6 Nations 2017 General Discussion Thread

ScrubsfanChris

awec wrote: »

I see English clubs want the rest weeks in the 6 nations to be cut so the competition takes 5 weeks instead of 7.

Not sure what I think about it. Because our players are employed by the union our clubs wouldn't benefit from it as players wouldn't be allowed to play either way.

If they got rid of the completely outdated Anglo-Welsh Cup then wouldn't have to be worried about time constraints.

irishbucsfan

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

If they got rid of the completely outdated Anglo-Welsh Cup then wouldn't have to be worried about time constraints.

Not really. If the Anglo-Welsh cup was causing any issues they would scrap it. It's not actually a problem given internationals don't play in it.

Teferi

The Welsh will be dangled the usual carrot of entry into the Premiership in the vague and distant future (with no hope of it ever actually happening) and they will fall for it again. Just watch.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

There should be absolutely no compromise on this. The current format is perfectly fine.

This is the door that was opened when we let the clubs dictate the terms of Europe a few years ago. World Rugby and every other Union should tell them to go and ram it up their holes.

So long as you ignore the underlying point and the aim of reducing the number of weeks in use, then there should be no compromise. But if there is any interest from the Unions in actually achieving a unified calendar by 2021 (which is what they're discussing at the meeting where the clubs are presenting this idea) then there'll need to be some give and take.

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So long as you ignore the underlying point and the aim of reducing the number of weeks in use, then there should be no compromise. But if there is any interest from the Unions in actually achieving a unified calendar by 2021 (which is what they're discussing at the meeting where the clubs are presenting this idea) then there'll need to be some give and take.

The club owners wanting more power along with a reduced valued and importance on the international game?

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

The club owners wanting more power along with a reduced valued and importance on the international game?

Try: the Unions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres all trying to find a way to produce some form of global calendar without moving the 6 Nations from February/March.

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Try: the Unions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres all trying to find a way to produce some form of global calendar without moving the 6 Nations from February/March.

The English clubs have put this forward, not the Unions.

Try: Yet another power grab by the clubs.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

The English clubs have put this forward, not the Unions.

Try: Yet another power grab by the clubs.

And where are the English clubs putting it forward?

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And where are the English clubs putting it forward?

So now you agree with me that it's the English clubs. Excellent.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

So now you agree with me that it's the English clubs. Excellent.

Not something I ever disagreed with.

The answer to the question you avoided is that it's at an international summit in America where the issue of a global calendar is up for discussion.

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not something I ever disagreed with.

The answer to the question you avoided is that it's at an international summit in America where the issue of a global calendar is up for discussion.

Because it was irrelevant - it's yet another power grab by the clubs. They don't have the best interests of the game or the calendar at heart.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

Because it was irrelevant - it's yet another power grab by the clubs. They don't have the best interests of the game or the calendar at heart.

In what way is it a power grab? What power? What effect does the number of weeks off between games in the 6 Nations have on power structures in world rugby? Given the whole point of this move towards a global calendar (which was initiated by unions) is to increase the viability and success of international test windows, the answer can't be a relative change in strength of their products.

You don't need to be afraid of the boogeymen at every turn. The clubs motivation is to ensure that if they're going to lose weeks at the beginning or end of their season, they're getting them back elsewhere. If this is going to scupper international rugby to the benefit of the clubs, then the answer for the unions will be amazingly simple: vote against it.

molloyjh

Didn't this all start from a post of awecs stating that the English clubs were looking for a 5 week 6Ns? He didn't link an article and I haven't had time to go looking for one, but surely complaints about the clubs making demands of the international calendar in this way are valid? It's one thing to suggest moving the tournament, it's another to say they don't want any breaks in it at all.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Didn't this all start from a post of awecs stating that the English clubs were looking for a 5 week 6Ns? He didn't link an article and I haven't had time to go looking for one, but surely complaints about the clubs making demands of the international calendar in this way are valid? It's one thing to suggest moving the tournament, it's another to say they don't want any breaks in it at all.

The English clubs are looking for a 5 week 6Ns, in a move to a global calendar. Not an out-of-the-blue request from power-hungry evil bastards looking to line their pockets, but actually just one of a number of potentially moving parts that will likely also see the clubs asked to give up some of their time or commit to some structure.

I don't want to see a 5 week 6 Nations, but I would like to see the clubs commit to a maximum number of game-weeks or some form of consistent calendar instead of constantly creeping deeper into May. If a 6-week 6 Nations is a compromise for that, then maybe it'd be worth it (maybe not). All of this combined is probably the reason none of it will happen.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't want to see a 5 week 6 Nations, but I would like to see the clubs commit to a maximum number of game-weeks or some form of consistent calendar instead of constantly creeping deeper into May. If a 6-week 6 Nations is a compromise for that, then maybe it'd be worth it (maybe not). All of this combined is probably the reason none of it will happen.

Is this not the problem people are voicing? They've gone as deep into May as they can, so the next step is to dig backwards into the 6N.

I'm not seeing a quid pro quo for this, it's a demand for 6N time as well as for summer tour time as well. Now I can understand the latter because the RWC takes a chunk of the season out and there's a lot of pressure on clubs as a result. But the 6N thing seems like trying it on to see if they can at least get the summer tour taken out and everybody breathes a sigh of relief because the 6N has been left alone.

errlloyd

Sorry to change the topic, but does anyone else wonder why Wales have to ask permission to close the roof of their stadium. If they had built a stadium with a permanent roof would anyone care? Sure it gives them an advantage becuase they're used to it, but that equally makes them less able to play away from home.

I think it should always be closed. And I hate the Welsh.

molloyjh

Right, finally got a chance to look for an actual article on what we are discussing.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jan/26/english-clubs-seek-reduction-in-six-nations-length-from-seven-to-five-weeks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/25/elite-english-clubs-push-limit-six-nations-five-weeks/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plan-to-shorten-six-nations-65b9xf80b

It seems this has been submitted to WR as part of the global calendar, with a view to allowing more flexibility for the business end of the clu season. How sensible that is all depends on what they mean by "flexibility". As it is the first game our internationals will play after the 6Ns is the QF against Wasps. There will be no league game to build up to it for the lads so if it's there to address that kind of thing (and assuming they aren't actually after a 5 week 6Ns, because that would be madness) then that's fair enough. However if it is there to facilitate something like an increased AP then that's an entirely different matter.

There does need to be some give and take in all of this. It'll be interesting to see what the clubs are willing to do on their end.

CMOTDibbler

errlloyd wrote: »

Sorry to change the topic, but does anyone else wonder why Wales have to ask permission to close the roof of their stadium. If they had built a stadium with a permanent roof would anyone care? Sure it gives them an advantage becuase they're used to it, but that equally makes them less able to play away from home.

I think it should always be closed. And I hate the Welsh.

The reason it's not permanent is that grass needs sunlight to grow. There have been issues in Lansdowne Road where some areas of the pitch sometimes don't receive enough sunlight and they have to use artificial light to promote growth.

Closure of the roof has a lot of other downsides. The noise is unbelievable and that causes problems for the officials. Also seen as an unfair advantage for the Welsh. So the veto goes to the away team as a result.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Sorry to change the topic, but does anyone else wonder why Wales have to ask permission to close the roof of their stadium. If they had built a stadium with a permanent roof would anyone care? Sure it gives them an advantage becuase they're used to it, but that equally makes them less able to play away from home.

I think it should always be closed. And I hate the Welsh.

Because rugby is an outdoor game and the away team may prefer to play outdoors.

errlloyd

Madalynn Unkempt Pedestal wrote: »

Because rugby is an outdoor game and the away team may prefer to play outdoors.

I know that's the official reason, but it's a load of crap. We don't get to demand we play Saracens on a grass pitch for instance. When we played in Dunedin we didn't kick up a fuss about it being indoors becuase the roof wasn't retractable. It just seems like the unions were sitting around a table one day in the 90s and decided to be awkward becuase there was the choice to be awkward. Let them do what they want, we let the all blacks do their war dance, we let Scotland have pipers on the roof, we let Saracens play on plastic. The roof objectively makes the game better, close the bloody thing and stop talking about it every year.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I know that's the official reason, but it's a load of crap. We don't get to demand we play Saracens on a grass pitch for instance. When we played in Dunedin we didn't kick up a fuss about it being indoors becuase the roof wasn't retractable. It just seems like the unions were sitting around a table one day in the 90s and decided to be awkward becuase there was the choice to be awkward. Let them do what they want, we let the all blacks do their war dance, we let Scotland have pipers on the roof, we let Saracens play on plastic. The roof objectively makes the game better, close the bloody thing and stop talking about it every year.

Never give up something (even the option of something) for free when you can get something for it.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I know that's the official reason, but it's a load of crap. We don't get to demand we play Saracens on a grass pitch for instance. When we played in Dunedin we didn't kick up a fuss about it being indoors becuase the roof wasn't retractable. It just seems like the unions were sitting around a table one day in the 90s and decided to be awkward becuase there was the choice to be awkward. Let them do what they want, we let the all blacks do their war dance, we let Scotland have pipers on the roof, we let Saracens play on plastic. The roof objectively makes the game better, close the bloody thing and stop talking about it every year.

Objectively makes the game better? That's some claim.

But why would the Irish management care if the game is objectively better or not? They're interested in winning.

Former Former

It should either be open or it should be closed and stick with it for every game.

This business of both teams having to agree is nonsense. It was a fiasco two years ago with Ireland acting the dick.

errlloyd

Madalynn Unkempt Pedestal wrote: »

Objectivity makes the game better? That's some claim.

But why would the Irish management care if the game is objectively better or not? They're interested in winning.

Yes agree with you. I'm not asking why the Irish management insidt on keeping it open.

Im asking why we even have a choice. We let home teams pipe in music if they want to. We let them decide the length of the grass within a tolerance, we let them decide the width of the pitch within a tolerance, we let them decide the length of the in goals within a tolerance. They give their supporters flag if they want to. The home team can even play on plastic if they want to. Literally the only thing we have a choice on is whether Wales can close the roof they spent millions of pounds on.

It is almost certainly what Venjur said. It seems petty to me. If this was really about genuine rugbt or a concern about home advantage wed be able to insist they played their home game on the second pitch in Pontypridd RFC. With a slope in one corner and no drainage on the other side.

It's one those amature hangovers I hate. Someone in the 90s was being purposely awake and and stubborn, and now we have this Welsh stadium roof drama every year.

thomond2006

Anthony Watson is out for a month, missing the France and Wales matches.

ionadnapokot

thomond2006 wrote: »

Anthony Watson is out for a month, missing the France and Wales matches.

They are dropping like flies in England and France.
If SOB, Murray and Henshaw stay injury free through until Cardiff; I'm confident* there is enough strength in the rest of the Irish squad to secure the Slam.
*Will need Murray prob to play 80 mins v France, Wales and England

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

It should either be open or it should be closed and stick with it for every game.

This business of both teams having to agree is nonsense. It was a fiasco two years ago with Ireland acting the dick.

Let Wales do what they want and just win the game.

ArmaniJeanss

In order to win the last RWC Ireland would have had to play Italy, France, Argentina, Australia, NZ on 5 successive weekends.

Recreating that intensity of schedule in the 6 Nations seem like it would fundamentally be a good idea for the NH teams. At the moment all we are finding out is whether we have a competitive team given a 14 day break before GW3 and another 14 day break before GW4 and trying to extrapolate from that whether we have a team capable of winning a RWC.

Admittedly our RWC schedule was severe (most times we can expect a minnow in the 3th or 4th group game) but there will be always be QF,SF,F on three successive weekends, therefore I think the 6N should have only one break rather than the current two breaks.

AbusesToilets

The NFL, which is a far more physicality intense, manages a 16 game regular season, with only 1 bye week per team. No reason that the 6Ns couldn't be completed over 6 weeks.

pickarooney

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The NFL, which is a far more physicality intense, manages a 16 game regular season, with only 1 bye week per team. No reason that the 6Ns couldn't be completed over 6 weeks.

Come off it, they play in one competition rather than three, they have matchday squads of about 50 players, they stop play every other minute and probably get paid about 500,000 dollars per actual minute playing.

bilston

I'd be happy to see th compromise of reducing it to 6 weeks, with a week off between rounds 3 and 4.

My issue with the call for the reduction to 5 weeks is that it is coming from the same people who wish to expand their own competition to 14 teams.

ionadnapokot

bilston wrote: »

I'd be happy to see th compromise of reducing it to 6 weeks, with a week off between rounds 3 and 4.

My issue with the call for the reduction to 5 weeks is that it is coming from the same people who wish to expand their own competition to 14 teams.

I would also prefer it to be 6 wks. It would tilt the balance to the teams with the larger player pool though.

A stronger Championship would be a better way of improving NH performances in the WC. Have a promotion/relegation playoff on the 7th wk and revert back to good old Sat matches.

thomond2006

pickarooney wrote: »

Come off it, they play in one competition rather than three, they have matchday squads of about 50 players, they stop play every other minute and probably get paid about 500,000 dollars per actual minute playing.

I do think the amount of matches in a season will decrease over the next decade or so. There will need to be a global calendar first.

As for the salaries I hope to see these increase as the popularity and TV money grows.

stephen_n

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The NFL, which is a far more physicality intense, manages a 16 game regular season, with only 1 bye week per team. No reason that the 6Ns couldn't be completed over 6 weeks.

How is it more physically intense? How much time is each player actually involved in a game? Plus the difference in the force of the hits is negligible once you factor in padding. The intensity of a rugby game would far outweigh the involvement in an American football game.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

How is it more physically intense? How much time is each player actually involved in a game? Plus the difference in the force of the hits is negligible once you factor in padding. The intensity of a rugby game would far outweigh the involvement in an American football game.

Source?

Apart from that I don't think the NFL is a good example to follow, it's a massively attritional sport.

Former Former

The offensive lineman in an NFL team hits his opponent as hard as he can about 60-70 times per game. These are guys who weigh more than tighthead props, crashing into another guy who weighs more than a tighthead prop, 60-70 times per game. No rugby player goes through that and all the padding in the world won't help you.

On the other hand, if you're the guy who runs on and holds the ball while the kicker kicks it, you will burn about 20 calories during a match and never get hit once in your entire career.

thomond2006

stephen_n wrote: »

How is it more physically intense? How much time is each player actually involved in a game? Plus the difference in the force of the hits is negligible once you factor in padding. The intensity of a rugby game would far outweigh the involvement in an American football game.

That really depends on the position though. Quarterbacks can have a 15+ year career if they don't get hit often. Running backs are guaranteed to get hit often given their position and they generally don't last long in the league. Kick returners can have a short shelf life too as they are being hit by players running at speed.

Poor swiwi is going to freak out when he sees NFL talk in a thread not called off-topic.

pickarooney

Is there skill involved in that lineman role or any reason they don't rotate two or three players in the position per game? It sounds a bit suicidal. Do they earn much?

In terms of intensity, rugby isn't that high up the list of field sports I've played. I'd rank them something like this

Rugby 7s
Gaelic football
Rugby league
Hurling
Indoor football
Rugby union
Outdoor football

Indoor football has minimal contact and outdoors not a whole lot more but muscles and joints get a fair going over.

Has anyone here played American football with all the gear and stuff? There's a pro team in my town. I might go to a match or even a training session with the amateur side to see how it compares.

thomond2006

pickarooney wrote: »

Is there skill involved in that lineman role or any reason they don't rotate two or three players in the position per game? It sounds a bit suicidal. Do they earn much?

There's definitely skill involved. The top offensive lineman get paid huge money. They generally don't rotate during a game, if a poor lineman misses a block then it could mean their quarterback gets put on his ass.

Former Former

pickarooney wrote: »

Is there skill involved in that lineman role or any reason they don't rotate two or three players in the position per game? It sounds a bit suicidal. Do they earn much?

Not sure pickarooney, anything I know about the NFL I've learned from Sandra Bullock movies so I'm struggling a bit.



I'll watch it again tonight and come back to you. Purely for research purposes, of course.

Felix Jones is God

Is that not Shrek?

wp_rathead

Former Former wrote: »

Not sure pickarooney, anything I know about the NFL I've learned from Sandra Bullock movies so I'm struggling a bit.

I got my NFL knowledge from Little Giants, Remember the Titans and an old Madden 04 demo

Buer

pickarooney wrote: »

Is there skill involved in that lineman role or any reason they don't rotate two or three players in the position per game? It sounds a bit suicidal. Do they earn much?

Arguably the most impressive athletes on the field through their combination of speed, power and footwork. Fastest lineman in last year's draft ran his 40 yard sprint in 4.85 seconds.

He's 136kg.

Zzippy

Former Former wrote: »

The offensive lineman in an NFL team hits his opponent as hard as he can about 60-70 times per game. These are guys who weigh more than tighthead props, crashing into another guy who weighs more than a tighthead prop, 60-70 times per game. No rugby player goes through that and all the padding in the world won't help you.

On the other hand, if you're the guy who runs on and holds the ball while the kicker kicks it, you will burn about 20 calories during a match and never get hit once in your entire career.

Come off it. They are starting about 2 feet apart, and its mostly pushing, not like massive hits with a lot of speed behind them. Yeah they're huge guys but all that power goes into trying to muscle each other out of the way or stop being muscled out of the way.

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

Come off it. They are starting about 2 feet apart, and its mostly pushing, not like massive hits with a lot of speed behind them. Yeah they're huge guys but all that power goes into trying to muscle each other out of the way or stop being muscled out of the way.

How confident would you say your knowledge of this is?

Buer

Zzippy wrote: »

Come off it. They are starting about 2 feet apart, and its mostly pushing, not like massive hits with a lot of speed behind them. Yeah they're huge guys but all that power goes into trying to muscle each other out of the way or stop being muscled out of the way.

Try packing down in the front row 70 times on a single day! Not the same but you get the idea. Even a series of 4 or 5 resets can be exhausting.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Source?

Apart from that I don't think the NFL is a good example to follow, it's a massively attritional sport.

Can't find the video at the moment, it's one of those myth buster type shows. They measured the force of the hits and though the NFL hits are harder, it was mitigated by the protective gear. Also NZ have run a test using a mouth guard to record the impacts through out the game, the NFL used the same mouth guards for their tests but I can't find a comparison with the results, though I'm sure it must exist.


But that's just the hits, apart from the running backs and those that defend outfield, there is a much lower level of intensity than a game of rugby. So the collision damage may be higher but the overall level of exertion isn't.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Can't find the video at the moment, it's one of those myth buster type shows. They measured the force of the hits and though the NFL hits are harder, it was mitigated by the protective gear. Also NZ have run a test using a mouth guard to record the impacts through out the game, the NFL used the same mouth guards for their tests but I can't find a comparison with the results, though I'm sure it must exist.


But that's just the hits, apart from the running backs and those that defend outfield, there is a much lower level of intensity than a game of rugby. So the collision damage may be higher but the overall level of exertion isn't.

I honestly won't believe a shred of this without a source. Having been a fairly avid fan of the sport for a long time and having seen the rate of attrition within the sport over the past two decades.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I honestly won't believe a shred of this without a source. Having been a fairly avid fan of the sport for a long time and having seen the rate of attrition within the sport over the past two decades.

Rugby
In the short time the devices have been used at the club, most of the recorded impacts have been around 10 to 20 G’s, with some up to 40 G’s. The average impact is 22 G’s.

NFL
The average G-force, 25.8, is roughly equivalent to what we would see if the offensive lineman crashed his car into a wall going about 30 m.p.h.


Once again this is only one factor affecting recovery time and not the whole picture of how physically demanding either game is.