5 things you've learnt from this year's 6 nations

[bw245]

Yeah, besides our greatest ever achievement. All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

It was our greatest ever achievement hands down. I'll never forget the day. I truly believed we had found a coach who could bring Ireland to beyond, but unfortunately it didn't happen. Good coach at Munster, not so hot at Test rugby. He was a funny guy though, I'll give him that. I think maybe my standards of coaches has gone right up thanks to Schmidt.

Also, my memories of Kidney include us coming 5th in the six nations 2013. I know injury played a huge part in that tournament, so much so that Peter O'Mahony became a winger, but yeah, I was not sad saying goodbye to him.

 

[ENZED-88]

No they haven't. England have showed what they can do and so have Wales. Ireland have just been more consistent. Each team yesterday performed like they did under huge pressure so that is a huge plus going into the World Cup.

To be fair I know a lot of NZ rugby fans only watch 6 nation teams when they are up against the ABs. Out of the competition 3 of those sides have never beaten the AB and out of the other 3 one hasn't beaten AB since Moses fled Egypt, while the other two pull a good win out every now and again hence the reason why a lot of NZers don't take NH teams seriously. I personally rate the English and Irish team ,would never put money on them vs the ABs but they are capable teams.

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

1. Jared Payne starting to show he can actually play 13. Defensively, he is much more sound than I thought, very impressed vs Scotland.

2. Fitzgerald needs to be in the squad somewhere, he looked very hungry and was looking for work constantly. Is he a bit lightweight for 13 though? That being said Payne isn't the biggest either

3. Ageing POC isn't just a leader, he's a bloody great player too. He was just outstanding, versus Scotland and Wales especially, he even carried very well. Crucial to us at the RWC.

4. Jones on the bench is a waste. Earls, Cave, Gilroy to mention a few could have easily had a better impact - in fact he wasn't even used against Scotland. I hope to see Olding there when he becomes fit again.

5. I'm not convinced we can't play a bit more expansive more regularly and still get results.

6 (fight me). O'Mahony - O'Brien - Heaslip is a serious back row, I think it actually has a very good balance to it. Henry to come back, but I can't see him starting.


edit: Also, I don't know where to put this, but I'd like to see this backline sometime:
9: Murray
10: Sexton
11: Earls
12: Henshaw
13: Fitzgerald
14: Bowe
15: Payne

 

[Shaggy]

He talks about nobody from New Zealand underestimate teams and in the very next sentence goes on to say all but Ireland are crap. Since his last comment about the opinion of teams was talking about the view held by NZ fans as a whole, I believed that the next sentence was still referring to what NZ fans as a whole thought. Either way it's being pedantic, he said NZ fans don't underestimate the NH and then goes on to call them crap, which contradicts what he just said.



I don't mind him saying he thinks NH sides are crap, it's that he says NZ fans don't underestimate the NH and then contradicts himself in the very next sentence by underestimating us. Yes we haven't won but Ireland almost beat them, losing only because NZ were allowed to retake a kick at the very end. England got within 1 score of NZ twice, at the time the closest any team had managed to get to NZ all year. The top 3 NH sides have all beaten SH sides except NZ in the last year.

Yep May was dropped but not for that. He was retained until this year.

What he actually says is "I don't see how anyone from NZ is under estimating NH sides" so, he's expressing his personal view, so he's speaking for himself, there's no "we" except the one you put in your post ... The fact that he start the first sentence with "I" implies that second statement is what he thinks, not what NZ fans think as a whole

 

[smartcooky]

To be fair I know a lot of NZ rugby fans only watch 6 nation teams when they are up against the ABs. Out of the competition 3 of those sides have never beaten the AB and out of the other 3 one hasn't beaten AB since Moses fled Egypt, while the other two pull a good win out every now and again hence the reason why a lot of NZers don't take NH teams seriously. I personally rate the English and Irish team ,would never put money on them vs the ABs but they are capable teams.

Ireland have never beaten New Zealand, but that day is coming, and sooner than many Kiwi fans like to think. The last four times we played each other might read 4-0 in the record books, but it could very easily have been 2-2

Scotland have never beaten New Zealand, and I'm afraid the chance has probably come and gone back with the drawn matches and the close games in the 80s and 90's. 24-16 last year is the closest they have been since 1991 (13-6)

Italy have never beaten New Zealand, and frankly, I cannot see that coming for a long, long time. I think Argentia will beat the All Blacks before Italy ever will.

 

[nickdnz]

Ireland have never beaten New Zealand, but that day is coming, and sooner than many Kiwi fans like to think. The last four times we played each other might read 4-0 in the record books, but it could very easily have been 2-2

Scotland have never beaten New Zealand, and I'm afraid the chance has probably come and gone back with the drawn matches and the close games in the 80s and 90's. 24-16 last year is the closest they have been since 1991 (13-6)

Italy have never beaten New Zealand, and frankly, I cannot see that coming for a long, long time. I think Argentia will beat the All Blacks before Italy ever will.

However a 60-0 margin in the middle doesn't help.

Undoubtedly they will probably beat the All Blacks sooner rather than later considering how many times we now play the same NH teams in a year. Of the 28 times we have played Ireland in the last 100 years, 18 of the games have been since 1990, and 14 since 2000.

 

[ncurd]

Part of the problem with SH arrogance is for Australia it's almost completely unfounded in the modern era, England beat them regularly enough. SA while they win more than they loose do loose. Only NZ are really on top of everyone else but that's not SH dominance that's NZ dominance over everyone.

Even then NZ once in a blue moon do loose and everyone of their victories are not the dominant affairs of the other team most like us to belive. NZs main x factor is finding the way to close out tight games or find that bit of magic in the dying minutes. If they didn't have that they'd loose far more games. But as noted for some reason winning becomes easy when you do it regularly.

 

[nickdnz]

Part of the problem with SH arrogance is for Australia it's almost completely unfounded in the modern era, England beat them regularly enough. SA while they win more than they loose do loose. Only NZ are really on top of everyone else but that's not SH dominance that's NZ dominance over everyone.

Even then NZ once in a blue moon do loose and everyone of their victories are not the dominant affairs of the other team most like us to belive. NZs main x factor is finding the way to close out tight games or find that bit of magic in the dying minutes. If they didn't have that they'd loose far more games. But as noted for some reason winning becomes easy when you do it regularly.

Lose.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

What he actually says is "I don't see how anyone from NZ is under estimating NH sides" so, he's expressing his personal view, so he's speaking for himself, there's no "we" except the one you put in your post ... The fact that he start the first sentence with "I" implies that second statement is what he thinks, not what NZ fans think as a whole

Again you are being a pedant, the point was his hypocrisy.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Part of the problem with SH arrogance is for Australia it's almost completely unfounded in the modern era, England beat them regularly enough. SA while they win more than they loose do loose. Only NZ are really on top of everyone else but that's not SH dominance that's NZ dominance over everyone.

Even then NZ once in a blue moon do loose and everyone of their victories are not the dominant affairs of the other team most like us to belive. NZs main x factor is finding the way to close out tight games or find that bit of magic in the dying minutes. If they didn't have that they'd loose far more games. But as noted for some reason winning becomes easy when you do it regularly.

Of course none of what you're saying is actually backed up with evidence.

South Africa have been in the top three internationally consistently over the last 20 years. Australia's lowest ever position in the international rankings is sixth, a position they have only recently come to occupy on the back of what many people would say are their worst ever couple of years of test football. In contrast, Wales has been as low as tenth, and Ireland and England have both occupied eighth position recently enough. When you factor in the fact that Australia and South Africa complete in an (objectively) more difficult annual competition (given the opposition), it seems like a pretty big stretch to say that the NH sides have been on par with Australia 'in the modern era'. Over the last two years? Sure, but again these are two of their worst ever years.

 

[ncurd]

Of course none of what you're saying is actually backed up with evidence.

South Africa have been in the top three internationally consistently over the last 20 years. Australia's lowest ever position in the international rankings is sixth, a position they have only recently come to occupy on the back of what many people would say are their worst ever couple of years of test football. In contrast, Wales has been as low as tenth, and Ireland and England have both occupied eighth position recently enough. When you factor in the fact that Australia and South Africa complete in an (objectively) more difficult annual competition (given the opposition), it seems like a pretty big stretch to say that the NH sides have been on par with Australia 'in the modern era'. Over the last two years? Sure, but again these are two of their worst ever years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_Australia_and_England

12 wins to 12 losess with a draw since 1995....

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_Australia_and_England

12 wins to 12 losess with a draw since 1995....

Head to head matches is only part of the equation.

Of course even if you are only looking at head to head matches, of the 24 matches in the professional era (August 95 onwards) 13 have been played in England, 10 have been played in Australia and one was played in France.

England have beaten Australia three times in Oz during that period (twice in 2003, when England were at their peak, at once in 2010, by one point). Australia have beaten England in England five times in the same period.

 

[ncurd]

Head to head matches is only part of the equation.

Of course even if you are only looking at head to head matches, of the 24 matches in the professional era (August 95 onwards) 13 have been played in England, 10 have been played in Australia and one was played in France.

And?

The point was Australia aren't dominant over particular NH teams, nothing to do do with the fact they have to play high class opposition more often. It doesn't matter where the game are played that only really shows what you'd expect from home field advantage.

Rankings will do nothing to prove anything in way of dominance of some teams over another as it takes into account other games played and who that opposition is. They show consistency against all opposition not dominance against a few slect indivduals(unless your NZ then they show dominance).

It was interesting looking at Eng V SA which I expected to be close with a SA advantage and it was interesting to see a period of dominance of England over them followed by complete dominance by SA. It wasn't how I remembered it but that's probably due to some tight games here and there and memories of when we regularly beat them.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Don't SA have a stupidly good record against Wales and England? They probably have a solid 60%+ record over us since we beat them for the first time in God knows how long in '04.

 

[austingtir]

Again you are being a pedant, the point was his hypocrisy.

In your opinion thats what I said.

All I can add is there are clearly a few seriously bitter and twisted posters in the north..... Some of you just cant handle the truth.

 

[Rugga-lad]

NH teams can play super rugby if they want to LOL!

 

[TRF_heineken]

5 things I've learned from this year's 6 Nations:

1. Italy is still better than Scotland. @ImScotty

2. Refereeing at international level is still a major problem.

3. PSA is the scapegoat to all of France's problems

4. The term, "Whoa, that escalated quickly" can be used more frequently... Especially after the Italy vs. Wales game.

5. Ireland is peaking too soon, and should be careful that they don't make the knockout stages of the World Cup.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Don't SA have a stupidly good record against Wales and England? They probably have a solid 60%+ record over us since we beat them for the first time in God knows how long in '04.

62% win rate vs England, 73% win rate vs Ireland, 90% win rate vs Wales.

(56% vs Australia and France, 39% vs All Blacks, 80% vs Scotland)

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

62% win rate vs England, 73% win rate vs Ireland, 90% win rate vs Wales.

(56% vs Australia and France, 39% vs All Blacks, 80% vs Scotland)

And if we take the last 10 years, which would be fair enough considering ncurd's argument. SA lead Wales and England 11-1, 1 draw vs England and Ireland lead 3-2 having not played in South Africa in this time period. It's also 6 all in England v Australia, 5-3 to Aus over Ireland with one draw and 13-2 to Aus over Wales with one draw. It would appear as if head to head the Sanzar nations still have a clear advantage over the current NH top three. Wales can't beat the SH consistently, England have their bogey team in SA and while SH sides struggle in Lansdowne road they put Ireland away easily at home.

I think the best the NH can claim is that currently we have 2 sides better than Australia, you can't claim Wales are with their record, and our top three are closing in on SA with Ireland leading the charge. NZ are still out of sight in terms of both head to head and consistency.

 

[bw245]

5 things I've learned from this year's 6 Nations:

1. Italy is still better than Scotland. @ImScotty

2. Refereeing at international level is still a major problem.

3. PSA is the scapegoat to all of France's problems

4. The term, "Whoa, that escalated quickly" can be used more frequently... Especially after the Italy vs. Wales game.

5. Ireland is peaking too soon, and should be careful that they don't make the knockout stages of the World Cup.

Peaking too soon? No way. Not one team has peaked in the 6N. Ireland have plenty of things to work on still,and I feel like we've another 30% or more to give.