Making the 6 Nations a true tournament.

Congratulations Ireland, ultimately won the championship the day they took apart Wales and also managed to keep the penalty count down.

But I wonder if the Irish feel similar to how I felt When England Win the title in 2011 but got beaten by Ireland in the final game, it felt very strange yesterday knowing that the fate of England rested on a French team with nothing to play for but pride,

I feel the 6 nations is more 5 friendlies against your neighbours purely for bragging rights and world ranking points rather than a sporting tournament with winners and losers.

Could the top 4 not enter the semi final stage which would help all of the nations prepare for knockout World Cup rugby. Top 2 get home Semi finals, if the top ranking nation gets through then they also get a home Final.

Would see a sporting culmination to the tournament where you lose because the other team out scored you, for example if England had of played last yesterday rather than first they would have had a massive advantage of knowing what they had to do, as would of Ireland if England had caught up the points difference.

Knowing what you have to do could be a benefit, yes.  But also it could ruin you as teams can over-reach if they chase a particular score.  Plus, just because you need 8 or 9 tries, that doesn't make the getting of them any easier or any more guaranteed - as England found out yesterday and yet they were so supreme that the Italians might have just as well stayed in bed.

You can see how draining the five games already are - especially and ironically for the highest quality sides, who must push themselves to the max physically and through training to keep going at the pace required to win five games from five.  
Ireland were out on their feet by the end, physically and mentally.  The English took to an ice house to help them prepare for the assault they were readying for Italy.  
Pushing these players too far, and considering many of them have serious Provincial games and season now to return to, could prove very costly in having less and less players you'd want either at International or in your favourite club.

Tiger/Chief wrote:Congratulations Ireland, ultimately won the championship the day they took apart Wales and also managed to keep the penalty count down.

But I wonder if the Irish feel similar to how I felt When England Win the title in 2011 but got beaten by Ireland in the final game, it felt very strange yesterday knowing that the fate of England rested on a French team with nothing to play for but pride,

I feel the 6 nations is more 5 friendlies against your neighbours purely for bragging rights and world ranking points rather than a sporting tournament with winners and losers.

Could the top 4 not enter the semi final stage which would help all of the nations prepare for knockout World Cup rugby. Top 2 get home Semi finals, if the top ranking nation gets through then they also get a home Final.

Would see a sporting culmination to the tournament where you lose because the other team out scored you, for example if England had of played last yesterday rather than first they would have had a massive advantage of knowing what they had to do, as would of Ireland if England had caught up the points difference.

Ireland own the championship by holding out the French in the last minute, pure rugby poetry.

Why change a perfect formula.

Scratch wrote:

Why change a perfect formula.

Because he's English and still hasn't accepted the reality of defeat?

Ireland won fair and square.Suck it up,lad.

Oh i see we need to load it in england's favor so they 'know what they need to do'

i'll tell you what they need to do, they need to stop celebrating coming 2nd as an indicator of consistency and WIN THE THING

It ain't difficult

  

The Irish win and we suddenly need to restructure the whole tournament. I'm getting deja vu all over again.

Feckless Rogue wrote:The Irish win and we suddenly need to restructure the whole tournament. I'm getting deja vu all over again.

At least they haven't played the "devalued" card yet!

Reckon the cheating card will come out soon though?

Tiger/Chief wrote:Congratulations Ireland, ultimately won the championship the day they took apart Wales and also managed to keep the penalty count down.

But I wonder if the Irish feel similar to how I felt When England Win the title in 2011 but got beaten by Ireland in the final game, it felt very strange yesterday knowing that the fate of England rested on a French team with nothing to play for but pride,

I feel the 6 nations is more 5 friendlies against your neighbours purely for bragging rights and world ranking points rather than a sporting tournament with winners and losers.

Could the top 4 not enter the semi final stage which would help all of the nations prepare for knockout World Cup rugby. Top 2 get home Semi finals, if the top ranking nation gets through then they also get a home Final.

Would see a sporting culmination to the tournament where you lose because the other team out scored you, for example if England had of played last yesterday rather than first they would have had a massive advantage of knowing what they had to do, as would of Ireland if England had caught up the points difference.

I don't feel that way because winning that game felt like we won a final.Had the results been the same but we played England last,lost and still won the tournament I don't think I'd have enjoyed it as much.It's just a quirk of the tournament format.

Interesting that some of you jump on the anti English bandwagon straight away,

Genuinely... If the French 10 had of kicked that penalty I wouldn't have celebrated. England had done all the could in Italy. The format is odd because normally you associate winning and losing with a defeat

Tiger/Chief wrote:Interesting that some of you jump on the anti English bandwagon straight away,

Genuinely... If the French 10 had of kicked that penalty I wouldn't have celebrated. England had done all the could in Italy. The format is odd because normally you associate winning and losing with a  defeat

anti English bandwagon?

Did that come in 2nd behind the English chariot?

Eh, don't want to think about where most of this is coming from. Ireland won because they played better through the whole tournament. The points difference says so.

Most improved during the tournament was England, I think. We might have peaked, but with the Love Bomber () I don't think so. In case there is any doubt, I don't think we'll win the world cup in 2015. But we are playing some good stuff and getting better. My theory, based on no consecutive winners of the WC to date is that is takes 6 seasons to develop a wc winning squad. The AB's are consistently good enough to blow my theory out of the water and that would be my bet now, but to date, no side has done it.

Its real in that it rewards consistency. Playing terribly and coming 4th out of 6, then winning a semi and final is hardly consistency...but it is winning the matches that count when you know 100% that they count. So its simply the variation in format. The biggest version of the game is knockout whereas the next two- the 6N and RC- are round robins. For the ABs, the easiest to win is a round robin, reflected by the results in the RC versus the Wcup.

Thats because the ABs maintain levels of consistency that the others cant match.

So for this tournament, Ireland were the most consistent...though just as it came down to points, and last game etc.

And not sure about knowing what you need...England knew what they needed last year in the last match and got nowhere near it. is it possible that knowledge (they could lose by 8 was it?) went against them.

I do think the Giant points gap did take France out of it but it was by far their best game of the 6N

If France had of won would they have dserved the 6N as they beat England and Ireland.

We all love the 6N as each year is different unlike the RC due to only having one chance against a team.

The tournament is what it is. The only way you could make it so you didn't have the arguments of 'well we had to play 3 games away' etc would be to make it a home and away format. You'd have to reduce the number of teams with that though and I don't think too many people would want that. 6Ns is great as it is.

If you look at it as the top 4 teams

England H 2W A 1L
France H 1W 1L A 1L
Ireland H 1W A 1W 1L
Wales H 1W A 2L

So as you can see Ireland were the only team to win away from home and france the only one to lose at home. That is as tight as it was.

I think the tournament is fine.

One problem for England is that they had one of their trickiest fixtures first up - France away with new combinations and new players.

Ireland in contrast started with a relatively easy opener - Scotland at home. Meant they had a nice opportunity to rack up the points difference and stay ahead.


Ultimately I feel the real reason England did not win the 6 nations was poor usage of the bench - both vs France and Italy. It's England's fault that they came short. They knew what they had to do to win the 6 nations.

Ireland were fortunate to have the three weakest teams in the tournament, Scotland, Italy and Wales all at home, this allowed them to run up a massive points tally. Both England and Ireland lost one away match to top three opposition.

The eventual score line reflects this.

beshocked wrote:I think the tournament is fine.

One problem for England is that they had one of their trickiest fixtures first up - France away with new combinations and new players.

Ireland in contrast started with a relatively easy opener - Scotland at home. Meant they had a nice opportunity to rack up the points difference and stay ahead.


Ultimately I feel the real reason England did not win the 6 nations was poor usage of the bench - both vs France and Italy. It's England's fault that they came short. They knew what they had to do to win the 6 nations.

Ireland and England were the two best teams and although it's a shame that it came down to points difference, I don't think anyone begrudges Ireland their win. It was tight but it's pointless going into iffs and buts (you're probably right about the reasons why), England need to move on and i'm sure they will. France put up a good show, but bucked the post Lions trend with some of their performances. Wales were just so inconsistent it was difficult to judge where they are - beating France (who quite literally decided they weren't bothered that day), Italy (who lets be honest, were a hand full for 60 minutes) and Scotland (who are frankly, embarassing) is hardly a measure of a successful tournament.

Scotland, well, i've already said it, and Italy sowed guts, but are just a class below everyone else (i'd argue that they're better than Scotland and were unlucky in Rome agaginst them).

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Ireland were fortunate to have the three weakest teams in the tournament, Scotland, Italy and Wales all at home, this allowed them to run up a massive points tally. Both England and Ireland lost one away match to top three opposition.

The eventual score line reflects this.

Ignoring the fact that Wales easily outclassed France, surely Ireland having their toughest two fixtures away from home makes winning the Championship even more impressive?

Not arguing with you Enforcer, Ireland did what we didn't; won in France. We should have, could have, but didn't.

The away games for Ireland were always going to be tight, one win or loss neither by more than a score. England had the advantage of an away game in Scotland. The weather was atrocious and did not let us build up the points we would later need. That and our inability to convert the chances we made.

England should have won it by a country mile with the chances they had, but they butchered far to many. Ireland took the majority of theirs, that is the difference between the sides.

Well done Ireland.

Enforcer wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Ireland were fortunate to have the three weakest teams in the tournament, Scotland, Italy and Wales all at home, this allowed them to run up a massive points tally. Both England and Ireland lost one away match to top three opposition.

The eventual score line reflects this.

Ignoring the fact that Wales easily outclassed France, surely Ireland having their toughest two fixtures away from home makes winning the Championship even more impressive?

agree...England were in a similar pos last year. Built up the points but had to win the crucial away match, something Ireland managed. Thought Ireland won it in style.

Sorry but this thread is showing a quite bitter taste in the mouth Tiger. A bad loser.

Im as dissappointed as any England fan that we didnt win it....but Ireland have won the same number of games by more points...so they get the title.

Its a good reflection on the current status of the NH that we have two sides looking very strong and once Wales get their act together...and Scotland get rid of the utterly woeful Johnson they have some cracking players to take the team forward.

Take pleasure in seeing Englands progression in this 6n...

The 6n is a great competition...lets not spoil it.

Oh.... on the point of Wales easily outclassing France, my 3 year old granddaughter could have outclassed the French team that turned up that day.

There was no contest at all. Not the team that beat England or just lost to Ireland, they showed some spirit and invention in those games. The Italians that played England would have been comfortable winners on that form.

The strange thing is I've yet to see an England poster that hasn't congratulated Ireland on winning the title, yet a couple of posters seem to think 'ALL' England fans are arrogant and seem to think the result is unfair and that we see England are the rightful champions.

Simpley not true and to be honest their attitude is not in keeping with our game and is more suited to that round ball game that is so popular.  

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:I think the tournament is fine.

One problem for England is that they had one of their trickiest fixtures first up - France away with new combinations and new players.

Ireland in contrast started with a relatively easy opener - Scotland at home. Meant they had a nice opportunity to rack up the points difference and stay ahead.


Ultimately I feel the real reason England did not win the 6 nations was poor usage of the bench - both vs France and Italy. It's England's fault that they came short. They knew what they had to do to win the 6 nations.

Ireland and England were the two best teams and although it's a shame that it came down to points difference, I don't think anyone begrudges Ireland their win. It was tight but it's pointless going into iffs and buts (you're probably right about the reasons why), England need to move on and i'm sure they will. France put up a good show, but bucked the post Lions trend with some of their performances. Wales were just so inconsistent it was difficult to judge where they are - beating France (who quite literally decided they weren't bothered that day), Italy (who lets be honest, were a hand full for 60 minutes) and Scotland (who are frankly, embarassing) is hardly a measure of a successful tournament.

Scotland, well, i've already said it, and Italy sowed guts, but are just a class below everyone else (i'd argue that they're better than Scotland and were unlucky in Rome agaginst them).

I agree of course England should move on and look to the future. It's just a bit annoying that Lancaster does not seem to have yet learnt from his previous mistakes in regards to usage of the bench in particular.

You say Wales were inconsistent. Not sure I agree. They came 3rd because they were the 3rd best team - they lost to the two best sides away from home. They did not have an answer to breaking down the stronger sides. I would say they showed a measure of consistency. Unbeaten at home.

Wales would not call it a good tournament but they did have to the two toughest teams away. I would say it's easy to judge where they are - ahead of France,Scotland and Italy but behind England and Ireland.

I think most people agree that Ireland and England deserved to hold it together, with France and Wales a little furthur back.

I think that England have grown as a team this season (not relying on Farrell's boot and Manu's runs). Ireland have now played 6 consistent games which is what we wanted, and have two players for each position except for 12, 13 & 15

Re the OP.  The 6 nations and before that the 5 Nations are both true tournaments.  This year's was one of, if not the most exciting and the final result came down to the last minute of the last match.  

England blew it in the first minutes in Paris, they then improved to almost pip Ireland to top spot.  Both teams were generally excellent and their match was IMO the best of this 6Ns.  Both tried hard to win, fairly and entertainingly.

At the end of the day there will always be if, buts and maybes.  However, Ireland deserved the title and as a proud Englishman congratulate them.  After all there is always next year   

I don't have a problem with the results. Well played Ireland.

It is true that you can't necessarily say Ireland are the best team in the tournament because of the home and away issue.. but its the same in any year, for any side.

To be honest Ireland had to face England and France away and still won the tournament so they are worthy winners.

Making it a one match home, one match away tournament would be a more true test sure but that would mean 10 matches... its too much and would take too long.

It could only be done if the entire setup from club to test rugby were alligned so that one didn't interfere with the other like SR and the RC in the SH.

and then, 10 matches is still too much. You'd have to drop the numbers by at least 1 team and maybe 2 to go down to between 6 and 8 matches.
Perhaps we could have a relegation system with say Scotland, Italy and Georgia fighting it out for a playoff place with the worst placed top 4 teams (FRA, ENG, IRE & WAL).

It could be a method of making things more competitive meaning the best teams play better quality rugby week in week out... and would also give a team like Georgia a route into the tournament.

I think its a decent plan but I think it would kill the game in Scotland and Italy and it probably isn't favoured over the current system so I can't see it happening.

.... but for a team like Wales and Ireland it's probably the only way I could see them being a genuine contender for the RWC so I think it should be considered.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Oh.... on the point of Wales easily outclassing France, my 3 year old granddaughter could have outclassed the French team that turned up that day.

There was no contest at all. Not the team that beat England or just lost to Ireland, they showed some spirit and invention in those games. The Italians that played England would have been comfortable winners on that form.

And here we go again with the "teams only want to play England and nobody else." Pathetic. Wales stuffed France, get over it!

beshocked wrote:

I agree of course England should move on and look to the future. It's just a bit annoying that Lancaster does not seem to have yet learnt from his previous mistakes in regards to usage of the bench in particular.

You say Wales were inconsistent. Not sure I agree. They came 3rd because they were the 3rd best team - they lost to the two best sides away from home. They did not have an answer to breaking down the stronger sides. I would say they showed a measure of consistency. Unbeaten at home.

Wales would not call it a good tournament but they did have to the two toughest teams away. I would say it's easy to judge where they are - ahead of France,Scotland and Italy but behind England and Ireland.

Fair comments. But you could say of how certain players performed throughout was inconsistent. The conduct of some of the players on the field at Twickenham was particularly disapointing.

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

I agree of course England should move on and look to the future. It's just a bit annoying that Lancaster does not seem to have yet learnt from his previous mistakes in regards to usage of the bench in particular.

You say Wales were inconsistent. Not sure I agree. They came 3rd because they were the 3rd best team - they lost to the two best sides away from home. They did not have an answer to breaking down the stronger sides. I would say they showed a measure of consistency. Unbeaten at home.

Wales would not call it a good tournament but they did have to the two toughest teams away. I would say it's easy to judge where they are - ahead of France,Scotland and Italy but behind England and Ireland.

Fair comments. But you could say of how certain players performed throughout was inconsistent. The conduct of some of the players on the field at Twickenham was particularly disapointing.

How do you mean

The Saint wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Oh.... on the point of Wales easily outclassing France, my 3 year old granddaughter could have outclassed the French team that turned up that day.

There was no contest at all. Not the team that beat England or just lost to Ireland, they showed some spirit and invention in those games. The Italians that played England would have been comfortable winners on that form.

And here we go again with the "teams only want to play England and nobody else." Pathetic. Wales stuffed France, get over it!

France are like that. They are terrible away from home, decent at home.

They played well vs. Ireland & Italy and enough to beat England and were dire against Wales and Scotland.

It was, is and will forever be the case with them. Its just the French in a nutshell.