Six Nations 2014

Time for the annual Northern Hemisphere slugfest in the mud... whose year will it be?

Wales - looking for three in a row, definitely the most settled side withh proven quality players despite some off the field turmoil.
England - seemingly always in transition, forward pack should win many games but still can't find a cutting edge in the backs.
France - traditionally win in post-Lions years, but took the wooden spoon last time, the usual uncertainty at 10 and missing leaders in Dusautoir and Parra.
Ireland - O'Driscoll's final fling, but struggling to find the right formula with the younger players, could go either way for them.
Scotland - even year schedule is a very tough one, will do well to match last year's effort.
Italy - as usual, two wins is their Grand Slam.

Probably those Gallic chappies waving their rubber chicken cock.

Form suggests Wales. Esp since England are the perennial nearly men.

Ireland will "give it a hack" and - as you say - who knows.

I dunno.


But I am glad you opened the thread, beams. Never really got up any steam till a couple of matches in last year (IIRC).

An awful start from England, the inexperience of the back line showing with a couple of gifted tries.

And a dominant second half from England but then they let it slip at the last moment.

Grand Slam decider in Cardiff in 3 weeks' time then.

England at last make it easier for their fans and followers by falling at the first hurdle, rather than their customary last!

I was impressed by Mike Brown. From the weak link two years ago, jinking around and going nowhere on matchstick shins, he seems to have bulked up a bit, and is a strong plus.

I like Farrell's creative instincts - even if he doesn't always make the right decisions, he's consistently probing ways to get through, and is a driving force as well as a creative spark. If he wants to continue to do the Wilkinson "extras" and tackle like a battering ram as well though (which I hope he does), you feel he too will have to put on some pounds of muscle. He still looks a kid.

England play an attacking, "playmaking" game and still lose. I hope that doesn't put them off persevering with the mix of fast, shuddering tackles and purposeful tactics, faster buildups and runs. They were unlucky today, at the start and, more arguably, the end as well. Though you can argue you make your own (bad) luck when you can't finish off the opposition and game.

Who was that England team though? I missed the first quarter of the match - by which time England had slipped way behind - and didn't recognise half the faces. England must go through players from season to season like Burton or Taylor went through marriages. Though I suppose there must be a feckload of injuries??


Another thing that struck me is how the substitutions have reached mad extents in the contemporary game. Agreed that 2 sets of 15 (with only injury substitutions) could not finish today's games, with the bone-crunching tackles, muscle and pace. And there are also the tactical alterations, requiring other replacements..... But the complexion of the game changes radically with the constant ins and outs. One team is completely in the ascendancy over the other for 30 minutes, but increasingly during that period heads have been swapped, this changing of the guard throughout both teams continues to the end, and you realise a completely overhauled 15 is now having to prove itself - without momentum or upper hand - against a fourth team, their transmogrified opposition. This time it worked against England (second half), but it could happen in any game. Shows the importance of strength in depth - and firm, understood but sufficiently flexible strategy from the management, I suppose.

Meanwhile, Wales did it the right way - made errors, were slow from the gun, gave ground, but did just enough to chalk up the win "at the end of the day". I wonder if they will continue to gather force and pace during the 6N? They are the hot favourites, after all. To lose the trophy, with all that support and favour, and their star players, would be a bit of choke, really ....

Well Wales did win the Lions tour.

Fazackerley!

Maybe that's why they were a bit below par today - feeling the heat of expectation.

The "half-full" counter-view would be that they are pacing their effort.

I think given today's result France will gain momentum and win it, they may not win in Wales but the other three should be bankers and perhaps give it them on points difference.

England much like the cricket team lacked the basics of catching the ball!

Wales were poor but won comfortably, and Ireland are currently making Scotland look good!

I suspect that France will come second to Wales, and England finish 4th!

Ireland finally win by a safe, conclusive distance - was on the verge of becoming a rout towards the end.

Which is a pity, I think, because I would wish Scotland would catch up the pack, for the good of the championship. They have shown some signs in the last year or two of 6N, after a few years in the doldrums ... but only signs. Courage, purpose, a leggy, attacking mindset and hard tackles in defence, mainly.

Today they paid for not making more of their possession/territory dominance in the first half. Some slowness to get the line moving (and bad pass decisions), and a very, very shabby lineout - even without O'Connell directing and jumping against them! - being the most obvious flaws. They looked spent (even more psychologically than physically) once Ireland started to get their game together.

Incidentally, has the missed pass ever been quite so badly overused? Scotland ended up punching holes in their own attack (so to speak)!


So back to the drawing board for the Scots, sadly.

And credit to Ireland for hanging in and weathering the storm, then exerting their traditional virtues of relentless push, harrying and never-say-die. Some nice handling moves in the second half, too.

They also demonstrated the virtues of the good old low tackle in that otherwise not so impressive first half. Pin arms/lock chests, and you may indeed quell the pass - you might if you timing is right and you have the momentum shove him back, or out. But you might not stop the man. Or stop him clambering, staggering, crashing over for a try.

Grab the waist, the thighs, the knees (but NOT the ankles if you don't want a busted face), and you may indeed risk the killer pass going away. But if you get the timing right you may equally easily "sack" the man like a load of potatoes - and make him lose control of the ball, make him fall awkwardly without control, if possible on the wrong side of the ball.


My other FWIW observation from this weekend is the unfairness (I think) of penalising the carrier for a knock-on when the ball is clearly shoved, jerked or indeed punched from his grasp. Not merely by sheer force of impact, but by his opponent's design. To me, if penalised at all, that should be penalised the other way. (I'm not talking of butterfingers, but deliberate ploys to dislodge the ball.)

But then refs' heads, I suppose, are overfilled as it is to decide on that too. Especially when the scrum is still a shambles area.


Anyway ....

Brian O'Driscoll's Ireland (probably wth Paulie O'C back in the saddle) v Warren Gatland's Wales next week. The decider?

Gat has declared himself "pissed off" already by the obvious (and obviously repeated) question about a particular decision in Australia. Ancient history innit. And we won, didn't we? Silences all questions.

Pissed-off might not even start to describe the reaction if his dragons don't fire in Dublin next Saturday - and worse, if a certain centre has another standout performance!


As for the 6N trophy ..... Wales hot favourites, but who knows? Will France and Ireland kick on?

Jaysus Peter are you still pushing that line even after you were proved horribly wrong.

Which one of those moot points?

The keening for Scotland, raising the "unfair knock-on" issue, the old point about the best "angle" of tackle (on that I think it depends - but I maintain that the "trad" tackle is certainly not "out of date", superseded), or the question about BOD?

If the last, which I suppose is what you mean, then FWIW I still think that because a large Wales-dominated Lions prevailed in the final test don't prove the decision was necessarily right. It doesn't demonstrate that booting the Old Master even off the bench was the decision that somehow inevitably won the match.

But I have "moved on", insofar as I am looking forward to next Saturday's match. With anticipation. To see if Ireland's icon still has it in him to show there's life in the old sod yet.

And more generally, to see how the match between the favourites and one of their two unpredictable rivals will go, and pan out. I doubt it will be a dull dreary attritional affair - unless the savage Irish rain god is angry once again, and it's a quagmire. (Even then, it will probably be a gripping encounter, just with less skill.)  

And otherwise, I admit it IS a bit of fun to see Gatland losing his rag at the inevitable question, with the encounter looming. He should really have seen that one coming.

The BoD decision as you well know. It was proved correct as the Lions won. If they had lost you would have been gloating saying Gatland got it wrong. Why do you find it so difficult to give credit. This is almost on a par with you claiming the MCC would have won the "Bodyline" series without Jardine and Larwood.

You're making one (wild) assumption after another there, though.

At least four:

1) You imply the Lions would have lost the decider with O'Driscoll in the squad.
* Once again, how do you substantiate this? Why are you so sure that is correct?

2) I would have gloated if the Lions had lost.
* You might have noticed by now that I am not a gloater by nature: not about wins, not even by slightest inclination about defeats (as you allege). You must mistake me for someone else?
* It seems you confuse reasoned criticism and inflexible self-righteousness. FWIW I still believe it was an emotionally-charged error of tactics (and tact) at the time - blaming the wrong man for previous erroneous, over-defensive, initiative-ceding tactics. But if the Lions HAD lost, that would merely have led to a shrug of frustration well known to England cricket followers, not a cause for some sort of crowing glee. (See point 1, about gloating.)

3) I find it difficult to give credit.
* If, as some more objective measure of this, you checked past threads, I think you'd be very likely to find I am one of the contributors on here most inclined to give credit and congratulations where these are due - not the last, or the most grudging or resentful of Bailers. Again, you must have me tagged for someone else.

4) I am making empty statements when I believe an England team, - properly prepared and led as I pointed out - would have been perfectly able to win the 1932-33 Ashes without "Bodyline" - if necessary even without Jardine, and if really necessary even without Larwood or Voce.
* I made it clear that the thread where I mentioned this was not the place to elaborate on how so. I specifically explained that this story would require specifics and detail: perhaps even a book (!), at least a blog/set of website entries, to present the rationale, strategies, and personnel that were available at the time. (You can't argue such cases just with a throwaway pithy remark, or a withering barb, can you?)

I DID however suggest a couple of key elements of a probably effective non-Bodyline set of strategies and personnel.

I have sketched out a sample couple of ways it could have been done, based on five or six books and other evidence around the subject. It would clearly have been a bit harder without Jardine, harder still without Larwood. (Again: I already indicated as much.)

What I didn't add: if thorough and well-advised non-Bodyline planning had been made, I believe DRJ, Larwood and Voce would almost certainly not have been forfeited, sidelined (as in fact they were in the wake of Bodyline!), but would probably have played integral  parts in that tour - and with a high degree of likelihood have won without need for the Jardine/Carr masterplan of bloody-minded quasi-military attack, regardless of consequences: the repeat calculated body-aiming and its particular vital component, the stiflingly negative ("anti-cricket") packed "leg trap".

This is by no means an original view, by the way - I follow a sizeable number of well-qualified judges who were not, like Fender or Carr, wedded to supporting "Bodyline" with almost totalitarian loyalty to the hardline leader, "my captain right or wrong"!

PeterCS wrote:You're making one (wild) assumption after another there, though.

At least four:

1) You imply the Lions would have lost the decider with O'Driscoll in the squad.
* Once again, how do you substantiate this? Why are you so sure that is correct?

2) I would have gloated if the Lions had lost.
* You might have noticed by now that I am not a gloater by nature: not about wins, not even by slightest inclination about defeats (as you allege). You must mistake me for someone else?
* It seems you confuse reasoned criticism and inflexible self-righteousness. FWIW I still believe it was an emotionally-charged error of tactics (and tact) at the time - blaming the wrong man for previous erroneous, over-defensive, initiative-ceding tactics. But if the Lions HAD lost, that would merely have led to a shrug of frustration well known to England cricket followers, not a cause for some sort of crowing glee. (See point 1, about gloating.)

3) I find it difficult to give credit.
* If, as some more objective measure of this, you checked past threads, I think you'd be very likely to find I am one of the contributors on here most inclined to give credit and congratulations where these are due - not the last, or the most grudging or resentful of Bailers. Again, you must have me tagged for someone else.

4) I am making empty statements when I believe an England team, - properly prepared and led as I pointed out - would have been perfectly able to win the 1932-33 Ashes without "Bodyline" - if necessary even without Jardine, and if really necessary even without Larwood or Voce.
* I made it clear that the thread where I mentioned this was not the place to elaborate on how so. I specifically explained that this story would require specifics and detail: perhaps even a book (!), at least a blog/set of website entries, to present the rationale, strategies, and personnel that were available at the time. (You can't argue such cases just with a throwaway pithy remark, or a withering barb, can you?)

I DID however suggest a couple of key elements of a probably effective non-Bodyline set of strategies and personnel.

I have sketched out a sample couple of ways it could have been done, based on five or six books and other evidence around the subject. It would clearly have been a bit harder without Jardine, harder still without Larwood. (Again: I already indicated as much.)

What I didn't add: if thorough and well-advised non-Bodyline planning had been made, I believe DRJ, Larwood and Voce would almost certainly not have been forfeited, sidelined (as in fact they were in the wake of Bodyline!), but would probably have played integral  parts in that tour - and with a high degree of likelihood have won without need for the Jardine/Carr masterplan of bloody-minded quasi-military attack, regardless of consequences: the repeat calculated body-aiming and its particular vital component, the stiflingly negative ("anti-cricket") packed "leg trap".

This is by no means an original view, by the way - I follow a sizeable number of well-qualified judges who were not, like Fender or Carr, wedded to supporting "Bodyline" with almost totalitarian loyalty to the hardline leader, "my captain right or wrong"!

You just cannot resist the temptation to lecture can you. Whether or not the lions would have won with BoD is sheer speculation. The fact is that he wasn't picked and they won. The same logic applies to Bodyline.

Get over it already.

BOD - I was rubbing my hands with anticipation re: next weekend's match, for its importance for this trophy and its added significance in view of previous - also, it's true, smiling at Gatland's irritation, for reasons explained  - and you came purporting I had got it "horribly wrong".

When I had explained at the time, and have now repeated above - an explanation (what you always dismiss as "lecturing") takes space, whereas supposed all-knowng dismissiveness is pretty fast, easy and toll-free - why I had criticised dropping O'Driscoll altogether.

FWIW btw: despite your further claim, I congratulated Gatland and the Lions at the time, in particular for the overdue switch at last to an optimistic, purposive, attacking approach against a man-for-man weaker (Aussie) set of players who had previously been allowed to dominate play far too much.  

Which I felt - and feel - was the centrepiece of the rugby issue.


Bodyline - Yes, 4-1, thanks in no small measure to Eddie Paynter. Whereas going into Test 5 @ 2-2 (which is exactly what Paynter prevented) would have been interesting.

But the big picture, and whole point is: victory at what cost?


Once again, it seems fairly obvious we should just agree to disagree.

"Moving on": what are views regarding France's progress(ion) from here?

Back in the hunt? Flash in the pan?

PeterCS wrote:BOD - I was rubbing my hands with anticipation re: next weekend's match, for its importance for this trophy and its added significance in view of previous - also, it's true, smiling at Gatland's irritation, for reasons explained  - and you came purporting I had got it "horribly wrong".

When I had explained at the time, and have now repeated above - an explanation (what you always dismiss as "lecturing") takes space, whereas supposed all-knowng dismissiveness is pretty fast, easy and toll-free - why I had criticised dropping O'Driscoll altogether.

FWIW btw: despite your further claim, I congratulated Gatland and the Lions at the time, in particular for the overdue switch at last to an optimistic, purposive, attacking approach against a man-for-man weaker (Aussie) set of players who had previously been allowed to dominate play far too much.  

Which I felt - and feel - was the centrepiece of the rugby issue.


Bodyline - Yes, 4-1, thanks in no small measure to Eddie Paynter. Whereas going into Test 5 @ 2-2 (which is exactly what Paynter prevented) would have been interesting.

But the big picture, and whole point is: victory at what cost?


Once again, it seems fairly obvious we should just agree to disagree.

Re Bodyline, yes Paynter did have input. But that is what teamsport is all about. Hopefully players all have input.

Indeed. But the beauty of a team sport is that the decisive inputs don't always have to come from the same player/s.

It's the unpredictable ebb and flow (except when England are batting) that makes for gripping matches.

PeterCS wrote:"Moving on": what are views regarding France's progress(ion) from here?

Back in the hunt? Flash in the pan?

They looked pretty ordinary, but it will give them a massive confidence boost. You never know what to expect from the French, but they have Italy next and if they can then win in Cardiff the Grand Slam is there for the taking.

beamer wrote:

PeterCS wrote:"Moving on": what are views regarding France's progress(ion) from here?

Back in the hunt? Flash in the pan?

They looked pretty ordinary, but it will give them a massive confidence boost. You never know what to expect from the French, but they have Italy next and if they can then win in Cardiff the Grand Slam is there for the taking.

They were poor, although Romania could have beaten us for 65 minutes of the game last week, as we couldn't farking catch!

In fact no one really looked that good all weekend!

WARBURTON!

It'll be WAR

Ireland gone for a BURTON?



Stuff this poncey Winter Olympics, that's for hand-shandies, let's have some REAL MEN'S SPORT!

Wales-Ireland has developed into a bit of a grudge match in recent years, and that's even before the overplayed Gatland-BOD issue...

Let's hope only Guinness will be spilled after the match, not Brains during.

Half-time.

Wales looking shell-shocked. They've been completely mashed in all areas of the game so far - didn't they expect this ferocity from Ireland? They always get it, so they probably should have.

O'Connell a farqin giant in the tackles and lineouts - I suppose his match fitness might tell against him in the S/H. Trimble has also been playing a blinder on the right wing (and left wing, and one fumble apart, down the middle of the pitch too).

I expect the Welsh super-fitness to come more into play in the next 40 minutes. Irish spirit and hwyl can surely only go so far. And Gatland will no doubt rally his troops - they bloody need it after that hammering in the F/H.

Other thoughts:

Well played to Warren Gatland in his interview before the match. He at last showed all the generosity, tact and sense of humour that had been absent before - excellent front-up.

England may be crap at top-level rugby - especially the crunch matches - but the ref game a 5-star performance in the first half (watch him get everything wrong in the next 40 now). Unfussy, non-peacock, explaining where needed, giving sporting warnings and reminders, courteous - and getting all but oen decision right, as far as I could see.

Shuldn't they look at stopping the clock for all kicks at goal. I don't think Sexton means to take the piss with his 2-3 minute preparation - just, like Wilko and a few otheres - he seems to need to get into his quiet contemplation zone - but it takes chunks out of the game timewise.