games where as the SH guys are match fit after their season.

The harder part about the WC is that you meet SH sides and you meet sides you are unfamiliar with (indeed, some of them are unfamiliar with themselves as due to funding and the necessary migration to pursue professional rugby, some only have their best players available to them for the WC itself. Even low rankings sides prove themselves surprise packets when WC time comes around.

The harder part about 6N is the virtual guarantee that each side is going to meet at least four of the top ten sides in the world.
The Tri-Nations up to this point was meeting two - twice or then three times. Lose once and you still have a chance of doing more homework and getting one back.

In short, nothing is easy in rugby! All those competitions are tough.

Edwards really does talk/write a lot of tripe sometimes. I read his columns in the Guardian and he just comes across quite bitter these days.

If you're going to come out with excuses and hide behind them then it's no wonder if your side lags behind.

The teams involved aside, its harder to get to a world cup final than a 6nations grandslam.

You need to win 5 games to win a grandslam, depending on the year 3 of those games will be at home.

Compared to getting out of your group of the world cup, and winning 2 games on the bounce against high quality opposition with just as much to lose as you do, all the while hoping that you do not lose any key players during the pool stages.

To me there are a couple of things involved with getting a grandslam:
1. Luck of the draw, you would ideally want to build momentum going into the final games.
2. Greater number of home games
3. Keeping injuries minimal to key players

I'd add home advantage against key sides helps (e.g. most sides struggle in London, Paris or Dublin).

IronMike wrote:The teams involved aside, its harder to get to a world cup final than a 6nations grandslam.

You need to win 5 games to win a grandslam, depending on the year 3 of those games will be at home.

Compared to getting out of your group of the world cup, and winning 2 games on the bounce against high quality opposition with just as much to lose as you do, all the while hoping that you do not lose any key players during the pool stages.

To me there are a couple of things involved with getting a grandslam:
1. Luck of the draw, you would ideally want to build momentum going into the final games.
2. Greater number of home games
3. Keeping injuries minimal to key players

HammerofThunor wrote:It's complete bull. Generally given out by people involved with a team that's never been to/won a Wc final.

As for the SH teams having a benefit, well don't they always? During the Summer (NH) our guys go down there at the end of a hard season and they're all knackered, whereas the SH teams are fresh but fit after the S15. In the Autumn (NH) our guys are rusty after only 2 months of games where as the SH guys are match fit after their season.

Well statistically it's easier to get a grandslam because you have a chance every year rather than every 4....its a pointless debate because you aren't comparing like for like.

If you get an easy pool then 2 wins on home or neutral territory will take you to a final whereas a GS requires 5 wins, of which 3 could be away from home.

It all depends on who you face in the RWC, in your pool and in the KO stages.

It technically is because you're playing 5 quality sides in a row. Instead of having the odd dud game here and there to rest your players.

With the world cup a lot more comes down to the draw.

France got to the final with only facing one of the top sides (losing to them) and not playing well for more than 20 minutes in the England game. They got lucky in pulling a QF against England who were one of the weaker sides to top a group ( and who saved their worst performance for the French), they got lucky pulling a semi against Wales ( ooeeer) rather than a tri nations team and nearly managed to lose that despite Wales getting their Capatin redded at the start. You could even argue they were lucky in their group only have one losebale match ( and somehow managing to lose twice anyway ).
It was even more extreme than the situation that got England to the final in 2007

You wont win a grandslam by losing twice.

Its quite possible to get to a world cup final depsite being pretty hopeless and losing games.

TGG used to argue he valued NZs Tri Nations wins above world cups because they were having to win multiple games home and away only against the best sides in teh world, rather than playing maybe one of them.

One NH team has made the world cup final every 4 years. How often do we get a grandslam? About the same number. So in that sense its pretty even.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
You wont win a grandslam by losing twice.

I didn't think we'd get an 'in a nutshell' comment on this topic but Peter, you've given us it. Well spotted.

This thread should now be closed, nothing to see here, move along, move along, folks

HammerofThunor wrote:It's complete bull. Generally given out by people involved with a team that's never been to/won a Wc final.

As for the SH teams having a benefit, well don't they always? During the Summer (NH) our guys go down there at the end of a hard season and they're all knackered, whereas the SH teams are fresh but fit after the S15. In the Autumn (NH) our guys are rusty after only 2 months of games where as the SH guys are match fit after their season.

I take it this comment is tongue and cheek but somehow I suspect you really mean it. But you can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Fit and fresh after the Super 15? Are you kidding me? The Crusaders didn't even have a home game last year. The season now starts in February (February! and goes on for three months. How on earth are you fresh after that with all that travel? Why are the SH match fit when they tour and the NH teams are knackered when they tour? Utter tripe much like Edwards' comments.

A Grand Slam as well as a World Cup final are difficult for teams other than France and England (and even then that is being kind) because all the 6N teams are too inconsistent to achieve those two goals.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

I take it this comment is tongue and cheek but somehow I suspect you really mean it. But you can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Fit and fresh after the Super 15? Are you kidding me? The Crusaders didn't even have a home game last year. The season now starts in February (February! and goes on for three months. How on earth are you fresh after that with all that travel? Why are the SH match fit when they tour and the NH teams are knackered when they tour? Utter tripe much like Edwards' comments.

A Grand Slam as well as a World Cup final are difficult for teams other than France and England (and even then that is being kind) because all the 6N teams are too inconsistent to achieve those two goals.

I suppose the fact that the SH players have played for 3 months and th NH players have been playing since August so thats about 10 months means they're relatively fresh.

I do believe they have a better preparation in the way they come straight from the TriNations to play up here.After the 6N our players go back to their clubs so all the familiarity of systems moves and just the general feel of being a team has to be built up again,the SH sides don't have this and I think it definitely contributes to their success up here.

I really think the season up here needs a radical overhaul as it's a real mess at the minute.

They're about the same difficulty as you'd usually need at least five wins to make a RWC final. Technically the RWC final is a little easier to get, as France demonstrated last year you can make one with four wins and a lot of luck.

Straight from the 3N? That finished in August. The Autumn tour begins in November. They're not together as a group during that time.

With central contracts, the national squad is given priority in NZ say and players are not allowed to play for clubs if they have played too much rugby. That I agree is an important difference.

But blaming defeats in the June or November internationals on tiredness or rustiness just doesn't cut it with me.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Straight from the 3N? That finished in August. The Autumn tour begins in November. They're not together as a group during that time.

With central contracts, the national squad is given priority in NZ say and players are not allowed to play for clubs if they have played too much rugby. That I agree is an important difference.

But blaming defeats in the June or November internationals on tiredness or rustiness just doesn't cut it with me.

Okay so not straight from the Tri Nations but not back to their clubs and then a week or 2 together before coming up here either.

The seasons are hugely different for our players.In our home internationals we've been playing club rugby for 2 months and have another 6 to go,the SH home internationals have been playing for 3 months and are done.Our away matches we finish up the season with our clubs and go straight down south to play international rugby,the SH players finish with their countries and get 2 months off (correct me if I'm wrong here,do they actually play Currie Cup/NPC comps in this time?).You can't deny there's a huge disparity in preparations there.

No I agree it's not just down to that,in general the SH teams are superior I just feel that our season contributes to that.Maybe it's just the WC but thats the only time we have had a proper preparation time before meeting the SH teams and in general the results were a lot closer than usual.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Straight from the 3N? That finished in August. The Autumn tour begins in November. They're not together as a group during that time.

With central contracts, the national squad is given priority in NZ say and players are not allowed to play for clubs if they have played too much rugby. That I agree is an important difference.

But blaming defeats in the June or November internationals on tiredness or rustiness just doesn't cut it with me.

Okay so not straight from the Tri Nations but not back to their clubs and then a week or 2 together before coming up here either.

The seasons are hugely different for our players.In our home internationals we've been playing club rugby for 2 months and have another 6 to go,the SH home internationals have been playing for 3 months and are done.Our away matches we finish up the season with our clubs and go straight down south to play international rugby,the SH players finish with their countries and get 2 months off (correct me if I'm wrong here,do they actually play Currie Cup/NPC comps in this time?).You can't deny there's a huge disparity in preparations there.

No I agree it's not just down to that,in general the SH teams are superior I just feel that our season contributes to that.Maybe it's just the WC but thats the only time we have had a proper preparation time before meeting the SH teams and in general the results were a lot closer than usual.

Actually, most AB's have been playing for their provinces in the NPC in the weeks leading up to the AI's. Central contracts mean that a number of them will get a week or 2 off, but the AB's are only together for a week or 2 pre-AIs. And given injury attrition rates over the season there can be quite a few personnel changes from the last time the squad was together.

Yes the Currie Cup and NPC are in that time mate.

The season for us starts in February (not including warm-up matches). Then in the past there were the June internationals and then the 3N started in July and went to August. Then the NPC or Currie Cup closed out the year lasting until October and then the November Internationals.

The 6N combined with club rugby makes for more rugby. There´s no doubt about that. That takes a toll on players. Last RWC though, Australia, SA and then NZ in that order were affected a lot by injury. I see what you mean about the accumulative effect of so much club rugby in particular and test rugby. I've always thought rugby in Europe was further down the road to being like football than the SH in terms of attitudes towards club and test rugby.

The World Cup divided itself into a SH and NH divide in the knockout phases but it's true that the so-called gap was not as wide as many people claim it to be. That was evident in the pool matches. Australia and SA usually are not as successful touring up north compared to the ABs but they still win far more than they lose. I don't think you can attribute that to fatigue but I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I see the attraction of club rugby but I wouldn't want that to overshadow the fortunes of my test side. I am a proud Canterbury and Crusaders supporter but it's the ABs that really matter to me. Maybe as NZ is such a small country, we like to see our test side perform well on the international stage. Australia is our neighbour but there isn't the concentration of countries we have here in Europe.

blackcanelion wrote:Sean Edwards has said that its harder for a side to win the grandslam (i.e. go undefeated in the 6 nations) than make the world cup final. He also says that tri nations teams have an advantage outside of the cups due to preperation. Here's the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jan/19/six-nations-harder-world-cup-final ). Now, I 'm sure this is a bit of attention seeking to highlight the up coming competition but does he have a point?

Is the grandslam harder? Maybe if you are England or France. I'm not sure if the same holds true for the others.

Logic, history and statistics seem to dictate otherwise.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Yes the Currie Cup and NPC are in that time mate.

The season for us starts in February (not including warm-up matches). Then in the past there were the June internationals and then the 3N started in July and went to August. Then the NPC or Currie Cup closed out the year lasting until October and then the November Internationals.

The 6N combined with club rugby makes for more rugby. There´s no doubt about that. That takes a toll on players. Last RWC though, Australia, SA and then NZ in that order were affected a lot by injury. I see what you mean about the accumulative effect of so much club rugby in particular and test rugby. I've always thought rugby in Europe was further down the road to being like football than the SH in terms of attitudes towards club and test rugby.

Yeah I'm not really claiming it's fatigue that makes the difference it's more to do with your season structure and preparation time.Again the SH teams would still be stronger overall I just think it'd be closer if the NH season wasn't such a mess.In Ireland our top players are really well managed and in general don't get overused by club or country so I wouldn't go down that route as an excuse at all.

To be fair we in the NH had more time to prepare for 2011 because the SH were largely playing the 3N/BC right up until a week prior to kick off.

Contrast that with the structured warm up games we had here.

I can't see we've got anything too much to moan about.

There are plusses and minuses to both the beginning of a season and the end of a season. Sides and players might claim a disadvantage coming from either end of that spectrum...and the truth is, they'd have valid points to make, both of them.

Start of a season and players aren't any way close to being up to club/provincial/regional speed nevermind International.

End of a season and players are approaching the end of their tether (more mental than physical I'd assume actually)

So you have the prospect of a physically prepared side crunching a fresh-from-the-beach side
......................or.................
a fresh and ready straight-from-the-beach side thrashing a mentally exhausted side.

It's a dice throw in reality.

Think of the NH teams to have made world cup finals. Would they have won the grandslam on that form?

Think of the NH teams to win grandslams. Would they have made a WC final on that form?

Personally, I think the former is more realistic than the latter.

'Nuff said.

Really? The last 2 NH teams to make finals were on far from Grand Slam winning form.

Well to be fair he said it was more likely. Add up all the Grand Slam Winners and all the RWC finalists and that's a meagre percentage. England and France clearly lead the way in RWC finals with 3 a piece but take their Grand Slams and finals out and you're left with zip for the RWC final.

So as Spock would say, your logic is sound Scotty.

Guess what he means is that France got to the final but were not one of the top two sides in the tournament.
They played badly in the group stages and quarters and struggled to a one point win against 14 man Wales.
If they had played in the six nations like they did up to the semi final of the WC then I doubt very much that they would have got a grandslam.
When sides win a grandslam they are normally one step up from the rest and France were certainly not one of the form side of last years WC.
The above is based on last years world cup.

Is this comment by Edwards based on Wales chances of winning a Grand Slam harder that wiinning a rugby world cup final?

Or is he on about all NH teams?

Because lets face it not many NH teams win a back to back Grand Slam.

And not many NH teams win a rugby world cup either,.

Only England have won a Grand Slam and a Rugby World Cup in the same year.



Most NH teams after a rugby world cup are in a rebuild stage, especialy ENGLAND, So the chances of England winning a Grand Slam this year are not great. That is not to say that England cannot win a Grand Slam but untill this team as played a few games, well we will have to see wont we.

But also Wales too are going through a similar faze right now(rebuilding)faze that is.

Looking at it from Graham Henry's point of view. In the AIs NZ usually play four tests. Obviously the SH sides call a sweep of the Home Nations a Grand Slam too. But for the six AI tours he has taken, he swept all six test wise. In fact the only losses he had in Europe were the Baabaas and The Grey Ghost's favourite test. So AI test wise-if you could call a sweep of the Tests a slam then Henry would be six from six.

He had two cracks at the World Cup-one debacle and one triumph. 50% interms of making finals there. So I'd say from that point of view it's harder to get to the final.

majesticimperialman wrote:Is this comment by Edwards based on Wales chances of winning a Grand Slam harder that wiinning a rugby world cup final?

Or is he on about all NH teams?

Because lets face it not many NH teams win a back to back Grand Slam.

And not many NH teams win a rugby world cup either,.

Only England have won a Grand Slam and a Rugby World Cup in the same year.



Most NH teams after a rugby world cup are in a rebuild stage, especialy ENGLAND, So the chances of England winning a Grand Slam this year are not great. That is not to say that England cannot win a Grand Slam but untill this team as played a few games, well we will have to see wont we.

But also Wales too are going through a similar faze right now(rebuilding)faze that is.

Maj, he didn't say 'win a world cup final'. He said 'make the final'. Maybe he was on about some teams losing along the way to a WC final (e.g. France losing 2 pool games) which you can't do obviously if you want to win a grand slam. I don't agree with him by the way, as Wales have won a few grand slams recently but haven't got to a WC final so it's obviously the opposite of what he said. Which makes it all the more weird that it was someone in the Wales camp who said it...

disneychilly wrote:Looking at it from Graham Henry's point of view. In the AIs NZ usually play four tests. Obviously the SH sides call a sweep of the Home Nations a Grand Slam too. But for the six AI tours he has taken, he swept all six test wise. In fact the only losses he had in Europe were the Baabaas and The Grey Ghost's favourite test. So AI test wise-if you could call a sweep of the Tests a slam then Henry would be six from six.

He had two cracks at the World Cup-one debacle and one triumph. 50% interms of making finals there. So I'd say from that point of view it's harder to get to the final.

I know what you're saying Disney, but consistently the best team in the world (NZ) going to the NH and doing a grand slam is not that huge really. You're just beating the teams ranked roughly 4-9 in the world. It would be like Wales (ranked 8th) doing a grand slam away at Italy, Canada, Georgia, Japan, etc. wouldn't it? (I say this slightly tongue in cheek but part of me thinks that 1st vs 4-9 is comparable to 8th vs 12-16 in the world rankings???!)

Go disney!
I actually think our guys are knackered by AI time but GH has this incredibly high expectation when we go north as he knows maintaining the AB standards in that part of the world is just as important as performing here.
For that reason oz and the boks tend to drop matches as theyre also knackered. The boks especially dont approach the AIs very seriously. Sometimes resting key players. How they can do this I cannot understand.
All 3 are certainly not at peak at AI time but the Abs just expect a bit more from them.

Ive often thought that the Southern Hemisphere version of a granslam is harder to achieve.
Althought the 6 nations teams have to win an extra game they get 7 weeks to do it,whereas the Southerners do 4 games,4 weeks in a row.
Oh,and a minor moot point the Southerners never get any home games...

But Aukland, don't you think that being the no.1 team pretty much all of the time means that you should be beating lesser nations away from home? When are any of the 6N teams ever in the top 3 in the world rankings? Not very often (although France are there at the moment but will lost that with their first 6N loss!). Like I said earlier, a grandslam of the NH is commendable, and I'd never belittle it, but it's always easier when you're playing teams ranked much lower than you! Put it another way if NZ were 8th in the world would you expect them to beat the no.1 team in the world much?

griff
Its not negotiable,If New Zealand was the 90th ranked team in the World we would still expect them to beat the top ranked team..
I do see the point you are making however,and its probably no easier for Italy to win as a granslam as it is for them to win a place in a World Cup final.

Victor Matfield said,it was harder to win a 3Ns,than a RWC.Given the teams contesting are usually rated the top 3 sides in the World it is probably true.
The All Blacks have won 50 out of 75 matches home and away,Australia 13,and the Boks 12[v NZ] with 10 titles,but have only won one RWC during the period 1996-2012.
Given they have a win/loss rate of 81% since 1987,83% in the pro era,86% under Henry and co.and 75% overall that is surprising.
The nature of RWC`s is such that it is theoritically possible,to lose 2 pool games and win a RWC as France nearly proved.BUT ALL the winners won every match.
6Ns Grand Slam is difficult to achieve,Ireland for all there endeavour have only won 2.BUT they can be devilishly difficult to beat,as England discovered last year.
6Ns is probably the most unpredictable of all the major tourneys,therefore in many ways the best .
RWCs as is well known I dislike,BUT 2007 wasin some waysthe best in as much as teams like Fiji,and Argentina[especially] had great runs.

IMO it was harder for the ABs to sweep the 2010 3N than win the World Cup. 6 tests in a row vs Australia and SA. Immense. Just because we have a rubbish WC record doesn't mean that it is harder-we just didn't do the business.

Psychologically looking at a 6N Slam, I separate France and England from the others as, well, they've beaten us in my lifetime. I (and the ABs I'm sure) give the others just as much respect, but we've been burned by England and France so that makes them threatening to me even if others were playing better rugby. Ireland especially are a real threat, but I think I'd still feel more comfortable about playing them than the other two. Though that should change in June as I think Ireland will give us a hell of a go.

For a grand slam you cant lose a match. To make a final you can lose up to 3 including the final.

In a grand slam you are guaranteed at least two home matches. In a rwc most teams have no home games.

To make a rwc final you MUST win two knockout matches at least one of which will phighly likely be a non 6N 1-3 ranked team. For me that is the difference for NH teams.
To date only england and france have done that.

For teams like wales and ireland and probably samoa who for me represent the third tier, they must win their pool and draw the easier quarter, then win against the higher ranked team at semi time.
Ireland and wales were in this position this year. Things needed to go well for them.
Missed kicks and the red went against wales but had they beaten France it may have been easier than winning a grand slam, not having a SH team till the final. So Edwards does have a point but the right circumstances are still required. Avoiding a SH team at knockout being the main one.

Interesting how these sort of articles appear just before the commencement of a tournament......
So, If Wales were to win a granslam,the next thing you know Edwards would be telling us that it is a bigger achievement than winning the World Cup because its harder.......And in the event of Wales having a dog of a 6 nations....well he's already made his excuses......

Frankly. What would Edwards know? or Wales know? Edwards hasn't won anything of note and Wales haven't even made a game of it against the top tranche since 1970-something.

He's been in Wales so long that he's started the tiresome self aggrandisement weeks before a tournament. Mark my words he'll be out there with the rest of the principality declaring how tough Italy can be and quietly weeing his shorts prior to kick off.

I suppose if you look at Wales this year alone, they only had to beat Namibia, Fiji, Samoa, Ireland & France to make the RWC final, all on neutral ground.

Let's assume their games are away for France & Ireland in the 6N, that already makes those 'harder' - the extra intensity of the world cup doesn't make up having to play the game away instead of on neutral ground. Then instead of the other 3 teams you have Italy at home (harder than Namibia on neutral ground, easily) Scotland at home (harder than Fiji on neutral ground - just) England at home (harder than Samoa on neutral ground).

But Wales this year had the second easiest RWC draw (I'm talking QF SF here) in the history of the RWC for a 2nd tier nation. [The first easiest being France's this year...who made the final of course]. On any other world cup it's not going to be that easy.

Yep, WC final still harder. Esp for wales who can luck out in the 6N against opposition trying combinations or not paying attention (e.g. Eng 08), but not when teams are serious about it, playing in the most important competition for rugby.

KickAndChase
That was a well thought out wum Well done

Here's what Edwards actually wrote:

"... when you ask whether it's more difficult to get to a World Cup final or to win a grand slam in the Six Nations, then I'd argue it's less obvious. In fact, if the World Cup seedings help you into one of the less demanding groups at the global gathering – and this I have to admit is on the evidence of being at just the one World Cup – I'm pretty certain the slam takes the prize.

Why? Well, 2011 in New Zealand suggested that it is possible to get to the World Cup final after just two or three difficult games whereas, depending on how the fixtures fall, the slam can be a shocker because no game is a walkover and three of the five could be away from home, rather than on (supposedly) neutral territory."

So he's saying it might be more difficult in circumstances where a) you get a relatively easy progression path - this is a reference to NZ since he gives the examples of easy teams like Japan and Tonga - and France and b) where you have three away games in the 6N against tough opposition on their home grounds.

He also cites the lack of preparation time for the 6N compared to the RWC.

No game is a walkover? Depends on what team you're talking about. Putting NZ hypothetically in the 6N, that´s still only a couple of hard games.

Yup. Especially as we've lost to 6N opposition 21 times. Ever.

A Grand Slam is a tough ask though no matter what comp. But from what I can remember, there hasn't been a World Cup winner yet that hasn't achieved a World Cup Grand Slam. So maybe you can drop a couple of games to get to the final but I think every team so far to win the World Cup has gone through unbeaten. I could well be wrong but certainly that´s the case for NZ.

So winning a Grand Slam in the 6N or 3N or whatever you like to call them is indeed harder than a RWC Grand Slam.

In the 95 Cup the ABs had a Home Nations Grand Slam there. Thumped all of them on the way to the final.

95! Don't bring that up Disney!

I was going to write "Thumped all of them on the way to a date with Susie" but deleted it!

Yeah amazing that the food poisoning bout had been completely dismissed by all and sundry as part of that 95 tournament. The evidence was overwhelming that the team went down terribly the day before. Unique in international rugby before and since.

Theres been a bit of luck that the winners have won all their matches as France nearly showed this year.
Only Eng Oz Nz and SA have won cups and their pools were designed for them all to win them.

After winning a pool then the event youre undefeated. Simple.

France have had several chances to be in the position to be the first non all pool winners but kept losing their knockouts. This year and 2007 after losing to arg pool first up then losing after beating the abs, the favourites.

France has already proved edwards correct in one way. 2011 they made final by losing to tonga and nz but beating japan canada england and wales surely easier than all 5 home nations.