Six Nations 2019

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's very easy if you have a different set of criteria.

Only if your criteria aren't actually about sport.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sassy]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.