Edwards says grandslam harder get than making world cup final

First topic message reminder :

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?

We didn't just have good luck in the final. Fourth choice 10-the first choice being probably the best 10 ever and who would have kept France out of the game. Parra going off letting Trinh-Duc have a blinder. The advantage played when Weepu chipped to FTD. The kicker pulling his groin warming up.

I tell you what I'd say that 95 SA team for the final was the most inspired team I've seen. Reunification, Mandela in Pienaar's shirt, Shozaloza etc, I'd say the only team that could have beaten them that day were a fully fit NZ and even then who knows. Sadly that wasn't the case. I feel sorry for the SA team as, however little, there'll always be a wee what if. Sour grapes? Maybe but at least you can't **** up cooking them.

Still think it's hard to argue over 11-a team that loses 3 from 7 should have had the cup over a team that wins all 7? Blah.

Edwards is a fool. He completely disregards the fact that when playing the 6Ns no team hardly ever comes up against a team ranked 1 - 3 in the world. Whereas in the RWC you have to beat at least 2 of the top 3 sides in the world on the bounce to win it.

Edwards is showing he doesn't really have a grasp of the real world.

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.

Isn't this all a bit contradictory? Btw Does anybody know where I can buy the RWC 2011 Calendar for 2012?

I heard it´s coming out in 2013.

englandglory4ever wrote:Edwards is a fool. He completely disregards the fact that when playing the 6Ns no team hardly ever comes up against a team ranked 1 - 3 in the world. Whereas in the RWC you have to beat at least 2 of the top 3 sides in the world on the bounce to win it.

Edwards is showing he doesn't really have a grasp of the real world.

France got to a world final by losing their only game against a top 6 opponent . To get a grandslam this year theyll have to beat 2 plus 3 other sides all in the top 12, historicaly theres only been one occassion where theres only 2 6 nations sides in the top 6.

You dont have to beat the top sides to get to the world cup final, you just have to be on the right side of the draw.
He didnt say its harder than winning the world cup, he said its harder than getting tio the final. And youd have to be pretty unlucky to end up facing the two top sides in the knockouts, Im struggling to think of when thats happened to any 6 nations side.

Where has all this "top 6 and top 12" tosh come from? No 6N side has to beat a top 3 side to win the 6ns (generally speaking, England 03 side excepted). Whereas to win the RWC you must beat at least 1 possibly 2 of the top 3 to win it. In 03 England beat SA and Aus. Still say Edwards is flying a kite.

englandglory4ever wrote:Where has all this "top 6 and top 12" tosh come from? No 6N side has to beat a top 3 side to win the 6ns (generally speaking, England 03 side excepted). Whereas to win the RWC you must beat at least 1 possibly 2 of the top 3 to win it. In 03 England beat SA and Aus. Still say Edwards is flying a kite.

OK one more time

You are the one that bought up the whole " top 3 thing"

You also invented the new rule where you have to play the top two sides to get to a world cup final, you dont. You also invented the notion that Edwards said it was harder to win a world cup than teh 6 nations, he didnt.

In o3 and 07 England made a world cup final, they didnt have to beat any of the top 3 sides in the world at that time ( the first time tehy were one, the second time they got lucky with the draw. France this year got to the final without beating anyone in the top 6 ( Ok Wales wouldve been at that point ranked 4th I believe, but before and after the tournament were ranked 8th) .

You could not win a grandslam by losing 2 games.

If you really isnsit on still claiming its Edwards who being delsuional/idiotic then consider this : 2 teams make the world cup final every time its played, only one can win a grandslam and none usually do.

Grand slam is definitely harder. Fact is WC only comes round every four years since 1987 so comparing a teams 6n stats v their WC stats means very little given that there have been something close to 100 6 nations tournaments as opposed to 6 world cups.

However, given that most tier 1-2 teams virtually always get out of their group they only have to win two matches to get to the final I reckon that this is much easier than winning 5 bruising 6nations matches on the trot. Fairly logical to me.

The Grand Slam is definitely harder? I think the All Blacks are the exception that proves the rule then

3N Grand Slam when there were 6 matches played per team is a phenomenal achievement. A 6N Grand Slam is a very noteworthy achievement too. A World Cup final has been experienced by England (3 times), France (3 times), Australia (3 times), NZ (3 times) and SA (2 times). SA has a 100 per cent record in the finals which makes them a formidable opponent in terms of converting chances into silverware. Otherwise looks very even to me in terms of making a World Cup final. I guess that´s the appeal of the tournament because you never quite know what´s going to happen.

As for the Grand Slam, that´s up for grabs every year and maybe because of that is much harder to obtain. It´s not something you can prepare for over four years and work towards.

disneychilly wrote:The Grand Slam is definitely harder? I think the All Blacks are the exception that proves the rule then

You're right same rules often don't apply to the Kiwis.

Getting your excuses in early leinsterbaby for later this year leinsterbaby? Where was that fighting talk from a couple of months ago.

Ha ha gas. Were still gonna win the first test.

That´s the spirit.

If you were to choose a game, that´s the one I'd choose as well. We always look rusty in the first game.

I wouldn't say that but I just feel if they (Ireland) don't win the first they won't win any.

6Ns harder than RWC? Do me a favour please biscuit. Whenever a touring SH side comes over here to play in the autumn they generally trounce all the 6N sides with their touring 3rd teams.

People should read the title ,,,, He does not say win the world cup he said make it to the final, France made it to the final without beating any of the top three.

\what an absolute parcel of B.S is Edwards talking about, well that must be why, out of 7 attemps only one NH team has bothered the engraver on the Webb- Ellis. Dear, dear me the lengths some people will go to to assuage their feelings of inadequecy, or their Teams!!

Again people confuse getting to the final with winning the final

englandglory4ever wrote:6Ns harder than RWC? Do me a favour please biscuit. Whenever a touring SH side comes over here to play in the autumn they generally trounce all the 6N sides with their touring 3rd teams.

Not by a long shot. The only tri nations team that consistently wins all their games in the NH is NZ and they never field their third team. Plus they have probably won more world cup games than anyone else too. SA and Oz nearly always lost at least one match up north.

Cymroglan wrote:Again people confuse getting to the final with winning the final

By "people" you mean two tiresome WUMs with reading difficulties who cant make sensible points, just jump in with wild statements and refuse to engage in reasoned argument and completely ignore when their mistakes are corrected.

Its a tough life on the internets sometimes.

That's correct Peter .

"People should read the title ,,,, He does not say win the world cup he said make it to the final, France made it to the final without beating any of the top three."

How tiresome all this feeble welsh support for Edwards misguided comments is!

If nothing else a 6N side could have 3 home games in the tournament and that has got to make it easier. It happens every year.

Like last year.

Can I just be Welsh again for the remainder of this conversation so that I dont have to be associated with the car crash that is EG4E ?

I can beleive you are still wading into this without addressing the actual content of the previous posts you quote.

Fair enough theres some debate over whats easier, but try and at least make a constructed argument rathr than turning this into a Wales vs England competition.

England have had 8 chances to win a grand slam since 2003, two chances to make a world cup final. Guess which they managed.....

Ouch Peter!

Was it you who also said: you can't win a Grand Slam having lost two games?

I am late to the debate, but here goes.

In theory Edwards is correct.

A Grandslam means you have to win all your games. Getting to the final means you have to qualify in your group for the knock out phase (in theory you could lose two games) and only then do you have to win your remaining matches to get to a final.

It is intelligent suggestive reasoning he is using here.

Winning a Grandslam and getting to a final are two total different comparisons.

Winning the Grandslam and winning the world cup is an altogether different comparison.

As far as advantage is concerned for either hemisphere. It is really a load of bollox.

In June the northern hemisphere is at the end of their season, in november the Southern Hemisphere is at the end of their season.

Add to that most coaches rest top players at the ned of the season and injuries play a role as well, it isn't of any benefit per say.

It depends on how each country manages their players.

Exactly Taylorman, Wales could have made the WC final this year by beating:

Namibia, Samoa, Fiji, Ireland and France.

To win a Grand Slam they will have to beat:

Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy.

He does sem to have a point in fairness to him.

Higher_Ground wrote:Exactly Taylorman, Wales could have made the WC final this year by beating:

Namibia, Samoa, Fiji, Ireland and France.

To win a Grand Slam they will have to beat:

Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy.

He does sem to have a point in fairness to him.

looks pretty similar

"Can I just be Welsh again for the remainder of this conversation so that I dont have to be associated with the car crash that is EG4E ?"

Of course you can be welsh. By your attitude towards England I wouldn't expect anything else.

As to the "car crash" comment if you go around making arrogant comments like a delinquent teenager drives a souped up Fiesta then you should expect the odd crash now and again. How else did you get those dents in your psyche.

Higher_Ground wrote:Exactly Taylorman, Wales could have made the WC final this year by beating:

Namibia, Samoa, Fiji, Ireland and France.

To win a Grand Slam they will have to beat:

Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy.

He does sem to have a point in fairness to him.

But surely you're missing the key point that the world cup happens only once every four years. Wales have a chance every single year to beat Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy. But they have to beat Nambibia, Samoa, Fiji, Ireland and France away from home on one specific day...and they don't know who they will play in advance, so there is less chance to prepare. Also, the squad rules are tighter and it's much more difficult to call up injury cover or alter the team selection.

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

Nor will he dare I say it with Wales.

Anyway, Edwards is definitely wrong on this issue. Simple stats prove it.

Only England and France have made the RWC finals from the 6Ns on a total of 3 or maybe 4 times since 1987. A 6N side has won the 6Ns every single year since 1987 purely because no SH side competes in the comp. That coupled with 6N sides always having 2 or 3 home games every year must make the 6Ns easier. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

englandglory4ever wrote:Anyway, Edwards is definitely wrong on this issue. Simple stats prove it.

Only England and France have made the RWC finals from the 6Ns on a total of 3 or maybe 4 times since 1987. A 6N side has won the 6Ns every single year since 1987 purely because no SH side competes in the comp. That coupled with 6N sides always having 2 or 3 home games every year must make the 6Ns easier. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

OK any though that this guy isnt on a wind up mission is completley gone now.

Stats I dont even know for sure prove something that isnt what we are discussing because I still havent understood the question and they dont actually prove that anyway.

Congratulations.

Doesn't sound like a WUM to me, just facts.

miteyironpaw wrote:Doesn't sound like a WUM to me, just facts.

Jesus. Yes but irrelevant ones not adressing the actual question.

Sure someone has to win the 6 nations, but rarely is their a grandslam (although that has increased in recent years). Youll notice hes conviently forgotten that we are talking GSs not 6Ns wins here, although at least hes finally cottoned onto the finals thing for WCs after being told so many times.
As for home versus away games ... the worst you can get is two away games in a world cup , and you can afford to lose one of those. In some world cups youll only get home games (England and Wales next up) the rest are neutrals. Every 6 nations you have to win at least 2 away fixtures.
The actual stats show that reaching a world cup final and winning a grand slam happen just about as often (per opportunity) as each other. There certainly isnt anything statistcaly that you can use sesnibly to prove its easyier to win a grand slam.
This still isnt exactly what Edwards was talking about of course.

Theres no way this guy isnt on a wind up if he can twist facts and shift the goal posts this often, Im rather ashamed to continue to be dragged into it.

Look, fact is, and this is not meant to belittle anyone or start a flame war and is certainly not intended as a WUM, but the fact remains that staff associated with the current Wales side commenting on whether a GS is harder to achieve than a World Cup final is about as relevant as a brick having an opinion on whether the world championship 100 meters is harder to win than the same event at the upcoming olympics.

Pretty obvious to me the grand slam is a tougher proposition.

Winning the 6 nations is the most important thing as is winning the world cup, If France had won the final do you think anyone would have remembered the previous lose against the All Blacks?


Grand Slams aren't that important so long as you win the 6 nations.

Or am I alone in thinking that?

Grand Slams are a means of ensuring you win the 6N HERSH. To win the 6N is the key objective but do you honestly not believe victory tastes sweeter if you win all your matches?

In the 3N, the Triple Crown was the equivalent of winning both or all three of your matches against one country. Against Australia, that achievement is made all the sweeter with a Bledisloe Cup. Holding the Bledisloe Cup is easier for the holder as if it ends in a draw, the cup stays with the holder. That changed with the 3 match format so holding onto that was very satisfying but increasingly so if you did the clean sweep. There were only two games last year and we retained the Bledisloe but lost the 3N. We wisely gave the 3N hoodoo in a World Cup year to Australia and then won the World Cup in a Grand Slam making it 2 games to 1 against Australia. Do we miss the 3N in our trophy cabinet? Yes, we´re greedy and ask for too much. Does it grate that the last ever 3N trophy ended up in Australia´s hands? Yes, it does.

So a chance to win a Grand Slam is not important so long as you win the 6N? Is it f...

I'd take the 6 nations championship every other year rather than win the Grand Slam once or twice every decade.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Where has all this "top 6 and top 12" tosh come from? No 6N side has to beat a top 3 side to win the 6ns (generally speaking, England 03 side excepted). Whereas to win the RWC you must beat at least 1 possibly 2 of the top 3 to win it. In 03 England beat SA and Aus. Still say Edwards is flying a kite.

OK one more time

You are the one that bought up the whole " top 3 thing"

You also invented the new rule where you have to play the top two sides to get to a world cup final, you dont. You also invented the notion that Edwards said it was harder to win a world cup than teh 6 nations, he didnt.

In o3 and 07 England made a world cup final, they didnt have to beat any of the top 3 sides in the world at that time ( the first time tehy were one, the second time they got lucky with the draw. France this year got to the final without beating anyone in the top 6 ( Ok Wales wouldve been at that point ranked 4th I believe, but before and after the tournament were ranked 8th) .

You could not win a grandslam by losing 2 games.

If you really isnsit on still claiming its Edwards who being delsuional/idiotic then consider this : 2 teams make the world cup final every time its played, only one can win a grandslam and none usually do.

I can think of a few recent finalists who avoided playing more than one top three nation on route to a RWC final.

HERSH wrote:Winning the 6 nations is the most important thing as is winning the world cup, If France had won the final do you think anyone would have remembered the previous lose against the All Blacks?


Grand Slams aren't that important so long as you win the 6 nations.

Depends if its wales youve lost to or not

But a GS always > A 6ns title

A Six nations title > a world cup final loss? hmmmm

A GS > a world cup final loss? Probably yeah but depends how you got there. England in 07 and France in 11 were a joke. Exciting to follow, but the teams stunk even if both made a fight of it in the final.

Peter seabiscuit wheeler- Apologies ,because i thought, given the nature of your posts, that you were Welsh !! so it comes as a bit of a surprise to me and the other posters when you spring the 'Can i be Welsh ' on us. Ye Gods, you are!!


As to the GS well its very special, and i for one would have loved even 2 Flukey GS like the Welsh managed since 05, but were a team to win this competition every year till the End of days , i would still rather have a World cup win under our (Englands belt) Not B.S. or sour grapes but reality, because the Webb- Ellis is harder to win and has far greater status than a G.S.


Peter seabiscuit- The Norwegians had a name for people like you During and after the war and it began with Q. Nail your colours to the mast and be a man . If you support England fair does, and if you support Wales. Oh dear!!!

english warrior wrote:Peter seabiscuit wheeler- Apologies ,because i thought, given the nature of your posts, that you were Welsh !! so it comes as a bit of a surprise to me and the other posters when you spring the 'Can i be Welsh ' on us. Ye Gods, you are!!


As to the GS well its very special, and i for one would have loved even 2 Flukey GS like the Welsh managed since 05, but were a team to win this competition every year till the End of days , i would still rather have a World cup win under our (Englands belt) Not B.S. or sour grapes but reality, because the Webb- Ellis is harder to win and has far greater status than a G.S.


Peter seabiscuit- The Norwegians had a name for people like you During and after the war and it began with Q. Nail your colours to the mast and be a man . If you support England fair does, and if you support Wales. Oh dear!!!

Im 1/8th Welsh which very much came out after about 20 minutes of the world cup quarter final.
England never capped me at A level so Im allowed to represent them once in a while.

But this isnt an England vs Wales debate ( or shouldnt be)....and in this case I only wanted to be Welsh to avoid being associated with a certain goof (not you)


Tell you what, Ill let you know who Im supporting after the first couple of rounds probably France, "I've always known about France"

Peterseabiscuit- Nope, failed again, can't get a straight answer out of you, this obfuscation has become a way of life for you and i wonder if you carry this over to your personal life, running with 'Foxes and hounds' .


Still, if its not between England and Wales, why do you as a Welshman keep bringing England and your dislike in to this thread! C'mon be a man and speak plain.

By the way are you a politician, because if you are not you should consider it. At the Welsh assembly of course!!

Lok clealry Im English, you should see some of the things the Welsh and Scottish supporters say about me when I express a view on their teams. Maybe Im just Mr negative?

I dont think Ive said anything anti English on this thread though ( apart from how bad they were in 2007 despite getting the the final, but we surely all agree on that? ). Negative or relaistic? Maybe I just get slightly embaressed by the overconfidence ( yes arrogance!) of certain supporters and buck against it, but Id say realist.

In terms iof the world cup thing I did genuinly get excited by that welsh team for a while ( and i am 1/8th welsh) so used that as an excuse to jump ship breifly and like Manu seemed to have copped rollicking and been called anti-english for it.

I have reservations about the current England side and coach, surely the poetntial problems are pretty obvious. That doesnt make me ant england, it just makes me relaistic and someone who tries to look at teh situation it is not rely on stupid blind statements like " lets all get behind this team" and " england glory forverer rah rah rah" as if by some huge force of collective will the psychic energy of 606 will convince Charlie Hodgson hes an international class 10. Im here to discuss ( and joke about mostly) and learn about the england team and their opposition, and offer my honest opinions on those subjects...not to wave the england flag and pretend that everything is perfect and convince myself that england are teh greatest side ever and that this side is superhuman.Its not, its got a lot of potential to go well ...but as much to be yet another car crash. Im worried that will happen, does that make me evil ?
Apparently so.

PS Edwards was still largely correct in what he said.

Since 1987, in World Cup years there have been 4 5/6N Grand Slams, and on three of those occassions the GS winners went on to reach the World Cup Final (France 87, England 91 and England 03) England won the GS in 95 and got knocked out in the QF that year. Incidentally, that was the only WC tournament not to feature a NH team in the final.

So if you win a GS in a WC year you have a 75% chance of reaching the WC final.

Since 1987, in World Cup years there have been 3 occassions where there has been no GS winner of the 5/6N, (1999, 2007 & 2011) but on each occassion a NH team has reached the final - France, England & France respectively.

So what can we conclude from that?

In WC years where there's no GS - there's a 100% possibility that a NH team will reach the WC final.

That seems to back up what Edwards has said.

However, if you look at the statistics another way, it suggests that if you're Ireland, Italy, Scotland or Wales - regardless ofd how you perform in the 6N, you've got 0% chance of getting to a WC final.

Statistics prove nothing unfortunately, but what we do know is that although Wales never looked like winning the GS last year, they only just fell short to France at the WC, and with a totally objective view, should still have beaten France Warburton or not.

Equally so, France never looked like beating Italy, let alone winning the GS, and yet they made it to the WC final and scared the shoite out of NZ. Who'd have thunked it?

On the whole, Edwards has the gist of it.

Well Petersea, i'm in total; agreement in one thing and thats the detestation of Charile Hodgson, and i for one would like him to retire from international Rugby, (about 9 years ago would have been good) because the mans a 'Bottler' and a liability. So total agreement. As to getting behind your team and giving unthinking, unquestioning support in the face of reality. Well, why not , the Welsh have done it for years.

As to self -confidence, nooo, i don't think so, as its more relief when England put a run together, as this has been one of the direst spells for England that i can remember, and i remember the 60's. So not guilty of that one, as i feel its more guilty of hope, but whats wrong with that eh!! Never considered England perfect, but do consider the England world cup winning side, of being the best NH side ever, and possibly the best ever, with only the 07 Springboks being near them.

As for you being being English, well you could have fooled me!! but hey i judge someone by what they say, so what kind of fool am i!!