Those 6N's Rivalries

First topic message reminder :

Just curious to see peoples thoughts on this. A lot is made of the whole England v Wales thing, but is that competitive spirit/dislike actually still as strong as it used to be?

For me I'd say the competitive side is as strong as ever. I have nothing against the Welsh, but they are definitely the fans that give out the most banter (digs) and they're the team that's probably caused England the most pain recently. They're also some of the best fans to chat rugby with in person, and from the times when I've randomly ended up watching games alongside them, can take criticism, a loss and a bit of mocking very well (as well as give it out). But they are definitely the team I dread losing to!

On the pitch I feel there are a few scores to settle as well namely that drubbing in Cardiff, and then the RWC loss (shudders). I hope who ever plays for England remembers those two defeats and uses that pain to make them come out with passion and play right on the edge. The 6n's is all about these historic games, where there is so much back story to every meeting, and this years England v Wales should be particularly spicy.

What other big rivalries are there in the 6N's now?

Feel free to let this become the wumming thread too...

Auckland - the british isles, / UK / great Britain/ thing confuses many many folk

No 7&1/2 wrote:Except the media (which is a varied mix of quality and thoughts at the best of times) din't all say or imply that England were heavy favourites. The majority of comments on world cup past form said that NZ hadn't won the WC away from home, no one had won 2 in a row and I've never seen the comment about Joubert giving NZ the world cup let alone replicated across the 'English' media (though you probably meant the British here).

I do not think that this is entirely accurate. I was constantly reading and hearing that all England needed to do, was top their group and then beat New Zealand in the final which in a one off game is not beyond the realms of probability. Wales were dismissed because England were at home, and Australia always lost at Twickenham, despite not having lost there for ages. So I was being led to believe that it was all done and dusted, before a note had been struck.

That is why I found it so sweat when England got knocked out at the group stages, nothing to do with the fans, although I was reading the same guff on here, but that was what I was being peddled before a whistle was blown at the last world cup.

I can understand where aucklandlaurie is coming from, although this is really the first time I have seen all this mentioned on here.

"and Australia always lost at Twickenham, despite not having lost there for ages."

England beat Austrialia in the AI's prior to the WC.

Is there any 'English' media as such ? Mostly UK national coverage. And overseas there is confusion as between England and Britain. And Stephen Jones is not English.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Except the media (which is a varied mix of quality and thoughts at the best of times) din't all say or imply that England were heavy favourites. The majority of comments on world cup past form said that NZ hadn't won the WC away from home, no one had won 2 in a row and I've never seen the comment about Joubert giving NZ the world cup let alone replicated across the 'English' media (though you probably meant the British here).

I do not think that this is entirely accurate. I was constantly reading and hearing that all England needed to do, was top their group and then beat New Zealand in the final which in a one off game is not beyond the realms of probability. Wales were dismissed because England were at home, and Australia always lost at Twickenham, despite not having lost there for ages. So I was being led to believe that it was all done and dusted, before a note had been struck.

That is why I found it so sweat when England got knocked out at the group stages, nothing to do with the fans, although I was reading the same guff on here, but that was what I was being peddled before a whistle was blown at the last world cup.

I can understand where aucklandlaurie is coming from, although this is really the first time I have seen all this mentioned on here.

Really? I've read a few opinions that Ireland had a great chance of a run given their group. I did also read a few things that it was important for England to top the group as it was a much harder run to the final if tehy didn't. I'd be intrigued to read some of these comments saying it was done and dusted. Would be an interesting read indeed. I'd have found it 'sweat' if England had gone through, very hard group as was mentioned everywhere.

Group of death. Everyone in England knew that much.
Recent wins vs Wales and Oz had falsely hopes though.
England were abnormally dire on the days of the group matches.

gregortree wrote:Group of death. Everyone in England knew that much.
Recent wins vs Wales and Oz had falsely hopes though.
England were abnormally dire on the days of the group matches.

Nothing to do with their opposition then ?

munkian wrote:

gregortree wrote:Group of death. Everyone in England knew that much.
Recent wins vs Wales and Oz had falsely hopes though.
England were abnormally dire on the days of the group matches.

Nothing to do with their opposition then ?

It's true, the Aussies played really well.

gregortree wrote:England were abnormally dire on the days of the group matches.

You see, it is quotes like this that give people the impressions they have. No wonder Gwald has a field day with you lot.

You can understand where aucklandlaurie is coming from with quotes like this, it was not that the other teams were better, it was because England were having an abnormal day.

We were really poor. Based on the midfield primarily. We moved, or were forced, to use 2 brick out houses.

Aus played us really well, and the ref. We obviously hoped to get the domination in scrum but that failed and the backs which had got us out of trouble a few times were stunted.

Can we now say that the Welsh are all arrogant as they see Ireland as the make or break game for their grand slam? Or are we going to look beyond a headline?

No 7&1/2 wrote:We were really poor. Based on the midfield primarily. We moved, or were forced, to use 2 brick out houses.

Aus played us really well, and the ref. We obviously hoped to get the domination in scrum but that failed and the backs which had got us out of trouble a few times were stunted.

Can we now say that the Welsh are all arrogant as they see Ireland as the make or break game for their grand slam? Or are we going to look beyond a headline?

How is it arrogant ? If we don't beat Ireland there is 0% chance of a grand slam...

So only England had injuries or positional changes during their Wales match ? I see

The answer munkian is it isn't arrogant and it's silly to say. Same as labelling the English as arrogant, especially given the larger and broader population and differences in regions. Saying that England were poor in the WC isn't arrogant, they were. Questions as to why are more likely to revolve around what changed for us given the higher standards achieved in the previous 18 months - 2 years.

Would you agree that England were abnoramlly dire in the WC or that they achieved the same level as they did in the 6Ns.

LordDowlais wrote:

gregortree wrote:England were abnormally dire on the days of the group matches.

You see, it is quotes like this that give people the impressions they have. No wonder Gwald has a field day with you lot.

You can understand where aucklandlaurie is coming from with quotes like this, it was not that the other teams were better, it was because England were having an abnormal day.

Fair enough, Wales and Aussie played with passion and flair respectively andi have no problem tipping my hat to them. Sorry I didn't mention that and congratulations to both.
The discussion started off comparing England 'before' and 'after' and drawing attention to how far England fell short of many fans' and neutrals' expectations.
No disrespect to either Wales or to Australia who played very well.
But hey....take offense where you can find it, why not ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:The answer munkian is it isn't arrogant and it's silly to say. Same as labelling the English as arrogant, especially given the larger and broader population and differences in regions. Saying that England were poor in the WC isn't arrogant, they were. Questions as to why are more likely to revolve around what changed for us given the higher standards achieved in the previous 18 months - 2 years.

Would you agree that England were abnoramlly dire in the WC or that they achieved the same level as they did in the 6Ns.

I think Lancaster bottled an improving game plan and squad selection and tried not to lose rather than to win.

I noticed you gave credit to Aus but none to an injury ravaged Welsh team.

I'm not sure why its 'silly to say'

If Wales get a good away win first match then history suggests they go all the way.

You see, England were not "abnormally dire" , they were the same as they always have been, predictable. So much so that a half strength Welsh side beat them using passion and pure determination. Why is it that people fail to see that England in the WC were the same England as we always see, a team that flatters to decieve.

England always go into tournaments with this up there with the rest of them moniker, but when things actually get underway, they come up short. What happened in the WC is the exact same thing as we see every year in the 6N, they will lose one or two games and fall short.

There is nothing to prove that they were abnormally dire, they were not even dire, they were what they always are, flattering to decieve. The same old England, full of pomp before the competition, and not gaining anything afterwards, it's always the same. So to say they were abnormally dire is not true.

Never mind about England being crap, Wales are on for the GS on your other thread your Lordship, just can relax now and just focus on that.

It's preception and context right? According to some, England have beaten Wales in the 6N due to Wales not 'turning up' vice versa and England have 'imploded'. Actually, one team took advantage and won due to superior play and tactics. The same with a players or coaches opinion. Is it passion or arrogance? Nowadays it depends on which fan base takes offence...

gregortree wrote:Never mind about England being crap,  Wales are on for the GS on your other thread your Lordship, just can relax now and just focus on that.

Thats according to Shane Williams, I think he is off his head to be honest with you, Wales will need to beat both Ireland and England away from home to do the slam, and that is a stretch if you ask me, the odds are far more likely on us losing both games.

Because I thought that England despite the midfield, were quite comfortable vs Wales for about 60 minutes then very bad for 20. I never really thought bar a brief 5 minutes in the 2nd half vs Aus that England were even in the game.

I can't agree with that LD based on the previous months. England have been very good, particularly in the backs. We've been let down a few times in the recent past from our forwards but generally they've been at least on par with most opposition. England were below where they were in the WC, as munkian says (and I agree with) Lancaster bottled it slightly and moved away from the style of play which was suiting us. I also wouldn't say that England were full of pomp before the comp, there was very poor performances vs France from the forwards and we were bailed out by the backs. The hope was that we were building up to fitness or holding back. Though the forwards were well on top for the majority vs Wales Aus played smarter and better than us.

I don't think any of that is controversial.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can't agree with that LD based on the previous months.

We could do more than previous months, and go back previous years, since the 2011 WC, England have flattered to decieve in every competition they have played in, they have come up short by losing one or two games for the last 4 years, that is not abnormally dire, it's the norm.

Perhaps under new management England will break the norm this year and win the 6N.

1 game each year LD. And yes that's not abnormally dire you're correct. We, or at least I am, are talking on the performances, particularly against Wales and Aus from the world cup.

As you rightly point out if we were basing this WC group as say the 6 Nations England would most likely have progressed as we would only have lost 1 game. Based purely on 'normal' results.

England very much flattered to deceive under SL, totally agree LD.

We very much under performed in the WC though, we should have beat Wales and put up a better fight against Aus. Truth is, we played poorly in every game in I'm honest.

The AI and 6N we played some good, attacking rugby and it gave us hope. The problem was that SL pretty much bottled it, going with safety first and losing the flair that had done us well over the previous season.

SL pretty much took us backwards in a very short space of time.

And this doesn't really fit into arrogance, as very few people not on the wum would have expected qualification from that group ie considered it done and dusted before the first ball was kicked.

No 7&1/2 wrote:1 game each year LD. And yes that's not abnormally dire you're correct. We, or at least I am, are talking on the performances, particularly against Wales and Aus from  the world cup.

As you rightly point out if we were basing this WC group as say the 6 Nations England would most likely have progressed as we would only have lost 1 game. Based purely on 'normal' results.

Look, England were not abnormally dire in the WC. History shows over the last few years that games between Wales and England are close, thus the result at the WC is not a surprising result, also, England do not beat Australia often, thus the result in the WC is not surprising. If England were abnormally dire at the WC then they are always abnormally dire.

I just think they were what they always are, a team that flatters to decieve. There is no evidence other than a home game that shows that England should win at Tickenham every time they play Wales or Australia, recent results prove this. Man for Man there is no difference in qlty between the top teams anymore, except New Zealand, they are always in front.

The results weren't surprising no, and I'd not argue against you there. I said before the group started any of the 3 could go out.

Performance and style of England though weren't at the level they've produced in the recent past (18 months plus as I said). I said before that the midfield worried me and signalled a change in tactics which would not play to our strengths.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:1 game each year LD. And yes that's not abnormally dire you're correct. We, or at least I am, are talking on the performances, particularly against Wales and Aus from  the world cup.

As you rightly point out if we were basing this WC group as say the 6 Nations England would most likely have progressed as we would only have lost 1 game. Based purely on 'normal' results.

Look, England were not abnormally dire in the WC. History shows over the last few years that games between Wales and England are close, thus the result at the WC is not a surprising result, also, England do not beat Australia often, thus the result in the WC is not surprising. If England were abnormally dire at the WC then they are always abnormally dire.

I just think they were what they always are, a team that flatters to decieve. There is no evidence other than a home game that shows that England should win at Tickenham every time they play Wales or Australia, recent results prove this. Man for Man there is no difference in qlty between the top teams anymore, except New Zealand, they are always in front.

We beat Australia 4 out 5 times leading up to the WC and have a 40% win ratio.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Performance and style of England though weren't at the level they've produced in the recent past (18 months plus as I said). I said before that the midfield worried me and signalled a change in tactics which would not play to our strengths.

Well there you go then, you were the same old England, even you predicted it.

I would argue that the upturn in for in the 18 months prior as you have said, which I do not agree with, was the abnormality. I would suggest the upturn in form was for the AI's only, you still fell short in all other competitions before those games.

England do not ALWAYS play well and win games, you did for a bit in 2014 but that was that. There was your abnormality, not the times when you played crap and lost.

Yes even I predicted that performances would be abnormally poor.

Can't agree with you that poor performances are the norm for England (under Lancaster), as you rightly point out we have a 80% win ration under him in the 6Ns and the highest win ratio since Woodward under him. Are you really trying to argue that England have been poor? They're not set the world alight for over a decade but to go the other way is stretching it. As I said not really a demonstrattion of arrogance as you've just acknowledged me being worried as well.

I'm just marking this thread for entertainment purposes...

The grudge match theses days for Wales is the one against Ireland. We share a league, and generally, they do better in it than we do. We don't like it.

LordDowlais wrote:

gregortree wrote:Never mind about England being crap,  Wales are on for the GS on your other thread your Lordship, just can relax now and just focus on that.

Thats according to Shane Williams, I think he is off his head to be honest with you, Wales will need to beat both Ireland and England away from home to do the slam, and that is a stretch if you ask me, the odds are far more likely on us losing both games.

Ha ha, well best wishes on that Lordy, hard to call.
Just to add: you calling a Wales victory at HQ a stretch is some would say realistic enough. I couldn't possibly agree though, as that might be called English arrogance. Lol

OK then No 7&1/2, lets turn this into your way of thinking, England losing to Wales and Australia in the last WC was because England were more poor than they usually are, you might say England were abnormally poor.

Now, what about the 2011 WC ? Did England get knocked out of that because they were abnormally poor as well ? Did England fail to win the last 4 6N because when they lost in those competitions they were abnormally poor ? You cannot keep blaming failures on being abnormally poor, at some point, they have to be seen as the norm, and the norm is England have been falling short for the last 4 years, so if they have been abnormally poor in all those 4 years, it is not abnormal anymore, it is NORMAL.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm just marking this thread for entertainment purposes...

The grudge match theses days for Wales is the one against Ireland. We share a league, and generally, they do better in it than we do. We don't like it.

Yep that goes for me as well.

munkian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The answer munkian is it isn't arrogant and it's silly to say. Same as labelling the English as arrogant, especially given the larger and broader population and differences in regions. Saying that England were poor in the WC isn't arrogant, they were. Questions as to why are more likely to revolve around what changed for us given the higher standards achieved in the previous 18 months - 2 years.

Would you agree that England were abnoramlly dire in the WC or that they achieved the same level as they did in the 6Ns.

I think Lancaster bottled an improving game plan and squad selection and tried not to lose rather than to win.

I noticed you gave credit to Aus but none to an injury ravaged Welsh team.

I'm not sure why its 'silly to say'

If Wales get a good away win first match then history suggests they go all the way.

I think that's it in a nutshell and exactly what I said during and post WC.

I also think there were massive issues with the fitness camps etc. I think they got it totally wrong. Players looked like they'd been smashed TOO hard dare I say...and players looked like they had lost weight etc. But that's another story that has come out that Lancaster kept changing the goal posts about Weight / fitness.

If any fan actually believed all we had to do was show up in the group then they were exceptionally naïve, and to be honest I don't believe any true England fan did believe that.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm just marking this thread for entertainment purposes...

The grudge match theses days for Wales is the one against Ireland. We share a league, and generally, they do better in it than we do. We don't like it.

Agree with that, love a game against the Micker - especially as the Mrs is from Dublin

GeordieFalcon wrote:If any fan actually believed all we had to do was show up in the group then they were exceptionally naïve, and to be honest I don't believe any true England fan did believe that.

I agree with this as well, but I was reading it in the media, and on here, although on here it might have not been English fans saying it, I cannot remember now.

I didn't say that. It's not particularly unusual for England to lose to Wales or Aus, but we were poor in comparison to where were in the 6Ns and before. Where have I blamed anything like you're trying to insinuate I did?

If you think 4 2nd places and 80% win rate is poor fair enough. As I said this is based around performance and tactics as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you think 4 2nd places and 80% win rate is poor fair enough. As I said this is based around performance and tactics as well.

I tell you what, you can keep that ratio for ever as far as I am concerned, you might as well finish 3rd or 4th, second does not a winner make.

I would take Wales record over the last decade compared to England, at least we have won a few 6N. England have one once since 2003, but don't worry, at least you have a 80% win record and a few second places to brag about.

Talk about a plucky Brit.

LordDowlais wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:If any fan actually believed all we had to do was show up in the group then they were exceptionally naïve, and to be honest I don't believe any true England fan did believe that.

I agree with this as well, but I was reading it in the media, and on here, although on here it might have not been English fans saying it, I cannot remember now.

Take that with a pinch of salt LD, and certainly don't judge us genuine fans on what the media says.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:If any fan actually believed all we had to do was show up in the group then they were exceptionally naïve, and to be honest I don't believe any true England fan did believe that.

I agree with this as well, but I was reading it in the media, and on here, although on here it might have not been English fans saying it, I cannot remember now.

Take that with a pinch of salt LD, and certainly don't judge us genuine fans on what the media says.

I do not, all I said at the start of all this was I can see where aucklandlaurie is coming from regarding his views on the subject. Living in Wales all my life I know only too well what our media are like.

Ahhh the media....
Please don't read the SUn Excess or Daily Heil Lordy, they will make you go blind. Although it may explain a few things. Those papers make me mad at myself for being English.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you think 4 2nd places and 80% win rate is poor fair enough. As I said this is based around performance and tactics as well.

I tell you what, you can keep that ratio for ever as far as I am concerned, you might as well finish 3rd or 4th, second does not a winner make.

I would take Wales record over the last decade compared to England, at least we have won a few 6N. England have one once since 2003, but don't worry, at least you have a 80% win record and a few second places to brag about.

Talk about a plucky Brit.

Maybe that's a Wales problem. The gold standard unfortunately for us all is beating the SH. A few 6N wouldn't quite do it for me compared to beating a SH team with some regularity (or at all   ).

But why ? What do 1 off results actually do ? England beating NZ probably hindered them and papered over some cracks.

munkian wrote:But why ? What do 1 off results actually do ? England beating NZ probably hindered them and papered over some cracks.

And recently beating Aus home and away...before Cheika though.

You're arguing with yourself here. I said with some regularity (eg over the past 6 or 8 years we have a near 50% record against Aus). 6N aren't fully competitive in themselves (no home & away) and tend to be attritional mud-fests. Pretty sure they're not a global benchmark of quality. I'd prefer being competitive against Aus & SA (were're not but that is where we should be heading). NZ is a stretch goal

gregortree wrote:Is there any 'English' media as such ? Mostly UK national coverage. And overseas there is confusion as between England and Britain. And  Stephen Jones is not English.

Sitting here in Scotland most of the print media is 100%English and the BBC is 99.5% english.

Scotland Today ? BBC Scotland ? Herald, Daily Record there are a few. There are no ' England Today' or 'BBC England' equivalents.
Still the general GB media is I agree pretty Anglo centric.

I think some people are confusing Wales poor record against Australia as Englands, England actually do quite well.

I can't believe we're arguing over the 6N which is small fry really in the larger context. World Cups wins and performances against the SH are really a bench mark of where a side are.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think some people are confusing Wales poor record against Australia as Englands, England actually do quite well.

I can't believe we're arguing over the 6N which is small fry really in the larger context. World Cups wins and performances against the SH are really a bench mark of where a side are.

So, going by the last two world cups Wales are doing better in terms of progression ?

I'm sure if England had Wale's recent 6 Nations record you wouldn't belittle it as much.

I think that's a fair assessment Munkain.

Wales problem is they're pretty dire against the SH teams which really counts against them on a world standing.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think that's a fair assessment Munkain.

Wales problem is they're pretty dire against the SH teams which really counts against them on a world standing.

Hows that win against SA going ?