A case for the termination of the 6Ns

First topic message reminder :

A chasm is developing between England/Ireland/France/Wales and Scotland/Italy.

IRB World Rankings - 24  February  2014
4(4) ENGLAND 85.46
5(6) IRELAND 80.76
6(7) WALES 80.60
7(5) FRANCE 80.56
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.35
14(13) ITALY 72.05
16(16)  GEORGIA 69.57
17(17)  ROMANIA 68.66
19(19) RUSSIA 61.20
21(22) PORTUGAL 59.83
22(21) SPAIN 59.71
26(26) GERMANY 56.20
28(29) MOLDOVA 55.11
29(28) BELGIUM 54.44

Surely it's time to have a divisional home and away European 4Ns.

Previously I've argued for a play-off for promotion but now I settle for the IRB rankings to determine the divisions

Say
Europe 1
Europe 2
W. Europe 1
E. Europe 1
Mediterranean 1
and so on...

This would provide incentives to up and coming 3/4 tier nations and stymie the on-going cartel of the iniquitous six.

Possibly not, but tough bananas. Improve your away record would be the obvious answer. I actually think it could improve the tournament, and whilst clearly Scotland would run a huge risk of relegation given we have Scott Johnson as the architect of Scottish rugby, I would back it, even if it risked the possibility of not having a Calcutta Cup every year.

As I said above, remember that France won the Wooden Spoon last season. It's not always entirely predictable.

Steffan wrote:I would scrap the 6 nations and have a:

4 Nations Premiership

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Wales


4 Nations Championship

England
Ireland
France
Argentina

And another tournament including developing nations like Italy, Scotland, Romania, Japan etc

You've got Wales in the wrong grouping ..schoolboy mistake

Italy really needs to pull their finger out as they are falling behind and not really making much progress.

I blame this on taking part in the Rabo as it just doesn't offer them a challenge week in week out, too many games are of a low quality that doesn't really help anyone.

Poor old Wales. They'd never win another rugby match again, even with their current golden generation!

Scrumpy wrote:Italy really needs to pull their finger out as they are falling behind and not really making much progress.

I blame this on taking part in the Rabo as it just doesn't offer them a challenge week in week out, too many games are of a low quality that doesn't really help anyone.

  Let them join the AP then Scrumpy. Afterall, they were thinking of letting the Welsh in!

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:A chasm is developing between England/Ireland/France/Wales and Scotland/Italy.

IRB World Rankings - 24  February  2014
4(4) ENGLAND 85.46
5(6) IRELAND 80.76
6(7) WALES 80.60
7(5) FRANCE 80.56
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.35
14(13) ITALY 72.05
16(16)  GEORGIA 69.57
17(17)  ROMANIA 68.66
19(19) RUSSIA 61.20
21(22) PORTUGAL 59.83
22(21) SPAIN 59.71
26(26) GERMANY 56.20
28(29) MOLDOVA 55.11
29(28) BELGIUM 54.44

Surely it's time to have a divisional home and away European 4Ns.

Previously I've argued for a play-off for promotion but now I settle for the IRB rankings to determine the divisions

Say
Europe 1
Europe 2
W. Europe 1
E. Europe 1
Mediterranean 1
and so on...

This would provide incentives to up and coming 3/4 tier nations and stymie the on-going cartel of the iniquitous six.

What is the motive behind this? Is it to improve rugby elsewhere, or is it a thinly veiled kick of Italy and Scotland.

I agree we don't necessarily want to prop up the old powers, and we do want to support rising smaller nations, but it will take years before Georgia etc are up to the level of Scotland and Italy. That means years of the 6Ns having a duffer every other year. Why not invest in the second tier and start with one off games with 6Ns teams?

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would have no issues with a second tier European competition featuring Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and perhaps Russia. Once that got going and showing itself to be a functioning tournament, you could then introduce promotion and relegation with the 6 Nations, one up one down, to encourage progression. Worth noting that under that system France, as holders of the Wooden Spoon, would currently be second tier.

I think that would be the right starting point, but it would require the second tier sides to initiate matters. The door would be open though. I think it could work well.

...and if that had happened the TV and sponsor money would dry up bankrupting the game in Wales Scotland and Italy.

Sounds good to me when can we sign up?


Its taken over a decade for Italy to progress roughly nowhere other than keeping pace with their rivals with guaranteed places in the 6 nations. The idea that granting teams access to tournaments in which they cant compete properly but can take money off others and weaken all that makes the tournament successful is weak.

Surely the best solution would be to bump Italy and Scotland down to div 2, add an extra weekend and play home and away matches between 4 evenly matched teams.

No?

Hood83 wrote:
What is the motive behind this? Is it to improve rugby elsewhere, or is it a thinly veiled kick of Italy and Scotland.

I agree we don't necessarily want to prop up the old powers, and we do want to support rising smaller nations, but it will take years before Georgia etc are up to the level of Scotland and Italy. That means years of the 6Ns having a duffer every other year. Why not invest in the second tier and start with one off games with 6Ns teams?

I agree but maybe a play-off game between the bottom team in the 6 nations and the top team of the 2nd tier comp would benefit all teams involved it would keep the likes of Scotland, Italy and France on their toes and give the developing nations a shot at the big boys which they only get every 4 years.

Scrumpy wrote:

Hood83 wrote:
What is the motive behind this? Is it to improve rugby elsewhere, or is it a thinly veiled kick of Italy and Scotland.

I agree we don't necessarily want to prop up the old powers, and we do want to support rising smaller nations, but it will take years before Georgia etc are up to the level of Scotland and Italy. That means years of the 6Ns having a duffer every other year. Why not invest in the second tier and start with one off games with 6Ns teams?

I agree but maybe a play-off game between the bottom team in the 6 nations and the top team of the 2nd tier comp would benefit all teams involved it would keep the likes of Scotland, Italy and France on their toes and give the developing nations a shot at the big boys which they only get every 4 years.

Fair enough.

Personally I can't stand Portnoy's idea, I think it reeks of bully-boy posturing. 'You're not good enough to play against us'. Fine, but England were f-ing useless for years, I don't think Wales etc. were saying we should be dropped from the competition.

Scotland and Italy are the two poorest of those nations, locking them out would destroy them. Why do we want to do this? Because it would 'improve the competition' I respectfully disagree. Yes Italy are perennially weak and Scotland not great at the moment, but it's not like we regularly pump them, and Italy beat France last year. I think we do need to constantly look at ways to improve the tournament, but breaking with its history, for me, loses more than it gains.

We're beginning to live up to our reputation for boorish arrogance, sadly.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would have no issues with a second tier European competition featuring Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and perhaps Russia. Once that got going and showing itself to be a functioning tournament, you could then introduce promotion and relegation with the 6 Nations, one up one down, to encourage progression. Worth noting that under that system France, as holders of the Wooden Spoon, would currently be second tier.

I think that would be the right starting point, but it would require the second tier sides to initiate matters. The door would be open though. I think it could work well.

...and if that had happened the TV and sponsor money would dry up bankrupting the game in Wales Scotland and Italy.

Why would that be the case?

Your solution is to drop Scotland and Italy into a second division with no prospect of coming back. Why is that better for anyone? Why not France, who currently hold the Wooden Spoon? What in your view is wrong with the current format that would be solved by your proposal for a new 4 nations?

Hood83 wrote:

Personally I can't stand Portnoy's idea, I think it reeks of bully-boy posturing. 'You're not good enough to play against us'. Fine, but England were f-ing useless for years, I don't think Wales etc. were saying we should be dropped from the competition.

Scotland and Italy are the two poorest of those nations, locking them out would destroy them. Why do we want to do this? Because it would 'improve the competition' I respectfully disagree. Yes Italy are perennially weak and Scotland not great at the moment, but it's not like we regularly pump them, and Italy beat France last year. I think we do need to constantly look at ways to improve the tournament, but breaking with its history, for me, loses more than it gains.

We're beginning to live up to our reputation for boorish arrogance, sadly.

True Spirit, Hood.    Good man.  

This does always seem to me to be more "who can we get rid of" than "who can we invite in".  When I detect a different intent about this topic - whenever it crops up, then I might warm to the idea of inviting others in. But at the moment, it's still a "who can we kick out" composition.

The point worth making is that in the 90s we'd have "kicked out" Ireland, and possibly Wales. Had we done that, we'd have missed out on two strong sides through the 00s.

The fact is that if a team just isn't in any way competitive, then I would have sympathy, but both Scotland and Italy have won plenty games over the last few years. Even when we were rubbish in the 00s, we still beat England three times and had one draw at Murrayfield.

I just don't see anyone benefitting from breaking up the 6 Nations.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

SecretFly wrote:So a 4N that the bottom side drops out the bottom of every year?  And heads off to play in Europe 2 the following season.

So that's even less teams of meaning in the 4N - three?

Afterall, which one of Wales, Ireland, France and England will be regularly at the bottom? - and if you tell me that will be inter-changeable over the years, then I say where is the gap in quality standards?  As if England are going down in one year, Scotland, Italy or Georgia are going to be going up in their place.  

Back to the cricket score team being in a league they can't handle.

a. read the OP. It would be the rankings position - presumably at the end of the previous season. Not automatic relegation/promotion.
b Cricket scores are often bandied about but seldom occur.

In any case, what fundamental right do Scotland and Italy have to bar Russia, Romania or Georgia from playing at the big table?

If its all about the development of other nations why not make it three? Based on the figures you gave, currently Scotland are closer to France in ranking points than France are to England.

I don't agree with it but at least promotion and relegation means that tournament performance is the arbiter of the next year's involvement. Going by ranking makes no sense as it can be scewed e.g teams could change their summer and autumn touring schedules to play less of the top ranked teams and focus on teams close to them but who they have more chance of beating.

Suggesting wholesale changes to the world's oldest rugby tournament makes no sense.

We included italy and they have never risen above what, 4th? The Scots were 3rd last season and France 6th, there is plenty of movement in the table, except for the champions who in the last 10 years are usually wales or france.

Scratch wrote:Suggesting wholesale changes to the world's oldest rugby tournament makes no sense.

We included italy and they have never risen above what, 4th? The Scots were 3rd last season and France 6th, there is plenty of movement in the table, except for the champions who in the last 10 years are usually wales or france.

Get rid of those two then.  Afterall, it would give the rest of us a chance.

Well lets not forget that England and France will have to join the sanzars to get decent competition   

Yeah...France looks like Europe is too small for its ambitions right now.

England's record in the 21st century 6 Nations doesn't bear scrutiny.

But they will still beat the defending Double Champions because they are the 'better' side, the rankings prove that.

Scratch wrote:England's record in the 21st century 6 Nations doesn't bear scrutiny.

But they will still beat the defending Double Champions because they are the 'better' side, the rankings prove that.

Yu know theres no such thing as a non 21st century 6 nations right? ...lets scrutinise those records

England
Won 49 Lost 23 Drawn 1

Wales
Won 39 Lost 32 Drawn 2

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Scratch wrote:England's record in the 21st century 6 Nations doesn't bear scrutiny.

But they will still beat the defending Double Champions because they are the 'better' side, the rankings prove that.

Yu know  theres no such thing as a non 21st century 6 nations right? ...lets scrutinise those records

England
Won 49 Lost 23 Drawn 1

Wales
Won 39 Lost 32 Drawn 2

FYI it's about winning the tournament not individual games - since 2000

England 4 wins 1 Slam, 2 Triple Crowns

Wales 4 wins 3 Slams, 3 Triple Crowns.

With 4 wins since 05, beating England on the last 2 occasions and being defending Double Champions, I would suggest Wales performance is, while only statistically better, indicative of the 'better' side but this is obviously means nothing because England beat Ireland and are higher in the IRB rankings .

Ah sorry I didnt realise that when we were discussing the chances of winning an individual game we should look at the number of torunaments they have won and their ability to win individual games was irrelevant. My bad!

Where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

Either way Wales performance is 'better'

Looking at it your way, we win more competitions and trophies per winning game than England

4 championships, 3 slams and triples from only 39 games won. Pretty impressive.

I like the idea of relegation/promotion. bringing teams like Georgia would be good for the game as a whole and generate more interest and income as well. I can't help but feel that expansion of global games like the Olympics, football and basketball was driven by participation, not exclusion. I think the other thing would be to add promotion to the other end. The winner could be invited to play in the RC. You could do the same with club rugby with the Heineken cup winner being invited into the super 17 (make that 18, which could then have an eastern and western conference). If a team like Saracens or Toulon qualify there would be the added bonus for South African and Argentinian coaches, of seeing more of their own players in action.  

SecretFly wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Personally I can't stand Portnoy's idea, I think it reeks of bully-boy posturing. 'You're not good enough to play against us'. Fine, but England were f-ing useless for years, I don't think Wales etc. were saying we should be dropped from the competition.

Scotland and Italy are the two poorest of those nations, locking them out would destroy them. Why do we want to do this? Because it would 'improve the competition' I respectfully disagree. Yes Italy are perennially weak and Scotland not great at the moment, but it's not like we regularly pump them, and Italy beat France last year. I think we do need to constantly look at ways to improve the tournament, but breaking with its history, for me, loses more than it gains.

We're beginning to live up to our reputation for boorish arrogance, sadly.

True Spirit, Hood.    Good man.  

This does always seem to me to be more "who can we get rid of" than "who can we invite in".  When I detect a different intent about this topic - whenever it crops up, then I might warm to the idea of inviting others in.  But at the moment, it's still a "who can we kick out" composition.

My feeling exactly.

blackcanelion wrote:I like the idea of relegation/promotion. bringing teams like Georgia would be good for the game as a whole and generate more interest and income as well. I can't help but feel that expansion of global games like the Olympics, football and basketball was driven by participation, not exclusion. I think the other thing would be to add promotion to the other end. The winner could be invited to play in the RC. You could do the same with club rugby with the Heineken cup winner being invited into the super 17 (make that 18, which could then have an eastern and western conference). If a team like Saracens or Toulon qualify there would be the added bonus for South African and Argentinian coaches, of seeing more of their own players in action.  

Nah, you guys can just include Samoa, Tonga and Fiji in the RC   

I think the NZ franchises wanted to expand into the Pacific (as well as Asia). I think the money (i.e. TV and SA) has pushed for an additional SA team and Argentina. I think it makes sense in the medium term. At some point we need to move to a conference system to minimize travel. Ultimately, NZ needs to link in the Pacific rim. Revenue is key. The big struggle for the NZRFU is retaining junior players (the threat is league which under the new TV deal becomes a billion dollar industry), and adult players to overseas (Europe, Australia and Japan).

In terms of 6 nations. Wouldn't it be great to have an added incentive to win. Imagine, you win the 6 nations and you get to compete with NZ, Australia and South Africa on a home and away basis.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Well lets not forget that England and France will have to join the sanzars to get decent competition   

That would be great, watching the english getting smashed week in week out

Scratch wrote:Where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

You specified that you were talking about the englands sides 6 nations history in relation to the result of a single six nations game. When scrutinised it shows that england are good at winning games. Since then youve desperately been trying to reshuffle the stats and parameters to show what you want them to.

Look Im not saying Wales arent good value on this. With England missing 3 first choice props and wales having a resurgence in the pack (coupled with what happened last year), added to a full back, 2 wings, a first choice center and their first choice 8 missing ..plus a lions flanker who would as a minimum been on the bench.... theres an obvious differential to point to with the two teams. Wales may not be injury free themselves but are far less hit than England.
Just stop trying to twist records in your head to kid yourself that Wales have somehow been unjustly done by in the IRB rankings. England have recently beaten teams better than Wales, and Wale have recently lost to teams worse than england, going purely on head to head or titles won in the last decade may give a different picture but only because youre cherry picking one small portion to make a desperate point. The rankings you deride so much have correctly pointed to every winner in each game this far in the competition ( when you include the 3 point rating boost the system, gives to home teams) so it cant be that wrong....it even backed wales against ireland when most people couldnt see it.
Full strength at home england would be favourites. As things stand though its much more even and as we know wales can beat anybody on their day. Form in this 6 nations has been all over the place, business as usual....as is a few one eyed fans unable to let go of their delusions.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Scratch wrote:Where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

You specified that you were talking about the englands sides 6 nations history in relation to the result of a single six nations game. When scrutinised it shows that england are good at winning games. Since then youve desperately been trying to reshuffle the stats and parameters to show what you want them to.

Look Im not saying Wales arent good value on this. With England missing 3 first choice props and wales having a resurgence in the pack (coupled with what happened last year), added to a full back, 2 wings, a first choice center and their first choice 8 missing ..plus a lions flanker who would as a minimum been on the bench.... theres an obvious differential to point to with the two teams. Wales may not be injury free themselves but are far less hit than England.
Just stop trying to twist records in your head to kid yourself that Wales have somehow been unjustly done by in the IRB rankings. England have recently beaten teams better than Wales, and Wale have recently lost to teams worse than england, going purely on head to head or titles won in the last decade may give a different picture but only because youre cherry picking one small portion to make a desperate point. The rankings you deride so much have correctly pointed to every winner in each game this far in the competition ( when you include the 3 point rating boost the system, gives to home teams) so it cant be that wrong....it even backed wales against ireland when most people couldnt see it.
Full strength at home england would be favourites. As things stand though its much more even and as we know wales can beat anybody on their day. Form in this 6 nations has been all over the place, business as usual....as is a few one eyed fans unable to let go of their delusions.

Hardly since playing you lot it's 56 wins each with 12 draws. So twist the facts no matter which way, little old Wales with considerably less to pick from have nothing nor have had nothing to fear from England. IRB ranking mean nothing, what matters are we are 3-0 up and smashed you out of sight 30 - 3 last year.  

I wonder if it fear, greed, traditionalism or xenophobia which is the driver behind posters' reluctance to accept true, fair, meritocratic, international competition.

Meanwhile some may benefit from reading or re-reading the OP.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Scratch wrote:Where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

You specified that you were talking about the englands sides 6 nations history in relation to the result of a single six nations game. When scrutinised it shows that england are good at winning games. Since then youve desperately been trying to reshuffle the stats and parameters to show what you want them to.

Look Im not saying Wales arent good value on this. With England missing 3 first choice props and wales having a resurgence in the pack (coupled with what happened last year), added to a full back, 2 wings, a first choice center and their first choice 8 missing ..plus a lions flanker who would as a minimum been on the bench.... theres an obvious differential to point to with the two teams. Wales may not be injury free themselves but are far less hit than England.
Just stop trying to twist records in your head to kid yourself that Wales have somehow been unjustly done by in the IRB rankings. England have recently beaten teams better than Wales, and Wale have recently lost to teams worse than england, going purely on head to head or titles won in the last decade may give a different picture but only because youre cherry picking one small portion to make a desperate point. The rankings you deride so much have correctly pointed to every winner in each game this far in the competition ( when you include the 3 point rating boost the system, gives to home teams) so it cant be that wrong....it even backed wales against ireland when most people couldnt see it.
Full strength at home england would be favourites. As things stand though its much more even and as we know wales can beat anybody on their day. Form in this 6 nations has been all over the place, business as usual....as is a few one eyed fans unable to let go of their delusions.

Hardly since playing you lot it's 56 wins each with 12 draws.  So twist the facts no matter which way, little old Wales with considerably less to pick from have nothing nor have had nothing to fear from England.  IRB ranking mean nothing, what matters are we are 3-0 up and smashed you out of sight 30 - 3 last year.  

Its him who picked the period not me ...dont shoot the messenger RW

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Scratch wrote:Where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

You specified that you were talking about the englands sides 6 nations history in relation to the result of a single six nations game. When scrutinised it shows that england are good at winning games. Since then youve desperately been trying to reshuffle the stats and parameters to show what you want them to.

Look Im not saying Wales arent good value on this. With England missing 3 first choice props and wales having a resurgence in the pack (coupled with what happened last year), added to a full back, 2 wings, a first choice center and their first choice 8 missing ..plus a lions flanker who would as a minimum been on the bench.... theres an obvious differential to point to with the two teams. Wales may not be injury free themselves but are far less hit than England.
Just stop trying to twist records in your head to kid yourself that Wales have somehow been unjustly done by in the IRB rankings. England have recently beaten teams better than Wales, and Wale have recently lost to teams worse than england, going purely on head to head or titles won in the last decade may give a different picture but only because youre cherry picking one small portion to make a desperate point. The rankings you deride so much have correctly pointed to every winner in each game this far in the competition ( when you include the 3 point rating boost the system, gives to home teams) so it cant be that wrong....it even backed wales against ireland when most people couldnt see it.
Full strength at home england would be favourites. As things stand though its much more even and as we know wales can beat anybody on their day. Form in this 6 nations has been all over the place, business as usual....as is a few one eyed fans unable to let go of their delusions.

Apart from New Zealand (always), South Africa (pretty much always) and Australia (nearly always).

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I wonder if it fear, greed, traditionalism or xenophobia which is the driver behind posters' reluctance to accept true, fair, meritocratic, international competition.

Meanwhile some may benefit from reading or re-reading the OP.

Fear and traditionalism perhaps, but greedy and xenaphobia? Think the finger is better pointed elsewhere for those.

Whichever is the primary motive, it won't help the non-incumbents of the cosy cartel, Tf.

Sport?
Pah!

The status quo will by definition proscribe advancement of the game in Europe and by inference and extension, globally.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I wonder if it fear, greed, traditionalism or xenophobia which is the driver behind posters' reluctance to accept true, fair, meritocratic, international competition.

Meanwhile some may benefit from reading or re-reading the OP.

It's called the World Cup.  You guys are hosting it this time (nothing "fair" in hosting a WC BTW - but you'll take the favouritsm angle it might brush you with all the same, won't you )

We don't have to play each other - although, as I've said once and I've said twice already, it would be nice if some Nations actually did try to play these sides now and again rather than talk about it????  
But we don't have to play them regularly for them to have a shot at humilating some of us in a WC anyway.  Now if some of them had an even stiffer yearly contest between each other, the chances of one or two of them ramroding one of your Elitist 6N sides in a WC would be even more pronounced.

We don't have to be in the same cot, Portnoys.  TV gets everywhere.  You want to watch contests between Spain and Georgia, I'm sure you'd be able to get to see the game somewhere.  If it were a well contructed and promoted Championship, I'm sure it might have many interested observers in GB, France and Ireland.

You keep claiming 6N is the Crown that the poor folk aren't let get to because of elitist thinking from people like me.  

No, 6N is not the Crown.  It's simply one of the world rugby Events.  
Is it better than the SH Championship?  
Well many would say that for quality, it ain't close.  Should we be whining and moaning for the Big Three Elitists to let some of us in to their party rather than that little crud Nation of Argentina?  Afterall, Argentina is but small fry to the Big'uns of Europe...and all that kinda thing

No - we don't want in because it isn't our contest.  It isn't our event.  And neither has our event anything to do with Russia (poor souls), Georgia or any of the others.  
Build their own - they have the funds to do so.  They ain't poor.  Build the game in their own Nations and then come fight with us when it's up and running if that's what everyone wants.  Meanwhile, ask the RFU to actually go play some of these Nations that you feel are being left out of the good-times.  Get back to me with the RFU's response.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I wonder if it fear, greed, traditionalism or xenophobia which is the driver behind posters' reluctance to accept true, fair, meritocratic, international competition.

Meanwhile some may benefit from reading or re-reading the OP.

I can see the point that the current system is not exactly meritocratic, but would your suggestion be anymore so? I notice those advocating a meritocracy normally seem to have more money and more resources, funny that. Given the huge differences between England and Scotland's resources, I think the meritocracy concept is completely redundant.

Hood83 wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I wonder if it fear, greed, traditionalism or xenophobia which is the driver behind posters' reluctance to accept true, fair, meritocratic, international competition.

Meanwhile some may benefit from reading or re-reading the OP.

I can see the point that the current system is not exactly meritocratic, but would your suggestion be anymore so? I notice those advocating a meritocracy normally seem to have more money and more resources, funny that. Given the huge differences between England and Scotland's resources, I think the meritocracy concept is completely redundant.

They've had exactly the same time to harness their resources, Hoody.

The non-combatants haven't.

What could be Georgia's gain would be Italy's loss. Personally I've been proposing the smashing of glass windows in all levels of the sport.

I'm not talking about the strengths of the strong but about fairness to the weak. Let sport sort it out not wealth and jealousy.

Heaven knows in all walks of life, the oppressed and downtrodden need a glimpse of a hope to fulfil their aspirations.

What you suggest is that I'm slamming a door.
I'm not.
I'm trying to prise it open.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Scratch wrote:Where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

You specified that you were talking about the englands sides 6 nations history in relation to the result of a single six nations game. When scrutinised it shows that england are good at winning games. Since then youve desperately been trying to reshuffle the stats and parameters to show what you want them to.

Look Im not saying Wales arent good value on this. With England missing 3 first choice props and wales having a resurgence in the pack (coupled with what happened last year), added to a full back, 2 wings, a first choice center and their first choice 8 missing ..plus a lions flanker who would as a minimum been on the bench.... theres an obvious differential to point to with the two teams. Wales may not be injury free themselves but are far less hit than England.
Just stop trying to twist records in your head to kid yourself that Wales have somehow been unjustly done by in the IRB rankings. England have recently beaten teams better than Wales, and Wale have recently lost to teams worse than england, going purely on head to head or titles won in the last decade may give a different picture but only because youre cherry picking one small portion to make a desperate point. The rankings you deride so much have correctly pointed to every winner in each game this far in the competition ( when you include the 3 point rating boost the system, gives to home teams) so it cant be that wrong....it even backed wales against ireland when most people couldnt see it.
Full strength at home england would be favourites. As things stand though its much more even and as we know wales can beat anybody on their day. Form in this 6 nations has been all over the place, business as usual....as is a few one eyed fans unable to let go of their delusions.

PSW

I repeat, where was it specified we were discussing chances of winning individual games?

When i stated England's 21st century record in the 6 Nations doesn't bear scrutiny you replied with the win ratios for individual games.

I explained that it was irrelevant how many games you won if you had won less silverware, the tournament results were more important.

I then further explained that, having won fewer games and more trophies/slams, wales were more efficient in performance in the 6 Nations than Enlgand

The only evidence of desperation i can see is your introduction of the individual games record, a rather pyrrhic victory for you it transpires.