Normal service has resumed...

After their defeat of Wales at the Millennium, England has gained sufficient points to overtake Ireland as they gained no points.

The bookies have adjusted their odds on the Six Nations with England now as favourites.

A sigh of relief has descended on the emerald isle.

The rankings are a farce. England beat New Zealand back in 2012, the only team to do it, and were not rewarded In the rankings. That's just unlogical to me,

TheRugbyMaster wrote:The rankings are a farce. England beat New Zealand back in 2012, the only team to do it, and were not rewarded In the rankings. That's just unlogical to me,

The ranking system doesn't 'Reward' it simply slots in points when it see points dropped into its mechanics.

I hear this over and over about the ranking system. When it knocks a side up - great! When it knocks a side down - it's probably a bad system that doesn't factor in the word 'deserve'

It never cares about the word 'deserve'. If you're worth a 3rd place or a 1st place - you'll get there. No deals behind closed doors, no bias, just numbered mathematic methodology that anyone can work out.

TheRugbyMaster wrote:The rankings are a farce. England beat New Zealand back in 2012, the only team to do it, and were not rewarded In the rankings. That's just unlogical to me,

They were rewarded in the rankings points that they had. They were on 81.07 in 5th spot before the match and because they were playing at home, they were rewarded with a new points ranking of 83.90. France were still well ahead of them on 85.07 in 4th spot.

OP spot on for me. England now favourites having beaten Wales away first up. Albeit not favourites by much in a very competitive 6N in which i think Scotland will have an impact (by beating a contender if not being a contender)

England did benefit from the win over the All Blacks. They gained a few ranking points. The good thing about the ranking system is that one off wins don't have a big impact for long. For England that was a one off win.

But let's not kid about. Ireland are still favourites to win it. The bookies odds aren't the chances of someone happening. They're what they're willing to pay out for an event. It's based on the chance it happens and the number of people betting.

Ireland most definitely still favourites.

the reason england are favourites is they have 3 home games left and their only away match is vs ireland

ireland have home games against england and france, and play away against wales and scotland

england are rightly favourites after beating wales. and having 4 teams in the HC quarter finals vs 1 provincial team. these are all data points that people use to decide what makes a good bet.

quinsforever wrote:OP spot on for me. England now favourites having beaten Wales away first up. Albeit not favourites by much in a very competitive 6N in which i think Scotland will have an impact (by beating a contender if not being a contender)

Italy too might beat a contender.... Seems maybe a strange suggestion but - they might, it's doable for them.

Now with Scotland in a position to maybe beat a contender and Italy in a position to catch a side out on their day too.... yeah, that might make Scotland a contender. They will certainly learn things more effectively through the weeks now with Cotter onboard. He'll be more analytical than the past coach.

LondonTiger wrote:Ireland most definitely still favourites.

rubbish. ireland fluked the win last year based on england not amassing enough points vs scotland playing in a swamp and suddenly they are irreplaceable favourites, irrespective of injuries, form and results?

Ireland had form in AIs and play us in Dublin. Clear favourites.

LondonTiger wrote:Ireland had form in AIs and play us in Dublin. Clear favourites.

only in your own mind. you should take advantage of the attractive odds the bookies are prepared to give you with that view.

england in the AIs had a clearly out of form and injury carrying Farrell. we now have ford and jj. if we still have farrell at 10 and no jj then maybe ireland might be favourites. but we dont. and we beat wales comfortably. which is why we are rightly favourites.

Yes, past performance being a reliable indicator of future performance, England must now be favorites for (whisper it) a Grand Slam

England should be favourites because they can afford to lose narrowly to Ireland and still have a decent chance of winning on points difference. Ireland's fixtures in uneven years are not conductive to racking up a big points differential. I think Ireland's only realistic chance of a title is a Grand Slam.

England are out and out the 'form' team based on this weekend.  Therefore, based on this weekend, they are - yes - the favourites.  Ireland have done nothing to warrant favourite status - yet.

Next behind England for me, but quite a way off, is France - who look at least quite eager this time, which is a bonus for them. Bastereaud in particularly looks to me the fittest and formidible I've seen him since I think he started International. Tighten things up and keep shape and they're a real threat.

Behind them, I'd put Scotland on their pacey and confident outing in France.  They back themselves mentally now which is half the battle...

It's a toss up between Wales and Ireland next.  
Wales looked smoother - maybe because they were at home and they needed to be fully up to speed to face England.  Ireland were lethargic because they still were down some of their best mobile forwards and needed to break in another new 10 gradually without scaring the life out of him. They also had Italy and obviously subconsciously knew a lower gear would suffice. Not my idea of how you should approach Italy but obviously players can't deny their own mentality about the quality of opposition before them.
But not nearly good enough from either side - Wales pips it for me though for energy and serious 6N effort.

So - on this weekend's performances that leaves Ireland and Italy at the bottom so far.

Yeah, we have a lot of work to do and England would be rightfully favourites.  But since I don't bet, I couldn't really give a damn about 'favouritism' - all that matters to me is next week and actual games won or lost.

That assumes someone else then beats Ireland FR

You're right LondonTiger. Hold on a sec while I look up how regularly Ireland win Grand Slams.

Ladbrokes and Paddy Power have altered their odds.

Feckless is right. The strange thing is that our only chance of winning the title this year is by going all out for the Slam. Lose one game and it's likely not going to be good enough as too many of the other sides, including Scotland, could realistically put big scores on an ever weaking Italy.

I'm hoping Italy find more physical stamina this season but it's a tough ask and scant money would go on the idea.

LondonTiger wrote:That assumes someone else then beats Ireland FR

so you think ireland are a shoe-in for the slam?

wow.

ireland are significantly weaker imo than the last 2 years. far too many players still not fully back from injury upon whom great hopes are placed. am sure they will make it back for RWC, but an angry Wales at MS, and very physical, very combative England and France in dublin, and bananaskin at Murrayfield? not favourites for me. not at all. could well win. but not favourites.

quinsforever wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ireland most definitely still favourites.

rubbish. ireland fluked the win last year based on england not amassing enough points vs scotland playing in a swamp and suddenly they are irreplaceable favourites, irrespective of injuries, form and results?

Fluked the win??

Are you on drugs? You may as well argue that Ireland were unlucky to not win the Grand slam by not amassing enough points against England. Or England by not amassing enough against France, etc, etc.

Waste of time. Ireland won it based on the points system in place. Good luck to them.

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ireland most definitely still favourites.

rubbish. ireland fluked the win last year based on england not amassing enough points vs scotland playing in a swamp and suddenly they are irreplaceable favourites, irrespective of injuries, form and results?

Fluked the win??

Are you on drugs?   You may as well argue that Ireland were unlucky to not win the Grand slam by not amassing enough points against England.  Or England by not amassing enough against France, etc, etc.

Waste of time.  Ireland won it based on the points system in place.   Good luck to them.

they lost against england.

ireland won the 6N based on points difference.

and had you watched the england game at murrayfield against scotland as i did, you would know that but for horrendous surface (nematode problem) and horrific weather, and a ref allowing equally horrific spoiling (prob thought the conditions merited it) england would have put 40+ past them instead of 20. it was an embarrassment to international rugby.

that was the fluke. sorry if you didnt understand or didnt see that scotland game.

quinsforever wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ireland most definitely still favourites.

rubbish. ireland fluked the win last year based on england not amassing enough points vs scotland playing in a swamp and suddenly they are irreplaceable favourites, irrespective of injuries, form and results?

Fluked the win??

Are you on drugs?   You may as well argue that Ireland were unlucky to not win the Grand slam by not amassing enough points against England.  Or England by not amassing enough against France, etc, etc.

Waste of time.  Ireland won it based on the points system in place.   Good luck to them.

they lost against england.

ireland won the 6N based on points difference.

and had you watched the england game at murrayfield against scotland as i did, you would know that but for horrendous surface (nematode problem) and horrific weather, and a ref allowing equally horrific spoiling (prob thought the conditions merited it) england would have put 40+ past them instead of 20. it was an embarrassment to international rugby.

that was the fluke. sorry if you didnt understand or didnt see that scotland game.

I know they lost to England by 3 points. So if England had amassed another 7-10 points against Ireland, they could have won it? Or stopped France scoring a try. Or beaten Wales by 7 or whatever.

Describing Ireland fluking their championship win because England didn't get to put more scores against Scotland due a bad pitch is a pretty poor argument. Who says an improved pitch wouldn't have helped Scotland's chances, etc, etc?

Your response is somewhat churlish if I may say so.

quinsforever wrote:
ireland won the 6N based on points difference.

True. No fluke. Points difference. More points than the other contenders.

It's just your wording that needs adjustment, quins. Yes, England were right in the fight to the very end. Ireland weren't runaway winners....but Ireland won the competition based on the idea that they gained most points.

Ireland are a good side and at home, but aren't they carrying a few injuries? The Saxons outplayed the Wolfhounds (and generally they never outplay anyone), and England have just won at the Millennium and acquitted themselves reasonably well in New Zealand.

I think it's too early to talk about anyone being favourites for that game. Let's see how the form looks in a couple of weeks' time.

not churlish at all. 6N is a flawed tournament format. It introduces far too much luck based on alternating home and away fixtures by year, and having massively varied pitch qualities which are occasionally shambolic. Points difference is inherently a flukey way to win a tournament. Hard to claim the "best in NH" while losing to the team your are tied with after the final round of matches.

i would feel exactly the same way whoever wins. The final match in a proper tourmament should always be a winner take all decider, not based on how many points a team can rack up against various opposition.

name me one other tournament (as opposed to a league with home AND away fixtures) in any sport in the world where a team can claim to be the winner without having any kind of elimination matches?

the format is poor. the national rivalry is what makes it so epic.

RWC is the only tournament i genuinely care about. everything else is preparation.

quinsforever wrote:
RWC is the only tournament i genuinely care about. everything else is preparation.

So Ireland shouldn't worry about losing to England again this time round.  It's only WC perparation for us?

And you wouldn't mind losing another 6N either?

I'd like to believe you, quins, but your tone in the last number of days suggests you're emotionally into this full bang for buck

Let's all take the foot off the peddle and let poor Italy win the thing for once.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
RWC is the only tournament i genuinely care about. everything else is preparation.

So Ireland shouldn't worry about losing to England again this time round.  It's only WC perparation for us?

And you wouldn't mind losing another 6N?

I'd like to believe you, quins, but your tone in the last number of days suggests you're emotionally into this full bang for buck

There'll be (fake) blood again in a minute

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
RWC is the only tournament i genuinely care about. everything else is preparation.

So Ireland shouldn't worry about losing to England again this time round.  It's only WC perparation for us?

And you wouldn't mind losing another 6N either?

I'd like to believe you, quins, but your tone in the last number of days suggests you're emotionally into this full bang for buck

Let's all take the foot off the peddle and let poor Italy win the thing for once.

no, for ireland it's their best chance of silverware, so go for broke...

.........so that's all the theory was building up for? A wummery wum with drumsticks? A Cozy Powell wum?

Jesus, you use a lot of energy to get to the tryline, quins. I'll call you Haskell from now on He nearly had it too put for the interfering post!

not wumming as you know fly.

obviously i want england to win every match they play in. but winning or losing by points difference in a tournament means by definition that the results in matches you are not involved in decide the winner.

so therefore, for me, unless its a GS, there is a big element of randomness to who wins, because there is no CLEAR winner, and the title goes to the team with the best points difference, which is inevitably a flukey thing

flukey - synonyms: lucky, fortunate, providential, timely, opportune, serendipitous, expedient, heaven-sent, auspicious, propitious, felicitous, convenient

SecretFly wrote:.........so that's all the theory was building up for?   A wummery wum with drumsticks?  A Cozy Powell wum?

Jesus, you use a lot of energy to get to the tryline, quins.   I'll call you Haskell from now on  He nearly had it too put for the interfering post!

Remmeber quins cares little for the 6 Nations, i dread to think about how rabid he will be during the RWC though, the only competition he does care about.

Or, since he usually doth protest this lack of interest too much, truth be told I suspect he cares about it when England are winning and those damned Welsh are losing (in their non country with their non anthem!) Go on quins admit it you blaggard!

quinsforever wrote:
flukey - synonyms: lucky, fortunate, providential, timely, opportune, serendipitous, expedient, heaven-sent, auspicious, propitious, felicitous, convenient

Flukey means "You didn't deserve it because we did - even though had we scored more points than you, we'd still have lost to France and therefore our 6N would also have been a technical fluke...; yet there is no way I'd be mentioning 'fluke' here 12 months later had we won that flukey 6N - at least not voluntarily "

I think that's my definition of 'Fluke'.

i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

quinsforever wrote:i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

quins in most aspects of life there is an inverse correlation between success and value, seems to me with all things being equal your lack of success in the 6 Nations has lead to your frankly cynical inability to accept you lost fair and square. Nothing less sportsmanlike i have to say.

On the contrary your valuation of the RWC is due to the relative success England have enjoyed in it.

quinsforever wrote:i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

But why are you fixating on Scotland?

Why didn't England take the points they needed off Italy instead?  52 - 10?  Sounds like a good score on paper but England?  Best team of that year?  Killing off Wales?  But leaving it all behind in a game that didn't include nematodes, when they felt enough was enough and Ireland would never win in France.

So it wasn't flukes or worms - or rain or refs.  It was complacency.  "52 is good enough.  We've done it.  Ireland will lose in France."

There are five games to amass points in not just games against the poor Scots.

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

quins in most aspects of life there is an inverse correlation between success and value, seems to me with all things being equal your lack of success in the 6 Nations has lead to your frankly cynical inability to accept you lost fair and square. Nothing less sportsmanlike i have to say.

On the contrary your valuation of the RWC is due to the relative success England have enjoyed in it.

or maybe its because the RWC is the ultimate prize, it being a "World" competition rather than a 6nation northern hemisphere one? so prizing it above all others is the very definition of sportsmanship, no?

Yes... the WC is the big one.

I'd like Ireland to retain the 6N but I'd much prefer (if a choice of two was given) to get to the quarters, semis or final of the WC.  Bigger world prize, more bragging rights, more wum potential by far

Anyway, quins is right - WC more important - for all of us.

But winning for winning's sake is still the only game in town.  There is no point in losing to prepare better for the WC.  Win and prepare is better.  Win every game you can with real intent and then if there is sliver or bronze or a choclate egg at the end that says Winner, then take it and hold it up high or eat it

quinsforever wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

quins in most aspects of life there is an inverse correlation between success and value, seems to me with all things being equal your lack of success in the 6 Nations has lead to your frankly cynical inability to accept you lost fair and square. Nothing less sportsmanlike i have to say.

On the contrary your valuation of the RWC is due to the relative success England have enjoyed in it.

or maybe its because the RWC is the ultimate prize, it being a "World" competition rather than a 6nation northern hemisphere one? so prizing it above all others is the very definition of sportsmanship, no?

of course the RWC is the pinnacle, that's a given.

But for someone who purportedly has little but contempt for the 6 Nations you bleed heavily all over England's record while showing very little regard for the side that has ruled it for the last 10 years.

Additionally the way in which you attack Wales is not like your brethren on Saturday, which as a rugby fan was a pleasure to watch, but rather more desperate and coarse and in doing so you reveal a rather unsportsmanlike disdain.

But then you are a Quins fan!!

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

quins in most aspects of life there is an inverse correlation between success and value, seems to me with all things being equal your lack of success in the 6 Nations has lead to your frankly cynical inability to accept you lost fair and square. Nothing less sportsmanlike i have to say.

On the contrary your valuation of the RWC is due to the relative success England have enjoyed in it.

i think you meant to say there is a strong positive correlation between success and value which i would agree with. people who are successful at anything can usually extract value (ie get paid - the only way to objectively assess "value") for doing it.

double England are the most successful side in the competition. which is anyway completely irrelevant as to why i prefer RWC. the point is i dont care that Ireland won last year. I am laughing at all those who think that just because ireland fluked the necessary points difference to become champions last year, they are somehow runaway favourites against a significantly stronger England this year. laughable logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship

Overall[edit]

England
France
Ireland
Italy
Scotland
Wales
Tournaments 118 85 120 15 120 120
Outright Wins (Shared Wins)
Home Nations 5 (4) NA 4 (4) NA 9 (2) 7 (4)
Five Nations 17 (6) 12 (8) 6 (5) NA 5 (6) 15 (8)
Six Nations 4 5 2 0 0 4
Overall 26 (10) 17 (8) 12 (9) 0 (0) 14 (8) 26 (12)
Grand Slams
Home Nations 0 NA 0 NA 0 2
Five Nations 11 6 1 NA 3 6
Six Nations 1 3 1 0 0 3
Overall 12 9 2 0 3 11
Triple Crowns
Home Nations 5 NA 2 NA 7 6
Five Nations 16 NA 4 NA 3 11
Six Nations 3 NA 4 NA 0 3
Overall 24 NA 10 NA 10 20
Wooden Spoons
Home Nations 11 NA 15 NA 8 8
Five Nations 14 17 21 NA 21 12
Six Nations 0 1 0 10 3 1
Overall 25 18 36 10 32 21

i am feeling a rather familiar feeling....kind of like goosebumps...or an itch...or a scratch that i just cant quite get rid of...

I'm not that bothered if we should win 4 and lose on points difference this year. Or win for that matter. Swings and roundabouts- we lost out in 2007, we won last year, it happens. Its actually very exciting but I'm not bothered about any points difference loss given the draw. They used to share the title in those circumstances- now we don't but you can never claim real dominance when you win on PD as much as you do cherish the championship.

No, what I want is Ireland to take points difference out of the equation by winning our next 4 games. Each game is individually very winnable- of course, we've just had our only game we were locks to win and we could easily lose any of the next 4. But we are probably marginal favourites in each of the next 4 games. Regardless if we win 3 out of 4 I'm happy enough, 2 out of 4 or lower is a massive disappointment. The championship will look after itself.

"showing very little regard for the side that has ruled it for the last 10 years"

actually i have quite high regard for England. But i wouldnt say we have "ruled" it. Bit over-egging the pudding.

Six Nations All-Time Table (2000–2014)[edit]
(Updated at the end of 2014 tournament[20])

Pld W D L PF PA PD T Pts Champs GS TC WS
England 75 51 1 23 2061 1157 + 904 214 103 4 1 3 0
France 75 50 2 23 1899 1324 + 575 184 102 5 3 N/A 1
Ireland 75 49 2 24 1833 1393 + 440 188 100 2 1 4 0
Wales 75 40 2 33 1688 1630 + 58 153 82 4 3 3 1
Scotland 75 19 2 54 1183 1872 − 689 85 40 0 0 0 3
Italy 75 11 1 63 1098 2386 − 1288 89 23 0 0 N/A 10

Notch wrote:I'm not that bothered if we should win 4 and lose on points difference this year. Swings and roundabouts- we lost out in 2007, we won last year, it happens. Its actually very exciting but I'm not bothered about any points difference loss given the draw. They used to share the title in those circumstances- now we don't but you can never claim real dominance when you win on PD as much as you do cherish the championship.

No, what I want is Ireland to take points difference out of the equation by winning our next 4 games. Each game is individually very winnable- of course, we've just had our only game we were locks to win and we could easily lose any of the next 4. But we are probably marginal favourites in each of the next 4 games. Regardless if we win 3 out of 4 I'm happy enough, 2 out of 4 or lower is a massive disappointment. The championship will look after itself.

100% agree notch. bragging rights are mostly important to the insecure only. players and teams know that when they lose a match they cant claim to be undisputably the best.

quinsforever wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i said flukey at the time. i think i even said it half way through the scotland match, that the lack of points scored in truly abominable conditions were likely to determine the championship winner. not knowing that it would be ireland that won. just that england might not because of worms and rain.

that, my friends, is the definition of serendipity, just not from england's perspective.

quins in most aspects of life there is an inverse correlation between success and value, seems to me with all things being equal your lack of success in the 6 Nations has lead to your frankly cynical inability to accept you lost fair and square. Nothing less sportsmanlike i have to say.

On the contrary your valuation of the RWC is due to the relative success England have enjoyed in it.

i think you meant to say there is a strong positive correlation between success and value which i would agree with. people who are successful at anything can usually extract value (ie get paid - the only way to objectively assess "value") for doing it.

double England are the most successful side in the competition. which is anyway completely irrelevant as to why i prefer RWC. the point is i dont care that Ireland won last year. I am laughing at all those who think that just because ireland fluked the necessary points difference to become champions last year, they are somehow runaway favourites against a significantly stronger England this year. laughable logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship

Overall[edit]

England
France
Ireland
Italy
Scotland
Wales
Tournaments 118 85 120 15 120 120
Outright Wins (Shared Wins)
Home Nations 5 (4) NA 4 (4) NA 9 (2) 7 (4)
Five Nations 17 (6) 12 (8) 6 (5) NA 5 (6) 15 (8)
Six Nations 4 5 2 0 0 4
Overall 26 (10) 17 (8) 12 (9) 0 (0) 14 (8) 26 (12)
Grand Slams
Home Nations 0 NA 0 NA 0 2
Five Nations 11 6 1 NA 3 6
Six Nations 1 3 1 0 0 3
Overall 12 9 2 0 3 11
Triple Crowns
Home Nations 5 NA 2 NA 7 6
Five Nations 16 NA 4 NA 3 11
Six Nations 3 NA 4 NA 0 3
Overall 24 NA 10 NA 10 20
Wooden Spoons
Home Nations 11 NA 15 NA 8 8
Five Nations 14 17 21 NA 21 12
Six Nations 0 1 0 10 3 1
Overall 25 18 36 10 32 21

You're right Quins, mea culpa. But of course having not won a Grand Slam in 12 years and only 1 competition since 2003, England's status as serious contenders is negligible. We always go through this every year, England start well and finish very badly then they indulge in carping about worms and referees and PD's etc. Bad losers.

And for you surely it is inverse, as success goes up your value goes down, or at least remains constant because you say it is a flawed competition (about which you spend interminable hours debating on a sports forum on sunday night when you should be getting lagered or fighting with your missus)

quinsforever wrote:i am feeling a rather familiar feeling....kind of like goosebumps...or an itch...or a scratch that i just cant quite get rid of...

I am sure you are used to getting those man rashes once in a while.

QF can you at least post a table that one can read without having to count the columns each time. Thanks

PS: your team should have forfeited last year 6N after failing to beat us , the wooden spooner. And yet you said it's a fluke that Ireland won !

yes sorry about the table. its from wikipedia and i cant be bothered to reformat. posted the original link too i think.

well if we eliminate all the matches against france, as obviously france are so inconsistent, then we got a slam last year and we wouldnt be having this pointless discussion about points differences

Jesus!  Now we can eliminate a factor like France and/or loss just to be able to make the argument that Ireland didn't lose to France sound like another 'fluke'???


Quins...you're steamrolling yourself into knots here

This year I'm eliminating England from discussion of the 6N. If we lose to them, it won't count and we'll probably go on and win the Slam easily from there - or at least the Six Nations title, with France second.