• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[Natwest 6 Nations] Round 4 : France Vs England (10/03/2018)

The BP system is the 6N would be more suited to:

1 BP if you'd score 3 or more tries than the opposition

Plus a LBP if you are 6 or less (not 7) down.

+1. Even if the Home Unions' blazers had heard of this, it would have represented a tacit admission that their countries' top leagues use the wrong BP system in order to run with this system, so it was never going to happen.

Can I make a late call for head to head record to be the first tie breaker though! ;)
 
+1. Even if the Home Unions' blazers had heard of this, it would have represented a tacit admission that their countries' top leagues use the wrong BP system in order to run with this system, so it was never going to happen.

Can I make a late call for head to head record to be the first tie breaker though! ;)
100% this should be the first port of call.
 
Champo will be over on Saturday Bois.

I'm inclined to agree. However, let's be honest; if England beat Ireland (especially if it's convincing), the championship victory will mean very little. Similarly, if England somehow sneak the championship, it will barely be celebrated (at least no more than the victories required to sneak it themselves).
 
100% this should be the first port of call.

Personally not sure head to head would be the best shout as a tiebreaker for the 6N.

It works great when you only have two teams in a tiebreaker, but can get very messy when you have three or more teams involved, and would probably cause way more controversy than points difference.

Have seen it at its worst last year with the Wales u19s football side in a qualification group - They finished level on 6 points with England and Greece having beaten England and lost to Greece, while England beat Greece and lost to Wales. Weird head to head stuff ensued and Wales ended up 3rd and not qualifying, which naturally annoyed a lot of Welsh fans as 1) they beat England but ended up below them and 2) if the normal goal difference tiebreaker rules applied, Wales would've finished 2nd ahead of England having scored more goals. Not gonna lie, there was a bit of a bitter taste after that one!

Last time it happened in the 6 Nations was 2015, and while its even less likely to happen with the addition bonus points, I think head to head wouldn't have worked and would've changed the nature of that mental final round for sure! I reckon teams would've probably have been more conservative, as it wouldn't really have mattered if they won by 1 or 50.

I think the final standings would've remained Ireland - England - Wales if head to head was used anyway, but I can't help but imagining the massive controversy of the third place team (in this case Wales) getting the best points difference, but being bumped down the table and losing the ***le to a team they beat due to fairly complicated head to head permutations...
 
Head to head works when there's home and away fixtures, it'd be mad to have it in the 6n. I think the posts in here are jokes though!

It certainly was on my part. Even if I believed in it, I wouldn't have had the front to say it given the possibility of a four or five point difference coming in to England vs Ireland! I did think that it might have some merit, but hadn't considered the possibility of multi-way ties, also it puts further emphasis on the already massively important home advantage. There's no perfect answer in a short format without home and away matches, but can't think of anything better than bonus points (after number of wins in the unlikely event that this separates teams).

Re: bonus points, I'm pretty ambivalent, but on balance I think I'm in favour as it creates the possibility of slightly more interesting scenarios at the end of games. I still think that "standard" format is pretty stupid though - but for a Keith Earls wonder tackle, Italy would have taken a bonus point out of their heavy defeat to Ireland. I can't see any basis for this being deserved other than "it's the rules".
 
Yeah, I don't particularly like them. It can mean very hollow six nations victories and failing to destroy Italy could cost you ***le. It is against the very idea of a comp as small as the 6N to be able to walk away from a game and think ah well we got the bonus for losing. Whilst the winning bonus point can mean positive styles if you are controlling a game, it can also mean that the team losing the game gives up on trying to win and simply kicks penalties to get withing 7.
 
Yeah, I don't particularly like them. It can mean very hollow six nations victories and failing to destroy Italy could cost you ***le. It is against the very idea of a comp as small as the 6N to be able to walk away from a game and think ah well we got the bonus for losing. Whilst the winning bonus point can mean positive styles if you are controlling a game, it can also mean that the team losing the game gives up on trying to win and simply kicks penalties to get withing 7.

Possibly, but there's a good chance that if you fail to destroy Italy, your inferior points difference would cost you the ***le anyway if bonus points were removed from the table. To my mind, there is nothing worse than finishing runner up on points difference, I'd much rather lose out by virtue of bonus points. In the context of this season, should England miss out by a single point, it would strike me as fair enough given the capitulation against Scotland resulting in a zero point haul and the failure to score 4 tries at home against Wales like Ireland did.

With regard to the 4TBP encouraging positive styles, I'm not sure it does all that often. In a close game, teams are going to do whatever they think gives themselves the best chance of winning the game rather than risking 4 points pretending to be the Barbarians in pursuit of a single point. In a blow out, there's a tendency for securing the bonus point to kill games as a spectacle as coaches ring changes en masse and those on the field send their brains back to the changing room. Another reason that I much prefer the 3 more than the opposition rule.
 
The bonus point system creates a possible scenario where a team can scrape wins in all their games but get a losing bonus point in 1 game whilst another can win convincingly in 4 games but none resulting in 4 tries and lose by over 7 in 1 game. That team would ten lose to the side that scraped through the same number of wins but simply lost by a bit less in 1 game.
 
With Underhill and Mercer out, what happens for Ireland if any of Hughes, Robshaw, Haskell, Simmonds go down?

The Curry's are both injured or not yet fit.

Would EJ go to a fresh face like Armand, Willis, Wilson?

Or would he just stick two locks on the bench?

Horrible feeling that whilst I believe England will beat the French by 13, they'll be subject to some big hits and a lot of wrestling...
 
Armand got some game time during a summer tour didn't he?
I imagine he'd be the first in line outside of the squad, but EJ would almost definitely just use a lock as a backrower
 
With Underhill and Mercer out, what happens for Ireland if any of Hughes, Robshaw, Haskell, Simmonds go down?

The Curry's are both injured or not yet fit.

Would EJ go to a fresh face like Armand, Willis, Wilson?

Or would he just stick two locks on the bench?

Horrible feeling that whilst I believe England will beat the French by 13, they'll be subject to some big hits and a lot of wrestling...

Isn't Underhill expected to be fit for Ire?
 
Armand got some game time during a summer tour didn't he?
I imagine he'd be the first in line outside of the squad, but EJ would almost definitely just use a lock as a backrower
Yeah, 10 minutes vs Argentina in the 1st test.
 
With Underhill and Mercer out, what happens for Ireland if any of Hughes, Robshaw, Haskell, Simmonds go down?

The Curry's are both injured or not yet fit.

Would EJ go to a fresh face like Armand, Willis, Wilson?

Or would he just stick two locks on the bench?

Horrible feeling that whilst I believe England will beat the French by 13, they'll be subject to some big hits and a lot of wrestling...

Armand I guess. Or Mercer if fit. Doubt Willis will get a call up for a few years. A couple good months doesn't warrant a call up, especially when other players have performed at a similar level for years and still dont get selected. Whilst he is a very good young player, we must bare in mind that he is playing in a league with a distinct lack of international atm and that does seem to elevate the performance of players to make them look at a level that they really aren't at yet. He is a fantastic prospect, don't get me wrong, but at the end of the day, he would still struggle against something like that Irish back row. Dismantling a quins back row of Chisholm, Luamanu and Glynn does not cement you as a good international player. If he could go into the england camp and bully Simmonds, Robshaw, Hughes, Billy when he's back and Haskell, then he may be worthy of a place, but I just can't see that at the moment.

We all like to jump on the bandwagons of young players in the assumption that because they perform well at club level, they would do the same at international. I just can't see someone like Smith schooling Sexton or Mercer embarrassing CJ Stander, of course it can happen, but it is very rare.

Being a cemented international is more than about your stats or skill, it is about proving you can compete against the best in the world. Robshaw is a perfect example of this, whilst not flashy, he deals with the best players in the world on a repeated basis. Hartley looks at home on the international stage, whereas Dunn would probably look out of place. You could tell from the very first moment of itojes career that he was a future lion, and there is a big difference there between him and someone like Willis. Armand, in my eyes at least, would look at home on the international stage right now.

And that is the mitigating factor. Such is the player base in England, that we shouldn't rush to give someone like Willis or Smith or Mercer a game simply because they are fantastic club players now, no matter their potential. We have plenty of players around who would look at home as internationals, (Armand) and some who are fantastic club players, but would look out of place in an England shirt (luke Wallace). We have the international quality players now, so why rush in a new one who, deep down, we all know isn't ready.
 
Armand I guess. Or Mercer if fit. Doubt Willis will get a call up for a few years. A couple good months doesn't warrant a call up, especially when other players have performed at a similar level for years and still dont get selected. Whilst he is a very good young player, we must bare in mind that he is playing in a league with a distinct lack of international atm and that does seem to elevate the performance of players to make them look at a level that they really aren't at yet. He is a fantastic prospect, don't get me wrong, but at the end of the day, he would still struggle against something like that Irish back row. Dismantling a quins back row of Chisholm, Luamanu and Glynn does not cement you as a good international player. If he could go into the england camp and bully Simmonds, Robshaw, Hughes, Billy when he's back and Haskell, then he may be worthy of a place, but I just can't see that at the moment.

We all like to jump on the bandwagons of young players in the assumption that because they perform well at club level, they would do the same at international. I just can't see someone like Smith schooling Sexton or Mercer embarrassing CJ Stander, of course it can happen, but it is very rare.

Being a cemented international is more than about your stats or skill, it is about proving you can compete against the best in the world. Robshaw is a perfect example of this, whilst not flashy, he deals with the best players in the world on a repeated basis. Hartley looks at home on the international stage, whereas Dunn would probably look out of place. You could tell from the very first moment of itojes career that he was a future lion, and there is a big difference there between him and someone like Willis. Armand, in my eyes at least, would look at home on the international stage right now.

And that is the mitigating factor. Such is the player base in England, that we shouldn't rush to give someone like Willis or Smith or Mercer a game simply because they are fantastic club players now, no matter their potential. We have plenty of players around who would look at home as internationals, (Armand) and some who are fantastic club players, but would look out of place in an England shirt (luke Wallace). We have the international quality players now, so why rush in a new one who, deep down, we all know isn't ready.


I wouldn't call up Willis.

I'd want Armand in for any further injuries for sure, as many others would. Fear though you'll just see Lawes/Kruis on the bench potentially.
 

Latest posts

Top