View Full Version : POLL: Six Nations - Who will win it?
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 7:38pm
Post your prediction of who you think will win the Six Nations! :D
if i wasn't obvious enough, lol
This poll contains 1 question(s). 21 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.
Poll Results: Six Nations - Who will win it? (21 votes.)
Six Nations - Who will win it? (Choose 1)
* England - despite injuries and retirements the champs will retain;) - 43% (9)
* Wales - look dangerous on occasion and could be dark horses - 10% (2)
* France - Powerful all round team, home adv over England - 10% (2)
* Ireland - Much improved, have the potential on their day - 14% (3)
* Scotland - Well...maybe not :) Ok, Paterson & Taylor are good - 14% (3)
* Italy - Looking better every year...a surprise result? - 10% (2)
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 7:45pm
There is no depth in English rugby. Look at all the has-been (and never-were) southern hemisphere players that play in the domestic competition. Those guys would never get a game in their home country.
Without Wilkinson, Johnson, Back etc we will see this lack of depth exposed. Jason Robinson at centre!? The outside backs will never get the ball, he'll be so busy dancing on the spot.
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 7:48pm
Ireland won't win the Six Nations, I am Irish myself but I know for sure they won't. England will win.
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 7:54pm
Don't talk wet Harbourboy :rolleyes: .
France are my biggest worry! :(
Michelak and co. are going in at full strength and have the home advantage. 'Hopefully' England will have too much class though.
But I'm not convinced we will be as hungry as we were last year though. Might give some of the younger guys abit of experience.
Will be tough! :)
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 8:15pm
I already bet some money on France.
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 9:02pm
Ireland, easily. Now, what exactly are we talking about? :p
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 9:06pm
Rugby! You buffoon! :doh: :nono:
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 9:07pm
We'll see. That England does not look as dangerous as the one that dominated world rugby in 2003. And surely you can find a better centre than Jason Robinson.
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 9:13pm
You will see how devastating Robinsons darting runs and almost inhuman pace and change of speed will be in the middle of the park ;) .
Although Wilkinson and Johnson will be missed horribly :( . Back has been called up btw :) .
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 10:47pm
Rugby is p*ssy sport, just a group of swetty men touching eachother in places where the sun don't shine(actually saw this in a game that I saw here in Sweden) on a field, and saying it is "sport." Ptt, thank god for Football, or that those odd people call it, Soccer.
Thu, 12th Feb '04, 11:23pm
A ***** sport? Rugby? Have you ever watched it? Its one of the most manly and violent sports going. It has a 'Blood Bin' fir christs sake! :D
Fri, 13th Feb '04, 7:35am
At least Morsmodre and I agree on one thing. I'd much rather play as a centre-half in soccer than a tighthead prop or openside flanker in rugby. A rugby forward has to run more and get slammed more than any soccer player. But I'm getting off topic.
Jason Robinson's inhuman pace and darting runs only work against inferior opposition (e.g. Scotland). Against good teams, he just dances around on the spot going nowhere, then gets tackled. Of course he has done SOME good things - like scoring that try in the World Cup but generally speaking he spends more time dancing on the spot than going forwards. That was bad enough on the wing where often he wouldn't be put in any space anyway but at centre his job will be to pass the ball to Balshaw etc. And unless he changes his game completely, the wings will never get the ball.
Fri, 13th Feb '04, 4:56pm
Sun, 15th Feb '04, 7:06pm
What was it you were saying about Robinson being in the centre Harbourboy? :lol:
Sun, 15th Feb '04, 7:17pm
Ahem - read again what I said about him being awesome against 'inferior opposition'. He IS fast so he can carve up teams that do not have their defensive patterns organised properly. But, the good thing for him about being at centre is that he should get the ball more often so should get more opportunities to show what he can do. I still think he is massively over-rated.
For a team that is currently number one in the world, all that matters is how you play against the teams that are nipping at your heels at the top. Any of the top 6 teams could put 50 points on Italy. And any of the French backs could run all over the Italian defence.
Sun, 15th Feb '04, 8:23pm
Robinson is the fastest player in World Rugby. His little shimmies are devastating against ANY opposition. His quick changes of direction and pure power in his runs are pure class. He's a superstar in Union. He will be the star of this Six Nations tournament. Just watch.
My only concern was our kicking... In big tournaments like this, its vital that you capitalize on any points you might have available. Wilkinson (Mr NeverMiss) will be missed against teams that won't allow us to score 7 tries :p . Where as France, with their little wizard Michelak are gonna be a very tough team to beat.
Then again, England just don't concede many tries, whoever they are playing. The defence is the best in the World.
GOnna be interesting in the Stade de France... :D
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 3:04am
The fastest player in world rugby is Rupeni Caucaunibuca. No one can touch him.
Robinson should stick to wing or fullback. A real centre like Tana Umaga would impale him. What happened to England's proper centre anyway?
England will still win the Six Nations. The french are too dodgy and wilt under pressure. Ireland - 2nd or 3rd.
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 6:55am
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 8:29am
France are a shoe in, imo.
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 9:00am
Robinson is the fastest player in World Rugby ??!!
There are probably half a dozen players faster than Robinson playing at the moment!! As well as Rupeni Caucaunibuca mentioned above, do you not remember Doug Howlett leaving Robinson for dead on the outside in last year's test (and Howlett was carrying a ball)? Plus, Joe Rokocoko is faster than Doug! That's three players already and I reckon Lote Tiquiri and Wendell Sailor would give him a good run for his money as well.
Credit for England's current dominance lies with Wilkinson and the forward pack. Those 9 players are awesome and better than just about anything from in NZ, Australia, or France. But the other 6 players (including Robinson) are just ordinary.
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 7:10pm
Credit for England's current dominance lies with Wilkinson and the forward pack. Those 9 players are awesome and better than just about anything from in NZ, Australia, or France. But the other 6 players (including Robinson) are just ordinary. Thats bullsh*t. And even then, that might be an understatement on my part, around the same level as "The World is quite big" and "I wouldn't mind kissing Britney Spears"
Although, yes, we have the best forward pack and fly half in the World. But to dominate the whole of World rugby (lets not forget that teams like Australia, New Zealand, France etc. are teams of real quality) you need to have an extremely complete team allover the park, or weaknesses will be exploited by good teams.
[Edit: Ok, I rephrase: Robinson is certainly in the top 5 fastest rugby players in the World. But for acceleration and agility, he is the best. Which means, for my money in 1v1 or even 1v2 situations, he is the best. He's who I would want above all else to finish off a move.
And what do you mean by "France are a shoe in"? :confused:
[ February 16, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Morsmordre ]
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 7:39pm
That was exactly what NZ and Australia did wrong last year. They employed the wrong tactics to counter the weaknesses in the English team. If you watch those games again you will see that England controlled the game up front but had no innovation in the backline (and hence scored very few tries). They defended extremely well but employed a very flat backline defence. Neither Australia nor New Zealand showed sufficient skill or vision to vary their attack to use their precious possession (such as kicking in behind the defence to make them think twice about coming up so flat). NZ in particular placed far too much faith in the speed of their outside backs but these players were not given the opportunity due to failure of the pack to dominate and the halves to break things up.
Clive Woodward and Martin Johnson were smart enough to work out where England's strengths were and chose exactly the right tactics to make the most of them. That was the real beauty of England's victory.
Remember also that the victories over Australia (in the final) and New Zealand (in June) were very close (within 3 points) and could easily have gone the other way if a) Wilkinson ever missed or b) NZ had a reliable kicker. Given this, it is hard to see how you can claim that England had a team that could dominate in ALL positions.
[ February 16, 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: Harbourboy ]
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 8:26pm
Thank you for your reply. But do you not see how flawed your argument is?
By your argument, any team with a decent forward pack and a good kicker can dominate World rugby. This is obviously not the case, as a team needs quality all over the pitch. Your point that Australia etc. lose to England because they did not know how to capitalize on weaknesses that you seem to see, yet the coaches don't is imo, a great insult on the coaching and scouting staff.
England play a kicking game because it is the best way to utilize the superior forwards and good ol' Jonny to best effect . That is our strongest point, which is why that is why we play the style of play that we do. The argument that we have a weak team outside of those positions is quite frankly, ridiculous and a grave insult to the rest of the team.
Balshaw, Cohen, Dawson, Robinson, Paul, Lewsey etc. these all have quality written in permanent ink on their foreheads. They make very few mistakes and know exactly how to capitalize on mistakes (England play rugby like a chess game, play solid and defensively and wait for the inevitable mistakes from your opponent ;) ) made.
I can see your arguments and appreciate where your coming from, but I'm afraid I disagree :) .
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 8:38pm
Don't get me wrong. The English backline is clearly quite good (my statement of 'ordinary' was an exaggeration for emphasis). Of course they must be good. But they are not the BEST backs in the world in the same way the forward and Jonny are. If you are claiming that they are, then that is where I would continue to disagree. If the backs were the best AND the forwards were the best - you would be thrashing everybody. There has probably never been a team that has dominated in *every single* position on the field.
If I was picking an ideal World XV, I would pick most of the forwards and Jonny but I'd never pick people like Cohen or Greenwood when I could have people like Howlett or O'Driscoll.
And it is not an insult to say that certain players are not the best in the world because by that token I am insulting 99.9999999% of the players in the world, which of course, I can't be.
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 8:48pm
And it is not an insult to say that certain players are not the best in the world because by that token I am insulting 99.9999999% of the players in the world, which of course, I can't be. I wasn't arguing that are backs are the best in the world, I was arguing your statement that they are not simply ordinary. They are very useful :D
But this could go on for ages and I'm sure we both have better things to do :D .
Nice to meet someone with as strong opinions as me, hehe. Been nice discussing with you :) .
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 9:59pm
Of course it's fun for YOU. You always have the option of wheeling out the unanswerable point that 'we won and that's all that matters'.
It's always fun when YOU'RE the champion . . . . all the rest of us can do is come up with hypothetical but ultimately pointless arguments.
Bring on 2007!!
...... but that's so far away . . . . . .
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 10:29pm
England will cain everyone in the Six Nations with ease, there is no point pretending otherwise.
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 11:33pm
I don't very often say this (especially after that 1999 World Cup semi-final), but . . . .
Mon, 16th Feb '04, 11:47pm
Your just sour after years and years of domination by the Southern Hemispehere countries ;) . England have come from being a team of underachievers to a team of real quality world class players who dominate the world stage!
We are enjoying our success while it lasts! Give us this one opportunity! :D (although with the class of young players coming through, it looks like we will be #1 for a long time!)
Stop being such a sad jealous creature and support the best team in this Six Nations! You know for a fact that France will probably
fold when it comes to the crunch! :D :cool:
Sun, 28th Mar '04, 9:05am
Who was it again that you said would probably fold?
Who is that is going to be #1 for a long time?
Well done France and Ireland!
Now I wait to see if my Euro 2004 prediction for England comes true as well....... :p
Sun, 28th Mar '04, 4:08pm
O.k, we lost to France and Ireland deservedly but every great team goes through a loss in form. France are a fantastic team and to lose to them is no disgrace. There isn't much to choose between the big four of England, France, N Z and Australia (taking nothing away from Ireland who thoroughly deserved their win) but I feel the difference is Johnson. During the world cup we played badly yet got results, this was a combination of the opposition not taking advantage and great leadership qualities shown by Jonno. Against France we looked clueless in the backs and the forwards didn't dominate as they had during the WC. Now isn't the time to start panicking though we have a great set-up here in England with plenty of youngsters coming through. Barkley has had a solid 6 nations and Chris Jones looks a fantastic prospect, never mind the U 21 team. Woodward thrives on preparation and I think he now has the time to start formulating his next major squad to take to the Southern HS.
England lacked a leader of the calibre of Johnson throughout the tournament and that was the deciding factor. Dallaglio is a wonderful player and is great as one of the senior members of the squad, but not THE leader. There will never be a replacement for Jonno but I think we should go with Phil Vickery or Matt Dawson. Vickery is hard as anything and will lead by example, while Dawson does so much talking anyway.
Plus, with Wilko in the team we most probably would have scored the 5 points the young Barkley missed. Meaning we would have won.
But I think the future of Rugby looks great atm! So many teams progressing quickly and it's gonna be an interesting next few years! :D
Sun, 28th Mar '04, 5:01pm
Hallelujah. I wouldn't want to be betting on rugby tests in the next or so. South African teams are even playing uncharacteristically well in the Super 12 so maybe the 'Boks will be better this year as well. England, Australia, NZ, and South Africa are all rebuilding after the World Cup so we will be watching carefully so see what each of them can come up with.
Plus next year there is the Lions tour!
Sun, 28th Mar '04, 7:40pm
Yeah, the Lions looks very strong for next year!
That's a debate in it's self! Who to pick for the Lions Tour?
Erm... Let me think a bit....
1) Woodman or Corrigan
2) Byrne or McBride. (Thompson would be top if he went and practised his throwing a bit more )
4) O'Connell - by a mile.
5) Mmm, tougher choice. Owen had a good game for Wales, but not sure he's bulky enough. Grewcock is a quality player, as is Kay although he seems a bit adrift atm. I'd also like to see Chris Jones somewhere on the team.
6) Hill (u need to ask? )
7) Tough call. Martyn Williams, Easterby and Gleeson all good atm.
8) Taylor, although he needs to work on his discipline. Dallaglio can be good or bad.
9) Matt Dawson. No questions or debate.
10) Wilko. (although Paterson should have a place on the team)
11) * See below
12) Greenwood or D'Arcy. Harris or Catt would provide a different option.
13) O'Driscoll, with Tindall onboard for something different.
14) * See below
15) Lewsey on current form. Murphy and Kevin Morgan be in a with a good shout if fit.
* Would pick any from the following:
Robinson + 1 of the following: (would probably pick Shane Williams)
- Either of the 2 Williams, Hickey or Horgan, Cohen, Lewsey.
Sun, 28th Mar '04, 8:06pm
No question or debate on halfback?
Peter Stringer would be the halfback in my WORLD XV, never mind the Lions. The Irish backs have revelled in the space and time that he has created for them. Dawson is strong with the ball in hand and is quality on defence but if I've stacked my Lions team with best backs in the Home Nations then I'd want the halfback that was best at unleashing them.
Otherwise, I agree with your comments (for once)
Sun, 28th Mar '04, 8:44pm
Stringer is good. I will agree with you on that mate. His distribution is brilliant. Probably one of the best in world rugby. But he has a few weaknesses in defence and is not vocal enough of a half back imo.
Matt Dawson is one of the best all-round half backs in the world in my opinion.