Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 30, 2024, 10:41:10 PM
-
A new generation for the men with retirals and Farrell and Dupont not playing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68129785
-
6RUN
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/02/six-nations-2024-predictions-our-writers-on-who-will-win-and-why (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/02/six-nations-2024-predictions-our-writers-on-who-will-win-and-why)
Some think England will, but I doubt it.
1 France
2 Ireland
3 England
4 Scots
5 Wales
6 still Italy (unfortunately)
-
1 France
2 England
3 Ireland
4 Wales
5 Scotland
6 Italy
-
1 France
2 England
3 Ireland
4 Wales
5 Scotland
6 Italy
Looking gone already with this from Ireland
-
Odd match between Italy and England. Not sure if Italy have unproved that much since the World Cup.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68192563
-
Odd match between Italy and England. Not sure if Italy have unproved that much since the World Cup.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68192563 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68192563)
England's mentally seems ro be to do good enough. They accelerated quickly in the 2nd half and after scoring more than enough, they took their foot off again. If they'd kept that pressure on, at least the other nations would be checking behind their backs.
-
England's mentally seems ro be to do good enough. They accelerated quickly in the 2nd half and after scoring more than enough, they took their foot off again. If they'd kept that pressure on, at least the other nations would be checking behind their backs.
I think that type of mentality just doesn't work against good teams.
-
I think we might as well hand the trophy to Ireland now.
-
I think we might as well hand the trophy to Ireland now.
It certainly looks that way. Coming so soon after the World Cup disappointment, I wonder how much a Grand Slam, it it occurs, will feel devalued for the Irish, 'just another Grand Slam'.
With Dupont off looking for an Olympic Gold in the 7s, the Six Nations is feeling more mundane.
-
the Six Nations is feeling more mundane.
Well, it's the one straight after the World Cup. The deciding match has probably already happened and for five of the six nations, the weekend was a profound disappointment.
-
It certainly looks that way. Coming so soon after the World Cup disappointment, I wonder how much a Grand Slam, it it occurs, will feel devalued for the Irish, 'just another Grand Slam'.
With Dupont off looking for an Olympic Gold in the 7s, the Six Nations is feeling more mundane.
The format is well past its sell by date and it certainly looks as if many teams are starting on a 4-year cycle of development leading up to the next world cup.
As for Ireland - sure if they win the 6 nations perhaps with a Grand Slam they'll celebrate, but frankly it won't come close to the disappointment of yet another world cup of underachievement. And actually that goes for all the 6 nations sides, not just Ireland - once again coming off badly second best when up against the better SH sides.
Was at the match in Cardiff on Saturday - usually go to one of the Wales matches as my wife is welsh and a rugby fan. Always a rather weird atmosphere and nothing like the hype of fervent knowledgable passionate welsh rugby fans singing their hearts out. Nope that is not the vibe whatsoever - the drinking seems to be the main event, even during the match.
-
I think we might as well hand the trophy to Ireland now.
Another potentially great match ruined by a sending off, in my opinion.
Unlike football being a player down is pretty well always fatal for a side in a relatively well matched game. So if a player gets sent off relatively early in a match, basically time to go home, you know what the result is going to be.
I think the rugby authorities need to sort this out - once upon a time yellow and red cards were rare so few matches were ruined in this manner - now they seem to occur with monotonous regularity, ruining potentially good matches. There must be a better way - for example, what would be red card offence is punished with a penalty try, but the team retains 15 players (perhaps requiring the offending player to be substituted).
-
The format is well past its sell by date
That's nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the format, except Italy's inability to up their game.
and it certainly looks as if many teams are starting on a 4-year cycle of development leading up to the next world cup.
That's a bit charitable as far as Wales and England are concerned. I think they are just trying to build competitive teams for any competition.
As for Ireland - sure if they win the 6 nations perhaps with a Grand Slam they'll celebrate, but frankly it won't come close to the disappointment of yet another world cup of underachievement.
Agreed.
And actually that goes for all the 6 nations sides, not just Ireland - once again coming off badly second best when up against the better SH sides.
Looked at objectively, it's not as bad as you make it sound. Ireland beat the eventual champions and then lost a close match in the knockout phase. England ran South Africa close even though their side was, by consensus, pretty dreadful.
Was at the match in Cardiff on Saturday - usually go to one of the Wales matches as my wife is welsh and a rugby fan. Always a rather weird atmosphere and nothing like the hype of fervent knowledgable passionate welsh rugby fans singing their hearts out. Nope that is not the vibe whatsoever - the drinking seems to be the main event, even during the match.
Well Wales are in deep trouble. They have the strongest rugby tradition of all the 6N countries but the game in Wales is in crisis. I'm pretty sure the fans all know that.
-
Another potentially great match ruined by a sending off, in my opinion.
Unlike football being a player down is pretty well always fatal for a side in a relatively well matched game. So if a player gets sent off relatively early in a match, basically time to go home, you know what the result is going to be.
I think the rugby authorities need to sort this out - once upon a time yellow and red cards were rare so few matches were ruined in this manner - now they seem to occur with monotonous regularity, ruining potentially good matches. There must be a better way - for example, what would be red card offence is punished with a penalty try, but the team retains 15 players (perhaps requiring the offending player to be substituted).
In this case, the sending off was for two yellow card offences. But I agree that it ruined the game, particularly as it was the France number five.
There's a problem with the situation of cards in that the attempt to make the game safer means you can get a red card for something that was completely accidental. I don't really think that is acceptable.
-
That's nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the format, except Italy's inability to up their game.
Nope - the format is non-sense.
1. Playing the same old sides year in, year out in a small league - yawn.
2. Having a format where some sides play 3 games at home and others 2.
3. Finishing anywhere other than top provides no benefit (e.g. qualification for some other higher level tournament), nor consequences (e.g. relegation) - meaning that once a side is unable/unlikely to win the tournament they frankly don't give a sh*t, using the final games as useful training exercises.
4. Playing the same old second string sides doesn't help develop NH teams (as we see again and again at the world cup) - what the NH sides need is not another yawn-fest 6 nations match against Scotland, or Ireland, but much more regular matches against the SH sides in a tournament that means something (and the Autumn internationals mean nothing and the Lions is just an acceptance that SH sides are better and doesn't help individual NH sides one iota).
5. A league structure with so few teams is really outdated unless it leads somewhere - the 6 nations would be much better if there was a knockout stage (and NH sides need much more experience in knockout matches if they are to be more successful in the world cup).
And that's why 6-Nations match days in Cardiff are all about the drinking and the 'event' rather than the rugby - the guy sat next to me missed about 30 mins of the match queuing at the bar, the guy the other side of me seemed to have no clue about the basic rules (kept saying 'err, what happened there to me') and the woman in front of me spent the whole match taking selfies.
-
In this case, the sending off was for two yellow card offences. But I agree that it ruined the game, particularly as it was the France number five.
There's a problem with the situation of cards in that the attempt to make the game safer means you can get a red card for something that was completely accidental. I don't really think that is acceptable.
I understand why they've become much stricter, but it is ruining the game - watching 15 against 14 is rubbish.
At the match on Saturday you get a bit of a different perspective than watching it on the tv - when there is a set piece, particularly a scrum the discrepancy is achingly obvious - both sides have 8 player in the scrum, each with a scrum half in attendance. So stretched across the rest of the field one side have 6 players, the other just 5 and the gaping holes are obvious.
-
Looked at objectively, it's not as bad as you make it sound. Ireland beat the eventual champions and then lost a close match in the knockout phase. England ran South Africa close even though their side was, by consensus, pretty dreadful.
Looked at objectively it was another abject failure for NH sides, to go along with 2019, 2015, 2011, 2007, 1999, 1995, 1991 and 1987.
Once again in 2023 we had the 6-nations sides failing to win a single knock-out stage game against the top tier (rugby championship) SH sides - and that includes Argentina.
-
And of course if you are Welsh, your star player buggered off to American Football - not even Rugby League.
-
And of course if you are Welsh, your star player buggered off to American Football - not even Rugby League.
Indeed - interestingly that seemed to be the only rugby based topic of conversation either in the pub beforehand or during the match or afterwards. No comments on the potential new talent playing that afternoon. But I guess when there is so little interest at club level there won't be many people who have the faintest idea whether a new cap from Cardiff or a new cap from Newport Dragons is any good or not.
The contrast with football is huge - typically any potential new cap at international level for one of the UK teams is well known by the fans of that international side - simply because they'll have seen them play at club level - either at the ground itself or on the tv.
-
Nope - the format is non-sense.
The word is "nonsense". There's no hyphen.
1. Playing the same old sides year in, year out in a small league - yawn.
The tournament has been going since 1883 with only minor tweaks and the addition of two teams. It's rarely been described as boring. I suggest you are in a minority.
2. Having a format where some sides play 3 games at home and others 2.
Well it's an unavoidable flaw given that there are currently an even number of teams in the tournament and there is no desire to stretch it into home and away games.
3. Finishing anywhere other than top provides no benefit (e.g. qualification for some other higher level tournament), nor consequences (e.g. relegation) - meaning that once a side is unable/unlikely to win the tournament they frankly don't give a sh*t, using the final games as useful training exercises.
Nonsense.
4. Playing the same old second string sides doesn't help develop NH teams (as we see again and again at the world cup) - what the NH sides need is not another yawn-fest 6 nations match against Scotland, or Ireland, but much more regular matches against the SH sides in a tournament that means something (and the Autumn internationals mean nothing and the Lions is just an acceptance that SH sides are better and doesn't help individual NH sides one iota).
It's not a yawn fest. You don't like it but that doesn't make you right.
5. A league structure with so few teams is really outdated unless it leads somewhere - the 6 nations would be much better if there was a knockout stage (and NH sides need much more experience in knockout matches if they are to be more successful in the world cup).
Nonsense.
And that's why 6-Nations match days in Cardiff are all about the drinking and the 'event' rather than the rugby - the guy sat next to me missed about 30 mins of the match queuing at the bar, the guy the other side of me seemed to have no clue about the basic rules (kept saying 'err, what happened there to me') and the woman in front of me spent the whole match taking selfies.
That is because, as I said, Wales are shit.
-
I understand why they've become much stricter, but it is ruining the game - watching 15 against 14 is rubbish.
Is often rubbish, you mean. For a counter example to your point, see England's opening match in the last RWC.
At the match on Saturday you get a bit of a different perspective than watching it on the tv - when there is a set piece, particularly a scrum the discrepancy is achingly obvious - both sides have 8 player in the scrum, each with a scrum half in attendance. So stretched across the rest of the field one side have 6 players, the other just 5 and the gaping holes are obvious.
It was in the match on Friday where a man was sent off.
-
Looked at objectively it was another abject failure for NH sides, to go along with 2019, 2015, 2011, 2007, 1999, 1995, 1991 and 1987.
Once again in 2023 we had the 6-nations sides failing to win a single knock-out stage game against the top tier (rugby championship) SH sides - and that includes Argentina.
For a scientist you are bit shit at looking at things objectively.
-
I understand why they've become much stricter, but it is ruining the game - watching 15 against 14 is rubbish.
Do you want to ask the Argentinians that?
Penalty tries already exist. IMO Daley should have had a red card for his trip tackle. (Me v anti-Sarries again). Beyond that I can remember watching a warm up in 2015 and getting annoyed by the other Eng fans. That game had no alcohol in the stadium (the Paris venue). I have no idea if that's the same case now.
-
For a scientist you are bit shit at looking at things objectively.
That's exactly what I am doing - looking at the objective records of the tier 1 nations (defined as those playing in either the 6 Nations or the Rugby Championship) in the World Cup.
I provides the data some while ago before the 2023 World Cup had concluded, but I can now update it:
World Cup winners:
SH - 9
NH - 1
Knock-out stage victories between rugby championship vs 6 nations match-ups (oh and this includes Argentina)
SH - 31
NH - 9
And this is, of course, not some kind of historical feature - it is ongoing as the data I've added for 2023 are:
World Cup winners:
SH - 1
NH - 0
Knock-out stage victories between rugby championship vs 6 nations match-ups (oh and this includes Argentina)
SH - 4
NH - 0
A particularly sh*t showing from the 6 Nations side this time out, but not out of kilter with previous tournaments and the overall record since 1987.
-
Do you want to ask the Argentinians that?
The Argentina vs England match was kind of the exception that proves the rule.
So in the World Cup there have been 33 red cards, just 7 have been won by the side down to 14 players, but of those 7, all but two either occurred too late in the game to make a big difference (e.g. the 80th minute red card for Fiji against Canada) and/or were in uncompetitive matches (e.g. the South Africa red card against Uruguay).
With the exception of the game you mention every other 'competitive' match against top ranked sides where a red card has been show have ended up with the team with 15 players winning, including of course the 2023 final.
Penalty tries already exist.
I know - but I'm suggesting them as an alternative to permanently taking a team down to 14 players. Where-ever a red card offence occurs that player must be substituted and the other side is awarded a 7 point penalty try. Penalises both the player and the team but doesn't create the critical 15 plays 14 imbalance that ruins matches.
-
It certainly looks that way. Coming so soon after the World Cup disappointment, I wonder how much a Grand Slam, it it occurs, will feel devalued for the Irish, 'just another Grand Slam'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(rugby_union).England have won the grand slam 13 times. (Unfortunately, there's a reminder the Scotland won theirs in 1990 (the less I remember of that, the better :( ). On average its a GS in about 1/3 since the year dot.
I suspect most Eng fans do value a GS.
The biggest devalued item so far is ITV. Their camera team have no idea how to spot the French and its far more important to watch adverts than review the test so far.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(rugby_union).England have won the grand slam 13 times. (Unfortunately, there's a reminder the Scotland won theirs in 1990 (the less I remember of that, the better :( ). On average its a GS in about 1/3 since the year dot.
I suspect most Eng fans do value a GS.
The biggest devalued item so far is ITV. Their camera team have no idea how to spot the French and its far more important to watch adverts than review the test so far.
Even England would value a World Cup win way higher than another Grand Slam, despite at least having a World Cup win under their belt. As for Scotland, France, Ireland - well the value of a world cup win is off the scale in comparison with a grand slam.
-
Even England would value a World Cup win way higher than another Grand Slam, despite at least having a World Cup win under their belt. As for Scotland, France, Ireland - well the value of a world cup win is off the scale in comparison with a grand slam.
I'll take the Grand Slam just now. Scotland winning the World Cup isn't realistic. France and Ireland had a chance
-
I'll take the Grand Slam just now. Scotland winning the World Cup isn't realistic. France and Ireland had a chance
Whether a World Cup win is realistic is besides the point. The question is whether supporters of Scotland, Wales, France, Ireland (and England) would prefer to win a first World Cup title (or a second World Cup title) or another Grand Slam. I think the answer is clearly the former.
However you have just demonstrated the lack of ambition so evidence amongst NH rugby (particularly Wales, Scotland and Ireland), basically, 'hey, we aren't going to ever win a world cup, so let's focus on winning the 6 Nations'. This is also evident in the structural lack of ambition in the very concept of the Lions - 'hey, we'll never bear the SH team on the own home soil so perhaps if we put together 4 teams we might have a chance'.
Rugby is a minority sport pretty well everywhere (arguably not in NZ and Wales, but they have tiny populations) - there is no reason why any of the 6 nations sides (with the exception of Italy) shouldn't believe they can win the world cup. Why are SH sides so inherently better that the likes of Scotland concede that they can't win before a pass is thrown.
-
Whether a World Cup win is realistic is besides the point. The question is whether supporters of Scotland, Wales, France, Ireland (and England) would prefer to win a first World Cup title (or a second World Cup title) or another Grand Slam. I think the answer is clearly the former.
However you have just demonstrated the lack of ambition so evidence amongst NH rugby (particularly Wales, Scotland and Ireland), basically, 'hey, we aren't going to ever win a world cup, so let's focus on winning the 6 Nations'. This is also evident in the structural lack of ambition in the very concept of the Lions - 'hey, we'll never bear the SH team on the own home soil so perhaps if we put together 4 teams we might have a chance'.
Rugby is a minority sport pretty well everywhere (arguably not in NZ and Wales, but they have tiny populations) - there is no reason why any of the 6 nations sides (with the exception of Italy) shouldn't believe they can win the world cup. Why are SH sides so inherently better that the likes of Scotland concede that they can't win before a pass is thrown.
You seem to want to say Scotland fans would rather have a World Cup win than a Grandd Slam but if they don't they are lacking in ambition. How is that tasty cake yoy. are having and eating?
And you seem to have little understanding of sport. To take an example, Greenock Morton after 12 games this season had 8 pounts and were 6 points adrift at the bottom of the league. At that point I had no ambitions that we would win the Champions League, nor even hain promotion, the aim was not to be relegated. After 22 games we now have 32 points and are in the last playoff position. The automatic promotion position has 45 points currently. At sometime in our run of 7 wins and 3 draws, I decided we were safe from relegation and started hoping for a play off spot. Winning the league though is still not a worthwhile ambition. If we take 24 points in the next 10 games, let's see. Winning the Champions League or even the SPL still not ambitions.
Now as to Scotland in rugby union, we haven't the Six Nations ever, never mind a Grand Slam, and it's a yearly competition. In order to consider the World Cup, we should be winning the 6 Nations regularly, with the occasional Slam. Till then talkung about winning the World Cup is unrealistic.
You see as the Morton tale of the bank goes, these things come in stages, and in addition just to help you out the World Cup only happens every four years so.as a fan, I'll take that Slam as possible though a tough ask, before any talk of the World Cup. Happy to have helped you begin to understand sport
-
You seem to want to say Scotland fans would rather have a World Cup win than a Grandd Slam but if they don't they are lacking in ambition. How is that tasty cake yoy. are having and eating?
And you seem to have little understanding of sport. To take an example, Greenock Morton after 12 games this season had 8 pounts and were 6 points adrift at the bottom of the league. At that point I had no ambitions that we would win the Champions League, nor even hain promotion, the aim was not to be relegated. After 22 games we now have 32 points and are in the last playoff position. The automatic promotion position has 45 points currently. At sometime in our run of 7 wins and 3 draws, I decided we were safe from relegation and started hoping for a play off spot. Winning the league though is still not a worthwhile ambition. If we take 24 points in the next 10 games, let's see. Winning the Champions League or even the SPL still not ambitions.
Now as to Scotland in rugby union, we haven't the Six Nations ever, never mind a Grand Slam, and it's a yearly competition. In order to consider the World Cup, we should be winning the 6 Nations regularly, with the occasional Slam. Till then talkung about winning the World Cup is unrealistic.
You see as the Morton tale of the bank goes, these things come in stages, and in addition just to help you out the World Cup only happens every four years so.as a fan, I'll take that Slam as possible though a tough ask, before any talk of the World Cup. Happy to have helped you begin to understand sport
You do understand how you're comparison between Morton and Scotland is complete nonsense.
Morton cannot win the champions league when it is next played - it is impossible, as to even have a chance of qualifying they'll need to gain promotion to the Premiership to even make it a possibility. But then they'd have to qualify for the champions league, etc, etc. And Morton are ranking 16th just in Scotland, heaven knows where they would be ranked in a list of all the clubs eligible for the champions league. So sure Morton winning the champions league is not a realistic ambition.
But Scotland have already qualified for the 2027 World Cup and are currently ranked 6th in the world in the rugby rankings. Under those circumstances I think it is a perfectly reasonable ambition to be aspiring to win the world cup. Doesn't mean they'll do it, but currently the NH teams, particularly the celtic ones, seem to be so defeatist that the assume the best they might achieve is perhaps a semi final finish. Why? There is no earthly reason why Scotland, Ireland and Wales should not genuinely be considering that they can win it and plan over a four year period to aim to win it - and that may mean not worrying too much about how they do in individual 6 nations tournaments as long as they peak in a world cup year.
-
You do understand how you're comparison between Morton and Scotland is complete nonsense.
Morton cannot win the champions league when it is next played - it is impossible, as to even have a chance of qualifying they'll need to gain promotion to the Premiership to even make it a possibility. But then they'd have to qualify for the champions league, etc, etc. And Morton are ranking 16th just in Scotland, heaven knows where they would be ranked in a list of all the clubs eligible for the champions league. So sure Morton winning the champions league is not a realistic ambition.
But Scotland have already qualified for the 2027 World Cup and are currently ranked 6th in the world in the rugby rankings. Under those circumstances I think it is a perfectly reasonable ambition to be aspiring to win the world cup. Doesn't mean they'll do it, but currently the NH teams, particularly the celtic ones, seem to be so defeatist that the assume the best they might achieve is perhaps a semi final finish. Why? There is no earthly reason why Scotland, Ireland and Wales should not genuinely be considering that they can win it and plan over a four year period to aim to win it - and that may mean not worrying too much about how they do in individual 6 nations tournaments as long as they peak in a world cup year.
I see analogy is something you struggle with understanding as well as sport. The Morton example, which used the Champions League as a reductio rather than a direct comparison with the World Cup, was about how in any ambition there are gradations, and they can develop, and change
Given it's 40 years since Scotland won a Grand Slam, a four year plan that was successful would be a hood achievement. In thinking that might be a more realustic goal, given changing national performances in any sport needs a good long term plan is not defeatist just realistic. While for that and any World Cup ambition, it may be necessary to take a coupke of steps back or to the side in any one year of the Six Natiobs, if we are not winning the 6 Nations we're not likely to be winning the World Cup.
As to your judgemenf the Celtic nations to be defeatist I take it you've missed Ireland's bitter disappointment at not winning the World Cup last year.
-
I see analogy is something you struggle with understanding as well as sport. The Morton example, which used the Champions League as a reductio rather than a direct comparison with the World Cup, was about how in any ambition there are gradations, and they can develop, and change
Your analogy is Morton and the Champions League is complete bollox I'm afraid NS.
Over the past year or so Scotland have been ranked 5th or 6th of the teams that compete in the World Cup. Uefa also ranks club sides - i.e. those eligible to compete in the Champions League - over the past year or so the following teams have ranked 5th or 6th in that ranking: Inter Milan, Liverpool, PSG, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Barcelona. That's the comparison in football terms, not Morton. Do you really think those clubs cannot realistically have an ambition to win the Champions League?
-
Given it's 40 years since Scotland won a Grand Slam, a four year plan that was successful would be a hood achievement. In thinking that might be a more realustic goal, given changing national performances in any sport needs a good long term plan is not defeatist just realistic. While for that and any World Cup ambition, it may be necessary to take a coupke of steps back or to the side in any one year of the Six Natiobs, if we are not winning the 6 Nations we're not likely to be winning the World Cup.
Of course it takes time to get to the top, but any side ranked 5th or 6th should have that firmly as a priority. While sides (particularly Wales, Ireland and Scotland) continue to prioritise the annual yawn-fest of the 6 nations they will never take that longer term view require to build to a peak at the world cup.
The only NH sides that really tried in this regard are France and England and particularly England moved their focus away from the 6 nations and the unwelcome (if you are building to a world cup) distraction of the Lions, towards a situation where they regularly beat the top SH teams on their home soil and routinely beat them on NH soil. That's why England's track record over the past 20 or so years in the World Cup (one win, two further finals and a semi final and on each of those occasions being the last NH side standing) from 6 tournaments has been much more impressive than their 6 nations result over the same period (just 4 wins in the 20 tournaments since they won the world cup).
-
As to your judgemenf the Celtic nations to be defeatist I take it you've missed Ireland's bitter disappointment at not winning the World Cup last year.
My recollection was that the Irish weren't bitterly disappointed not to win the world cup (how would we know, they never came close) - nope my memory tells me they were bitterly disappoint not to get beyond the quarter finals, yet again. I think their level of ambition was to get further than they'd got before, rather than to win - but they failed to do that. Their ambition was to break the quarter final curse. This from the Irish Times:
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/2023/10/15/rugby-world-cup-it-hurts-of-course-it-does-but-ireland-left-it-all-out-there/
Apparently they would have 'made history' had they reached a semi-final. Nope if your ambition is to win the tournament, you make history by ... err ... winning the tournament not just getting to a semi final.
“Let’s not forget we were playing against the All Blacks here, and we came within touching distance of making history. I couldn’t fault the application of the players. It just hurts all that more given the context of what has happened in previous tournaments. I am left wondering though in terms of reaching a semi-final, if not now, then when?â€[/]
-
Your analogy is Morton and the Champions League is complete bollox I'm afraid NS.
Over the past year or so Scotland have been ranked 5th or 6th of the teams that compete in the World Cup. Uefa also ranks club sides - i.e. those eligible to compete in the Champions League - over the past year or so the following teams have ranked 5th or 6th in that ranking: Inter Milan, Liverpool, PSG, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Barcelona. That's the comparison in football terms, not Morton. Do you really think those clubs cannot realistically have an ambition to win the Champions League?
I see despite my best attempts analogy is still beyond you. And sport. Ah well. Such a shame
-
I see despite my best attempts analogy is still beyond you.
Definition of analogy: "a comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/analogy
So in a discussion of a reasonable level of ambition in a sports competition the similar features would, of course, refer to how good those teams are in comparison with other teams edible to play that competition - a ranking of teams if you like.
So a reasonable analogy is to compare the 5th/6th ranked team in the rugby World Cup (Scotland) with teams with similar features in the Champions League, i.e. ranked 5th/6th. This would be a comparison with Inter Milan, Liverpool, PSG, Real Madrid, Chelsea or Barcelona, not with Greenock Morton.
You could, of course develop a reasonable analogy in the reverse direction - comparing Greenock Morton (ranked 700 in Uefa club rankings) with the 700th ranked team eligible to play in the rugby World Cup. Oh, except you can't as there aren't 700 countries on the globe so it is impossible to find a team in world rugby ranked as low as Greenock Morton are in the Champion League rankings!
So I'm not really sure whether your issue is that you really don't understand what an analogy is, or you are really, really shit at formulating them.
-
Predictions for this weekend's games.
Presumably Ireland comfortably beat Italy, so will remain top of the table by the end of the weekend.
But the other two games are pretty interesting. My gut suggests home wins in both games.
-
Wins for Ireland, France, England
-
My recollection was that the Irish weren't bitterly disappointed not to win the world cup
Really? That's your recollection is it?
(how would we know, they never came close)
Yes they did. They had one bad match in the QF that they lost by less than a score. I don't think anybody doubts that they would have rolled over Argentina in the semis.
- nope my memory tells me they were bitterly disappoint not to get beyond the quarter finals, yet again. I think their level of ambition was to get further than they'd got before, rather than to win
You really don't understand sport, do you. Going into the tournament, they were the top ranked side in the World. Of course they thought they could win.
-
Predictions for this weekend's games.
Presumably Ireland comfortably beat Italy, so will remain top of the table by the end of the weekend.
But the other two games are pretty interesting. My gut suggests home wins in both games.
I think France will be too strong for Scotland and England should beat a poor Wales, but that is the only match where I'm not confident of the result.
-
Boo!
-
Yes they did. They had one bad match in the QF that they lost by less than a score.
No they didn't come close - they were knocked out in the quarter finals, the first knockout stage. That isn't close to winning a tournament in anyone's books.
I don't think anybody doubts that they would have rolled over Argentina in the semis.
But it is a complete hypothetical isn't it, as they didn't get as far as a semi final, because they got knocked out in the quarter final.
-
You really don't understand sport, do you. Going into the tournament, they were the top ranked side in the World. Of course they thought they could win.
What I understand, and you seem to be failing to understand, is that at the highest level sport isn't just about the physical/technical ability. It is also about the mental aspects - being mentally touch and having self belief that you can win. This applies to team and individual sports. And often the difference between the world beaters and the also rans isn't major difference in physical/technical ability, but a difference in self belief.
I think Ireland lacked the self belief that they could win the world cup, regardless of whether they were ranked no1. That's what did for them - and the suggestion of 'making history' by getting to a semi final speaks volumes about that lack of self belief. If you have the self belief that you can win the think making a semi final is merely a necessary stepping stone, not something you'd consider to be 'making history'.
-
No they didn't come close - they were knocked out in the quarter finals, the first knockout stage.
By a whisker.
That isn't close to winning a tournament in anyone's books.
But it is a complete hypothetical isn't it, as they didn't get as far as a semi final, because they got knocked out in the quarter final.
It was about as certain as it gets in rugby without actually happening.
-
I think Ireland lacked the self belief that they could win the world cup,
Nonsense.
Of course they believed they could win. Perhaps they believed a little too much.
This narrative of choking was tacked on after they lost narrowly against another strong team.
-
I think France will be too strong for Scotland and England should beat a poor Wales, but that is the only match where I'm not confident of the result.
So far my predictions are sort of true, but both matches were much closer than I expected.
-
So far my predictions are sort of true, but both matches were much closer than I expected.
Not great games
-
By a whisker.
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.
It was about as certain as it gets in rugby without actually happening.
A whole pile of 'what ifs' there JP - if Ireland had won their QF and if they were playing Argentina in a SF, what might have happened, and if they had won a SF (which they weren't in anyhow), what might have happened in a final!
Bottom line - none of this happened because Ireland lost in the QF to a side nominally ranked lower than them - but NZ have immense self belief in their ability to win (as do South Africa) - something I think Ireland lacked and that mental attitude and lack of belief probably did for them. Not only were NZ ranked lower than Ireland they also played 20 minutes of the game with 14 players, yet they won and were actually never behind in the match - that speaks volumes for their level of self belief.
-
Not great games
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
That decision for Scotland v France now affecting the whole 6 Nations
-
Shot clock should be reset if ball falls off support. French ran towards ball so kick should have been retaken.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68397499
-
Shot clock should be reset if ball falls off support.
That seems sensible.
French ran towards ball so kick should have been retaken.
That's true. I missed it the first time, but one of the French players clearly ran towards the ball. Technically it is not "retaking the penalty" but a new penalty ten metres closer to the French line.
-
In other places I've seen a lot of discussion about the eligibility criteria used at international level, which seems to involve only a short period of residency, rather than any meaningful connection with the country adopted (e.g. as might be the case if there was the requirement for at least a grandparent from that country).
The criteria seem too lax to my mind - I don't think transferring to a club side in Scotland or in Ireland and playing there for three years should be sufficient, as is the case for van der Merwe for Scotland and Lowe, Aki and Gibson-Park for Ireland. As far as I'm aware beyond living there for a while none have any family connection to their chosen country.
Now I believe the residency rules are now a little tighter (5 rather than 3 years) but it seems to me that you must have some family link (however tenuous) to a country to be eligible to play for them. Otherwise it becomes little more than an indication of where you play your club rugby.
Now in the case of Ireland Lowe, Aki and Gibson-Park are all New Zealanders - I wonder whether in some deep, deep part of their psychology this affect them just a little bit when they are playing ... err ... New Zealand, their actual nationality.
-
This weekend's results were fairly unexpected. I had Ireland and Scotland to win comfortably. Although I thought France would also win, I thought it would be close. In the event they hammered Wales.
-
Impressive performance by Italy to hand the Wooden Spoon to Wales. In fact, until the substitutions, they were cruising comfortably.
-
Not sure what to make of that Six Nations. Bad for Wales, good for Italy. In different ways disappointment for Ireland, France, and Scotland. Hope for England? France's 2nd is a thing.
Notable that at Under 20s Englsnd and Ireland are the stsnd outs at the top, and Scotland at the bottom.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/under-20-six-nations/table
-
Not sure what to make of that Six Nations. Bad for Wales, good for Italy. In different ways disappointment for Ireland, France, and Scotland. Hope for England? France's 2nd is a thing.
Ireland did what was expected.
France underperformed IMO, but were missing Antoine Dupont.
England were, on the whole, improved and played some pretty good rugby in the last two games.
Scotland flattered to derive, as usual.
Italy showed they are an improving side. Were possibly unlucky to lose to England.
Wales. Oh dear.
Notable that at Under 20s Englsnd and Ireland are the stsnd outs at the top, and Scotland at the bottom.
I would say those results compound the trouble at Wales.
-
Some stats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68608759
-
And some info on what to expect in the Women's Six Nations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68597483
-
And some info on what to expect in the Women's Six Nations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68597483
Hopefully, it will be a bit more competitive now some of the teams other than England and France have professional players.
-
Hopefully, it will be a bit more competitive now some of the teams other than England and France have professional players.
1 close game, 1 not close but competitive, and one where even a sending off couldn't make it either.
-
1 close game, 1 not close but competitive, and one where even a sending off couldn't make it either.
And England had a yellow in the second half meaning that for a period they were down to thirteen - and Italy still couldn't score.
-
Tough if messy match between Scotland and France
Easy win for England against Wales but the gap doesn't seem as big as last year.
-
Ireland will be disappointed to have lost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68704258
-
Another easy win for England despite another red card
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68808365
-
France win again but not as convincely as England. Looks like the other teams have got closer to France but England have stretched away.
Good win for Ireland against Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68811809
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68809548
-
I watched England play Scotland. They were playing with 14 women for almost half the match but they barely noticed. They still seemed to be able to score almost at will.
Also, the Scottish line out was absolutely terrible. England were almost as likely to win it as Scotland. Excepting France, the other NH sides are still miles behind.
-
'British and Irish Lions women: £3m fund aims to ensure first women's team is more than just England"
Really don't see the point in a women's Lions team being set up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68819287
-
'British and Irish Lions women: £3m fund aims to ensure first women's team is more than just England"
Really don't see the point in a women's Lions team being set up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68819287
I'm not a massive fan of the men's team.
-
I'm not a massive fan of the men's team.
Neither am I, but given that it exists, that's a different argument. I wonder if there is a financial argument for the women's Lions.
-
Neither am I, but given that it exists, that's a different argument. I wonder if there is a financial argument for the women's Lions.
I'll have a go. Given that women's rugby in the home nations other than England is a long way behind, investment in the game in those home nations can only increase the appeal. Using the problem of the Lions being England by another name is a hook on which to hang funding for the other home nations.
Edit: sorry, that doesn't answer the question you asked.
-
I'll have a go. Given that women's rugby in the home nations other than England is a long way behind, investment in the game in those home nations can only increase the appeal. Using the problem of the Lions being England by another name is a hook on which to hang funding for the other home nations.
Edit: sorry, that doesn't answer the question you asked.
I'm wondering whether the Lions name means they would get bigger attendances in the Southern Hemisphere nations? But it does feel incredibly anachronistic to set one up now.
-
Another huge win for England, this time keeping all their players on the pitch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68855338
-
Another huge win for England, this time keeping all their players on the pitch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68855338
Well, Lucy Packer got sin-binned, so England were down to 14 for 10 minutes.
-
Big win for Scotland in Italy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68865745
-
Easy win for France vs Wales but after 4 matches before they meet up next week pts difference to England even with red cards is 114 pts better off than France. Wales need a bonus point win to avoid the wooden spoon.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68870005
-
Wales need a bonus point win to avoid the wooden spoon.
They need a bonus point win and one of Ireland or Italy not to get a bonus point and they need to overturn the points difference to that team - 35 or 37 points respectively. Beating Italy by 19 points without Italy scoring four tries will do it.
If they fail to stop Italy from scoring four tries or from getting closer than 19 points, they have to hope Scotland beat Ireland by a big enough margin and stop Ireland from getting four tries.
-
England complete Grand Slam but struggle a bit after France lose a player
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/cxe97k7nv2mo
Ireland nick 3rd and qualify for World Cup
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/cevenqqn52go
Wales beat Italy but picked up wooden spoon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/c80zr25pw7po