Worst Six Nations Ever?

[Sussudio]

Anyone else agree this was the poorest Six Nations in living memory? France in experimental mode, England and Ireland in chaos, Italy and Scotland predictably woeful (save Parrisse). Wales were good admittadely, but not great, I feel in any other year they wouldn't have got near a Grand Slam.

With all the focus now on WCs, does the Six Nations suffer as a result?

 

[BLR]

Just because Ireland was rubbish doesn't mean the tourny was rubbish....

 

[shtove]

Anyone else agree this was the poorest Six Nations in living memory? France in experimental mode, England and Ireland in chaos, Italy and Scotland predictably woeful (save Parrisse). Wales were good admittadely, but not great, I feel in any other year they wouldn't have got near a Grand Slam.

With all the focus now on WCs, does the Six Nations suffer as a result? [/b]

Yeah, I agree.

French experiment blew up in their face. England in chaos. Ireland determined to underperform. The Scots think it's a Mr Universe competition - pointless posing in stuffed speedoes. And Italy help remind us of the passion of scarce victories.

Wales had five minutes of magic against England. Ireland-France was interesting. Apart from that, load of old rubbish. England-Scotland was maybe the worst game of all time.

Wales are building for the RWC, but what really hurts the 6N is the HEC - much better rugby in that competition.

 

[giannes]

Yeah probably not the best tournament of all the times but it is pretty comprehensible because after RWC some teams tried to change a bit.
Indeed I think it is been an interesting tournament because of the uncertainty of the match results.

 

[gingergenius]

Anyone else agree this was the poorest Six Nations in living memory? France in experimental mode, England and Ireland in chaos, Italy and Scotland predictably woeful (save Parrisse). Wales were good admittadely, but not great, I feel in any other year they wouldn't have got near a Grand Slam.

With all the focus now on WCs, does the Six Nations suffer as a result?
[/b]

yes I agree, it hasn't been a good 6N.

Hats off to Wales for winning, they got a huge confidence boost when England gifted them a victory at the beginning and built on it. However, it's amazing that Wales didn't have to play well for their Grand Slam, an achievement that is one of the most difficult in rugby. England were pounding them and it had very little to do with Wales' good play that they came back and won. Scotland are a very poor team, and so are Italy. So by the time Wales go to Croke Park, they've got 3 wins under their belt almost for free. Ireland didn't give them a test. - another waste of space 6N team. Against France their performance was the story of their 6N. Awesome defence plus a bit of Shane Williams magic against a disorganised opponent.

The post world cup hangover has hit badly.

Ireland needed to get rid of O'Sullivan to bring some desperately needed confidence in. Then they got f***ed around by injury.

England needed to find themselves a new head coach and some leadership; they didn't and consequently suffered. In terms of building for 2011, England have wasted their time keeping Ashton on when it's inevitable he will be sacked at some point in the near future. The only positives I can think of are the fact we've tried out the likes of Croft, Haskell, and Cipriani. But it's hardly a team for the future when the most talented guy, Tait, can't get a start.

Scotland have an outstanding back row, an outstanding scrum half and an outstanding kicker. Other than this, they're a shocking team, who offer absolutely nothing past 10. Unless the likes of de Luca turn into awesome players, I don't see them changing their fortunes over the next 4 years.

Italy are another poor team... shame, they have a great pack but there's no good having no 10 and they lack pace in the backs. They were disappointed with their world cup, and need to unearth some talent in the backs to compete at a level above that of Scotland. Marcato isn't a bad start, I'd put him in at 10.

France pursued an experimental selection process and thus the competition itself probably wasn't the most important thing for them. They'll have a settled team by this time next year, so it'll be interesting to see how good they are in comparison to Laporte's team. Jury's still out...

Wales are the only team to have moved on. Why? Their players are nothing new. The team is remarkably similar to 2005's Grand Slam team. Its the coaching. Wales' best player is Henson, he's the key to their backplay and Gatland's managed to sort him out. Their defence has been awesome thanks to Shaun Edwards. However, things have the ability to fall apart. Wales' best players are Martyn Williams, Henson and Shane Williams. Yet Martyn Williams will be 36 and Shane 34. Fair enough Ryan & Stephen Jones, Phillips, Hook & Peel are quality players but a lot of the other Welsh players are playing on confidence and supported by the brilliance of Shane Williams etc. It'll be interesting to see how Wales manage once these guys have retired, and also should Shaun Edwards leave..

 

[peppers07]

I agree ive nothing against wales but they won a grand slam with only one good performance ireland and England were shocking ( except for a few players) I think France were good enough but poor and lazy in defense. Scotland were awfull as we all know their defense was terible dan parks wastsed possesion all the time they couldnt finish thier attacks and had no creativity at all.
I think Itally were the onl y possitive of the tournement they have imropeved massively in the last two years and though their backline is still bad it has improved hugely compare it in the france match to the England match

 

[AlynDavies]

I dont think its been a poor tournament by any standards, there have been a lot of exciting games and suprising results, basically what any good competition would be. Historically 6 Nations rugby tends to go in roundabouts, England, France, Ireland, Scotland and Italy have had to try new combinations as a result of retirements from the World Cup. Wales have got lucky as their team has been settled for the last 5 years, they were kids during the 2003 World Cup, theyd grown up a bit for the 2007 World Cup and the majority of them are still in their mid 20's. They came into this tournament with a settled side and a good coaching set up and it showed.

Its also normally a bad season for British Teams after a Lions tour as many players tend to be injured as a result of the tour meaning France and to an extent Scotland tend to have a good year.

The only reason you might not think its been a good year is because their havent been as many big name players involved and thats because they no longer play international rugby. This season is about finding the stars for the next 4 years, and its fair to say a couple have put themselves in the spotlight.

 

[sidestep]

if ireland had the slam u would not have made your shite comments about this years six nations .

 

[Macsen]

Hehe, sorry guys it does stink of desperation a bit when the best excuse for Wales winning is 'we were all ****'. You know Wales have been **** since the 70s, otherwise we would have won every six nations and World Cup, that's the only reason the rest of you had any success... poor excuse isn't it really. If the six nations was that poor then it was there for the taking by your teams, and it was up to the coaches to galvanise your team and make them realise that. Wales beat a first choice French team well, dominated Ireland at Croke Park (something no other team has done), and put a massive heap of points on Italy. As for the England game, watching it again you see that in the second half the two teams just play as they do for the rest of the tournament. If anything the first half was the 'blip', not the second.

 

[Nidhogg]

If ireland had the slam u would not have made your shite comments about this years six nations .[/b]

That is really quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I agree, the level of the competition was rather meager this year. Wales stood out because of their continuity, performance-wise. That said, there is still plenty of work that needs to be done. If France had only a half-decent midfield, Wales would have lost. They didn't commit anyone to the rucks, and didn't have any ball, when they had it, they kicked it away again. England was set to win the match, but they just...stopped playing in the second half. The first half against Italy was weak as well, Italy could very well have been in front, if their backline better. Scotland, well, it's Scotland. You really had nothing to fear there, as they weren't ever going to score tries. Some decisions went your way, but it was irrelevant, as Scotland have been extremely poor all tournament. You disposed of Ireland quite professionally, but Ireland was never really up to the task tbh.

All in all, a good performance by Wales, but don't allow yourselves to be blinded. This welsh side is in no way a finished article. There is still work that needs to be done. To finish on a positive note, you never get a victory for free. Wales worked hard for it, and deservedly came away with it at the end. Well done!

 

[Macsen]

All in all, a good performance by Wales, but don't allow yourselves to be blinded. This welsh side is in no way a finished article. There is still work that needs to be done.[/b]

Again, who said we were? You don't really need to advise the Welsh how good or bad the team is, we talk about little else. They are not the finished article yet but they're a damn sight better than they've been for a long time, and the celebration is justified for Wales as a country with the population smaller than the city of Rome to win such a sporting event.

 

[RC]

As biased as i am, and as much of a headache as i have this morning after celebrating long into the early hours i still believe it was a pretty poor tournament.
I mean, of course, i enjoyed every Wales match, but that's only because we won them all. But that's not to say they were good. The Wales v Scotland match sticks in mind.
Also, there weren't that many matches throughout,which really made me sit there and enjoy myself. I find the games i enjoyed the most were the England games and that was only becuase i was tense on behalf of my English comrades. The win against France was great and Ireland were firmly flattened, but games against the likes of Italy and Scotland highlighted some very poor play.

I'm of the opinion that every team was poor in this tournament and it doesn't bode well for us (as a 6 nations) in the coming internationals against the heavy weights from down under, the world cup in a few years (we all NEED TO get much better!) and of course, the Lions next year in SA.
I don't want to see 3-0 again. Our teams have to improve.

 

[An Tarbh]

if ireland had the slam u would not have made your shite comments about this years six nations .
[/b]

Those sort of thick and petty comments really make me want to smack my head off a wall, quality comeback. You see the Ireland flag beside a poster and immediately jump on that, how about giving a reasonable reply instead of a childish quip.

As well as that tell us then, what made this the quality Six Nations that you by your comments would seem to be implying it was?

 

[Incredible Schalk]

I would say the 2006 competition was pretty poor, 2004 as well which of course was after the world cup. I think there were some teams underperforming but i still found most games entertaining all of yesterdays game for example were really exciting i thought. Wales bet every team put in front of them and pretty convincingly you'd have to say, they had a powerful pack and brilliant backs so you cant take anything away from them. Congratulations to Wales again because there is always people who try and put this immense achievment down but they scored so many tries and conceded only two so thoroughly deserved the ***le. :bravo:

 

[An Tarbh]

Again though it's about the overall quality of the tournament, that's not a reflection on the team who won but the others who failed to step up to the plate and Ireland, England and France all failed to do so.

 

[Incredible Schalk]

I know but my point was i thought there were a couple of tournaments when the standard was atleast as bad, if not worse.

 

[gingergenius]

To be honest, the world cup's taken over from the 6 Nations in terms of importance.

Back in the day when the Southern Hemisphere had a world cup monopoly, the 6 Nations was important because it was the best Northern teams could win. Then England win the world cup in 2003 and everyone realises that there are bigger prizes for European teams to aim for.

2004 six nations was poor. England were hungover from the world cup, and everyone except ireland were ****.

2005 is wales' grand slam. They were the best team, the match against France was one of the best I've ever seen. But the abysmal performances of the other home nations led to an abysmal Lions Tour. The best non-Welsh players were out of form, and Henson had fallen to pieces. Add to that an awesome All Blacks team and it was a no hoper from the start.

2006 another poor 6 nations. England are shocking and Wales take huge steps backwards, a very poor Scotland team managed to come 3rd.

2007 is yet another poor year. France and Ireland are the best teams but there's no grand slam. England blow hot and cold and Wales remain ****.

So roll on 2008 and this poor 6 nations.

Next year, Wales will be confident. England I hope will have sorted out a proper head coach t guide a fantastically talented group of players. And France will have sorted out their selection. Hopefully. There's your criteria for a great 6 nations next year. I don't know where Ireland can go, they're in trouble. Italy can improve again and Scotland can throw spanners in the works... bring it on!

But basically the 6 Nations needs a world class team playing well to be a good tournament. Wales may have a grand slam but I can see them being rolled over by a good SH opposition. Think back to the 6 nations 2002 & 3 - England & France were probably the best two teams in the world. Added to Ireland being strong those tournaments were really good...

 

[Prestwick]

France may have been experimenting, but guess what? Thats their perogative! They can field whatever XV they want and considering how well those new and fresh players did in the Six Nations, I think its a marginal success for the new French Coach.

Italy haven't been dire, they've been tenacious, passionate and always trying to do something. Their games haven't been kick-a-thons like that of the English, they've been trying to play good rugby and run the ball a bit, excuse me if I'm wrong but doesn't that make for entertaining rugby like the Italy vs Scotland game yesterday?

The games were entertaining, Ireland's come back against France was thrilling, Le Crunch was tense and incredibly compelling and most of the Italian games were very entertaining.

At the end of the day guys, they can't all be at the peak of form. Not all of the teams are going to win all of their games. Teams will lose and because they have lost, that will impact on the morale of their fans and players who, regardless of how well their team played on the field, will focus on the negatives and the "what ifs" rather than the positives.

This years Six Nations quality hasn't been that impressive.

This years Six Nations entertainment value however has been immense.

 

[An Tarbh]

2004 six nations was poor. England were hungover from the world cup, and everyone except ireland were ****.
[/b]

Well I don't agree that 2004 was a poor tournament, France were thoroughly deserving of their grand slam, Ireland played some quality rugby on their way to the Triple Crown and the other matches were really entertaining, England v Wales at Twickenham, Italy beating Scotland, yeah there was controversy as well and we even had Dominici's comedy moment against the Italians.

 

[dundeesmiffy]

I think it was totally adequate.
A lot of new faces and new tactics, sure the majority of teams under performed at times, but it's 3 years until the next WC, it was bound to be hit or miss.