Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: jeremyp on February 02, 2019, 06:56:56 PM
-
The best rugby union tournament in the World according to both Eddie Jones and Joe Schmidt (BBC Rugby Union Weekly podcast).
I don't think there was any doubt about Scotland - Italy and, prematch, I would have bet on Wales beating France, but England's win away against the favourites is huge.
My prediction after one match is that Wales will win, given that they play England at home.
-
The best rugby union tournament in the World according to both Eddie Jones and Joe Schmidt (BBC Rugby Union Weekly podcast).
Is that a bit like the BBC getting Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola to say that the FA Cup is the greatest football tournament in the world (hint, the FA Cup is one of the few remaining live sporting events the BBC has - a bit like the 6 Nations, in part).
Try it this way - if Jones or Schmidt could only win one tournament in 2019, do you really think they'd opt for the 6 Nations rather than the World Cup.
-
Is that a bit like the BBC getting Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola to say that the FA Cup is the greatest football tournament in the world (hint, the FA Cup is one of the few remaining live sporting events the BBC has - a bit like the 6 Nations, in part).
Try it this way - if Jones or Schmidt could only win one tournament in 2019, do you really think they'd opt for the 6 Nations rather than the World Cup.
They weren't saying it is the most prestigious tournament but that it was the best overall spectacle for the fans, excitement and has the best atmosphere. Every single one of the matches in the tournament will be attended by a lot of fans of both teams. That atmosphere in the stadium is always brilliant and no match - with the possible exception of the Italy games - is a foregone conclusion.
Did you see the Ireland England game? I haven't seen such a good game for quite a while.
-
That atmosphere in the stadium is always brilliant ...
I've been to a few 6 nations matches over the years - always in Wales which is supposed to be a hotbed of atmosphere. But to tell the truth I've been underwhelmed by the atmosphere each time. Was there last year for the France game and the atmosphere was pretty flat - certainly so compared to big football matches I've been to. Surprisingly, virtually no singing - nothing of the spontaneous (and often humorous) singing that you get in football sadly. The only serious singing part from the anthems was led by a amplified singer on the pitch at half time.
So I don't really buy this atmosphere thing - to me it seems more like an excuse for an extended drinking session with a sporting occasion thrown in.
Not been to any other big rugby matches, e.g. the world cup so can't compare - but six nations is nothing like a play off final or even FA cup semi final which are my benchmarks.
-
Every single one of the matches in the tournament will be attended by a lot of fans of both teams.
Which is exactly the same as most major sporting tournaments.
-
... and no match - with the possible exception of the Italy games - is a foregone conclusion.
Not sure that is true - one of the challenges with rugby (in tournaments that matter) is that the result goes with prediction far more regularly than say in the world cup finals. It is quite rare to get a genuinely unexpected result. The Ireland England one could be thought to be that last weekend, and last year probably only the Scotland England result in the whole tournament would be what you might call an 'upset' - otherwise all went with prediction or they were largely too close to call anyhow.
Also there are precious few matches that are in the balance right to the final whistle - in other words with one team being just a score ahead. Usually by the time you get to the final 10 minutes it is obvious who is going to win.
Actually these aren't features just of the 6 nations but a problem of rugby overall - I seem to remember a complete world cup tournament a while ago where there was just one match that went against prediction.
But a particular feature of the 6 nations is that there are far too many matches where one (or both) teams don't really care whether they won or not - it doesn't mean anything. So for example if France lose to England on Sunday their tournament is over - their last 3 games will be used in useful preparation for the Autumn's world cup. And each year in the latter half of the tournament it becomes clear that the teams who have no chance of a tournament win are focussing on preparing for the future rather than on the current tournament. You never get this when the 'sharp' end of a competition is knock out.
And then there is the totally weird format which allows some teams to play 3 games at home while others only play 2 games at home - creating a totally non level playing field from the outset.
-
Did you see the Ireland England game? I haven't seen such a good game for quite a while.
Yes - enjoyed it. Interesting though that much of the post-match comment in papers etc was about the implication of the result (and performance) on the relative prospects of England and Ireland in the World Cup in the Autumn - virtually nothing about the implication in the likelihood of winning the actual tournament currently being played. Tells you all you need to know about the importance of the 6 nations really.
If you didn't know better you'd have thought it was a world cup warm up match ;)
-
Two coaches who both hail from the Southern hemisphere are on record as disagreeing with you. I think I'll take their opinions over yours.
So let's leave it at that and talk about the actual rugby.
-
Yes - enjoyed it. Interesting though that much of the post-match comment in papers etc was about the implication of the result (and performance) on the relative prospects of England and Ireland in the World Cup in the Autumn - virtually nothing about the implication in the likelihood of winning the actual tournament currently being played. Tells you all you need to know about the importance of the 6 nations really.
If you didn't know better you'd have thought it was a world cup warm up match ;)
I didn't read any of the papers, only the BBC's online report which was all about the English underdogs sticking one on the Irish against previous form. I haven't seem much speculation about how it might affect the two teams' prospects at the World Cup except that losing would have been a psychological blow against England.
I think the implications for the Six Nations are that Wales might win it as both England and Ireland have to play them in Cardiff.
-
Two coaches who both hail from the Southern hemisphere are on record as disagreeing with you. I think I'll take their opinions over yours.
In managed comments on a platform run by a broadcaster that has that tournament on their scheduled (but neither of the other 2 big ones).
So to test their assertions - again do you think that either Jones or Schmidt would prefer to win the 6 nations in 2019 rather than the world cup. I think we both know the answer to that one, which tells you their real view on the relative merits/importance of the competitions.
No doubt in a few months time they will both be on the record (perhaps on ITV) saying that the world cup is the best tournament in the world - and do you know what - then they'd be right.
-
I didn't read any of the papers, only the BBC's online report which was all about the English underdogs sticking one on the Irish against previous form. I haven't seem much speculation about how it might affect the two teams' prospects at the World Cup except that losing would have been a psychological blow against England.
Do you mean this one:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47105622
Which reports on the match, but mentions zero about the result in the context of the 6 nations as a tournament, but says the following:
'The silver lining for Ireland, if there is one, is that it is February not October. Better to be ransacked now than come the World Cup.'
'Expectations may be lowered a little. There will be less talk about going to the World Cup as close to favourites. These are good things. They are still the world team of the year, with the world coach of the year, and the world player of the year.'
And Jones even states that he sees this game as 'stand-alone' - hmm, not really consistent with someone talking about the first game in the best tournament in the world. The quote:
'"These games have got nothing to do with the World Cup," he declared afterwards, trying to keep that grin off his chops. "They are standalone games. We'll start worrying where we are in the World Cup 10 days before our opening game against Tonga."'
And in the interview he is specifically asked "stop the search - have you found your number 12 for the World Cup?"
-
I think the implications for the Six Nations are that Wales might win it as both England and Ireland have to play them in Cardiff.
Maybe so - but who cares - even on the opening weekend the clear focus is on a series of useful warm-up games for the Autumn. Once we get into the last couple of weekends that will become even more apparent as teams who cannot win the 6 nations will start experimenting to try out tactics for the Autumn.
-
Maybe so - but who cares
If you don't care, what are you doing here?
-
If you don't care, what are you doing here?
Pointing out the non-sense of implying that the 6 nations is the 'best rugby union tournament in the World' - something you imply Jones and Schmidt believe (note you've never actually provided a link to the comments so I cannot judge in context).
I don't think it is true and I don't think Jones and Schmidt do either as the evidence of their comments post-match clearly demonstrate, with far more emphasis on their results in the context of the World Cup (which is the best rugby union tournament in the World) rather than the 6 nations.
Try it this way - Jones was asked (and replied to):
"stop the search - have you found your number 12 for the World Cup?" - seemed a completely reasonable question and Jones answered it as a reasonable question.
Imagine if England were playing a top team in the first match of the world cup and had pulled off an excellent victory with a major contribution from a number 12 who'd been out of the side for years. Post match the equivalent question is asked, namely:
"stop the search - have you found your number 12 for the next 6 nations?"
It is a bonkers question - no-one would be interested in that - they'd be interested in the great performance in the context of the ongoing world cup.
-
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/joe-schmidt-sends-world-cup-warning-ahead-of-crucial-england-clash-37743911.html
Hmm - sounds like a person who thinks that the 6 nations is a more important tournament than the world cup - not.
-
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/joe-schmidt-sends-world-cup-warning-ahead-of-crucial-england-clash-37743911.html
Hmm - sounds like a person who thinks that the 6 nations is a more important tournament than the world cup - not.
Best and most important are not synonymous.
-
Best and most important are not synonymous.
Do you think either really think the 6 nations is the best tournament? And it is a weird take on best to think it means the tournament that doesn't include the best teams in the world, rather that the tournament where the winner can demonstrably claim to be the best team in the world and the tournament with is the greatest focus of teams, players and managers.
It is a bit like the hoary old non-sense that the FA Cup is the best tournament in the world, when all the evidence points in a different direction.
-
Do you think either really think the 6 nations is the best tournament? And it is a weird take on best to think it means the tournament that doesn't include the best teams in the world, rather that the tournament where the winner can demonstrably claim to be the best team in the world and the tournament with is the greatest focus of teams, players and managers.
It is a bit like the hoary old non-sense that the FA Cup is the best tournament in the world, when all the evidence points in a different direction.
I don't know what either think, and I honestly don't care. The point is that 'best' is a completely subjective term, and that you think best for you means most important doesn't make that an objective fact. That you then use the term 'evidence' having decided your feeling of what best is true is simply circular.
-
I don't know what either think, and I honestly don't care. The point is that 'best' is a completely subjective term, and that you think best for you means most important doesn't make that an objective fact. That you then use the term 'evidence' having decided your feeling of what best is true is simply circular.
Take it up with Jeremy - he made the claim, citing two coaches, but never providing actual quotes. I disagree and I think there is enough 'on the record' evidence from those 2 coaches in the last week to suggest that isn't what they believe either - as a professional rugby coach I suspect best, most important, and most keen to win are actually synonymous. They might not be for an arm-char fan, but they are likely to be for a top pro, whether player or coach.
-
Take it up with Jeremy - he made the claim, citing two coaches, but never providing actual quotes. I disagree and I think there is enough 'on the record' evidence from those 2 coaches in the last week to suggest that isn't what they believe either - as a professional rugby coach I suspect best, most important, and most keen to win are actually synonymous. They might not be for an arm-char fan, but they are likely to be for a top pro, whether player or coach.
Why would I take up a claim that I've said I don't care about what they think? Surely you've now made a claim about what Schmidt and Jones actually believe about 'best' and you need to do that without making most important synonymous because of your suspicions.
Anyway, I'll leave you to go on your little journey into the minds of Schmidt and Jones.
-
Why would I take up a claim that I've said I don't care about what they think?
Then why did you bother to take it up with me. Take it up with both or neither
-
Then why did you bother to take it up with me. Take it up with both or neither
I didn't take up what Schmidt and Jones think with you. I questioned you making best and most important synonymous. Jeremy hasn't stated that so why would I take it up with him. And that's leaving aside that I can take up anything with whomsoever I choose.
Anyway - the Six Nations weekend - what are your thoughts?
-
I questioned you making best and most important synonymous.
Which I have responded to - in the context of a top professional (such as an international coach) as far as I'm concerned they are synonymous.
-
Which I have responded to - in the context of a top professional (such as an international coach) as far as I'm concerned they are synonymous.
So anyway what about this 6 nations weekend?
-
So anyway what about this 6 nations weekend?
Most likely is that Wales beat Italy, Ireland beat Scotland and England beat France.
If that happens after just 2 games there will be 2 teams (Italy and France) who won't even make any kind of pretence as to being interested in the tournament but will be in full on try out fringe players to finalise the likely squad for the autumn.
What would be interesting would be if Scotland beat Ireland (not impossible) and then Schmidt will also be in full on preparation games for the world cup.
Interesting that Jones has brought in Ashton in a completely unforced change to Nowell who according to all reports had a great game last weekend. Completely justified tactical change, or giving a player who hasn't been part of the team for a while some game time with a view to selection choices for the Autumn? ;)
-
Most likely is that Wales beat Italy, Ireland beat Scotland and England beat France.
If that happens after just 2 games there will be 2 teams (Italy and France) who won't even make any kind of pretence as to being interested in the tournament but will be in full on try out fringe players to finalise the likely squad for the autumn.
What would be interesting would if if Scotland beat Ireland (not impossible) and then Schmidt will also be in full on preparation games for the world cup.
Interesting that Jones has brought in Ashton in a completely unforced change to Nowell who according to all reports had a great game last weekend. Completely justified tactical change, or giving a player who hasn't been part of the team for a while some game time with a view to selection choices for the Autumn? ;)
Don't disagree with your predictions. There will obviously be some who think that the England France game might be more open because of the 'who knows which France will turn up?' - but sadly of late we seem to know more often which France will turn up.
Ashton played in the autumn internationals.
My guess is the most likely interesting match might have been the Scotland Ireland game though the weather may make this not much of a spectacle.
Wales making 10 changes is interesting, and probably feels like a snub to Italy, but that replacements can be brought on means that it's probably not a gamble. It's a shame that Italy are now on such a losing streak.
-
Ashton played in the autumn internationals.
Another set of useful try out matches. I doubt Jones would have dropped Newell if England were hypothetically playing France in the semi final of the world cup having beaten Ireland in the quarters - just sayin'
My guess is the most likely interesting match might have been the Scotland Ireland game though the weather may make this not much of a spectacle.
I agree.
Wales making 10 changes is interesting, and probably feels like a snub to Italy, but that replacements can be brought on means that it's probably not a gamble. It's a shame that Italy are now on such a losing streak.
Speaks volumes about the tournament, thought doesn't it - useful chance for Wales to try out fringe squad players as part of the selection process for the Autumn.
-
Another set of useful try out matches. I doubt Jones would have dropped Newell if England were hypothetically playing France in the semi final of the world cup having beaten Ireland in the quarters - just sayin'
I agree.
Speaks volumes about the tournament, thought doesn't it - useful chance for Wales to try out fringe squad players as part of the selection process for the Autumn.
It says that it's not the most important tournament. Since no one on this thread has stated that it is, I can't see any reason for you to labour a point that no one has disagreed with. I would note that in a league you do things differently than you do in a knock out cup, and different teams will do different things in both dependent on their hopes.
On the subject of Italy, after an various improvements, they seem to have plateaued. Now obviously things can change, but is there a case for some form of demotion/promotion in the 6 Nations?
-
It says that it's not the most important tournament.
Hard to argue though that it is 'the best' but not the most important really is it.
I would note that in a league you do things differently than you do in a knock out cup, and different teams will do different things in both dependent on their hopes.
And here is the hub of the problem with the 6 nations - it doesn't involve the key compelling features of a knockout tournament (winner stays on) nor the key features of most leagues, which involve many games and a balanced play same number of games home and away format. Nor the usual notion that teams that might not be able to win are motivated, for example to avoid relegation, or to gain qualification for another prestigious tournament. I cannot think of any other league format where you'd get a team no longer having anything to play for after just 2 games (and less than half the way through).
On the subject of Italy, after an various improvements, they seem to have plateaued. Now obviously things can change, but is there a case for some form of demotion/promotion in the 6 Nations?
Yup - have relegation. Change the format to have small (home and away) group stage and then knock out. Create another every 2 year smaller global tournament, perhaps 4-6 teams where results in 6 nations (and the southern hemisphere The Rugby Championship) lead to qualification. Frankly do anything to make it matter beyond a nice social weekend away with the pals for an extended drinking session interrupted by a bit of sport.
-
Hard to argue though that it is 'the best' but not the most important really is it.
And here is the hub of the problem with the 6 nations - it doesn't involve the key compelling features of a knockout tournament (winner stays on) nor the key features of most leagues, which involve many games and a balanced play same number of games home and away format. Nor the usual notion that teams that might not be able to win are motivated, for example to avoid relegation, or to gain qualification for another prestigious tournament. I cannot think of any other league format where you'd get a team no longer having anything to play for after just 2 games (and less than half the way through).
Yup - have relegation. Change the format to have small (home and away) group stage and then knock out. Create another every 2 year smaller global tournament, perhaps 4-6 teams where results in 6 nations (and the southern hemisphere The Rugby Championship) lead to qualification. Frankly do anything to make it matter beyond a nice social weekend away with the pals for an extended drinking session interrupted by a bit of sport.
World Cup leagues in most sports work like this. The problem with making things more complex is that it affects all other rugby tournaments. Sport doesn't matter, no matter how 'important', friends do.
-
Hard to argue though that it is 'the best' but not the most important really is it.
It's very easy if you have a different set of criteria. It's subjective. You think that most important means best. In fact it's not even an argument, it's a definition.
-
World Cup leagues in most sports work like this.
Really - I can't think of other tournaments (I don't mean qualifying tournaments) where a significant number of teams in the tournament have nothing to play for just 40% into the season. Perhaps you do, in which case examples please.
The problem with making things more complex is that it affects all other rugby tournaments.
Why would it make it more complex - actually the current format is bizarrely complex with uneven numbers of matches home and away. Any proposal would simply align it with tried and trusted formats in most other sports. And what other tournaments - that's part of the problem. Currently there are only 2 tournaments - the 6 nations and once every 4 years the world cup - with the latter the only opportunity for northern hemisphere international sides to test themselves against the elite southern hemisphere teams in a proper competitive match.
Sport doesn't matter, no matter how 'important', friends do.
True - but I don't see the relevance. If you relegate sport to effectively an adjunct to a social or networking event you turn it into Henley and other supposed 'sports' events which are effectively corporation and social events where the vast majority neither understand nor care about what is happening in the sport.
-
It's very easy if you have a different set of criteria.
Only if your criteria aren't actually about sport.
-
Really - I can't think of other tournaments (I don't mean qualifying tournaments) where a significant number of teams in the tournament have nothing to play for just 40% into the season. Perhaps you do, in which case examples please.
Why would it make it more complex - actually the current format is bizarrely complex with uneven numbers of matches home and away. Any proposal would simply align it with tried and trusted formats in most other sports. And what other tournaments - that's part of the problem. Currently there are only 2 tournaments - the 6 nations and once every 4 years the world cup - with the latter the only opportunity for northern hemisphere international sides to test themselves against the elite southern hemisphere teams in a proper competitive match.
True - but I don't see the relevance. If you relegate sport to effectively an adjunct to a social or networking event you turn it into Henley and other supposed 'sports' events which are effectively corporation and social events where the vast majority neither understand nor care about what is happening in the sport.
I was thinking of league formats in the Rugby, Football and Cricket World Cups.
The complexity is its impact on other rugby tournaments. It's not something that can just be decreed.
Social and networking are not synonyms, and the Rugby World Cup, along with Football and Cricket are much more corporatized BECAUSE of their importance.
-
Only if your criteria aren't actually about sport.
So enjoying the occasion, having fun. feeling as if people are involved are not related to sport then? You seem to be again using your own criteria as factual and therefore defining what makes a good tournament by your definition. And then saying if anyone else has their own definition of what is best that they are wrong because it doesn't fit your definition. Which is entirely circular.
-
I was thinking of league formats in the Rugby, Football and Cricket World Cups.
Such as? I'm struggling to think of another top league format where teams have nothing to play for, just 40% of the way through the tournament.
The complexity is its impact on other rugby tournaments. It's not something that can just be decreed.
Such as - what other tournaments - as far as I am aware there are only 2 tournaments that the international teams of England, Wales, Ireland, France, Scotland and Italy play in - the 6 nations and once in 4 years the world cup. And there is plenty of space in the international rugby calendar to revise things to provide more competitive tournament rugby as there are currently endless pointless friendlies in the summer and autumn.
Social and networking are not synonyms, and the Rugby World Cup, along with Football and Cricket are much more corporatized BECAUSE of their importance.
Are they? There are plenty of 'sporting' occasions where the sport is completely overshadowed by the socialising - ever been to Royal Ascott as an example?
And just because there are loads of people who want to go to the 'event', simply because it is an event, rather than a sporting event, that doesn't mean it is an important sporting event, nor a good sporting event. That rests on the importance and quality of the sport itself.
-
Every single one of the matches in the tournament will be attended by a lot of fans of both teams.
The implication being that if the match is watched by more people it must be 'better' and therefore the best tournament. Now of course big matches in each tournament (6 nations and world cup) will have full stadiums plus loads more unable to get tickets, but what about overall viewers.
Well we can put that one to the test, which tournament is more popular with the public - the 6 nations or the world cup. Well of course you need to factor our other variables, and in this case we can. So rather helpfully England played Wales at Twickenham in the group stage of the world cup in 2015 with the match televised on ITV. The same 2 teams played each other in the 6 nations at the same stadium, televised on the same channel in 2014, 2016 and 2018. Same teams, same stadium, same channel - the only difference being the tournament involved.
So surely if the 6 nations is the better tournament there must be more viewers for those games than the world cup. Well ... hmm ... not really.
Viewing figures for the 6 nations games are between 3-4M - the world cup match had over 10M viewers.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/28/england-v-wales-rugby-world-cup-tv-audience-ratings
There is, of course, little doubt that the world cup (and southern hemisphere Rugby Championship) wins hands down over the 6 nations in terms of quality rugby, given that you have to go back to the 6th Oct 2007 for the last time that any one of the 6 nations sides won a competitive match that mattered against any one of the 4 (yes 4 including Argentina) southern hemisphere Rugby Championship sides.
-
Pointing out the non-sense of implying that the 6 nations is the 'best rugby union tournament in the World' - something you imply Jones and Schmidt believe (note you've never actually provided a link to the comments so I cannot judge in context).
They said it. Who are we to argue?
Now shut the fuck up about the RWC being better.
-
They said it.
So you claim, but haven't actually provided any evidence. And even if they did in a marketing piece for the 6 nations from a broadcaster with broadcasting rights to the 6 nations, but not the RWC - so what!
Who are we to argue?
I am - provide the evidence and then I'll stop arguing. Until then, why should I.
Now shut the fuck up about the RWC being better.
Why on earth should I because it is true.
Seriously Jeremy - are you really trying to claim that the 6 nations is a better tournament than the RWC - I mean are you bonkers or what. Sure the RWC has its faults but it is a massively superior tournament to the 6 Nations. To suggest otherwise is like claiming the football championship is better than the premier league.
-
The best rugby union tournament in the World according to both Eddie Jones and Joe Schmidt (BBC Rugby Union Weekly podcast).
I don't think there was any doubt about Scotland - Italy and, prematch, I would have bet on Wales beating France, but England's win away against the favourites is huge.
My prediction after one match is that Wales will win, given that they play England at home.
The second time this week someone has thought that Wales in with a chance of winning.
I think rugby a tougher game than football and so unpredictable due to injuries which occur during the season.
-
The second time this week someone has thought that Wales in with a chance of winning.
Purely on form and rankings Wales were always going to be in with a chance - more so having beaten France away. You sound as if this is a surprise.
I think rugby a tougher game than football and so unpredictable due to injuries which occur during the season.
I disagree that it is unpredictable - quite the reverse. One of the challenges with rugby is that because it is a high scoring sport it is virtually impossible to get the equivalent of a 1-0 shock result that you seen in football where a team ranked way lower beats a top team in a competitive game.
You really don't get the equivalent of the Netherlands or Italy failing to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, or Germany (the champions) finishing bottom of their group - or (eek) Iceland beating England in the knockout stages of Euro2016.
-
The second time this week someone has thought that Wales in with a chance of winning.
I think rugby a tougher game than football and so unpredictable due to injuries which occur during the season.
Before the tournament began, Ireland were the favorites and Wales second favorites I believe. England were in with a shout and some romantics thought Scotland might do it.
After England beat Ireland, they still have a good chance but they have to play Wales in Cardiff as do England. Setting aside my England partisanship, you would expect Wales to win both those matches because they are a hard team to beat at home.
Scotland are probably out of the running, having now lost a home game and showing that they are unable to sustain a performance for 80 minutes against a top team. The chances for France and England will become clearer after today’s match.
-
Purely on form and rankings Wales were always going to be in with a chance - more so having beaten France away. You sound as if this is a surprise.
I disagree that it is unpredictable - quite the reverse. One of the challenges with rugby is that because it is a high scoring sport it is virtually impossible to get the equivalent of a 1-0 shock result that you seen in football where a team ranked way lower beats a top team in a competitive game.
You really don't get the equivalent of the Netherlands or Italy failing to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, or Germany (the champions) finishing bottom of their group - or (eek) Iceland beating England in the knockout stages of Euro2016.
Not just the high scoring nature of the game (although to be fair it's not the points total but the frequency of scoring that counts), but the attritional nature. In football, a team with one or two exceptional players and the rest fairly mediocre at international can be carried by the good players. In rugby union, there is quite a high probability that your really good players will get injured (see Johnny Sexton and Stuart Hogg yesterday for example) and you need good quality replacements which means you need strength in depth far more so than in football.
As an aside on the high scoring nature of the game, the first ever international was won by Scotland against England 1 - 0. You got no points for a try and one point for a conversion. In modern terms, Scotland won 12 - 5.
-
So England blew France away. However, I still think Wales must now be favourites. We can beat them in Cardiff, but I think a Wales win is the more likely result.
Of course if England don’t beat Wales, Ireland still might and that would make the last round interesting.
-
So England blew France away. However, I still think Wales must now be favourites. We can beat them in Cardiff, but I think a Wales win is the more likely result.
Of course if England don’t beat Wales, Ireland still might and that would make the last round interesting.
Nice to see some quality attacking play this afternoon from England after the dire error strewn games yesterday. The quality of the attacking play in both games yesterday was woeful. I think yesterday evening Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would have been thinking they'd absolutely nothing to fear come the autumn, but I think this afternoon's performance might have turned a head or two.
Hard to tell with Wales - they were poor in both their games, but won - but is this the sign of a good side (that still wins even when playing poorly) or just the sign of a poor side.
What happens in the last couple of rounds will entirely depend on which teams are in full-on try-out mode for selection for the autumn.
-
In football, a team with one or two exceptional players and the rest fairly mediocre at international can be carried by the good players. In rugby union, there is quite a high probability that your really good players will get injured (see Johnny Sexton and Stuart Hogg yesterday for example) ...
So you didn't watch last season's Champions League final then.
-
Hard to tell with Wales - they were poor in both their games, but won - but is this the sign of a good side (that still wins even when playing poorly) or just the sign of a poor side.
[/quote]
If the same Wales team turns up that beat France, we'll crucify them. This is England at home in Cardiff though. There's probably no more important game to wi in the eyes of a Welshman, except against England in the final of the World Cup.
What happens in the last couple of rounds will entirely depend on which teams are in full-on try-out mode for selection for the autumn.
I think the first objective of England, Wales and Ireland will be to win their last two matches to maintain momentum for the RWC. In any case, England and Wales will both still be in the running to win the Six Nations, almost certainly Ireland too.
England have the easiest last two games, so if they beat Wales, you might see them make some changes in preparation for the RWC, but Wales will have to field strong teams to be sure of winning their last two games and Ireland will have to field a strong team against Wales, if not against France.
-
If the same Wales team turns up that beat France, we'll crucify them.
True - or the one that turned up against Italy.
This is England at home in Cardiff though. There's probably no more important game to wi in the eyes of a Welshman, except against England in the final of the World Cup.
I disagree - this game happens every two years, or every year if you consider both home and away. It is no bigger deal than two years ago (in each case both teams were unbeaten at that point).
In the pecking order it comes below the following in importance (ranked in my view):
World cup final (winning this would provide Wales with something they've never done before) - against anyone
World cup semi-final (winning this would provide Wales with something they've never done before) - against anyone
World cup quarter-final - against anyone
Final round 6-nations where both teams were unbeaten - against anyone
World cup group stage, where likely only the winner goes through (e.g. 2015 world cup) - against anyone
World cup group stage - against England
Final round 6-nations where Wales were unbeaten - against anyone
Frankly I don't think you can get that excited about a fixture that happens every other year without fail. Good for bragging rights, but little else. And in 'grudge matches' bragging rights at higher if you win away - so a win against England at Twickenham is going to be a bigger deal than in Cardiff.
-
In rugby union, there is quite a high probability that your really good players will get injured (see Johnny Sexton and Stuart Hogg yesterday for example) ...
Evidence please that there is 'a high probability that your really good players will get injured'.
From what I know until Saturday both Hogg and Sexton had been 'ever present' in their respective teams for years and certainly not regularly forced off through injury. If substituted, usually late game tactical change.
-
True - or the one that turned up against Italy.
The one that turned up against Italy had ten changes. They won’t be fielding that one against England.
I disagree - this game happens every two years, or every year if you consider both home and away. It is no bigger deal than two years ago (in each case both teams were unbeaten at that point).
You haven’t got a clue about sporting rivalries have you.
In the pecking order it comes below the following in importance (ranked in my view):
World cup final (winning this would provide Wales with something they've never done before) - against anyone
World cup semi-final (winning this would provide Wales with something they've never done before) - against anyone
World cup quarter-final - against anyone
Final round 6-nations where both teams were unbeaten - against anyone
World cup group stage, where likely only the winner goes through (e.g. 2015 world cup) - against anyone
World cup group stage - against England
Final round 6-nations where Wales were unbeaten - against anyone
Frankly I don't think you can get that excited about a fixture that happens every other year without fail. Good for bragging rights, but little else. And in 'grudge matches' bragging rights at higher if you win away - so a win against England at Twickenham is going to be a bigger deal than in Cardiff.
Yep. Totally clueless.
-
Evidence please that there is 'a high probability that your really good players will get injured'.
From what I know until Saturday both Hogg and Sexton had been 'ever present' in their respective teams for years and certainly not regularly forced off through injury. If substituted, usually late game tactical change.
They were just recent examples. The nature of the game of rugby means injuries are inevitable. You need strength in depth.
-
You haven’t got a clue about sporting rivalries have you.
On the contrary - I completely get sporting rivalries. Don't forget I'm far more a football fan than a rugby fan, and that's where the really serious rivalries exist - in club football.
And if your result in your big rivalry is the high point of your season, that is a sure sign that your season hasn't amounted to much. So try it this way. Do you think that Liverpool fans would trade winning the premier league (for the first time since 1990, when it was the old first division) for doing the 'double' over Everton. Of course not - they wouldn't give a damn about losing twice to Everton (not that they can of course as they've already beaten them once) if they win the league. Turn it on its head - Everton are stuck mid table, out of both cups - so sure they might see a derby victory as a highlight, but that would simply be because their season has been rubbish.
Sure I get that England/Wales is a big rivalry, but here's a question for you as (I think) an England rugby fan. Tell me about the 2003 season for England - no doubt you'll have etched in your mind Johnny Wilkinson's extra time drop goal in the world cup final that beat Australia. Somehow I doubt that the first thing that springs to mind in your memory of the 2003 year are any of the 3 times that England beat Wales in that year.
-
They were just recent examples. The nature of the game of rugby means injuries are inevitable.
Come on then let's have other examples. The implication of your earlier comment was that in rugby the best players were regularly coming off the pitch injured in games (I presume you mean permanently not just for a couple of mixtures, blood injury).
I can't see any more evidence for this in rugby than in football and I'm struggling to think of a 'top player' for any of the current rugby squads who had regularly ended up off the pitch injured due in the early stages of a game. As I pointed out Hogg and Sexton have been pretty well ever presents (except when dropped) and often played the full 80 minutes, perhaps only being pulled off tactically in the last few minutes. Same for Farrell for England.
You need strength in depth.
True, but that is a different matter - in most cases replacements are made not through injury but to bring on fresh legs or tactically.
-
Yep. Totally clueless.
You really think that Wales fans would prioritise a victory over England in two weeks time over a (hypothetical) world cup semi final victory over South Africa to reach their first even world cup final. Bonkers.
-
Come on then let's have other examples. The implication of your earlier comment was that in rugby the best players were regularly coming off the pitch injured in games (I presume you mean permanently not just for a couple of mixtures, blood injury).
Make Vunipola is out for the rest of the Six Nations. Johnny Wilkinson’s career was effectively ended by injury. Lee Halfpenny is only just coming back after an injury. Billy Vunipola was also out for a long time because of several injuries. Scotland’s injury list is about a mile long. Rugby is a brutal game. People get injured.
-
You really think that Wales fans would prioritise a victory over England in two weeks time over a (hypothetical) world cup semi final victory over South Africa to reach their first even world cup final. Bonkers.
That’s not the point. They want to beat England more than any other team. If they beat England in two weeks, that will be remembered far longer than the semi final result of the RWC unless it is against England.
-
That’s not the point. They want to beat England more than any other team. If they beat England in two weeks, that will be remembered far longer than the semi final result of the RWC unless it is against England.
Absolute rubbish - I spent a very significant amount of time with hard core Wales rugby fans and without a shadow of doubt the match in recent years most etched on their memory is the one they played on 15th Oct 2011 ... against France ... in New Zealand ... in the semi final of the world cup.
If I had £1 for every mention of Sam Warburton's dismissal I'd be a very rich man. If I had £1 for every mention of Wales' 6 nations victories over England in 2009, 2012 (both grand slams no less) and 2013 put together I'd be, well, penniless.
The only recent Wales/England match that comes close to the France semi final in recent years is the 2015 world cup group stage with significant bragging rights for effectively putting England out of their own world cup.
Suggest you might want to spend a little more time in the company of hard core Wales rugby fans.
-
Although a rugby fan I 'care' less about the Six Nations now than I used to. I think this is partly because having seen so many internationals the novelty and importance of each is reduced - lose this year, don't worry we'll do it all again next year and the year after and the year after. The introduction of the World Cup has also been a factor since this is now the pinnacle. it happening only once every 4 years means each one is more important.
-
Although a rugby fan I 'care' less about the Six Nations now than I used to. I think this is partly because having seen so many internationals the novelty and importance of each is reduced - lose this year, don't worry we'll do it all again next year and the year after and the year after. The introduction of the World Cup has also been a factor since this is now the pinnacle. it happening only once every 4 years means each one is more important.
Absolutely - the issue with the 6 nations is that they all blur into one - same teams year after year after year. Without checking back on Wikipedia I'd really struggle to remember the details of even pretty recent tournament (e.g. 2010-2017) - it is all much of a much-ness and pretty well wiped clean once the tournament finishes as there is another one on its way in just 11 months.
The world cup is different - only once in 4 years, much higher quality as it includes the best teams in the world and with the excitement of playing teams in a proper competitive match that you never play competitively in any other competition. It is a far superior competition is every single way (quality, global reach, excitement, popularity, rarity value, prestige, atmosphere) except one (tradition) - but if you base the best sports tournament on 'tradition', then you aren't really a sports fan.
So Jeremy's notion that Wales fans would prefer to win against England next weekend over a world cup semi final win is frankly bonkers - he is just wrong.
-
Absolute rubbish
Nope.
You just don't understand sporting rivalries.
-
Nope.
You just don't understand sporting rivalries.
I doubt there is one common view amongst Wales rugby fans. Some will value the wins over their rivals more than a World Cup semi final and some will think the opposite. Pretty pointless getting into some arguement about it in in my view.
-
Moderator There were reports of a posts effectively being off topic. Due to this some posts have been removed.
-
Nope.
You just don't understand sporting rivalries.
Oh I understand sporting rivalries very well indeed.
The biggest sporting rivalries are, without doubt, in club fixtures, not international ones. For the very good reason that you can't really build up that level of rivalry amongst fans who might only get to watch a tiny number of fixtures their international team plays each year. Club rivalries are built up week in week out - something that cannot happen in international sport.
-
I doubt there is one common view amongst Wales rugby fans. Some will value the wins over their rivals more than a World Cup semi final and some will think the opposite. Pretty pointless getting into some arguement about it in in my view.
I agree there isn't a 'common' view - in other words one that all welsh fans agree on. That would be bonkers.
However I'm very confident there is a consensus view - and that is that Wales reaching a World Cup final or Semi-final (regardless of whom they face to get there) will be considered to be much more important than beating England next weekend.
Is next week's game being touted as 'the biggest Wales game since last Feb' - no, of course not - that would be daft. However if Wales get the the quarter final of the world cup I've no doubt this will be considered to be 'the biggest Wales game for 4 years'.
If they win a quarter final the subsequent semi final will be considered 'the biggest Wales game since 2011'.
If they win a semi final the subsequent final will be considered 'the biggest game in the history of Welsh rugby'. And they'd be right in every case regardless of whom Wales are playing.
ANECDOTE alert - spent lunch in Cardiff with hard core Wales rugby fans - passing interest in next week's game - mainly because my niece has a job at the stadium and so will be working during the game.
-
Nope.
You just don't understand sporting rivalries.
Jeremy - you do understand that one of the aspects of the Welsh rivalry with England is that they are obsessed with winning the world cup.
Frankly there is nothing about the history of Wales vs England that can justifiably stand out against the other - victories, much of a muchness, 5/6 nations victories etc - much of a muchness. Except for one thing - the biggest of them all. England have won the world cup and Wales haven't. This rankles more than any number of 6 nations victories, as none of them can change the easy retort - 'well we've won the world cup, how about you'.
There is also a common grump that Wales' 'great' period (the late 1960s and 1970s) was before the world cup started with a view that had the world cup been in existence then that Wales would have won it multiple times (that is of course pure speculation and unlikely to have happened as they still were unable to beat New Zealand, even then).
Point being that a key part of the Wales rugby psyche is that they will alway suffer from a huge 'chip on their shoulder' until they win the world cup. Nothing else - any number of 6 nations grand slams including victories over England will change that. And regardless of a useful local rivalry, the real rivalry is with New Zealand - the team they couldn't beat in their pomp (or since) - the country that is like Wales in so many ways and the only other country that can claim rugby to be the nation sport with any kind of justification.
The true dream for Wales fans is a world cup final victory over New Zealand.
-
At this rate with injuries, I'm expecting a call up for Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47291694
-
At this rate with injuries, I'm expecting a call up for Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47291694
I don't understand this stop-start approach to the 6 nations - why have one week gaps sometimes and then 2 week gaps at other times. Point being that Russell was injured in a club game at the weekend - surely better to have the 6 nations over 5 consecutive weekends with the players solely playing for the national side during that period. Wouldn't prevent injuries in the 6 nations matches themselves, but would prevent players getting injured mid tournament in club matches. Would also better replicate the tournament nature of the world cup.
-
I don't understand this stop-start approach to the 6 nations - why have one week gaps sometimes and then 2 week gaps at other times. Point being that Russell was injured in a club game at the weekend - surely better to have the 6 nations over 5 consecutive weekends with the players solely playing for the national side during that period. Wouldn't prevent injuries in the 6 nations matches themselves, but would prevent players getting injured mid tournament in club matches. Would also better replicate the tournament nature of the world cup.
Seems everyone has got bored with the 6 Nations already - I thought it was supposed to be the 'best rugby union tournament in the World' - not much evidence of that here given the lack of posting traffic on this thread.
Actually it rather proves my point about the stop-start nature of the tournament - we've only had 3 games since the 10th Feb! - hard to keep the interest going with so little actual sport.
-
Seems everyone has got bored with the 6 Nations already - I thought it was supposed to be the 'best rugby union tournament in the World' - not much evidence of that here given the lack of posting traffic on this thread.
No, what I'm bored of is your obsession with denying everything out of perversity.
For you, it seems if it is not the World Cup it's trivial.
We'll probably see Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France and Italy field the strongest teams they have available for these allegedly insignificant matches they have this weekend.
There will be strong contingents of away supporters at all of the three games and there are no games between wildly mismatched opponents unlike the RWC. The RWC has a more prestigious trophy and it's harder to win, but that doesn't make it a better tournament.
-
No, what I'm bored of is your obsession with denying everything out of perversity.
For you, it seems if it is not the World Cup it's trivial.
We'll probably see Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France and Italy field the strongest teams they have available for these allegedly insignificant matches they have this weekend.
There will be strong contingents of away supporters at all of the three games and there are no games between wildly mismatched opponents unlike the RWC. The RWC has a more prestigious trophy and it's harder to win, but that doesn't make it a better tournament.
Given that you started the thread I thought you'd be all over the results of a couple of weeks ago - remember apparently one of those games was the most important one of the teams plays (Wales) except for a World Cup final against England. Yet not a murmur from you (and incidentally barely a murmur from all those hard core Wales fans I know, despite the fact that they won). Surely the least we should have expected would be an open top bus parade through Cardiff
Here today, gone tomorrow, forgotten by the following weekend and who cares because the same tired old fixture will come around next year regular as clockwork.
And, perhaps with the exception of Wales, it looks like every team will be checking out their squad players at the weekend in preparation for the autumn.
France are unchanged, but were all ready in full on World Cup prep mode after their opening two defeats. Scotland are resting Laidlaw to look at strength of alternatives. Ireland resting O'Brien and making 7 changes and there will be wholesale changes in the England team. It's kind of like the 3rd round of the FA cup when a big team is playing a minnow, or one of those end of season games involving a mid table side with nothing to play for.
-
... and there are no games between wildly mismatched opponents unlike the RWC.
Err - England vs Italy :o
Italy have spent most of the year ranked between 14th and 16th in the world. That just as one sided as any of the games in the world cup. And you wouldn't in a million years end up with a game of such mismatched opponents in the penultimate weekend of the world cup.
-
Seems everyone has got bored with the 6 Nations already - I thought it was supposed to be the 'best rugby union tournament in the World' - not much evidence of that here given the lack of posting traffic on this thread.
Actually it rather proves my point about the stop-start nature of the tournament - we've only had 3 games since the 10th Feb! - hard to keep the interest going with so little actual sport.
I love watching the Six Nations. Our whole family enjoy watching all the matches. My son was captain of his school's rugby union team many years ago and supporting him got me involved in and enthused by the whole game. We also like watching Rugby League, and are Hull FC supporters also. Perhaps there are others on this Message Board who also like RU and the Six Nations Tournament but, for their own reasons, choose not to get involved. In my case I don't get involved mainly because of what I see as the pernickety and point scoring(excuse the pun) nature of this thread. I find that rather boring.
Incidentally this has been written just after watching a superb action packed and thrilling game between Scotland and Wales. I'll leave you all to it. :)
-
... there are no games between wildly mismatched opponents unlike the RWC.
Nope, none whatsoever.
57-14 ::)
-
... there are no games between wildly mismatched opponents ...
Ireland vs France ;)
-
Err - England vs Italy :o
Italy have spent most of the year ranked between 14th and 16th in the world. That just as one sided as any of the games in the world cup. And you wouldn't in a million years end up with a game of such mismatched opponents in the penultimate weekend of the world cup.
Italy don’t always lose all their matches in the Six Nations.
Also, are you aware that the Six Nations has a league structure? France is going to be playing Italy in the ultimate weekend of the tournament. That’s the way leagues work.
-
Anyway, can Ireland beat Wales in Cardiff?
If Wales win the Grand Slam, you’d have to say that it was against the run of form. So far England’s have only played one bad half of rugby whereas Wales have played three or perhaps five if you count their Italy match.
-
Italy don’t always lose all their matches in the Six Nations.
Italy have lost their last 21 games. Frankly that isn't viable in a league structure without relegation and therefore without any impact on losing game after game after game.
Can you name any side in the Rugby World cup that is on a similar losing streak.
-
Italy have lost their last 21 games. Frankly that isn't viable in a league structure without relegation and therefore without any impact on losing game after game after game.
Can you name any side in the Rugby World cup that is on a similar losing streak.
Let it go.
-
Let it go.
Why - you brought it up, by specifically comparing the 6 Nations and RWC in terms of one sided matches. You claimed:
'... there are no games between wildly mismatched opponents unlike the RWC.'
Yet in Italy we have a team that has lost its last 21 games in the 6 Nations - that sounds pretty mismatched to me. And as you claimed there weren't mismatched opponents in the 6 Nations but were in the RWC it is completely reasonable for me to ask you for an example in the RWC of a team with a similar losing streak to Italy in the 6 nations.
Plus of course minnows in the RWC have no effect on the overall outcome as they are long gone before the sharp end of the season, unlike Italy in the 6 nations.
-
Italy have lost their last 21 games. Frankly that isn't viable in a league structure without relegation and therefore without any impact on losing game after game after game.
Can you name any side in the Rugby World cup that is on a similar losing streak.
To answer my own question - the nearest is Namibia
They are on a 19 game losing streak in the RWC - indeed they've yet to win a game, despite qualifying for every RWC since 1999.
And just to be clear that I criticise the RWC too - that is nuts and demonstrates that it is too easy to qualify. Namibia's record in qualifying is 28 wins 7 defeats, yet in the actual tournament 0 wins, 19 defeats.
The RWC should be trimmed to 16 teams which would make the qualifying tournament more challenging (and therefore help those teams to develop), and that would reduce the numbers of really weak sides in the actual tournament. Plus it would also mean 4 teams per group allowing the final games to be played at the same time which has been standard in other sports tournaments for years (since Germany and Austria played out an infamous 1-0 game in the world cup in 1982 ensuring both went through).
-
To answer my own question - the nearest is Namibia
They are on a 19 game losing streak in the RWC - indeed they've yet to win a game, despite qualifying for every ReWC since 1999.
And just to be clear that I criticise the RWC too - that is nuts and demonstrates that it is too easy to qualify. Namibia's record in qualifying is 28 wins 7 defeats, yet in the actual tournament 0 wins, 19 defeats.
The RWC should be trimmed to 16 teams which would make the qualifying tournament more challenging (and therefore help those teams to develop), and that would reduce the numbers of really weak sides in the actual tournament. Plus it would also mean 4 teams per group allowing the final games to be played at the same time which has been standard in other sports tournaments for years (since Germany and Austria played out an infamous 1-0 game in the world cup in 1982 ensuring both went through).
Ok you’re right. We bow to your infinite knowledge. Now shut the fuck up
-
Ok you’re right. We bow to your infinite knowledge. Now shut the fuck up
Jeremy - why on earth do you make the comments you make if you don't want to discuss them and defend them. You seem perfectly happy to make hand-waving (and frankly wrong) comments and then when someone pulls you up over them you simply tell them to shut up (except you aren't even that polite).
-
Anyway, can Ireland beat Wales in Cardiff?
They certainly can, whether they will is another matter. So far this 6 nations there has likely just been a single match that hasn't gone with prediction based on ranking and home advantage - Ireland vs England. I think Wales vs Ireland is probably the nearest to a close call of the tournament so it is probably too close to call.
Problem for Ireland is that even if they win, most likely they'll just let England come through and win the tournament. So they probably wont have anything like the motivation as the Welsh and there is (of course) no benefit to coming second in the 6 nations, although there would be if it were the route to qualify for the new global tournament. That, and relegation, would certainly help with motivation in the tail end of the 6 nations.