Points differential - good idea or bad idea?

[ncurd]

This might be a bit odd but an idea,

1) Game Win % (pretty much what we have now)
2) Head to head result.
3) Head to head try difference.
4) Head to head points difference.
5) Tournament try difference
6) Tournament points difference

Means if for example Wales lost to Scotland, ireland would of won due to virtue of beating England which feels way more statisfying. This tournament we had a 3 way head to head all teams beat one but lost to another so we go to try diffrence.

Wales = -1
England = 0
Ireland = +1

I think that's pretty much fair England scores one more try than Wales, Ireland one more than England and Wal/Ire is a draw on try's.

If it went down one more

Eng = -5
Wal = +2
Ire = +3

Which would pretty fair if they were equal on try's scored against one another.

Tournament TD
Wal = 5
Eng = 7
Ire = 5

Again I think that's pretty fair if PD was the same.

The major issue though is we'd not get a final day like this one but that was pretty special and unlikely to happen again in the near future. But it removes the aspect of thrashing Scotland/Italy before it's real close.

 

[munstermuffin]

I was thinking this myself and wondering what is best method

Try Bonus points like European way
Try Bonus Points like Top 14
Points Difference
Tries Scored
Maybe a Try Difference (eg difference between tries for and against)

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If I was to have it any other way it'd be:

1. Most wins
2. points (BP system)
3. Points difference
4. Tries

I think points difference is more important than tries, if we had tries first than England would have won this year despite not scoring one vs Ireland which leaves Ireland's dominant performance, and ultimately champo winning performance, over England somewhat redundant.

 

[marc d]

I think you should really be asking yourself , who is in false position , England who had the +30 against Italy already in bag , Playing a France team who after Wales had beaten Italy knew the slim chance they had of winning ***le had gone , and therefore had nothing to play for , and even then they still knew the exact winning margin they needed , Wales are poor starters often in the 6 nations and seem to improve game by game , so England beat Wales at their worst plus had the advantage of knowing exactly what margin they needed to win by in final game , if England had played 1st , Ireland 2nd and Wales 3rd , I thing England would of finished 3rd.. WHAT I'M REALLY SAYING is that it may make for exciting rugby , but by staggering the week 5 games their is no way that it could be considered fair , when a team knows what they need 10 point win margin and are 6 points clear in 80th min , with a pen in front of posts , they would obviously not go for goal , but if they weren't sure of other games results they would surely take 3 , ensure winning with a 9 pt margin.. if you are deciding a tournament on point diff , then the only fair way it can be decided is all teams with chance of ***le kick off at same time . any team that played Scotland yesterday would of met a diff team to the previous 4 weeks , they were disappointing , but who could blame them , France would of had 10% more if still sight chance of winning ***le...head to head points would of read IRE +3 .WAL +2 and ENG -5 .. SO IRE still win with WAL 2nd , but as with human nature this would lead to negative rugby being played as teams more concerned with not losing by many points...so i say again games played in round 5 should all kick off at the same time , unless Sco v Italy??

 

[marc d]

some good ideas but again unless they all kick off at same time , totally pointless ,as the teams playing later would have the advantage of having an actual eg,number of tries etc to win ***le, plus yesterday France knew after 1st game the slight chance to win ***le was gone , HEAD TO HEAD POINTS FAIR ,but again if it was IRE V ENG playing after Wales , what would of happened , as they would of both known what they needed . if ENG only had to ensure they didn't lose by more than 7 would it still of been 19-9 . or would they put down anchor and be happy with 5 to go with losing by 3 ...to many possible outcomes . great day of rugby , but more like a practise session at times , and fairness was the last thing to come out of day , saying that i do believe the best team won the ***le this year, as only a superb backs to the wall display by Wales prevented IRE winning the grand slam . and i for one wouldn't of tipped my hat to them .. deserved winners just last day was a joke way to win it ..they even won with an out of sorts Sexton, world cup group with ENG , WAL and AUS in is so tricky , and as a Welshman if Wales are knocked out , to see Paul O Connell ( who is surely one of favs for player of tournament) , lift the cup for IRE would be next best thing , but I have a feeling there could be a 3 way tie in Wales group .. jesus

- - - Updated - - -

again great way to decide , AS LONG AS ALL GAMES KICK OFF AT SAME TIME

- - - Updated - - -

AH IT WOULD BE AN ADVANTAGE TO HAVE italy and Scotland away then . plus as 5 games , some have 3 home 2 away , while others have 2 home 3 away .

- - - Updated - - -

plus is it fair that ENG played WAL when they had a very poor day and IRE played when they didn't , bit silly reasoning , teams have good days teams have bad days .. maybe it's time for 6pts for try plus 3 for conv.. making it a 9 point score rather tan 7 ,as we need something to happen as the game is laden with pens , and a missed conv means 2 pens and scoring a try means nothing, no offence but they should of done something after ENG won world cup , because they had no ambition apart from getting pens , teams starting following and backs became spectators for the most part

 

[lucky number 7]

After the weekend we were treated to I'm a firm believer that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

6 Nations as it stands is a wonderful competition with equally wonderful tradition.

 

[Mike Rolls]

Looking at the possible alternative means of deciding who takes the ***le that folk have suggested, I'm more convinced than ever that for a competition of just five games, the pre-1993 system of shared championships is best!
As for the claims that staggered starts mean that the early starters are at a disadvantage - does anyone really believe that the coaching teams and therefore the players would spend 80 minutes in purdah, totally unaware of what was happening in the other games?Please!
Mike

 

[Tony Manx]

After the weekend we were treated to I'm a firm believer that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

6 Nations as it stands is a wonderful competition with equally wonderful tradition.

I agree and the drama of being able to watch has always been the best part rather than having them all kick off at the same time!

9 million viewers rather than a total of some 200k attendees must be more important!!