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...

England and Scotland always seem to be the NH teams that I feel are capable of beating SH teams in my opinion.

Ireland have had a few success' but I rarely feel confident.

Wales just seem to come up short too regularly when they should be finishing matches off against SH teams.

We've struggled against SA for a while now, they just seem to know how to beat us.

Congratulations on the Welsh record against SA, 2 wins in 31 games is some return

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
I can't believe we're arguing over the 6N which is small fry really in the larger context.

How very convenient coming from an Englishman.

Sgt_Pooly wrote: World Cups wins and performances against the SH are really a bench mark of where a side are.

And how is that going for you ? Or are we going to harp on about 2003 forever ? I bet Wales beat a SH a lot less time ago than England have.

Yea we've not been great of late, that's pretty obvious.

Final in 2007 obviously the last major mark.

I'm not digging but I just find the 6N a bit meaningless in the wider context. If England win the GS, it won't mean a lot to the SH sides.

The aim is regularly beat SH sides to really make a mark on things.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:The aim is regularly beat SH sides to really make a mark on things.

Yeah, but none of us do that.

I must admit that I don't focus overly much on results against the SH teams and I certainly do not see the 6N as being meaningless.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:If England win the GS, it won't mean a lot to the SH sides.

Maybe so, but it wouldn't be meaningless to them either.

It's pretty meaningless in the wider context if none of us manage to take it on to beat the SH side....which LD says.

I'd take regular wins over SH sides over a 6N anytime of the week. It makes you a world force rather than a good side in a competition half the world care little for.

The 6N is good viewing though and beating your local rivals is always nice.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:If England win the GS, it won't mean a lot to the SH sides.

Maybe so, but it wouldn't be meaningless to them either.

If we then fail to beat any of the SH sides it does.

If England won a Grand Slam, it would register in the southern hemisphere. They wouldn't start trembling in fear, but they would take notice.

It would make a minor tremor but it means little.

Does this all hark back to the days when England thought that they were too good for the 6 Nations and wanted to join the Tri Nations ?

I guess it all comes down to where your priorities lie Pooly. For me, winning the annual 6N tournament is big.

eirebilly wrote:I guess it all comes down to where your priorities lie Pooly. For me, winning the annual 6N tournament is big.

To be fair he's probably forgotten what that feels like

Yea I suppose Billy.

When I look back to the good old days of grand slams etc, beating NZ in NZ and smashing SA always gave me much more pleasure. The SH sides are the pinnacle in rugby, you want to beat the best. Turning over Italy to win a grand slam is nice but just not the same.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Yea I suppose Billy.

When I look back to the good old days of grand slams etc, beating NZ in NZ and smashing SA always gave me much more pleasure. The SH sides are the pinnacle in rugby, you want to beat the best. Turning over Italy to win a grand slam is nice but just not the same.

But England cannot do either anymore, so what are you harping on about ?

I'll tell you what, when England actually win a Grand Slam, then you can come on here and dismiss a competition with over 100 years of heritage, tradition and history. Or scrap the Grand slam, when England can actually win the 6N again you can come on here and dismiss it. Until then if I were you I would not be so dismissive. Or somebody might look at it as an England fan being arrogant.

Calm yourself down LD.

It's just a personal opinion, no need to get so wound up. I'm not dismissing the 6N, it's a good completion and generally good to watch(even if the quality isn't right up there).

The 4 SH sides made the WC semi finals, that kind of tells you where our completion is at in world terms.

Ha ha, the old 'arrogant' killer punch again
Very predictable now Lordy.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Calm yourself down LD.

It's just a personal opinion, no need to get so wound up. I'm not dismissing the 6N, it's a good completion and generally good to watch(even if the quality isn't right up there).

The 4 SH sides made the WC semi finals, that kind of tells you where our completion is at in world terms.

Yes but all people are seeing is an English rugby supporter rubbishing a competition that has been the lifeblood of GB and Ireland for over 100 years, no wonder you get the arrogant moniker thrown at you. Thankfully I know a lot of English people and they are not as arrogant as to dismiss a competition they have not won for half a decade.

gregortree wrote:Ha ha, the old 'arrogant' killer punch again
Very predictable now Lordy.

Well he is saying that England do not care about the 6N. Even though you have one win in 12 years. Don't you think it was a little arrogant of him to say such a thing ?

Don't think he dismissed it. You are seeing this 'arrogant' stuff everywhere you look now Lordy, even when it's not there.
You must love it Lordy, confirms you delusions every time.

We do care, we DO !

LordDowlais wrote:

gregortree wrote:Ha ha, the old 'arrogant' killer punch again
Very predictable now Lordy.

Well he is saying that England do not care about the 6N.

No he isn't.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:No he isn't.

OK, he is saying that HE doesn't:-

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It's pretty meaningless in the wider context

No I'm not.

I said it's meaningless in the wider context if you fail to beat the SH sides on a regular basis. Beating the best teams is what sport is about for me.

You're taking snippets of what I'm saying and winding yourself up. If Wales win a grand slam then fail to beat any SH side, does that mean a lot in world rugby terms?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You're taking snippets of what I'm saying and winding yourself up. If Wales win a grand slam then fail to beat any SH side, does that mean a lot in world rugby terms?

I am not getting wound up, that could not be further from the truth. If you win a Grand Slam, it means you are the best side in Europe. That must count for something. Are the Euro's pointless in football because the South American sides are not in it ?

The fact that England have only once won a 6N in twelve years, and you are saying it is meaningless speaks volumes. Perhaps if England could win a few more your attitude would change ?

England is the "big" one for the Cletic teams and France, though Englands "big" one is France.
I think Ireland and Wales have a competitive dislike for each other as were at it hammer and tongs in the Pro12, most weeks, but our fans get on great.
Scotland aren't competitive, so are liked by everyone because their not really a threat.

Italy are in it to fill the extra week, and to make sure Scotland aren't last every year.

It wouldn't change in the slightest, as I've said.

If we win the GS and fail to beat any SH sides, it's a poor return imo. I want us to be regularly beating the best sides in the world and those are SANZAR & possibly now Argentina. Beating other NH is all good but I want us to compete with the best.

I've not once said the 6N's is pointless.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wouldn't change in the slightest, as I've said.

If we win the GS and fail to beat any SH sides, it's a poor return imo. I want us to be regularly beating the best sides in the world and those are SANZAR & possibly now Argentina. Beating other NH  is all good but I want us to compete with the best.

I've  said the 6N's is pointless meaningless.

There fixed it for you.

England and Wales fans get on very well when they are out from behind the keyboard. Have great friends in Merthyr. We used to go to the Waggon & Horses up by Gurnos ..men only bar in the old days...and sing songs when we B&Bd at The Crown down the High Street near the Castle Hotel. Great times long before internet.

gregortree wrote:England and Wales fans get on very well when they are out from behind the keyboard. Have great friends in Merthyr. We used to go to the Waggon & Horses up by Gurnos ..men only bar in the old days...and sing songs when we B&Bd at The Crown down the High Street near the Castle Hotel. Great times long before internet.

I think most rugby fans from all nationalities get on great in person, that's what makes rugby, rugby.
The English fans from Bristol are probably the most passionate and friendly I have come across.

Well im a Glaws man these days. We have Hibbard Hook and Moriarty playing regularly in this Anglo Welsh theme of team. Shed love it.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wouldn't change in the slightest, as I've said.

If we win the GS and fail to beat any SH sides, it's a poor return imo. I want us to be regularly beating the best sides in the world and those are SANZAR & possibly now Argentina. Beating other NH  is all good but I want us to compete with the best.

I've  said the 6N's is meaningless in the wider context if you're not beating the SH sides

There fixed it for you.

Fixed that one for you.

You can keep looking for an agenda but there isn't one there. You've mis-quoted me several times when others have told you I didn't say that and it's written in black and white.[/quote]

Well, looking at the last RWC, being the best in Europe doesn't mean too much in the bigger picture. A GS would always be great, but being regularly competitive (ie at least ~50% record) with at least Aus and SA would be miles better. That's what we should be aspiring to. The good thing about the 6N is that more than half the sides are realistically in with a chance. Can't say the same about the RWC. Sorry about kicking tradition in the slats but just saying.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Well, looking at the last RWC, being the best in Europe doesn't mean too much in the bigger picture. A GS would always be great, but being regularly competitive (ie at least ~50% record) with at least Aus and SA would be miles better. That's what we should be aspiring to. The good thing about the 6N is that more than half the sides are realistically in with a chance. Can't say the same about the RWC. Sorry about kicking tradition in the slats but just saying.

This is exactly my point Barney.

It doesn't make the 6N pointless, no game of rugby is pointless(unless you're a Falcons fan).

And it's not as if you have to choose one or the other.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:And it's not as if you have to choose one or the other.

Well none of us can regularly beat the SH teams lately. Ireland looked the best bet over the last few years, I thought they'd turned the corner pre-WC.

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.

Why try and twist the comment? You're talking about norms, fair enough, the norm is that England have been consistent.

Consistent runners up, yeah. It's a lot better than consistent wooden spooners I suppose. BTW it isn't arrogant to see Ireland as a make or break game. If anything, it's keeping your feet on the ground seeing as it's the first match for us. We'll take it one game at a time and I personally don't want to hear anything about winning the tournament unless we're three wins from three.

mikey_dragon wrote:Consistent runners up, yeah. It's a lot better than consistent wooden spooners I suppose. BTW it isn't arrogant to see Ireland as a make or break game. If anything, it's keeping your feet on the ground seeing as it's the first match for us. We'll take it one game at a time and I personally don't want to hear anything about winning the tournament unless we're three wins from three.

That why the Ireland game is a biggy, not only for being first up but after that we have two homes games so in theory we could be going to Twickenham 3 from 3. Then again we could easily be going there 0 from 3 lol.

I hope not lol. It's Scotland/Italy and France after Ireland then? I'm fairly confident of winning those games.

mikey_dragon wrote:I hope not lol. It's Scotland/Italy and France after Ireland then? I'm fairly confident of winning those games.

Scotland and France after Ireland Italy are last up for the slam hopefully

Nice little run in... I hope to see another try fest in there somewhere, it'll be great to watch.

mikey_dragon wrote:Consistent runners up, yeah. It's a lot better than consistent wooden spooners I suppose. BTW it isn't arrogant to see Ireland as a make or break game. If anything, it's keeping your feet on the ground seeing as it's the first match for us. We'll take it one game at a time and I personally don't want to hear anything about winning the tournament unless we're three wins from three.

Exactly, but my point was never that England were world beaters merely commenting that England were poor in the wc which is at odds with recent form.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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.

Why try and twist the comment? You're talking about norms, fair enough, the norm is that England have been consistent.

So have the French army, they consistently surrender

The point is to win not be consistent

It isn't the Consistency Championship
You dont win a triple Consistent
A Consistent Cup or a Grand Consistent.

If you need to take solace in being consistent then something is wrong (evidently)

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wouldn't change in the slightest, as I've said.

If we win the GS and fail to beat any SH sides, it's a poor return imo. I want us to be regularly beating the best sides in the world and those are SANZAR & possibly now Argentina. Beating other NH  is all good but I want us to compete with the best.

I've not once said the 6N's is pointless.

Why dont you put up for once and start by winning the 6 Nations! Or let me guess, you would happily lose it as long as your beating the best in the world.

So, RWC must be the acid test right? You faced two of the best 4 in the world. How did that work out for you?

The 6N is not the pinnacle of rugby surprising, I know this might come as a shock to a few on here. It's also not that much a surprise that some fans of sides that have never regularly beat the SH teams or achieved anything at a WC, knock the premise that there is life outside the 6N.

If you can't turn over the SH sides, winning the 6N means very little but bragging right among rugby's 2nd tier.

Surely as a fan you aspire for your side to beat the best teams in the world?

I have always said that the 6 Nations is way more than just the rugby. In fact the rugby at times isn't the best nor has it been in years gone by but like said its about more than just the rugby.

Yes of course we all want to win and get the bragging rights until next time but its about the away trips, the camaraderie of meeting and drinking (lots of) with friends from rival countries that you may only see on this particular time of year.

For the players involved well these days they may themselves see it as a stepping stone to a bigger prize but it still carries a fair bit of clout and teams will still want to win it as winning breeds confidence etc.

It's strange. After the England vs Wales RWC game, I was disappointed that England lost but it didn't really bother me that it was Wales. I was more bothered that England were out of the world cup than who knocked them out.

I thought the better side on the day won, no excuses. I felt Wales won fair and square, sometimes fans can feel that their side was robbed but in this particular match I didn't.

Same in the Australia game, Aussies were just too good.

England should focus on self improvement, instead of "rivalries" and mind games.

No that I have slept on this, I will give one last opinion on it.

I find it quite ironic, that fans from a nation that hardly ever win the competition are saying that the competition is meaningless.

The 6N for me is about tradition, history, bragging rights, trips, making friends, making memories, the close competition between countries that has been going on for generations, NO OTHER SPORT has any of this.

Do not quote me on this, but I would hazard a guess that the 6N is the oldest running tournament in the world for this type of competition. I cannot think of another competition where 6 countries (started off as 4) have gone hammer and tong at each other, this has happened for over 100yrs, how can that be meaningless ? There is so much passion in the 6N. The only other competition I can think of that has been running as long is the modern olympics.

Come on how can you say the 6N is meaningless ? It is not meaningless to me, I am very passionate when it comes to the 6N, a tournament that has stood the test of time, a tournament that all the SH countries admire, if you could bottle the passion and tradition the 6N brings, you could name your price, but hey ho, according to some it does not matter, it's meaningless.