Six Nations 2016

PeterCS wrote:Could be tough, but I suppose Ireland may still have the edge. The big score yesterday will have given them heart. Plus, they're at home, which is likely to give them a lift. I'm not sure how their walking wounded may be.

Badly missing their inspirational captain though. And Scotland will be going for it.

Ireland 25 Scotland 22. Who knows?


btw: Did you see Hogg's flip for Visser's try? Amazing to attempt that, AND get it exactly right.

Nice...always looks good when something like that comes off..........but when it doesnt ..

Big Dog wrote:Pete, who would you give the points to in Ireland v Scotland in the next round?

Scotland have clearly been toughened up by the SA imports.

I've tipped Ireland, purely on home turf advantage.

Well done Eddie.

Haskell's awful small for a #7, isn't he?

And he must have been substituted early, to be in civvies like that. ....



(From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35821697)



Tons of penalties given away by England. But some foundations of belief and skill to build on. As they will have to do.


Yellow cards put paid to the Scots.

Wales really put Italy away. Something to prove, individually and as a team - North had an absolute field day - Italians looked a bit too much like the stuffing had already been knocked out of them (increasingly) this tournament, despite odd flashes of inspirational flair and decent musclework.


A lot of good play and a lot of errors during the tournament. These squads will have to raise their game on their respective tours of the Southern Hemisphere. Not out of the question, though, I think.

Well done Eddie Jones. And Robshaw. From dead man walking to embodiment of a team with renewed spirit and purpose. (Worryingly a bit slow for a flanker, though!)

PS, I like this:

England's Billy Vunipola says: "This means a great deal. It's such a great bunch of guys and we've had a great eight weeks.

"No-one can forget the World Cup but this is a great achievement and I'm so happy at the moment.

"We came here and knew the crowd and the French players did not want us to win the Grand Slam on their home turf but we stood up to them and eventually came out on top."

Gets the proportion about right, I think.

I just hope he wasn't so realistic he spurned a fair celebration afterwards.

Now this, by Jones, is very good.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/21/eddie-jones-clubs-england-revolution-henry-slade

Whether or not it produces dividends as early as Down Under, is doubtful. But it's clear thinking, and all the right noises about all the right moves, to try to turn the usual England impression of Sisyphus into some measurable upward progress (at last).



Whereas this, from last week - dear, oh dear. From others it might be the routine rattle-the-opposition mindgames. Or else tongue-in-cheek (see above). But Shaun Edwards comes across as deadly serious, obsessed to the point of blindness with .... huge grapes. Not the sweet variety.

"To be honest, I am still in a bit of disbelief that you can lose a game in rugby having scored three tries to one.

“I have tried explaining that to my mother, who is from Wigan, and she didn’t seem to understand it."

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/defence-coach-shaun-edwards-still-11056410

"Counterfactual history" (the recent term for an interpretation that tries to answer the question "how would things have developed if one or two key points had been different ...?") can be good, entertaining, enlightening - an engaging way into actual historical events and various ways of looking at them, a way of opening up critical evaluation too.

But you always need to make enough caveats. Here, for example, if it HAD been six (or 16) points for a try and two (or 0) for a kick, it's not impossible England too would have followed a different game plan, and gone about Wales differently in the first 60 minutes. And far from a static arithmetical recalculation with everything else the same, England might have won by more, rather than Wales (India-like) "morally winning", as Edwards wants to spin it. At least to fool himself ... bladdy whingeing Pom.

Richard Williams, on BBC Wales Sport, remarks tartly - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35835975:

"In the circumstances, Edwards' comments could easily invite accusations of sour grapes, particularly after a game when Wales missed 26 tackles - his area of responsibility".  (my bold)

Bizzare end to the comp. Ireland beat England, France beat Wales. At least Scotland brought home the bacon.

AB's to destroy Lions.

Could anyone better versed with rugby explain why the clock wasn't stopped post 80 minutes yesterday in the France Wales match? That, and why there wasn't any penalty try despite it being clear that the Welsh scrum was holding off the try.

The first question is easier.

Law 5.7:
...
"(e) “If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue."

Since the scrum had been deemed not completed - umpteen times - because the scrum was not properly formed, or (minor?) infringements by the defending side, but also injuries and miscellaneous injury queries along the way, the ball was not declared dead. So play went on into the red zone and beyond.

However, FWIW, I feel Barnes eventually lost grip, when all the querying of injured or not, player replaced or not, etc etc became farcical by any commonsense reading.

On your second question: Barnes clearly considered none of the infringements was either "deliberately foul" enough or certain enough to lead to a try, to award a penalty try. (Law 10.2: "A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored".)

And as the whole match depended on it, it was knife-edge stuff.

But to my mind, at a certain point, he should have said, hey, enough is enough: Wales, you're taking this scrum down again and again, probable enough for me that a try would have resulted, and used discretion to award the penalty try.

I even began to wonder whether he gave up at a certain point and thought to himself: "Hell, we might as well go for an entry in the Guinness Book of Records here ..."

Probably the record occurred to him. An extreme interpretation.

Big Dog wrote:Bizzare end to the comp. Ireland beat England, France beat Wales. At least Scotland brought home the bacon.

The properly bizarre thing was the end of that middle match.

France - well, you know France ... good, bad, ugly and all the rest in one match. Sometimes it works, and then it's hardly a surprise ....


Even allowing for the other bizarrest feature of this 6N season - Italy trying it on against England and England needing Jones & Co's counselling at half-time to work out effective ways through it - even allowing for that, England reserved their conventional one dire display of the season for the finale.

Against an Irish squad who are always fierily up-for-the-big-match (esp in Dublin, and esp against the English), and are drilled by probably the best international coach in the world.

Why else did England go rubber-duck?

Dead rubber complacency? I don't think so. Looked more like the reverse to me...... The main flaw of the Lancaster era: trying too hard, tensed up, not thinking freely or fast enough.

Ireland reacted better to slippery-soap conditions, a dewy evening interspersed with downpours (a while since I've seen so many England knock-ons - and knocked fluency)

Irish traditional strength at the maul worked a particular treat for them. England time and again had their normally strong ruck feed cut off.

Ireland also employed superior, stick-it-up-your-opponent (and hold-your-opponent-down!) streetwise tactics, which rattled the English and put them off cool, straight thinking. This is an old weakness of England rugby teams too. I was relieved at least Farrell and Hartley didn't see red ....

And then, it was just four points. I thought Jones and the players got the balance of the season about right afterwards.

Whether the generally error-strewn last two matches of this 6N tournament mean the Lions are bound to get a hammering in NZ, I'd doubt.

A lot of good things came out of this season. And a lot of more-than-decent players, too.

I think it depends on three things:

1) As ever, will the mixed pick of 4 nations gel as an effective unit, with an instilled common purpose, and enough plans but not too many to release their many talents? (I hope Gatland learns the right lessons.)

2) Will the Lions do better than England in their last match, and be wise to NZ street wisdom, as well as prepared in more conventional senses for All-Black strategy and developing tactics?

3) Will the conditions be crap? (Will New Zealand liberally water the pitches?   )

If 1) and 2) are answered with at least "okay" and 3) does not apply, I think the Lions should have a fair chance. Pity it's not Schmidt coaching - he inspires the right mix of fire and cool, as well as all the clever, flexible planning

Cheers Pete.

Traditionally the Lions are strong when Wales are strong.

Wales were unlucky. Never far off, against resurgent sides (most notably Scotland, the only team to put some daylight between them on the scoreboard).

They have the players. Tipuric, Warburton, Halfpenny (bad season, great player), North, JDavies, L Williams, R Webb, Faletau and A Wyn Jones should all be certs, others (such as the fearsome fighting telegraph pole Charteris, and Owens) definitely in the mix. Roberts, if they feel the battering-ram approach is paramount. I hope Gatland doesn't overdo that. The All Blacks can take that and repay with interest. You also need more science, more sidestep, more guile, - and to hunt in packs.

Interesting view by Jimmy Gopperth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04yd23n

on what the Lions have to try to do. I'd agree with him on the approach (even if "all-out attack" is a bit gung-ho hyperbole). Just going through the phases, slowly, won't get you far against the superbly fit and large ABs. You've got to find and punch holes - and be more resourceful. The way England weren't against Ireland, btw. No penetration, no penetrative power - outthought and outfought by the men in green.

Does a "best of" side have the cohesion of plans and mutual understandings, as well as skill levels Gopperth emphasises? We'll see. But Gatland should know his countrymen well enough that hard slog is not enough.

Shudder at that "might be a bit of rain" by Gopperth, though. In a downpour, NZ are likely to have the well-trained close control and streetfighter wisdom (not excluding low cunning) to come into their own, methinks.

PeterCS wrote:Interesting view by Jimmy Gopperth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04yd23n

on what the Lions have to try to do. I'd agree with him on the approach (even if "all-out attack" is a bit gung-ho hyperbole). Just going through the phases, slowly, won't get you far against the superbly fit and large ABs. You've got to find and punch holes - and be more resourceful. The way England weren't against Ireland, btw. No penetration, no penetrative power - outthought and outfought by the men in green.

Does a "best of" side have the cohesion of plans and mutual understandings, as well as skill levels Gopperth emphasises? We'll see. But Gatland should know his countrymen well enough that hard slog is not enough.

Shudder at that "might be a bit of rain" by Gopperth, though. In a downpour, NZ are likely to have the well-trained close control and streetfighter wisdom (not excluding low cunning) to come into their own, methinks.

Are you suggesting NZ are a dirty team?

Not usually "dirty" as in foul play (the spear tackles are thankfully history). But elements of gamesmanship, stretching the rules, are not foreign to them, e.g. the scrum.

Bradman wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Interesting view by Jimmy Gopperth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04yd23n

on what the Lions have to try to do. I'd agree with him on the approach (even if "all-out attack" is a bit gung-ho hyperbole). Just going through the phases, slowly, won't get you far against the superbly fit and large ABs. You've got to find and punch holes - and be more resourceful. The way England weren't against Ireland, btw. No penetration, no penetrative power - outthought and outfought by the men in green.

Does a "best of" side have the cohesion of plans and mutual understandings, as well as skill levels Gopperth emphasises? We'll see. But Gatland should know his countrymen well enough that hard slog is not enough.

Shudder at that "might be a bit of rain" by Gopperth, though. In a downpour, NZ are likely to have the well-trained close control and streetfighter wisdom (not excluding low cunning) to come into their own, methinks.

Are you suggesting NZ are a dirty team?

They are, and have always been a dirty team. That is in addition to stretching the laws as far as possible.

PeterCS wrote:Not usually "dirty" as in foul play (the spear tackles are thankfully history). But elements of gamesmanship, stretching the rules, are not foreign to them, e.g. the scrum.

I'll have to better work out how to signal sarcasm or irony. I'm an aussie pete. The kiwis are and have always been a team of dirtbags whose carry on gets worse the better they get. TF McCaw and Carter aren't there anymore.

Bradman wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Not usually "dirty" as in foul play (the spear tackles are thankfully history). But elements of gamesmanship, stretching the rules, are not foreign to them, e.g. the scrum.

I'll have to better work out how to signal sarcasm or irony.  I'm an aussie pete.  The kiwis are and have always been a team of dirtbags whose carry on gets worse the better they get.  TF McCaw and Carter aren't there anymore.

I can name numerous incidents of AB dirty play from memory.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-1067009/Time-law-men-pull-plug-scrum-capers.html

Warburton to captain Lions. I still foresee a debacle.