Grand Slam / No Grand Slam - Thoughts..

by No9 Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:54 pm

Before a ball was kicked in the 6 Nations, I felt the England v Ireland game was going to be the decider, but didn't think it would be a Grand Slam decider. I had predicted Ireland would have lost to France and England would have lost to France to (Got one of them right). But I did think this final game would be for a Triple Crown and the title.

Now Ireland are already title winners, but chasing the Triple Crown and Grand Slam. It may be St Paddy's day, but lets not forget, its in Twickenham and England are hurting. Can the broken chariot be fixed with a win, which will see England rip back their 2nd place IRB ranking spot or will the chariot be written off against a green wall. If England lose without a losing BP, they even risk finishing 5th in this years tournament, a tournament that was talked about being their 3rd successive title, something no team has done in the 6 Nations.

Personally, I think England will see this as an opportunity of revenge. A chance to spoil Ireland's Grand Slam party, just as Ireland has done to them before.

So, is this going to be Ireland's 3rd Grand Slam or are England going to be party poopers... Thoughts.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:58 pm

I think so, England are strong at home but they have been so limp wristed at the breakdown over the last 2 games and it's an area Ireland will focus on as they Starve England of possession. Equally England have been so poor with the ball in hand for the small amount of time they have the ball I can't see them getting enough points.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:04 pm

Must say, You guys in the Northern hemisphere are very gentlemanly and sporting the way that you share, and have turns with the trophys amongst yourselves.

When its said that no team has ever won 3 successive 6 Nations titles, Does that mean it was done when it was the 5 Nations?

by Collapse2005 Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:08 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Must say, You guys in the Northern hemisphere are very gentlemanly and sporting the way that you share, and have turns with the trophys amongst yourselves.

When its said that no team has ever won 3 successive 6 Nations titles, Does that mean it was done when it was the 5 Nations?

I don't think any side has ever won it outright three times in a row. The winner may have shared the trophy at least once in winning three in a row in the old 5 nations but there is no sharing anymore.

I think the standard of competition is stronger right now in the six nations than it is in the rugby championship.

by LordDowlais Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:09 pm

Ireland will find it very tough at Twickers. In saying that, they do have the ability to pull it off.

But I just sense an English backlash coming this weekend, and unfortunately for Ireland, they will be at the receiving end of it.

Ireland are more than capable of pulling this off, they have some outstanding players, and a very good coaching set-up. If they do it, it would be thoroughly deserved. If they don't, they can still hold their heads high as champs.

So it' win win for the Irish on Saturday.

by robbo277 Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:14 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Must say, You guys in the Northern hemisphere are very gentlemanly and sporting the way that you share, and have turns with the trophys amongst yourselves.

When its said that no team has ever won 3 successive 6 Nations titles, Does that mean it was done when it was the 5 Nations?

I had to look this up.

France won the Championship 4 times between 1986 and 1989, but twice it was shared (with Scotland in 86 and Wales in 88).

There are a few other instances of teams winning 3 or more consecutive Championships (none more recent than the above), but never an occasion of a team winning 3 or more consecutive Championships outright. One of the Championships in the sequence was always shared.

Wales won it outright 4 times in 5 years between 1975 and 1979, with France interrupting the sequence in 1977.

Another one which got a lot of airtime last year was back-to-back Grand Slams (not applicable this year, as no-one is defending the trophy). This has never been done in the Six Nations era, but was done on a number of occasions in the 5 Nations era, most recently by France in 1997 and 1998.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:25 pm

robbo277 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote: Must say, You guys in the Northern hemisphere are very gentlemanly and sporting the way that you share, and have turns with the trophys amongst yourselves.

When its said that no team has ever won 3 successive 6 Nations titles, Does that mean it was done when it was the 5 Nations?

I had to look this up.

France won the Championship 4 times between 1986 and 1989, but twice it was shared (with Scotland in 86 and Wales in 88).

There are a few other instances of teams winning 3 or more consecutive Championships (none more recent than the above), but never an occasion of a team winning 3 or more consecutive Championships outright. One of the Championships in the sequence was always shared.

Wales won it outright 4 times in 5 years between 1975 and 1979, with France interrupting the sequence in 1977.

Another one which got a lot of airtime last year was back-to-back Grand Slams (not applicable this year, as no-one is defending the trophy). This has never been done in the Six Nations era, but was done on a number of occasions in the 5 Nations era, most recently by France in 1997 and 1998.

Thanks Robbo, to think that a competition has been running for nearly 130 years ( in one form or another) the evenness of it is truely staggering.

Might just mention that next year the All Blacks will win their 3 rd successive World Cup, but we better not get ahead of ourselves.

by Collapse2005 Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:36 pm

I think the fact that the tradition of alternating home any away games annually has contributed to breaking the cycle of winning teams.

by No9 Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:50 pm

As question was raised about past Grand Slams, here's something lifted from Wikipedia..

Wikipedia wrote:

The Grand Slam honour is applied retroactively to teams which won all of their matches in Five Nations tournaments before the term came into use. It is also applied to the 1908 and 1909 seasons, when matches with France took place during, but outside of, the then Home Nations Championships. However the Grand Slam honour is not applied to seasons in which only the four home nations were involved (1883–1907 and 1932–1939) – in that case a team that won all its matches is said to have achieved the Triple Crown. This honour is still competed for between the four home nations within the Six Nations Championship.

A Grand Slam was therefore available in the years 1908–1931 and 1947–1999 (Five Nations) and 2000–2016 (Six Nations), a total of 94 seasons to date. Grand Slams were in fact achieved on 38 of these occasions – 13 by England, 11 by Wales, 9 by France, 3 by Scotland and 2 by Ireland. (Italy, involved in the tournament since 2000, have yet to win a Grand Slam.)

Consecutive Grand Slams have been won by Wales in 1908–1909, by England in 1913–1914, 1923–1924 and 1991–1992, and by France in 1997–1998. No team has yet achieved three consecutive Grand Slams.

Prior to 2000, each team played four matches, two at home and two away from home. Following the inclusion of Italy in 2000, each team plays five matches, two at home and three away in one year, and the opposite in the following season. When Wales won the Grand Slam in 2005, it was the first time that the feat had been achieved by a team that had played more matches away than at home. This was repeated in 2009 with Ireland winning matches away to Italy, Scotland and Wales, and in 2016 by England, who won in Scotland, Italy and France.

Since the addition of Italy in 2000, the Grand Slam (now requiring five victories) has been achieved nine times. No team has yet been denied a Grand Slam solely by failing to beat Italy, in other words completing what would have been a Grand Slam in the former Five Nations but not in the current championship.

The 2017 Six Nations Championship will use bonus points on a trial basis. A team that wins the Grand Slam will get three bonus points.[2] This will eliminate the possibility of a Grand Slam winner losing the championship on bonus points.

by robbo277 Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:53 pm

Collapse2005 wrote:I think the fact that the tradition of alternating home any away games annually has contributed to breaking the cycle of winning teams.

To an extent I'd agree, but if the All Blacks had been in the competition, how many would they have won? If we'd added them instead of Italy in 2000, I would bet we would have seen back-to-back Grand Slams and 3 consecutive championships by now, especially around 2005 to 2011 sort of time.

I think it's the home and away combined with the fact that there hasn't been a dominant team in the Northern Hemisphere the way the ABs have dominated the sport.

by majesticimperialman Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:39 pm

All of the teams have found it hard to win away from home, with the exception of Ireland with that last minute drop goal against France. England are a bit up and down at the moment in terms of winning games, giving away far toooooo many penalties.

This could well be the game that England gel and spoil Ireland's chance of getting a Grand Slam for only the 3rd time in there history.

Ireland though are more than capable of pulling off an historic win so England will have to play the best rugby of this tournament to stop them. Being at home should be more than motivation for them....I hope so any way.

by Collapse2005 Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:50 pm

robbo277 wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:I think the fact that the tradition of alternating home any away games annually has contributed to breaking the cycle of winning teams.

To an extent I'd agree, but if the All Blacks had been in the competition, how many would they have won? If we'd added them instead of Italy in 2000, I would bet we would have seen back-to-back Grand Slams and 3 consecutive championships by now, especially around 2005 to 2011 sort of time.

I think it's the home and away combined with the fact that there hasn't been a dominant team in the Northern Hemisphere the way the ABs have dominated the sport.

I think if NZ were in the 6 nations all other sides would have eventually caught up with them and NZ would have also to some extent dropped thier standard to that of their rivals. In a similar vein Australia arent that good but they are the last team to beat NZ mainly because they have played them so often they know how to beat them better than anyone else.

by emack2 Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:27 pm

The model with bonus points now seems to be,bonus point win versus Italy plus as many points as possible.
Win your home games,get what you can on the road.
Nz alone are a 50/50 bet away from home,England by a single score is most likely result.

by geoff999rugby Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:02 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Must say, You guys in the Northern hemisphere are very gentlemanly and sporting the way that you share, and have turns with the trophys amongst yourselves.

When its said that no team has ever won 3 successive 6 Nations titles, Does that mean it was done when it was the 5 Nations?

Not real only some are involved in the sharing

No Welsh win for 5 years
No French win for over a decade
No Scottish win since the last millennium
No Italian win ever

No one ever won 3 5N titles outright - although winning 3 years in a row including as joint winners has been done

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:08 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote: Must say, You guys in the Northern hemisphere are very gentlemanly and sporting the way that you share, and have turns with the trophys amongst yourselves.

When its said that no team has ever won 3 successive 6 Nations titles, Does that mean it was done when it was the 5 Nations?

Not real only some are involved in the sharing

No Welsh win for 5 years
No French win for over a decade
No Scottish win since the last millennium
No Italian win ever

No one ever won 3 5N titles outright - although winning 3 years in a row including as joint winners has been done

We are the reigning 5N champs though oh yeah

by TightHEAD Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:25 pm

So history was always against us!

by Cyril Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:54 pm

This is the first Irish win since 2009. 2014 and 2015 were shared with Ireland/England/Wales and Ireland/England respectively.

Ireland seem to be claiming moral victories again.

by Pot Hale Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:13 pm

Cyril wrote:This is the first Irish win since 2009. 2014 and 2015 were shared with Ireland/England/Wales and Ireland/England respectively.

Ireland seem to be claiming moral victories again.

Points difference is used to determine the winner. As you well know, TH.

by Cyril Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:18 pm

Not a real win though.

TH?

by SecretFly Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:36 pm

We'll take any victories we can get. We're greedy and not too picky. Moral, real, big or small, we'll roll up the sleeves and take 'em all, Theobald Hinklespoofin.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:55 pm

robbo277 wrote:To an extent I'd agree, but if the All Blacks had been in the competition, how many would they have won? If we'd added them instead of Italy in 2000, I would bet we would have seen back-to-back Grand Slams and 3 consecutive championships by now, especially around 2005 to 2011 sort of time.

If NZ had been a very recent addition, then there's an excellent chance they would have racked up some records. Joining in 2000, though, would have seen them facing strong French and English teams for three or four years, and there's nothing like a few losses to embolden everyone else.

If, on the other hand, they had been in the competition for much longer, then tribal rivalries would have had a chance to develop, which can play a big role. Also, teams usually peak for the Six Nations, so they'd present a consistently stiffer challenge than in the autumn or on tour.

In short, there's no way of knowing. Hard to imagine New Zealand being anything other than the best team in the competition but that was true of Woodward's England for a number of years, and they still kept dropping matches.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:14 am

When you play certain teams often enough (6N example) you learn to cope and adapt to them over time. This is why Australia and SA have habitually been 2nd and 3rd sides in the world. They play against the big boys ABs often enough not to have any fear of the task at hand but also naturally develop players to be able to handle sides from New Zealand.... relatively speaking.

England is finding the same thing happens in 6N - they've found that out before in their last high quality phase. Soon the neighbouring teams adapt and find a way to be at least competitive again.

If the ABs were in the 6N for any length of time, at least a few of the other teams would have found ways to compete with and beat them now and again. It's just the way nature works. So England or France or Ireland or Wales would have been habitual 2nd and 3rd in the world and Australia and SA would perhaps have been more mid-top-10ers for longer periods.

by Cyril Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:25 am

NZ would still be the top side and England/France/Wales/Ireland would be the best of the rest. Obviously in the early 2000s England would be at least the equal of NZ. Aus and SA are likely to show the NH up come Autumn.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:39 am

Well they'll show some of you up. I guarantee you, they won't score one try against us, combined!

by aucklandlaurie Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:48 am

Collapse2005 wrote:
robbo277 wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:I think the fact that the tradition of alternating home any away games annually has contributed to breaking the cycle of winning teams.

To an extent I'd agree, but if the All Blacks had been in the competition, how many would they have won? If we'd added them instead of Italy in 2000, I would bet we would have seen back-to-back Grand Slams and 3 consecutive championships by now, especially around 2005 to 2011 sort of time.

I think it's the home and away combined with the fact that there hasn't been a dominant team in the Northern Hemisphere the way the ABs have dominated the sport.

I think if NZ were in the 6 nations all other sides would have eventually caught up with them and NZ would have also to some extent dropped thier standard to that of their rivals. In a similar vein Australia arent that good but they are the last team to beat NZ mainly because they have played them so often they know how to beat them better than anyone else.

So alternating home and away games wouldnt break New Zealands winning cycle then?

by robbo277 Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:16 am

Just to clarify, I don't think the ABs would be 94/94 going into the final week of their 19th Grand Slam attempt.

But I think they would have got back to back Grand Slams and three consecutive Championships by now.

After all, they've won 6/6 in 2016 and 2017 and you wouldn't get against them for the Championship in 2018.

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:25 am

Collapse2005 wrote:I think if NZ were in the 6 nations all other sides would have eventually caught up with them and NZ would have also to some extent dropped thier standard to that of their rivals.

The ABs are in the Rugby Championship, does this same logic apply? Guns, who’s the next Irish Ireland coach?

by Geordie Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:39 am

Unless England have become the new France and have saved their "one unplayable" game for this one, I cant see anything other than an Ireland Grand Slam.

30 point winning margin on Saturday if the same team runs out. (Though my opinion on the Margin may change if he finally makes the required changes)

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:24 am

Cyril wrote:This is the first Irish win since 2009. 2014 and 2015 were shared with Ireland/England/Wales and Ireland/England respectively.

Ireland seem to be claiming moral victories again.

A bit like how only 2 of England's 6 championship wins were grand slams?

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:27 am

ebop wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:I think if NZ were in the 6 nations all other sides would have eventually caught up with them and NZ would have also to some extent dropped thier standard to that of their rivals.
The ABs are in the Rugby Championship, does this same logic apply? Guns, who’s the next Irish Ireland coach?

It should but at the moment Australia despite their recent win over NZ are going backwards as are SA. Historically though of course it does apply somewhat, I don't think Australia would have 26 wins v NZ if they weren't familiar foes.

Joe Schmidt will be the next Irish coach. I expect him to sign a contract extension. He is fairly rooted here now.

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:28 am

Who do you expect the next NZ coach to be?

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:31 am

A NZer, 100% born and bred, and not some ring-in

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:41 am

ebop wrote:A NZer, 100% born and bred, and not some ring-in

Do you not like foreigners? Would you say that Crusaders fans are annoyed that Rog is coaching there?

Anyway Schmidt is Irish now having lived here on and off since the early 90s.

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:44 am

Strange appointment to be fair. ROG at the Crusaders is more of a mate doing a mate a favour (Daniel Carter). He’ll gain more from the appointment than they will. Maybe ROG will be the next Irish coach, fingers crossed.

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:44 am

ebop wrote:Strange appointment to be fair. ROG at the Crusaders is more of a mate doing a mate a favour (Daniel Carter). He’ll gain more from the appointment than they will. Maybe ROG will be the next Irish coach, fingers crossed.

That's quite a snobbish comment.

Kiwi coaches aren't always that great, Hanson and Henry both bombed during their spells up North.

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:45 am

Schmidt is as Irish as Bundi O’kee

by Big Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:46 am

SecretFly wrote:When you play certain teams often enough (6N example) you learn to cope and adapt to them over time. This is why Australia and SA have habitually been 2nd and 3rd sides in the world. They play against the big boys ABs often enough not to have any fear of the task at hand but also naturally develop players to be able to handle sides from New Zealand.... relatively speaking.

Just my view and maybe I'm misreading you here, but I think you are actually missing something. I don't think there's a big difference between how often 6 nations teams play each other, and how often they plan SA/NZ/Aus. I've had a quick look at the stats and over the last 10 complete full seasons (i.e. by the end of this NH season) England will have played SA 11 times, NZ 9 times and Aus 14 times - and they will have played the 6 nations opposition between 10 times for Italy and 14 times for Wales. So it's not that big a difference.

The difference in terms of frequency is a) how often the Rugby Championship teams play each other (e.g. Aus and NZ have played each other 35 times in the last 10 full seasons - a lot more than any other teams) and b) how many games they play (England will have played 115 games over 10 full seasons, Aus 153 and NZ 152). So the southern hemisphere teams are playing a lot more rugby against each other, and a lot more international rugby overall. That means their coaches have more time with the squad to get them playing the way they want, and the players get more international level experience. That, I think, is where the difference is.

Speaking hypothetically, if we ditched Italy then played the remnant 5 nations as a home and away tournament, our teams would end up playing a similar amount of international rugby overall, and would probably improve even if there were no extra matches against NZ. In my view we don't need to play NZ more often to be top teams, we just need to be as committed as they are to playing the best rugby and willing to put the structures in place to achieve that - which we aren't and probably won't ever be.

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:47 am

ebop wrote:Schmidt is as Irish and Bundi O’kee

That's not what Schmidt's passport says. If you have lived in a country on and off for over 20 years surely you get to call yourself a native? There are plenty of ABs in that boat. Do you treat them as foreigners too?

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:48 am

Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:Strange appointment to be fair. ROG at the Crusaders is more of a mate doing a mate a favour (Daniel Carter). He’ll gain more from the appointment than they will. Maybe ROG will be the next Irish coach, fingers crossed.

That's quite a snobbish comment.

Kiwi coaches aren't always that great, Hanson and Henry both bombed during their spells up North.

Then why are your competitions riddled with kiwi coaches?

Where are your Irish coaches stepping up?

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:51 am

Guns, do you see Irish fortunes yo-yo’ing up and down with coaching appointments in the future? Upppp....dowwwwnnnn. Is the heady heights achieved by this current ‘golden’ era a revolutionary change or just a flash in the pan?

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:00 am

ebop wrote:Guns, do you see Irish fortunes yo-yo’ing up and down with coaching appointments in the future? Upppp....dowwwwnnnn. Is the heady heights achieved by this current ‘golden’ era a revolutionary change or just a flash in the pan?

We were consistently told that the team captained by O'Driscoll vice captained by Paul O'Connell with Ronan O'Gara, Darcy etc. was the Golden era. When those guys retired we were told the golden era was over.

This team we have now has achieved three times as many six nations championships as the previous Golden era. Does that answer your question?

To expand a little it isn't just down to coaching, the IRFU is probably the best run rugby governing body in world rugby. They are incredibly diligent, organised and forward thinking these days and while it would be very tough to replace Schmidt I think we have the succession policies in place to reduce the impact.

In the history of the six nations only England have more match wins and I think they have only won one or two more games. Ireland have been one of if not the most consistent sides in the tournament. That's down to good succession policies and good IRFU structures. Edit: England have 66 wins from 94 games, Ireland have 62 plus 3 draws.

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:08 am

Nice story. But excluding 2009, Ireland had a very long dry spell before the kiwi got involved. Who’s the next Irish Ireland coach? Or will it be another ring in to drag Ireland up?

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:14 am

ebop wrote:Nice story. But excluding 2009, Ireland had a very long dry spell before the kiwi got involved. Who’s the next Irish Ireland coach? Or will it be another ring in to drag Ireland up?

Not really. Ireland were ranked 2nd in the world for a period in 2007.

Kidney won world coach of the year in 09.

Eddie OSullivan beat all sides bar NZ during his reign. If anything the trajectory has been consistently moving up since about 1999.

Schmidt is an Irish man now.

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:19 am

To what extent do you think the last two ABs coaches were really average coaches working with a very strong pool of players?

by Guest Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:20 am

Does Ireland have an Irish rugby coaching academy? Where they train Irish rugby coaches

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:26 am

ebop wrote:Does Ireland have an Irish rugby coaching academy? Where they train Irish rugby coaches

All the information you need you will find on Irishrugby.ie

by **rodders** Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:31 am

Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:Nice story. But excluding 2009, Ireland had a very long dry spell before the kiwi got involved. Who’s the next Irish Ireland coach? Or will it be another ring in to drag Ireland up?

Not really. Ireland were ranked 2nd in the world for a period in 2007.

Kidney won world coach of the year in 09.

Eddie OSullivan beat all sides bar NZ during his reign. If anything the trajectory has been consistently moving up since about 1999.

Schmidt is an Irish man now.

Don't rise to it collapse, they're trying to throw us off our game plan.

They don't want any piece of the green machine guinness

.

by Collapse2005 Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:35 am

November 17 will be interesting.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:10 am

ebop wrote:Schmidt is as Irish as Bundi O’kee

Or as Kiwi as the All Black's first ever Captain.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:20 am

Big wrote:
SecretFly wrote:When you play certain teams often enough (6N example) you learn to cope and adapt to them over time. This is why Australia and SA have habitually been 2nd and 3rd sides in the world. They play against the big boys ABs often enough not to have any fear of the task at hand but also naturally develop players to be able to handle sides from New Zealand.... relatively speaking.

Just my view and maybe I'm misreading you here, but I think you are actually missing something. I don't think there's a big difference between how often 6 nations teams play each other, and how often they plan SA/NZ/Aus. I've had a quick look at the stats and over the last 10 complete full seasons (i.e. by the end of this NH season) England will have played SA 11 times, NZ 9 times and Aus 14 times - and they will have played the 6 nations opposition between 10 times for Italy and 14 times for Wales. So it's not that big a difference.

The difference in terms of frequency is a) how often the Rugby Championship teams play each other (e.g. Aus and NZ have played each other 35 times in the last 10 full seasons - a lot more than any other teams) and b) how many games they play (England will have played 115 games over 10 full seasons, Aus 153 and NZ 152). So the southern hemisphere teams are playing a lot more rugby against each other, and a lot more international rugby overall. That means their coaches have more time with the squad to get them playing the way they want, and the players get more international level experience. That, I think, is where the difference is.

Speaking hypothetically, if we ditched Italy then played the remnant 5 nations as a home and away tournament, our teams would end up playing a similar amount of international rugby overall, and would probably improve even if there were no extra matches against NZ. In my view we don't need to play NZ more often to be top teams, we just need to be as committed as they are to playing the best rugby and willing to put the structures in place to achieve that - which we aren't and probably won't ever be.

Well, I still say that quality follows quality through necessity. The competitiveness of businesses in a backwater part of the world would have relative competitiveness to each other but would be way off the competitiveness of businesses let's say in New York or London etc.
Now of course there are anomaly periods - I think we're living through one right now with 6N handling now 2nd and 3rd side in the world. But if that lingered for a year, two or three between Ireland and England, then I think you'd find the levels of France, Scotland and Wales would go up to compete with that 2nd and 3rd placement and all five would be closer to the top of the rankings - indeed, you might see New Zealand in 2nd.

That's why it's important for Australia and South Africa to get their act together again and make things more competitive down there again between themselves and the big boys, the All Blacks. The window to regain traction might be small.

by Sponsored content

Irish 3rd Grand Slam