The NH 4Ns

Well as the Italy experiment has clearly failed and Scotland are a whizz-bang cracker that usually disappoints, why not (apart from contracts, litigation and the ire of Salmond) just drop the pretence of a Six Nations and have a home and away 4Ns instead?

The qualification for entry would be based on an extract of European v European teams from the IRB rankings.

Each year we could have worthy winner unbiased by the odd-even home/away years.

I'm sure that Romania, Georgia, Spain, Russia, Portugal etc. wouldn't complain.

What holds rugby back is glass ceilings.

Six Nations All-Time Table (2000–2014)

(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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship#Six_Nations_2000.E2.80.93present

I'll never be able to understand the point of such a thread. Where this obsession comes from? the 3N embraced Argentina and very well done. A few people would love to play against the same 2/3 opponents year after year. Why? What for? and funny things many of them are form countries who, bar England (just for inches to be honest), have lost and keep on losing to Italy and Scotland, or in many cases just have to fight hard to beat them. What's the point?

I'd like playoffs with the 6 Nations B winner (or whatever it's called) and 6 nations bottom. But keep 6. The European international structure is based on 6 team competitions.

I think the point is giving other teams more chances to play versus 6N teams. only in this way you can check their consistence and the possibility to change the format. remember that before we've have been adimitted into the 5N we had to kick some asses for few years, it took quite long for us to earn the right to be here.

Au contraire mon ami....straight away we should use the current 'bye' weekends to expand to an 8 Nation competition to include Romania & Georgia.

And for the top 4 nations as you call them, well they could use these games as opportunities to try their alternative combinations or developing players and so they would be an excellent introductory tool into international rugby, as i'm sure away games in these nations infront of full crowds would be wonderful tests/examinations of individuals/teams.

Plus an extra great 'away' for the fans to enjoy.

kingelderfield wrote:Au contraire mon ami....straight away we should use the current 'bye' weekends to expand to an 8 Nation competition to include Romania & Georgia.

And for the top 4 nations as you call them, well they could use these games as opportunities to try their alternative combinations or developing players and so they would be an excellent introductory tool into international rugby, as i'm sure away games in these nations infront of full crowds would be wonderful tests/examinations of individuals/teams.

Plus an extra great 'away' for the fans to enjoy.

better idea for sure

Portnoy, I read the first few lines of this and realized that you have made these threads before.

I'll say it once more. When Romania, Georgia, Spain, Russia, Portugal can beat Italy and Scotland on a consistant basis then I could perhaps agree.

You want these teams to progress? Perhaps NH teams should play them in the Autumn instead of trying to make money by selling out the stadiums for SH opposition?

The beauty of a 4Ns competition would be to have home and away competition to produce a 'proper' champion.

It could also inspire the 2nd/3rd tier nations in their quests to achieve a place at the top table. Is Italy better than Georgia at rugby even after 15 1/2 years of pampering? I don't think so.

Plus a 4Ns requires only one more game than the 6Ns. But it does require a leap of faith to try. So it won't happen.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Portnoy, I read the first few lines of this and realized that you have made these threads before.

I'll say it once more. When Romania, Georgia, Spain, Russia, Portugal can beat Italy and Scotland on a consistant basis then I could perhaps agree.

You want these teams to progress? Perhaps NH teams should play them in the Autumn instead of trying to make money by selling out the stadiums for SH opposition?

We did

But the point here is what rights do England, Ireland, Wales and France have to prop up each other's International World Rugby ranking points at the expense of Scotland and Italy being kicked out of the competition that facilitates said 'points getting'?

Points win prizes they say and there have been many a robust debate here about World Cup pools - who should be in them and who shouldn't.  The current one is Wales feeling a little hard-done by to be in the same pool as England and Australia based on points awarded years ago.

So.... we know that the SH three prop up the 'rankings' between them by meeting each other more often than they meet us.  The same would be true of the exclusive 'four' in a 4N.  Perpetuating their own topdom; and indeed, helping each other stay there by limiting Scotland and Italy's ability to keep their competitiveness up by playing 'topdom' sides.

The beauty of a 4Ns competition would be to have home and away competition to produce a 'proper' champion.

It could also inspire the 2nd/3rd tier nations in their quests to achieve a place at the top table. Is Italy better than Georgia at rugby even after 15 1/2 years of pampering? I don't think so.

Plus a 4Ns requires only one more game than the 6Ns. But it does require a leap of faith to try. So it won't happen.

It wouldn't require a leap of faith from the top...only the bottom, Port - as it would be the bottom that had to walk the plank.

SecretFly wrote:

So.... we know that the SH three prop up the 'rankings' between them by meeting each other more often than they meet us.

Oh that Ol wives tale again.

Then why are oz suddenly down to fifth?

Because.....fiiiiiiinally...NH sides have started beating them more often where they weren't previously.

The only way a side ranked 1-3 can go below 3 is to lose to a lower ranked side, but since that hardly happens overall, they stay there. The ABs don't get points off anyone by beating the other two. Oz and SA don't often get points off NZ because wins aren't commonly lately, leaving oz and SA fulfilling this prophecy if yours?

Movement out of / into the top 3 will only happen when 4 and below win more, no matter how you shape your 2,3,4,5,6,7,8N

And given the implication on World Cup pools etc, I wouldn't be a fan of this for many of the reasons stated above

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

So.... we know that the SH three prop up the 'rankings' between them by meeting each other more often than they meet us.

Oh that Ol wives tale again.

Then why are oz suddenly down to fifth?

Nothing old wives about it - a scientific numerical fact of numbers clashing frequently and helping hoist and lower each other within a specific frequency.
Australia is an anomaly to the condition at the moment not proof that it doesn't exist.

Why would Wales go ahead of Australia next weekend? (a team they are finding it very difficult to beat on the field) - Because they'd be stealing sufficient points from a 3rd placed side in their Competition.  Downs are never so down and highs get pretty high in the SH competition.

That's just how it is and not a comment on quality of rugby at all.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The beauty of a 4Ns competition would be to have home and away competition to produce a 'proper' champion.

It could also inspire the 2nd/3rd tier nations in their quests to achieve a place at the top table. Is Italy better than Georgia at rugby even after 15 1/2 years of pampering? I don't think so.

Plus a 4Ns requires only one more game than the 6Ns. But it does require a leap of faith to try. So it won't happen.

yes we are. we are good enough to beat France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Argentina, Samoa, Fiji. We are good enough to force Australia and England players to kick the ball out at the end of the match and hugging each other for the win. When and if the teams you talk about will be able to do it then we can talk about it. Or, simply let's have relegations, so Italy, Scotland, France, Ireland and Wales will be relegated and we'll play the 6N B at some point, considering ALL of them, not just Italy, sometimes and somehow have come at the bottom of the table.
I think too much talk even for England, considering in the last 4 years twice you just managed to get fortunate wins against Italy, both home and away.

Ireland have never finished bottom. A 4N would give us the best team in the NH but I never want to see it.

aqualung71 wrote: Or, simply let's have relegations, so Italy, Scotland, France, Ireland and Wales will be relegated and we'll play the 6N B at some point, considering ALL of them, not just Italy, sometimes and somehow have come at the bottom of the table.

England? Don't be missing anyone out of the relegation bucket, lung

And we've been low once or twice but never last.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

So.... we know that the SH three prop up the 'rankings' between them by meeting each other more often than they meet us.

Oh that Ol wives tale again.

Then why are oz suddenly down to fifth?

Nothing old wives about it - a scientific numerical fact of numbers clashing frequently and helping hoist and lower each other within a specific frequency.
Australia is an anomaly to the condition at the moment not proof that it doesn't exist.

Why would Wales go ahead of Australia next weekend? (a team they are finding it very difficult to beat on the field) - Because they'd be stealing sufficient points from a 3rd placed side in their Competition.  Downs are never so down and highs get pretty high in the SH competition.

That's just how it is and not a comment on quality of rugby at all.

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

Italy has won about 20% of their matches this decade so far. In the 90s Ireland won 23% of 6 nations matches. Let's give these countries some time.

I'd like to see more matches against tier 2 nations. That would help them massively. Play European sides more.

Ah yes, Portnoy's annual thread, cut and pasted from the previous 5 years with updated stats!

My answer remains the same. The attraction of the 6 Nations is the historic rivalry between the participants. Take that away and you lose a lot.

ok ut you all what I meant it's like I'd propose "why the football world cup? let's just have a smaller tournement between Italy, Germany, Brasil, Argentina, Spain, France.. in the end they're the only teams who win it, where the point in letting England play, they won 50 years ago and full stop....."

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest. After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world. SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

profitius wrote: In the 90s Ireland won 23% of 6 nations matches.

I'm afraid in the 90s our record wasn't that good. We didn't win one six nations game in that decade.

SecretFly wrote:

profitius wrote: In the 90s Ireland won 23% of 6 nations matches.

I'm afraid in the 90s our record wasn't that good.  We didn't win one six nations game in that decade.

you'd should play vs Spain then...

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest.  After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world.  SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

You are assuming England will win matches. Argentina did exactly that, and have won one from 18 is it, and are ranked? 8th?

It still requires a NH side to beat a SH side, my original point.

Being in the same company doesn't assume results...are Italy ranked any higher?

SecretFly wrote:

profitius wrote: In the 90s Ireland won 23% of 6 nations matches.

I'm afraid in the 90s our record wasn't that good.  We didn't win one six nations game in that decade.

Well with your 5 Nations record in the 1990s Portnoy would have probably had your relegated into a competion with Estonia, Lavia and Lithuania. Wales too. In fact he'd have probably created a two way tournament where England and France could just play each other repeatedly throughout the season......

England are the only team Italy haven't beaten so for me they have proved their worth. Ok they may not challenge for the top but they have a say in the outcome and don't forget when France first came in they were terrible to start.

In the 90 we (Wales) were an utter shambles and only won sporadically, whereas England dominated but have not won a Slam since 03, how long was it before Ireland won etc etc.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

profitius wrote: In the 90s Ireland won 23% of 6 nations matches.

I'm afraid in the 90s our record wasn't that good.  We didn't win one six nations game in that decade.

Well with your 5 Nations record in the 1990s Portnoy would have probably had your relegated into a competion with Estonia, Lavia and Lithuania. Wales too. In fact he'd have probably created a two way tournament where England and France could just play each other repeatedly throughout the season......

not very enterteining right?

bedfordwelsh wrote:England are the only team Italy haven't beaten so for me they have proved their worth.  Ok they may not challenge for the top but they have a say in the outcome and don't forget when France first came in they were terrible to start.

In the 90 we (Wales) were an utter shambles and only won sporadically, whereas England dominated but have not won a Slam since 03, how long was it before Ireland won etc etc.  

+1

There are cycles to these things, and whilst certain teams will also top the statistics over the longer term (greater playing number/resources etc), the beauty of the game is the constant refreshing of teams with new players etc. means that teams can have purple patches of success, whilst others regroup.

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest.  After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world.  SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

You are assuming England will win matches. Argentina did exactly that, and have won one from 18 is it, and are ranked? 8th?

It still requires a NH side to beat a SH side, my original point.

Being in the same company doesn't assume results.

Are you saying England would remain a 4th to 5th ranked side if they regularly played New Zealand and Australia and Argentina in the SH Championship? Beating the AB three or four time in a three or four year period (having had more opportunity to do so than usual), as well as beating a good few 6N sides in any AIs or summer games....................... that wouldn't notch up their ranking? It would. It would go up because they Would beat the AB a few times and they Would steal nice points by doing so.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

profitius wrote: In the 90s Ireland won 23% of 6 nations matches.

I'm afraid in the 90s our record wasn't that good.  We didn't win one six nations game in that decade.

Well with your 5 Nations record in the 1990s Portnoy would have probably had your relegated into a competion with Estonia, Lavia and Lithuania. Wales too. In fact he'd have probably created a two way tournament where England and France could just play each other repeatedly throughout the season......

Don't go hitting on me! I'm on your side

funnyExiledScot wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:England are the only team Italy haven't beaten so for me they have proved their worth.  Ok they may not challenge for the top but they have a say in the outcome and don't forget when France first came in they were terrible to start.

In the 90 we (Wales) were an utter shambles and only won sporadically, whereas England dominated but have not won a Slam since 03, how long was it before Ireland won etc etc.  

+1

There are cycles to these things, and whilst certain teams will also top the statistics over the longer term (greater playing number/resources etc), the beauty of the game is the constant refreshing of teams with new players etc. means that teams can have purple patches of success, whilst others regroup.

clear and fair

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest.  After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world.  SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

You are assuming England will win matches. Argentina did exactly that, and have won one from 18 is it, and are ranked? 8th?

It still requires a NH side to beat a SH side, my original point.

Being in the same company doesn't assume results.

Are you saying England would remain a 4th to 5th ranked side if they regularly played New Zealand and Australia and Argentina in the SH Championship?  Beating the AB three or four time in a three or four year period (having had more opportunity to do so than usual), as well as beating a good few 6N sides in any AIs or summer games.......................  that wouldn't notch up their ranking?  It would.  It would go up because they Would beat the AB a few times and they Would steal nice points by doing so.

Oz and SA don't beat NZ 3 or 4 times in that time...they've both won two each since 2010 so if they can't what makes you think England will double that? Away from home? The best time NH sides have of beating NZ are in the NH at the end of our season when we are stuffed. But even then NZ has only lost one EOYT match (2012) since 2002!

England haven't won in NZ since 1973.

I get your reasoning but it still assumes that increased familiarity results in more chance of winning when in both Argentinas and Italy's experience they are both no better than any of the sides due to 'increased frequency' as when they were before they joined up. Argentina is still no higher than any more 6n sides than it was before.

Well Taylorman, I'm talking about the top of the list...first 5 or 6 in the World ranking. Those sides keep each other in the same rough territory each season simply on the dynamics of meetings and points scored.
Scoring points - even without a win - is still incrementally propping up ranking. Less than 15 - more than 15 stuff.
ABs are undoubtedly the side everyone struggles to stay competitive with - but the other two can be helped out a good bit at times in the rankings by being your common sparring partners

England would go up in the rankings if they were consistently better than the teams currently ahead of them .
They arent.
"Only" playing 6 games a year against the SANZARs isnt whats keeping them ranked around 4th.

I just think the rankings are about right, no matter who plays who, where, and no matter how much you mix them up they'll generally come out the same.

The England scenario could make them worse. They could enter the 6N, lose all their matches bar Argie, then go north and lose to the sides they occasionally lose to up there...France, Ireland and Wales all have their good share these days. That would push those sides ahead of England.
So it still requires England to be 'better' than they normally are and to date increased frequency doesn't support that, Italy and Argie the only recent examples.

But despite the fact that they're lower rated, you inferred a scientifically proven mathematical fact, so that shouldn't be a factor. Familiarity hasn't increased ranking, so doesn't support that theory...yet at least.

Gooseberry wrote:England would go up in the rankings if they were consistently better than the teams currently ahead of them .
They arent.
"Only" playing 6 games a year against the SANZARs isnt whats keeping them ranked around 4th.

By the law of averages it probably does.  The more you play a side, instantly your chances of beating them increase - PLUS - increased familiarity leads to another incremental increase in the chances of winning.  Playing a side more increases the chances of winning - and Italy on this occasion ARE an example that can be used to illustrate the point.  They've now beaten all except England.  And only a few seasons ago beat Ireland and France in the one 6N.  You don't do that unless you get the repeat chances to do it

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:England would go up in the rankings if they were consistently better than the teams currently ahead of them .
They arent.
"Only" playing 6 games a year against the SANZARs isnt whats keeping them ranked around 4th.

By the law of averages it probably does.  The more you play a side, instantly your chances of beating them increase - PLUS - increased familiarity leads to another incremental increase in the chances of winning.  Playing a side more increases the chances of winning - and Italy on this occasion ARE an example that can be used to illustrate the point.  They've now beaten all except England.  And only a few seasons ago beat Ireland and France in the one 6N.  You don't do that unless you get the repeat chances to do it

And that goes both ways does it?

It goes every way - as the line already infers...

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The beauty of a 4Ns competition would be to have home and away competition to produce a 'proper' champion.

It could also inspire the 2nd/3rd tier nations in their quests to achieve a place at the top table. Is Italy better than Georgia at rugby even after 15 1/2 years of pampering? I don't think so.

Plus a 4Ns requires only one more game than the 6Ns. But it does require a leap of faith to try. So it won't happen.

Despite results showing that to be the case?

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:England would go up in the rankings if they were consistently better than the teams currently ahead of them .
They arent.
"Only" playing 6 games a year against the SANZARs isnt whats keeping them ranked around 4th.

By the law of averages it probably does.  The more you play a side, instantly your chances of beating them increase - PLUS - increased familiarity leads to another incremental increase in the chances of winning.  Playing a side more increases the chances of winning - and Italy on this occasion ARE an example that can be used to illustrate the point.  They've now beaten all except England.  And only a few seasons ago beat Ireland and France in the one 6N.  You don't do that unless you get the repeat chances to do it

Yes but the whole point here is the impact on rankings. Italy have never moved past anyone. Nor has Argie. They might win more, but they also lose more. This is a rankings based issue, not an ability to win more times, that is a given.

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest.  After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world.  SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

You are assuming England will win matches. Argentina did exactly that, and have won one from 18 is it, and are ranked? 8th?

It still requires a NH side to beat a SH side, my original point.

Being in the same company doesn't assume results...are Italy ranked any higher?

You've just proven the point that you are trying to disprove, Argentina are ranked 8th despite very rarely winning matches but because they play the tri-nations fairly often their ranking is higher than it should be.

South Africa lost to both Ireland and Wales in the autumn but what difference did that make to their ranking? Absolutely none because it is weighted in favour of the SH nations.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest.  After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world.  SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

You are assuming England will win matches. Argentina did exactly that, and have won one from 18 is it, and are ranked? 8th?

It still requires a NH side to beat a SH side, my original point.

Being in the same company doesn't assume results...are Italy ranked any higher?

You've just proven the point that you are trying to disprove, Argentina are ranked 8th despite very rarely winning matches but because they play the tri-nations fairly often their ranking is higher than it should be.

South Africa lost to both Ireland and Wales in the autumn but what difference did that make to their ranking? Absolutely none because it is weighted in favour of the SH nations.

Rubbish. Theyre 8th now, they were 8th before. The theory says they should be higher. They're not.

SA didn't go down because they had sufficient points to stay at second. They didn't get those from the ABs, and oz are 5th so exactly how is it weighted in SAs favour do tell?

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:England would go up in the rankings if they were consistently better than the teams currently ahead of them .
They arent.
"Only" playing 6 games a year against the SANZARs isnt whats keeping them ranked around 4th.

By the law of averages it probably does.  The more you play a side, instantly your chances of beating them increase - PLUS - increased familiarity leads to another incremental increase in the chances of winning.  Playing a side more increases the chances of winning - and Italy on this occasion ARE an example that can be used to illustrate the point.  They've now beaten all except England.  And only a few seasons ago beat Ireland and France in the one 6N.  You don't do that unless you get the repeat chances to do it

Yes but the whole point here is the impact on rankings. Italy have never moved past anyone. Nor has Argie. They might win more, but they also lose more. This is a rankings based issue, not an ability to win more times, that is a given.

sounds wierd to me...

aqualung71 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:England would go up in the rankings if they were consistently better than the teams currently ahead of them .
They arent.
"Only" playing 6 games a year against the SANZARs isnt whats keeping them ranked around 4th.

By the law of averages it probably does.  The more you play a side, instantly your chances of beating them increase - PLUS - increased familiarity leads to another incremental increase in the chances of winning.  Playing a side more increases the chances of winning - and Italy on this occasion ARE an example that can be used to illustrate the point.  They've now beaten all except England.  And only a few seasons ago beat Ireland and France in the one 6N.  You don't do that unless you get the repeat chances to do it

Yes but the whole point here is the impact on rankings. Italy have never moved past anyone. Nor has Argie. They might win more, but they also lose more. This is a rankings based issue, not an ability to win more times, that is a given.

sounds wierd to me...

Argie played oz 6 times more than they would normally have last 3 years.
They won 1, lost 5.

So they won more than they would normally win, they also lost more than they would normally lose...not really that difficult is it?

Oh...and Argie were ranked 7th beg. 2012. Now they're 8th. Some theory ay?

Taylorman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Wales would go up because they beat a 3rd ranked side...my point exactly. And by your reasoning if the 6N were to play each other 3 or 4 times a year each they would assume the top 6 positions.

No they wouldn't because any gains made by any increasing frequency would be undone when the two hemispheres meet, where based on the last few years results those gains would be reversed.

No no.... my reasoning is that if SA were kicked out of your contest and had to go in with the 6N - and if England were dropped into your contest.  After about three to four years - England would be 1st or 2nd in the world.  SA would be down to fourth or fifth.

That's what I'm reasoning.

You are assuming England will win matches. Argentina did exactly that, and have won one from 18 is it, and are ranked? 8th?

It still requires a NH side to beat a SH side, my original point.

Being in the same company doesn't assume results...are Italy ranked any higher?

You've just proven the point that you are trying to disprove, Argentina are ranked 8th despite very rarely winning matches but because they play the tri-nations fairly often their ranking is higher than it should be.

South Africa lost to both Ireland and Wales in the autumn but what difference did that make to their ranking? Absolutely none because it is weighted in favour of the SH nations.

Rubbish. Theyre 8th now, they were 8th before. The theory says they should be higher. They're not.

SA didn't go down because they had sufficient points to stay at second. They didn't get those from the ABs, and oz are 5th so exactly how is it weighted in SAs favour do tell?

It's not rocket science, South Africa for instance are ranked second because winning against New Zealand and Australia means they gain more than also losing to them as well as Wales and Ireland. There is no two ways about it that Ireland should be the number two ranked country in the world right now but they're not because of the SH bias.

South Africa play 1st, 5th and 8th twice every year, Ireland play 4th, 6th and 7th once every year, that is where the bias comes from.

Ireland then could increase their chances by increasing the amount of away games to the SH. Of course they decrease their chances of winning.

The thing that makes me angry about this type of thread, is that Portnoy is clearly on the wind up.

This thread is done practically every single year.

Scotland and Italy have all won matches against "the NH top 4" as the OP suggests and are far more worthy of inclusion in the 6N than teams like Romania, Georgia, Spain, Russia and Portugal. Who have not won matches against "the top" 4 NH teams.

The suggestion that teams like Romania, Georgia, Spain, Russia and Portugal are worthy of inclusion at the expense of Scotland and Italy is frankly hysterical.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Well as the Italy experiment has clearly failed and Scotland are a whizz-bang cracker that usually disappoints, why not (apart from contracts, litigation and the ire of Salmond) just drop the pretence of a Six Nations and have a home and away 4Ns instead?

The qualification for entry would be based on an extract of European v European teams from the IRB rankings.

Each year we could have worthy winner unbiased by the odd-even home/away years.

I'm sure that Romania, Georgia, Spain, Russia, Portugal etc. wouldn't complain.

What holds rugby back is glass ceilings.

Six Nations All-Time Table (2000–2014)

(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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship#Six_Nations_2000.E2.80.93present

It is posts like this that make the Calcutta Cup a great match...



C'monscotland I hope you do a better job on England than the Irish did...