Who'll top the choking table on Saturday night?

First topic message reminder :

Wales will consider themselves having played badly and to have choked to a certain extent if they can't put enough points on Italy to at least set a target for Ireland. 20 point win would probably just about keep them from the top of the choke table.

Ireland must look to win by at least 30 points against the wooden spoon no-hopers of Scotland. It's Ireland's tournament to lose. Anything else would put them firmly at the top of the choke table.

Neither England or France can really be expected to win, so no real choke points up for grabs in this rubber.

Thought?

Griff wrote:30 points?! Nice WUM. Losing away to Italy might be choking. But any team would have to do very well to beat them by 30 clear points. VERY well. Ireland have never done it (in Italy). The All Blacks just about did it last time, but the time before only managed 14 points difference. The springboks haven't managed it in Italy the last 3 times.

Winning would be great. A 15 point win would be a very good result. 30 point win would be exceptional I think.

Results proved there was no WUM. Every team knew the minimum they had to achieve, did so and then some. The situation was exceptional in that regard because it's normally good enough to go out and win so once a team has won they ease off. I don't know if you still play Griff, but it's damn hard to go through the pain and exertion unless you really have to - that's why these games were exceptional one-offs.

doctor_grey wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nobody choked.  Everybody needed as many scores as possible and that inevitably creates space and opportunity for the opposition.

The strange thing for me looking at each game (and no disrespect to France, Scotland or Italy) but each game I saw one team going for something that didn't even involve the other side - not mentally.  
It was as if the other sides didn't even exist - Ireland, Wales and England were playing against scorelines - and when that psychology came into it, all games became very strange.  

Yes, Italy scored, yes, Scotland scored, yes France scored - but each time you could see it was simply a recalibration of a scoreline requirement for Ireland, Wales and England.  The opposition were a distraction (and a BIG one in France's case) but never the enemy.  The enemy was the clock counting down to 80.

It's hard to explain but it was fascinating to see the games that could be played when the enemy wasn't actually the opposing team at all.

Fly - these are my thoughts exactly. It was very strange - these games weren't regular contests at all, it was very, dare I say it, "meta"! As such, for all the hyperbole about the tries scored (which were fun!) and drama (which was unbearable), I couldn't count any of the games as classic contests - including the Eng/France match - since they were something very different. Amazing what the build up did to the psychology of the teams in blue.

It was indeed something very different.  But, in my mind, it wasn't Rugby.  In fact, I found it something very un-Rugby.  It was very dramatic.  Simply going out to run up as big a score as possible is not what we are, or should, be about:  Win the match, prove dominance if possible, but never disrespect to the opponent.  This took disrespect to a very high level.  

DG - I have big respect for your posts in general but this one I'm afraid is nonsense. The rules of the tournament include points difference so not to include them means having no mechanism to anoint a champion. What would you have - a three-way share?
There was no "disrespect" on show in the games I watched. Normally teams just have to win rather than rack up a score. It could be argued that 'putting a team to the sword' when all that is required is a win is perhaps showing disrespect, but scoring as many points as possible in a format where it's required is actually the opposite. All the teams respected the tournament by playing to it's rules and showing how much they wanted to win. Italy and Scotland kept playing and trying for the full 80. The only hint of not trying I detected was at Twickenham where some French players dawdled about and didn't bust themselves in defence when the game was obviously gone, and I still can't make up my mind about the tap and go at the end - what on earth was that about?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Griff wrote:30 points?! Nice WUM. Losing away to Italy might be choking. But any team would have to do very well to beat them by 30 clear points. VERY well. Ireland have never done it (in Italy). The All Blacks just about did it last time, but the time before only managed 14 points difference. The springboks haven't managed it in Italy the last 3 times.

Winning would be great. A 15 point win would be a very good result. 30 point win would be exceptional I think.

Results proved there was no WUM. Every team knew the minimum they had to achieve, did so and then some. The situation was exceptional in that regard because it's normally good enough to go out and win so once a team has won they ease off. I don't know if you still play Griff, but it's damn hard to go through the pain and exertion unless you really have to - that's why these games were exceptional one-offs.

Well, I'm happy to eat my words and be proven wrong. But I stand by my point: expecting a team to set a new points record (which for Wales stood at around 39 against Italy beforehand) as a measure of being a choker or not was a bit daft. Winning or losing maybe. But cricket score as a measure of chokingness??? My point being that if wales had won by, say, 35 points then that should still be seen as a very good win and not a choke just because they hadn't reached 40. But they did it, which was really surprising. A very nice suprise.

Some posters are saying that this was non-rugby or anti- rugby. But for me that was one of the most enjoyable days of rugby the 6 nations has thrown up in a very long time. The Blue teams could have just used spoiling tactics instead in order to attempt to compete. However, they seemed to rise the challenge somewhat and meet fire with fire (met running rugby with running rugby). It was a joy to watch. But I was in the pub and I was mildly sozzled, so that might have helped!

The real question is: why can't we all play like that every week?!

Griff - I don't think the thread was meant to be the definitive textbook on a team's mental fortitude!
There were plenty of pundits from various countries predicting a Welsh championship, so by inference that implied at least a 30 point winning margin over Italy - with England already being 25 ahead. The 30 point "cricket score" was something that these guys (Jiffy, Martyn Williams, Eddie O'Sullivan etc.) would require if Wales were to win as they were predicting.

Teams can play like that every week, but they don't need to because usually all they have to do is just win.