The NH 4Ns

First topic message reminder :

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

Sounds boring- like what we have now with less teams, less variety, less historic rivalries and less nations and fans involved.

A big NO to excluding nations and yes to finding ways to bring other nations up to Six Nations standard.

Romania are almost ready to join the big guns. Their top clubs are already on budgets of around 2million euro! It will be interesting to see how they get on in the Amlin as the thrown together Bucharest Wolves are no longer competing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

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.

Since 2010 the Boks played 60 tests. They won 2 versus the ABs.
In that same time NH sides played the Boks
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.

Since 2010 the Boks have beaten the ABs twice. That is the only way they can get points. In that same period NH sides have played the Boks 27 times- Wales x 7, England x 5, Ireland x 4. So you are saying that the reason the Boks are ahead of those 3 sides is because of two solitary wins versus the ABs and not because of the fact that the majority of those matches with the NH were lost...please...

Who cares about since 2010 this is the here and now, in the same timescale that Ireland have won 11 in a row, South Africa have lost four times but mainly because of those two solitary recent wins they are still ranked second.

Because of home and away and who they've played where. I'm not saying the system is perfect but it's not a terrible miscarriage of justice to see SA 2nd is it?

No it isn't. They have more points and therefore they deserve it.

I see the rankings as cold science. No emotion involved, no bias. Just facts. SA are 2nd.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: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.

I agree, with one correction.

Taylorman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

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.

Since 2010 the Boks played 60 tests. They won 2 versus the ABs.
In that same time NH sides played the Boks
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.

Since 2010 the Boks have beaten the ABs twice. That is the only way they can get points. In that same period NH sides have played the Boks 27 times- Wales x 7, England x 5, Ireland x 4. So you are saying that the reason the Boks are ahead of those 3 sides is because of two solitary wins versus the ABs and not because of the fact that the majority of those matches with the NH were lost...please...

Ireland only have themselves to blame for the paucity of their fixture list. They chose to tour Argentina this summer, and duck the all blacks in the autumn to take on the mighty Georgia. The summer before that they went to North America and had Samoa to visit instead of SA.

To be ranked second and to merit the tag "second best team in the world" they need to go away and beat one of the top teams. They havent done that in a dickins of a long time (Were england top 3 in 2012?) , and lets not forget what happened the last time they actually did take on a SANZAR away.

Dont blame their lack of participation in the 4 nations, its a red herring. Ireland have the world cup to change that, in double points games on neutral(ish) territory. Only they pulled a soft group so may only get one shot at taking on a top two team and losing the final.

Duckers

At least now we're getting a mention when the 'elites' talk to each other

We're all so familiar with the four way circus it usually is -
"We beat yous then but yous never played us to win."  
"But we beat everyone and anyone in the lead up to us winning, you choked for ever so long though." 
"Not as long as you've been choking since the last time yis won!"

The old four way love-in show - All Blacks, South Africa, Australia and England.

At least we're getting an honourable mention in the early dispatches about the World Cup this time.  Of course we'll disappear from the airwaves when the real show approaches.  Hanson will be talking about England.  Lancaster will be talking about Australia.  Cheika will be talking about how much he's going to have to pay out of his own pocket to pay for door and window repairs......

Both Ireland and Wales have a big opportunity to upset the established order at the World Cup later this year.

Wales have a shot at knocking either England or Australia out at the Group Stage, which would be a massive blow to either of those traditional WC heavyweights, and Ireland will be a horrid side to face in the knockouts. The variety of play that Schmidt has worked on, the kicking game of Sexton combined with the Irish aerial skills and the very strong breakdown skills of the Irish pack make them awkward opposition. If they can get Healy and O'Brien fully fit and firing then I can see Ireland making at least a WC semi-final.

Ireland are a one-player reliant team, and Sexton will have his beef cubes doctored long before the RWC.

It's posts like this that make people in Scotland want independence; why, apart from the fact that England is England and therefore has a bizarre right that it has believed in for about 1000 years to instruct other nations to do as it pleases, would the English have the right to remove Scotland from the Six Nations? We have been in there as long as them and have as much right to the Six Nations as England does.
Furthermore if you look at the all time table of the original 5 Ireland are last place yet no one wants them removed, Wales had an enormous blip in in the nineties right up to 2005, France at the moment are dogshite. Coupled with the fact Scotland pushed New Zealand as close, if not closer, than any other nation in the Autumn, thrashed Argentina and Tonga in the Autumn, as well as playing well enough to beat France and losing out due to a couple of weird bounces of the ball and then narrowly losing to Wales in a game that featured some fairly dubious decisions. We also should have beaten Italy and only just lost to a Tier One team even with an atrocious second half and our fourth choice Fly-Half playing poorly.
I would suspect that rather than this being a genuine attempt at discussion Portnoy that you are a sad little man attempting to provoke anger and annoyance, and admittedly you have succeeded, from a group of people already extremely fed up with losing. To paraphrase Kevin Keegan "I'd love it if we beat you".
Perhaps you should look at your own nation's culture of ignoring results and instead promising yourselves that the closer the world cup is, in frankly any sport, the better you are and as such you should win.

Why the English 123 as it appears to be 1 poster. You re also ignoring results to aid your post as well I wouldnt wven think to calling that Scottish culture.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why the English 123 as it appears to be 1 poster. You re also ignoring results to aid your post as well I wouldnt wven think to calling that Scottish culture.

That's fair enough maybe I've been stereotypical but, living in England, I've become fed up with people who haven't the faintest clue about rugby voicing the same views on the back of one poor display. And what results did I need? Check the facts they'll back up what I've said.

123456789

I don't think it's personal by Port.  If Ireland were at the bottom or Wales were at the bottom in the last few years, Port would be saying the same - get rid of the hanger-ons at the bottom and go 4.

Getting rid of 'hanger-ons' is all the rage in polite society these days.

Get rid of the bottom of the Pro12 from Europe.
Get rid of the promotion seekers trying to get into the AP
Get rid of the Cap
Get rid of the Lions............. (that's mine )

Get rid of [fill in your personal choice] to better 'grow' rugby is all the rage.

Don't feel too bad about it.  The fashion sense will change again in time when the new idea will be to get rid of the 6N entirely and invent a new combined 'big biz and fireworks show' with the SH top sides.... played in a neutral destination like the Sahara desert or the Amazon rain forest.

SecretFly wrote:At least now we're getting a mention when the 'elites' talk to each other

We're all so familiar with the four way circus it usually is -
"We beat yous then but yous never played us to win."  
"But we beat everyone and anyone in the lead up to us winning, you choked for ever so long though." 
"Not as long as you've been choking since the last time yis won!"

The old four way love-in show - All Blacks, South Africa, Australia and England.

At least we're getting an honourable mention in the early dispatches about the World Cup this time.  Of course we'll disappear from the airwaves when the real show approaches.  Hanson will be talking about England.  Lancaster will be talking about Australia.  Cheika will be talking about how much he's going to have to pay out of his own pocket to pay for door and window repairs......

Hansen about England? I think he's much more comfortable about England now. Not often we get to play them 5 times in a short timeframe. He's got them worked out since 2012.

Worst thing that happened to England was to beat NZ in 2012. They haven't played one match of that calibre since and have gone backwards, believing their own press for too long after that win.

Likewise, Ireland losing their's in 2013 has made them tougher I believe. Given them the belief they can compete at the top but without the big head that might have come with the win.

Ireland, feet well rooted in the reality floor will be watched with a microscope believe me.

Going for the ABs is The pressure they always apply on Sexton who hasn't had a good one yet against them. What we've seen him do to others is absent vs NZ. Sexton will be the focus in any NZ Ireland match.

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:At least now we're getting a mention when the 'elites' talk to each other

We're all so familiar with the four way circus it usually is -
"We beat yous then but yous never played us to win."  
"But we beat everyone and anyone in the lead up to us winning, you choked for ever so long though." 
"Not as long as you've been choking since the last time yis won!"

The old four way love-in show - All Blacks, South Africa, Australia and England.

At least we're getting an honourable mention in the early dispatches about the World Cup this time.  Of course we'll disappear from the airwaves when the real show approaches.  Hanson will be talking about England.  Lancaster will be talking about Australia.  Cheika will be talking about how much he's going to have to pay out of his own pocket to pay for door and window repairs......

Hansen about England? I think he's much more comfortable about England now.

I didn't suggest he'd be thinking of England, Taylor, but that he'd be talking about about them - playing the media circus game etc etc.  It was a humourous jab at the idea that all small fry sides will play a small fry role in the publicity lead in to the World Cup.  Coaches will be doing the routines of talking about the sides that habitually get most publicity at World Cups - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and England.
But a humorously meant post, Taylor, as I felt my last allusion to Cheika might have proved.

123...

forums are where these discussions happen. scotland would never be dropped from the 6Ns. the history and tradition of that match are far more important to me than the 6Ns imo. cool your heels on the anti-Albion stuff fella.

grudge matches are what rugby is all about.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:At least now we're getting a mention when the 'elites' talk to each other

We're all so familiar with the four way circus it usually is -
"We beat yous then but yous never played us to win."  
"But we beat everyone and anyone in the lead up to us winning, you choked for ever so long though." 
"Not as long as you've been choking since the last time yis won!"

The old four way love-in show - All Blacks, South Africa, Australia and England.

At least we're getting an honourable mention in the early dispatches about the World Cup this time.  Of course we'll disappear from the airwaves when the real show approaches.  Hanson will be talking about England.  Lancaster will be talking about Australia.  Cheika will be talking about how much he's going to have to pay out of his own pocket to pay for door and window repairs......

Hansen about England? I think he's much more comfortable about England now.

I didn't suggest he'd be thinking of England, Taylor, but that he'd be talking about about them - playing the media circus game etc etc.  It was a humourous jab at the idea that all small fry sides will play a small fry role in the publicity lead in to the World Cup.  Coaches will be doing the routines of talking about the sides that habitually get most publicity at World Cups - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and England.
But a humorously meant post, Taylor, as I felt my last allusion to Cheika might have proved.

Yep, I just don't think he'll talk about anyone outside our group. Plus Cheikas doing double shifts to pay for the doors now. The organisers should put loud bells and hooters on all the doors, plus a robust cctv camera with auto load to YouTube so we all get to see and hear his thoughts ...real time!

Well done Georgia for rising above Italy in the IRB rankings yesterday.