Does Points Difference Really Decide Anything?

The Six Nations, when places are tied, is decided on points difference and then try count.

However is this really fair, given the wild variability in both weather and the condition of the various pitches, allied with the further confounding factors such as the home/away differential and the ability to close or open the roof at the MS?

Fairness aside, does a placing based on points difference really prove anything?

It looks like we're in for a log jam this year with the possibility that we may have three "winners" - that's half the table. Is there really in any point in the best players qualified for the northern hemisphere to batter each other silly for 7 weeks to come to the conclusion that England, France, Ireland and Wales are slightly better than Italy and Scotland, but beyond that no real order can be established?

I recognise that the 6N jealously guards it's traditions and history, but given the bragging rights provided by a 6N win, should it not at least be considered to ensure an outright winner is decided each year?

I would prefer it if a points-tie was decided first by the result of the match between those two teams, rather than points difference, but even then you would have the same problem with a three-way tie, if each team had just lost to one of the other ones. 

Out of interest, how could three teams share it this year? It's not possible for three teams to end up with four wins each anymore. It could only be a three-way tie of three wins, which would involve someone losing to Italy or Scotland, but beating another top-four side.

thomh wrote:I would prefer it if a points-tie was decided first by the result of the match between those two teams, rather than points difference, but even then you would have the same problem with a three-way tie, if each team had just lost to one of the other ones. 

Out of interest, how could three teams share it this year? It's not possible for three teams to end up with four wins each anymore. It could only be a three-way tie of three wins, which would involve someone losing to Italy or Scotland, but beating another top-four side.

Not exactly the most outlandish idea I've ever heard. Strange things can happen in 6N.

Actually it could be a four-way tie with three wins each.

England beat Wales and lose to Italy
France beat Scotland and lose to Ireland
Ireland lose to Italy.

Other combinations would also do it.

What about Wales beat England, lose to Scotland - 6
England lose to Wales, beat Italy - 6
France beat Ireland, lose to Scotland - 6
Ireland lose to France, beat Italy - 6
Scotland beat France and Wales - 6
Italy lose every game - 0

Em................ in that scenario... Points Difference Really Decide Everything!

Close this thread now. We've worked it out

GloriousEmpire wrote:The Six Nations, when places are tied, is decided on points difference and then try count.

However is this really fair, given the wild variability in both weather and the condition of the various pitches, allied with the further confounding factors such as the home/away differential and the ability to close or open the roof at the MS?

Fairness aside, does a placing based on points difference really prove anything?

It looks like we're in for a log jam this year with the possibility that we may have three "winners" - that's half the table. Is there really in any point in the best players qualified for the northern hemisphere to batter each other silly for 7 weeks to come to the conclusion that England, France, Ireland and Wales are slightly better than Italy and Scotland, but beyond that no real order can be established?

I recognise that the 6N jealously guards it's traditions and history, but given the bragging rights provided by a 6N win, should it not at least be considered to ensure an outright winner is decided each year?

How do they decide an "outright" winner? Have a final if theres a draw?
Make it a knock out? Make it a guaranteed final so a "gran slam" team could still have to face a second place side whove lost 2 games in a head to head?

Any other system (bonus points, head to head, coin toss, public vote) is just as arbitrary as points difference

Its is what it is. Its the same for everyone, its agreed in advance.

The only reason its 7 weeks to prove what we already knew ( they are all about the same level) is because ...they are. If the 4Ns teams were much of a muchness you could argue that competition was pointless, unfortuntaly its a dull stroll for NZ pretty much every year. Rather than sneering at the 6 nations Id applaud it for being competitive and unpredictable.
The Grand Slam is the prized result though, undisputed winners. Of course Wales have managed that several times in recent years without actually being the best side in the competition, which goes to show that even having an outright winner could be deemed meaningless. Dont over analyse it, take it for what it is.

Well first thing is you drop Scotland and Italy from the top tier comp. sorry but you know they'll lose every game, except when France throw a tantrum with their coach.

At the moment the 6n may be define by who beats Italy and Scotland by the most impressive margin. Rubbish way to sort things out.

They join a b-tier with Georgia and an other.

Then the top 4 play each other home and away, and the top two play a grand final.

Much better system. The lowest is relegated for a year and the winner of the b tier is promoted.

The big difference between the 6N and the Rugby Championship is that we play each other both home and away, it eliminates the vagueries of ie altitude, heat, cold the condition of playing surfaces and the random mad ref etc. it does end up though that the table is clear, but the distances involved are massive and the cost to the planet in the burning of fossil fuels, makes one see the merit in a coin toss.