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...

Who's said it was meaningless?

The argument keeps jumping to try and justify the arrogance Pooly.

I know mate, it's bizarre.

Either they can't read or are looking for a reaction, no idea why.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Who's said it was meaningless?

You did.

You said if you win a 6N but still do not beat the SH teams then it is meaningless.

I'm sorry, but I respect your opinion, but for me, when Wales are in the 6N the last thing I am thinking about are the SH teams, I just want Wales to win the 6N, if we can beat the SH when on tour or during the AI that would be nice, but we will not win anything for doing it.

Lorddowlais can't speak for other England fans but I have said many times I want England to win the GS have been annoyed they haven't since 2003. My occasional long rants should be proof of that.

Sgt Pooly is right though that the aspiration should be to beat the best sides in the world.

Sadly currently the 6 nations sides were proven to be not good enough against the likes of SA,Australia,NZ and Argentina in the recent RWC.

Still want England to win a GS though.

At least we can agree that I never said the competition was meaningless.

I'd stand by that point that if you win the 6N but fail to back it up with wins against the SH, in the larger context of things (i.e. World Rugby), it's meaningless.

Time to move on now?

beshocked wrote:Sadly currently the 6 nations sides were proven to be not good enough against the likes of SA,Australia,NZ and Argentina in the recent RWC.

And that is where it should happen for me, when there is a prize at the end. For me, Wales did not do too bad considering the players we had out, we narrowly lost to both Australia and South Africa, I reckon with a full side we would have won those games, but due to all the injuries we had we were always up against it.

Still I can't complain, it's not as though we were comprehensively thrashed out of sight by any team in the WC, and with all the injuries we had I can take solace in the fact that we can only be better when the likes of Webb, Halfpenny, Liam Williams, John Davies, Scott Williams to name but a few come back.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly currently the 6 nations sides were proven to be not good enough against the likes of SA,Australia,NZ and Argentina in the recent RWC.

And that is where it should happen for me, when there is a prize at the end. For me, Wales did not do too bad considering the players we had out, we narrowly lost to both Australia and South Africa, I reckon with a full side we would have won those games, but due to all the injuries we had we were always up against it.

Still I can't complain, it's not as though we were comprehensively thrashed out of sight by any team in the WC, and with all the injuries we had I can take solace in the fact that we can only be better when the likes of Webb, Halfpenny, Liam Williams, John Davies, Scott Williams to name but a few come back.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly currently the 6 nations sides were proven to be not good enough against the likes of SA,Australia,NZ and Argentina in the recent RWC.

And that is where it should happen for me, when there is a prize at the end. For me, Wales did not do too bad considering the players we had out, we narrowly lost to both Australia and South Africa, I reckon with a full side we would have won those games, but due to all the injuries we had we were always up against it.

Still I can't complain, it's not as though we were comprehensively thrashed out of sight by any team in the WC, and with all the injuries we had I can take solace in the fact that we can only be better when the likes of Webb, Halfpenny, Liam Williams, John Davies, Scott Williams to name but a few come back.

Wow how arrogant

Exactly

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'd stand by that point that if you win the 6N but fail to back it up with wins against the SH, in the larger context of things (i.e. World Rugby), it's meaningless.

And this is where I beg to differ. It is never meaningless to me, no matter what slant you put on it. There is nothing in this world that would make me think winning the 6N is meaningless. For the life of me I cannot see why you would try and justify saying it, but that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

Perhaps our aspirations differ LD, not a dig in the slightest by the way.

I want us to be the the best in the world, you seem content with being the best in the NH. I always think we should strive to be the best, even though we're miles and miles away from being so, there is still hope.

Lorddowlais ifs and buts. I think that if Billy V and B.Youngs plus Joseph weren't injured vs Wales, England might well have won vs Wales but it didn't work out that way.

The reality is that Wales haven't beaten Australia in a long time and the record against SA is still very poor, as for your record in recent memory vs NZ.... the less said about it the better.

Wales have not backed up their GS victories with wins over SH sides. Gatland's record with Wales vs SH sides is laughably poor.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais ifs and buts. I think that if Billy V and B.Youngs plus Joseph weren't injured vs Wales, England might well have won vs Wales but it didn't work out that way.

The reality is that Wales haven't beaten Australia in a long time and the record against SA is still very poor, as for your record in recent memory vs NZ.... the less said about it the better.

Wales have not backed up their GS victories with wins over SH sides. Gatland's record with Wales vs SH sides is laughably poor.

I thought they classed the Lions victory as a Wales victory Beshocked....

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I want us to be the the best in the world, you seem content with being the best in the NH. I always think we should strive to be the best, even though we're miles and miles away from being so, there is still hope.

I want Wales to be the best in the world as well, that does not mean that winning the 6N is meaningless though. Winning the 6N means a lot to me, more so than winning a one off game in the Autumn. Now if Wales could win the next WC that would mean more to me than winning the 6N, but that still does not make winning the 6N meaningless for me.

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

LordDowlais wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I want us to be the the best in the world, you seem content with being the best in the NH. I always think we should strive to be the best, even though we're miles and miles away from being so, there is still hope.

I want Wales to be the best in the world as well, that does not mean that winning the 6N is meaningless though. Winning the 6N means a lot to me, more so than winning a one off game in the Autumn. Now if Wales could win the next WC that would mean more to me than winning the 6N, but that still does not make winning the 6N meaningless for me.

It wouldn't be meaningless if England won the 6N also. What I'd prefer though is to turn over NZ, SA and Aus home and away, the best sides in the world.

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

Ironically if we hadn't taken Burgess off aswell.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

Ironically if we hadn't taken Burgess off aswell.

Agreed .. but lets not be so arrogant eh

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

You might have, but like me you cannot complain because the better side won. I would never complain about losing a match because of injuries, they have to be dealt with as part of the game, with your injured players you would have been in with a better shout of winning no doubt about it.

Geordiefalcon yes I guess they would but it wasn't just Wales of course, needed the Irish and English players to help them over the line (sorry Scotland, Gatland didn't rate any of your players).

Lorddowlais so it wouldn't bother you if Wales beat NZ, something you haven't done in over 50 years?

Gatland has been given a lot of leeway because of Wales' GS wins under his tenure and their win over England in the RWC/qualifying for the WC quarter finals but I don't feel like Wales have improved under Gatland.

Under Gatland Wales have stayed strong vs 6 nations sides, poor vs SH sides. Where do you see the change coming from?

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

You might have, but like me you cannot complain because the better side won. I would never complain about losing a match because of injuries, they have to be dealt with as part of the game, with your injured players you would have been in with a better shout of winning no doubt about it.

LordDowlais wrote:
I reckon with a full side we would have won those games, but due to all the injuries we had we were always up against it.

Hmmm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wouldn't be meaningless if England won the 6N also. What I'd prefer though is to turn over NZ, SA and Aus home and away, the best sides in the world.

But what would you get for that ? Is there an annual trophy for turning over those three sides on a regular basis ?

BamBam wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

Ironically if we hadn't taken Burgess off aswell.

Agreed .. but lets not be so arrogant eh

Sorry Bam, but im English, I thought I was born that way....

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

You might have, but like me you cannot complain because the better side won. I would never complain about losing a match because of injuries, they have to be dealt with as part of the game, with your injured players you would have been in with a better shout of winning no doubt about it.

LordDowlais wrote:
I reckon with a full side we would have won those games, but due to all the injuries we had we were always up against it.

Hmmm

That's not complaining though is it ? I am just giving an opinion based on the fact that we narrowly lost, even with all our injury issues, and that perhaps with a full side, we might have done better, that is not a complaint, I am not blaming anyone, and I have said that on the day the better side won.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Full side or not we had a 2 man advantage over the Aussies and still couldn't score a try so we didn't deserve to win.

I know we did not deserve to win, Australia won that game because they defended better than we could attack, I just think if we had Foxy or Scott Williams we might have just got over the line, but alas we didn't, so I cannot complain, because the better side won.

As beshocked says, if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

You might have, but like me you cannot complain because the better side won. I would never complain about losing a match because of injuries, they have to be dealt with as part of the game, with your injured players you would have been in with a better shout of winning no doubt about it.

LordDowlais wrote:
I reckon with a full side we would have won those games, but due to all the injuries we had we were always up against it.

Hmmm

That's not complaining though is it ? I am just giving an opinion based on the fact that we narrowly lost, even with all our injury issues, and that perhaps with a full side, we might have done better, that is not a complaint, I am not blaming anyone, and I have said that on the day the better side won.

And how is what I said different compared to what you said in the bits in bold above?

BamBam wrote:
And how is what I said different compared to what you said in the bits in bold above?

You will have to help me out here because I do not know what you are on about. I have replied to all your posts, I have said England would have been in with a better shout at beating Wales if they did not have their injuries, so I do not know what you are going on about. Sorry.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:
And how is what I said different compared to what you said in the bits in bold above?

You will have to help me out here because I do not know what you are on about. I have replied to all your posts, I have said England would have been in with a better shout at beating Wales if they did not have their injuries, so I do not know what you are going on about. Sorry.

You said

That's not complaining though is it ? I am just giving an opinion based on the fact that we narrowly lost, even with all our injury issues, and that perhaps with a full side, we might have done better,

I'm asking how what I said is any different to "giving an opinion based on the fact that England narrowly lost even with all our injury issues, and that perhaps with a full side, we might have done better"

For reference, this is what I said, which you said I can't use as an excuse because the "better side won"

if we had Billy V, Youngs, Joseph fit for the whole of the game against you guys, I think we would have won too

BamBam, you are fabricating an argument, I have more or less agreed with you, if England had their injured players they would have stood a better chance of winning, they might have even won.

I have not used injuries as an excuse for losing, I have said that injuries are part of the game and need to be dealt with, of the two sides that take the field, injuries aside, the better team won, the same as what happened between Wales and Australia and Wales and South Africa, the better sides won, but if we had our injured players on the field, in my opinion, we would have done better, or won. The fact that Wales were not beaten out of sight in the both games makes me think that.

There was only about 3pts between the sides in the both games, that is why I reckon with a full side we would have won. But we didn't and I cannot complain.

Not saying winning one without the other can't or won't happen but surely building success in your primary annual tournament has to be taken seriously.

Yes Wales haven't transferred our GS,Championship successes into regular victories over the SH but in all honesty the only team to do that was England leading up to 03 and that was built on the successes on 2000, 2001 and 2003 itself so the tournament obviously has some relevance.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Not saying winning one without the other can't or won't happen but surely building success in your primary annual tournament has to be taken seriously.

Yes Wales haven't transferred our GS,Championship successes into regular victories over the SH but in all honesty the only team to do that was England leading up to 03 and that was built on the successes on 2000, 2001 and 2003 itself so the tournament obviously has some relevance.

Yes I agree, well said beds.

The 6N means a lot to me, I grew up supporting it, my father grew up supporting it, my grandfather grew up supporting it. It will never be meaningless to me, no matter how we see it in the wider rugby world.

As I said earlier, for me it's about more than just the rugby. Hell in the 90s I traveled every other year to Twickenham pretty much knowing we weren't going to win but it was about the whole weekend meeting friends having a great (bar 80 minutes) time etc etc.

The Wales vs England mud slinging is pretty tiresome...

bedfordwelsh wrote:As I said earlier, for me it's about more than just the rugby.  Hell in the 90s I traveled every other year to Twickenham pretty much knowing we weren't going to win but it was about the whole weekend meeting friends having a great (bar 80 minutes) time etc etc.

It was the same for me to, from about 1995 til 2005 I never missed a tournament, and boy did we take some hidings, but never once did I say winning the 6N was meaningless if we could not beat the 3 SH teams on a regular basis, it has always, and will always have meaning for me. I just find it quite ironic that certain members of this forum are now saying this, even though their country has only won it once in over a decade.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The Wales vs England mud slinging is pretty tiresome...

I know yeah and it's not even the most important game either at moment.

Our record against the SH has always been shockingly poor long before Gatlands time.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The Wales vs England mud slinging is pretty tiresome...

I know yeah and it's not even the most important game either at moment.

It is just pathetic dick measuring though. A lot of my dad could beat up your dad.

We beat "X".
Yeah but we beat "Y".
Yeah well we would have beaten "Y" but we had injuries.
Yeah but you couldn't score a try against "Z" when they had 2 players in the sin bin.

Let's be fair, England and Wales are 2 strong teams, both have a very good chance of winning the 6N.

However England have the strongest Scotland in 16 years first up at Murrayfield and Wales have the current champions in Dublin. Both teams starting with a loss isn't out of the realms of possibility.

A lot of rugby has to be played before England vs. Wales and the childish bickering is already at parody levels.

Just for the record, I am only disagreeing with the fact that winning the 6N is meaningless unless you can beat the SH teams on a regular basis.

LordDowlais wrote: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.

I know its all history (but history, certainly selected bits, seem to be very important to you) but overall England and Wales have both won the 6N 4 times and over history jointly top the number of wins at 26

lostinwales wrote:I know its all history (but history, certainly selected bits, seem to be very important to you) but overall England and Wales have both won the 6N 4 times and over history jointly top the number of wins at 26

Sorry I was talking about the last ten years. I should have made my self a bit more clearer.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais ifs and buts. I think that if Billy V and B.Youngs plus Joseph weren't injured vs Wales, England might well have won vs Wales but it didn't work out that way.

The reality is that Wales haven't beaten Australia in a long time and the record against SA is still very poor, as for your record in recent memory vs NZ.... the less said about it the better.

Wales have not backed up their GS victories with wins over SH sides. Gatland's record with Wales vs SH sides is laughably poor.

I thought they classed the Lions victory as a Wales victory Beshocked....

Yep. A hammering it was as well .

No, we don't class that as a Wales victory.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:No, we don't class that as a Wales victory.

Cheers Einstein.

mikey_dragon wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais ifs and buts. I think that if Billy V and B.Youngs plus Joseph weren't injured vs Wales, England might well have won vs Wales but it didn't work out that way.

The reality is that Wales haven't beaten Australia in a long time and the record against SA is still very poor, as for your record in recent memory vs NZ.... the less said about it the better.

Wales have not backed up their GS victories with wins over SH sides. Gatland's record with Wales vs SH sides is laughably poor.

I thought they classed the Lions victory as a Wales victory Beshocked....

Yep. A hammering it was as well .

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I know its all history (but history, certainly selected bits, seem to be very important to you) but overall England and Wales have both won the 6N 4 times and over history jointly top the number of wins at 26

Sorry I was talking about the last ten years. I should have made my self a bit more clearer.

Interesting I was just looking at tries scored and points scored for the history of the 6N and just the last 10 years, counting the cumultive points scored and going from 2015 backwards to avoid the England glory years. On average England have always scored more tries than anyone else except (briefly) for France and Ireland 2005-2007. Wales are very consistent if a step behind. Italy and Scotland are a further and significant step below the others (with Italy scoring more tries).

If you look at total points scored then England and Wales are ahead and very similar. It just shows that Wales have been kicking a lot of points

What is very noticeable also is how far France have fallen over the last 6 or 7 years.

(Work is way too quiet)

mikey_dragon wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:No, we don't class that as a Wales victory.

Cheers Einstein.

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I know its all history (but history, certainly selected bits, seem to be very important to you) but overall England and Wales have both won the 6N 4 times and over history jointly top the number of wins at 26

Sorry I was talking about the last ten years. I should have made my self a bit more clearer.

Interesting I was just looking at tries scored and points scored for the history of the 6N and just the last 10 years, counting the cumultive points scored and going from 2015 backwards to avoid the England glory years. On average England have always scored more tries than anyone else except (briefly) for France and Ireland 2005-2007. Wales are very consistent if a step behind. Italy and Scotland are a further and significant step below the others (with Italy scoring more tries).

If you look at total points scored then England and Wales are ahead and very similar. It just shows that Wales have been kicking a lot of points

What is very noticeable also is how far France have fallen over the last 6 or 7 years.

(Work is way too quiet)

Interesting yet no surprises for me. I would be surprised if some other fans were surprised to hear that England were one of the teams leading the way with total points scored, wins, etc. I bet Ireland's would be pretty high too, just a shame their past matches against France always knocked a little bit of the gloss off their 6 Nations record.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The Wales vs England mud slinging is pretty tiresome...

I know yeah and it's not even the most important game either at moment.

It is just pathetic dick measuring though. A lot of my dad could beat up your dad.

We beat "X".
Yeah but we beat "Y".
Yeah well we would have beaten "Y" but we had injuries.
Yeah but you couldn't score a try against "Z" when they had 2 players in the sin bin.

Let's be fair, England and Wales are 2 strong teams, both have a very good chance of winning the 6N.

However England have the strongest Scotland in 16 years first up at Murrayfield and Wales have the current champions in Dublin. Both teams starting with a loss isn't out of the realms of possibility.

A lot of rugby has to be played before England vs. Wales and the childish bickering is already at parody levels.

Strongest Scotland in years? You won the wooden spoon in 2015. Got to back up that comment with results.

Harsh perhaps but that's the case. Beat England then you can start making claims like that.

Wales have first up a side that just signed one of England's coaching cast offs and who also had a poor RWC. Irish clubs also struggling in the ERCC.

Don't get me wrong I am sure that neither England or Wales will underestimate their opponents but let's not build them up too much.