6 Nations Rugby Men and Women 2024

[jeremyp]

In a knockout match it doesn't matter if you lose by one point or twenty points, the result is identical - you are out of the tournament.

The result is the same, but you do not draw the same conclusion about the ability of the team.

[ProfessorDavey]

The result is the same, but you do not draw the same conclusion about the ability of the team.

But in the context of talking about Ireland winning the world cup the only matter that is of significance is the result. The performance is irrelevant if you lose, because if you lose in a knockout stage match you cannot win the tournament. So, yes you do draw the same conclusion - the team is knocked out of the tournament and cannot win the world cup.

You don't get a special loser's trophy if you play well or lose by just a point - nope you are out - exactly the same as if you played poorly and lost by a wide margin.

[jeremyp]

Only saw bits of the Ireland-Italy match as was at a 100th birthday do in Wales on Saturday afternoon. Listened to the England-Wales match in the car on the way home with my Welsh rugby fanatic wife!! Good job I was driving!

Lot's of muttering in the papers and other media about the state of the game. Matches seem to be being decided by the highly technical decisions of the officials (whether decisions on tries, yellow/red cards) rather than the players. It is becoming a problem I think.

This weekend's matches do not support the hypothesis. Ireland-Italy was decided by Ireland being much the better team. England-Wales was not decided by technical decisions - England were down to thirteen at one point but they still won. Scotland-Wales was decided by a refereeing decision, but, in the olden days before TMO, the try would still not have been given.

There is a problem though. The fact that everybody is focussing on these things might mean the actual rugby was not very exciting.

[jeremyp]

But in the context of talking about Ireland winning the world cup the only matter that is of significance is the result.

No.

Not if you are trying to analyse why Ireland didn't win the world cup and you are advancing bullshit reasons like "lack of belief" or "choking" or "some sort of jinx".

[ProfessorDavey]

No.

Not if you are trying to analyse why Ireland didn't win the world cup and you are advancing bullshit reasons like "lack of belief" or "choking" or "some sort of jinx".

I'm not advancing "some sort of jinx" as a reason, but lack of belief and choking - absolutely.

Let's actually look at facts shall we, not "what ifs". Ireland played NZ in the QF - going into the match Ireland were ranked no1 in the world, NZ were ranked no4, and on the points used for ranking NZ were virtually as close in points to Fiji in 8th than they were to Ireland in first. So on paper Ireland were much stronger.

Add to that that Ireland had won three of their previous four matches against NZ (critically all in friendlies where all that was at stake were the bragging rights).

Add to that that the match was played in Paris, just a short hop from Ireland and on the other side of the world from NZ - so Ireland with close to home advantage.

Add to that that the match officials were from England and there has long been a suggestion that SH and NH officials interpret matters slightly differently so better to have a ref from your part of the world.

Add to that Ireland played a quarter of the match with a player advantage.

So all of these factors suggest that Ireland should have won. Yet they lost, and although in the end the match was quite close they were never in the lead at any point. Hard to argue that despite having the best possible chance to win a QF that they bottled it and they simply didn't have the self belief that they could beat NZ in a knockout match in the world cup. NZ on the other hand were supremely self confident that they could win despite being weaker on paper, playing much of the match a player down etc etc. They just wanted it more and had greater self belief.

[jeremyp]

I'm not advancing "some sort of jinx" as a reason, but lack of belief and choking - absolutely.

but it's bullshit. I guarantee you that everybody in the Ireland squad thought they could go all the way and win it.

The lack of belief thing is just a narrative advanced by the media after the loss.

[ProfessorDavey]

but it's bullshit. I guarantee you that everybody in the Ireland squad thought they could go all the way and win it.

The lack of belief thing is just a narrative advanced by the media after the loss.

Self belief in sport is a hell of a lot more complex than 'hey, sure we can win it'. That is why top teams focus massively on sports psychology. It is all too common for teams that 'should' be able to win a trophy in terms of technical ability to implode when faced with the actual chance and the massive pressure which comes with 'sealing the deal'. And that is often down to a lack of self belief. Saw it with Arsenal last season, saw it with Ireland at the world cup.

Self belief is what actually gets you over the line in those huge matches, not whether you think you can, but when push comes to shove you don't.

[jeremyp]

Self belief in sport is a hell of a lot more complex than 'hey, sure we can win it'.

It's also a lot more complex than writing "Ireland choked" after the fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's also a lot more complex than writing "Ireland choked" after the fact.

But it seems you are at least accepting that there was a major psychological aspect to Ireland failing, when all of the 'on paper' elements (as I listed) would have suggested a win.

One of the key things sports psychologists work on in terms of self belief is visualising yourself in that pressured situation and visualising success. Now it is of course hugely helpful if as a player you have actually had success, or as a team have some players who have been successful. If you haven't and nor have any of your team-mates then it becomes more difficult. Now correct me if I'm wrong but Ireland have never won a single knockout match ... err ... ever. So it makes it much harder to have self belief - NZ by contrast have a really strong track record of knockout stage wins and had a number of players who had individually experienced knockout stage success, including against Ireland.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's also a lot more complex than writing "Ireland choked" after the fact.

Not just 'after the fact'.

There were plenty of people 'before the fact' who were saying that Ireland's greatest challenge wasn't their technical/physical abilities, but what was going on in their heads with the huge pressure of knowing that they'd never got beyond the quarter final. Here are two such examples, one before the tournament, the other on the eve of the QF match itself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/ireland-rugby-world-cup-2023-curse-quarter-final-all-blacks-b2429637.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup-ireland-squad-guide-sexton-farrell-b2407898.html

[ProfessorDavey]

Scotland-Wales was decided by a refereeing decision, but, in the olden days before TMO, the try would still not have been given.

The refereeing decision which decided the Scotland vs France match remains the main discussion point following the weekend's rugby.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

[jeremyp]

But it seems you are at least accepting that there was a major psychological aspect to Ireland failing,

No I don't accept that.

when all of the 'on paper' elements (as I listed) would have suggested a win.

It's sport. Sometimes plans go astray for the most inconsequential of reasons.

One of the key things sports psychologists work on in terms of self belief is visualising yourself in that pressured situation and visualising success.

And you don't think Ireland's psychologists know that?

Now it is of course hugely helpful if as a player you have actually had success, or as a team have some players who have been successful. If you haven't and nor have any of your team-mates then it becomes more difficult.

Ireland have had lots of success.

It's absurd to suggest they have never been in a pressure situation before in a must win match.

[jeremyp]

The refereeing decision which decided the Scotland vs France match remains the main discussion point following the weekend's rugby.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

Wrongly IMO. There was, for example a poor decision in the first half when Van Der Merwe made an interception whilst being miles offside that should have led to a France score.

Swings and roundabouts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wrongly IMO. There was, for example a poor decision in the first half when Van Der Merwe made an interception whilst being miles offside that should have led to a France score.

Swings and roundabouts.

That's a very odd attitude - effectively that bad decisions don't matter because they cancel each other out.

But that isn't my point - my point wasn't just about whether the decision was right or wrong but that key match defining decisions are based on highly technical interpretation of complex laws of the game which leave the average fan simply scratching their heads on the basis that they simply don't understand why the decision is given.

From the article:

"The decision-making at the end of the game on Saturday may confuse people that the game is trying to reach, explained the source. There is a feeling that rugby is complex and "stupid" in those final moments at Murrayfield."

[ProfessorDavey]

No I don't accept that.

You don't accept that there is a huge psychological element to winning huge games? Blimey, and you accuse me of not understanding sport.

And you don't think Ireland's psychologists know that?

Sure - but it is far harder to 'fix' the psychology when preparing a team for a match of a type that they have never had success in, where they cannot draw on current or former Irish players who can walk them through how they successfully coped with winning a knockout match.

Ireland have had lots of success.

Not in a knockout match - never, zip, nada.

It's absurd to suggest they have never been in a pressure situation before in a must win match.

Sure they had been in high pressure knockout match situations before, and nothing else really compares unless it it a knockout match as it is exceptionally rare in a 'league' situation where two teams go into the match absolutely equal on a winner takes all basis. And every time previously they'd been in that situation they'd lost which ramps up the pressure even further and makes the psychological aspect even more significant. NZ on the other hand - on easy street with their numerous successes in knockout matches, including for players on the field that day.

[jeremyp]

That's a very odd attitude - effectively that bad decisions don't matter because they cancel each other out.

No: that Scotland really shouldn't feel aggrieved.

But that isn't my point - my point wasn't just about whether the decision was right or wrong but that key match defining decisions are based on highly technical interpretation of complex laws of the game which leave the average fan simply scratching their heads on the basis that they simply don't understand why the decision is given.

From the article:

"The decision-making at the end of the game on Saturday may confuse people that the game is trying to reach, explained the source. There is a feeling that rugby is complex and "stupid" in those final moments at Murrayfield."

It's not complex at all. In rugby, to score a try you have to touch the ball down on the ground on or behind the try line. If it doesn't touch the ground (is "held up") it is not a try. The referee ruled it didn't touch the ground. The TMO didn't have enough evidence to reverse that decision.

That wasn't complex at all, was it?

Everything else is just interested parties trying to muddy the waters for various reasons.

[jeremyp]

You don't accept that there is a huge psychological element to winning huge games? Blimey, and you accuse me of not understanding sport.

No. I don't accept that "there was a major psychological aspect to Ireland failing". That was your assertion and you have no evidence to back it up.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. I don't accept that "there was a major psychological aspect to Ireland failing".

Then you clearly don't understand sport whatsoever.

That was your assertion and you have no evidence to back it up.

And that of a whole bunch of others who predicted before the match that the battle in their minds would be more significant than the battle on the field so to speak. And of course on evidence - well everything (outside of the psychological aspects) were in Ireland's favour - ranking, playing a quarter of the game with an extra player, playing close to home rather than on the other side of the world, having a NH ref etc. Yet they lost - hard not to conclude that the 'missing' element in all those things in Ireland's favour is the psychology, which heavily favoured NZ. And so it proved - Ireland choked under the pressure.

[ProfessorDavey]

No: that Scotland really shouldn't feel aggrieved.
It's not complex at all. In rugby, to score a try you have to touch the ball down on the ground on or behind the try line. If it doesn't touch the ground (is "held up") it is not a try. The referee ruled it didn't touch the ground. The TMO didn't have enough evidence to reverse that decision.

That wasn't complex at all, was it?

Everything else is just interested parties trying to muddy the waters for various reasons.

You really aren't keeping up with it are you. The issue, and why Scotland have requested a review, is that the TMO first concluded that the ball had been grounded, but then reversed his decision.

The complexity is about the technical processes involved in the decision making, not necessarily the laws in themselves. However in other cases - e.g. red cards the laws and the process by which decisions are taken are impenetrable, leaving fans (and players!) scratching their heads why incident A leads to a straight red or a red upgrade, while incident B is just a yellow or even just a penalty.

[jeremyp]

Then you clearly don't understand sport whatsoever.

No. It's you that doesn't understand sport.

You claim without evidence that Ireland choked in the RWC because of "psychology". However, that is a narrative that has been added after the fact. Ireland were merely beaten by a team that was better on the day.

And that of a whole bunch of others who predicted before the match that the battle in their minds would be more significant than the battle on the field so to speak.

But that was all bullshit punditry.

And of course on evidence - well everything (outside of the psychological aspects) were in Ireland's favour - ranking, playing a quarter of the game with an extra player, playing close to home rather than on the other side of the world, having a NH ref etc. Yet they lost

Yes, it's sport. The happens sometimes. That's why it is so compelling to watch.

[jeremyp]

You really aren't keeping up with it are you.

The issue, and why Scotland have requested a review, is that the TMO first concluded that the ball had been grounded, but then reversed his decision.

They didn't "conclude". They just overshared their thought processes.

The complexity is about the technical processes involved in the decision making,

What was complex about the decision making on this occasion?

However in other cases - e.g. red cards the laws and the process by which decisions are taken are impenetrable, leaving fans (and players!) scratching their heads why incident A leads to a straight red or a red upgrade, while incident B is just a yellow or even just a penalty.

Do you want the process to be opaque so we don't get to see the press and just get the final decision or do you want it to be transparent so we see the messy business of weighing up the options and perhaps appearing to change the decision?

You can't have both - or neither.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't understand why the 6 nations needs a rest weekend after just 2 matches. Then they'll play one match next weekend and have another weekend off. It feels so stop-start - you've just got into the tournament and it stops for 2 weeks.

So much better to play the matches over 5 consecutive weekends. Would build momentum much better for the fans plus would be far better preparation for the world cup, where to win a team will need to play 6/7 days apart for more than just two consecutive weeks.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't understand why the 6 nations needs a rest weekend after just 2 matches. Then they'll play one match next weekend and have another weekend off. It feels so stop-start - you've just got into the tournament and it stops for 2 weeks.

So much better to play the matches over 5 consecutive weekends. Would build momentum much better for the fans plus would be far better preparation for the world cup, where to win a team will need to play 6/7 days apart for more than just two consecutive weeks.

It does feel as if the Euros are being played in the midst of the Premier League/Serie A etc and the Champions League

[jeremyp]

Don't understand why the 6 nations needs a rest weekend after just 2 matches. Then they'll play one match next weekend and have another weekend off. It feels so stop-start - you've just got into the tournament and it stops for 2 weeks.

So much better to play the matches over 5 consecutive weekends. Would build momentum much better for the fans plus would be far better preparation for the world cup, where to win a team will need to play 6/7 days apart for more than just two consecutive weeks.

I agree. I guess it's a holdover from the old Five Nations where the matches were all played on alternate weekends.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree. I guess it's a holdover from the old Five Nations where the matches were all played on alternate weekends.

Possible - so much of how rugby is administered feels like a hang-over from the old amateur days. They really don't seem to have caught up with the notion that it is (apparently) a global professional sport.