Mike Rolls
Academy Player
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2015
- Messages
- 132
- Country Flag
I have never liked the idea of the 6 Nations championship being decided on point differential, introduced in 1993 when for the first time there was an actual physical trophy, and the powers that be decided that there should be only one nation holding it at the end of each year’s games.
To my mind, the last two Italian games are a perfect illustration as to why I don’t like the concept. A week ago France and Italy met on a cold, wet day with rain coming down and mud underfoot, when the ball was like a piece of soap and it was difficult to keep your feet, with the result that that the number of handling errors was almost unbelievable.
Despite the conditions, France eventually managed to put together some decent handling moves and ran out deserved 29-0 winners. It was the first time that Italy had failed to score a single point in a 6N home match. Roll forward a week and Wales come to Rome on a warm, sunny day with a firm pitch â€" ideal for running Rugby. They also knew that they have to score a lot of points to have a chance at the ***le, and triumph 61-20.
But ask yourselves â€" which was the better winning performance? France against a full strength Azurri on a foul day when holding on to a pass was a lottery, or Wales against an Italy deprived of their stand out player, Parisse, on a day made for good handling?
I do believe that for a competition entailing a fair number of games, when each side competes on a home and away basis and a fairly large number of games â€" for the sake of argument, say 20 - then points differential is a reasonable way of going about things, but for a competition of just five games when a side had the advantage of a home match three times one year but only two the next, to my mind it is a flawed concept â€" what say you?
Mike
To my mind, the last two Italian games are a perfect illustration as to why I don’t like the concept. A week ago France and Italy met on a cold, wet day with rain coming down and mud underfoot, when the ball was like a piece of soap and it was difficult to keep your feet, with the result that that the number of handling errors was almost unbelievable.
Despite the conditions, France eventually managed to put together some decent handling moves and ran out deserved 29-0 winners. It was the first time that Italy had failed to score a single point in a 6N home match. Roll forward a week and Wales come to Rome on a warm, sunny day with a firm pitch â€" ideal for running Rugby. They also knew that they have to score a lot of points to have a chance at the ***le, and triumph 61-20.
But ask yourselves â€" which was the better winning performance? France against a full strength Azurri on a foul day when holding on to a pass was a lottery, or Wales against an Italy deprived of their stand out player, Parisse, on a day made for good handling?
I do believe that for a competition entailing a fair number of games, when each side competes on a home and away basis and a fairly large number of games â€" for the sake of argument, say 20 - then points differential is a reasonable way of going about things, but for a competition of just five games when a side had the advantage of a home match three times one year but only two the next, to my mind it is a flawed concept â€" what say you?
Mike
