Triple Crown

So something I hadn't really considered until now (because I'm generally dismissive of the achievement), is that the triple crown will be affected by the new bonus points.

I've never liked the triple crown, for me it is a losers prize. It is not an indicator of success, therefore it's irrelevant. If you lose the championship but win the triple crown, so what? you lost the championship. If you win the triple crown and win the championship, you've won the championship, who cares about the triple crown!

For me, that it is theoretically possible to win the triple crown and still finish below all the nations in the triple crown tells you all you need to know about it. However this is obviously unlikely. With the introduction of bonus points this scenario is now a lot more plausible. Indeed at the very least, we could start to see an increase in the number of times a team wins the triple crown but doesn't finish ahead of all of the other home unions.

I'm not a fan of bonus points, nor the triple crown, but it does seem to me that they can't both exist in harmony.

If you think about it, if you win the triple crown you are beating the 3 original sides in the 4 nations. It's not that important except for some bragging rights.

I like the triple crown because it's basically part of history.

I think winning the GS - beating everyone is more important than merely winning the championship.

5/5 is the big goal.

I'll never understand how it translates to bragging rights to be honest.

If Eng beat Sco, Ire and Wales but still finish below all of them in the table I'd feel embarrassed to be honest. I certainly wouldn't be bragging. More realistically lets say Eng win the triple crown but finish below Ireland, am I to brag to Scotland and Wales fans but keep quiet around Ireland fans?

I do agree with one thing though. It's all about the GS. The championship with 4 wins is just a consolation prize.

Why would you keep quiet when you beat Ireland?

England have a very good recent record vs Ireland - 6/7.

Yes we've not won the championship because of points difference. Doesn't change that we beat Ireland in 2014.

It's not embarrassment to win 4/5. It's more frustating to not get over the line.

Embarrassing is if you come 4th or below from an English perspective.

beshocked wrote:Why would you keep quiet when you beat Ireland?

England have a very good recent record vs Ireland - 6/7.

Yes we've not won the championship because of points difference. Doesn't change that we beat Ireland in 2014.

It's not embarrassment to win 4/5. It's more frustating to not get over the line.

Embarrassing is if you come 4th or below from an English perspective.

You're talking about specific examples. We might have won 4, we might have won 3. In finishing above us Ireland might have won 4, they might too have only won 3. The point is if you make it about anything else than your position in the table then you are missing the point.

Incidentally, this is something England fans look down their nose at when it comes to Welsh, Scottish and Irish fans. They are often accused of making it all about beating England.

It seems to me you can't have it both ways.

If you win the Triple Crown you are more than likely to have won the 6 Nations...

Silly point being made...

The Tripple Crown is a trophy the same as others played for in the 6 Nations tournament. Same as Calcutta Cup... It is a tradition and part of what makes this tournament special.

However, the point of BP is valid. I have said on other threads. The Grand Slam isn't a problem, as additional BPs will be awarded ensuring that any team winning a Slam wins the 6 Nations. However, those of us who really follow this sport, realise, Grand Slams are hard to come by. Agreed, we've had a few recently, but they are still very hard to achieve.

The problem with the BPs is that a team winning 3 games ALL with BPs, and getting loosing BPs as well, could finish above a team winning 4 games with NO BPs.. This would mean winning the 6 Nations on 3 wins with second place winning 4 games.

NOW THAT is not right, IMO.. And, I hope it works out this way first off, as that is one way the BPs will get scrapped.

cascough wrote:I'll never understand how it translates to bragging rights to be honest.

If Eng beat Sco, Ire and Wales but still finish below all of them in the table I'd feel embarrassed to be honest. I certainly wouldn't be bragging. More realistically lets say Eng win the triple crown but finish below Ireland, am I to brag to Scotland and Wales fans but keep quiet around Ireland fans?

I do agree with one thing though. It's all about the GS. The championship with 4 wins is just a consolation prize.

That's nonsense. Grand slams are great but you dont get a trophy for them you get a trophy for winning the championship so really thats all that matter. A GS is just a cherry on top.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

cascough wrote:I'll never understand how it translates to bragging rights to be honest.

If Eng beat Sco, Ire and Wales but still finish below all of them in the table I'd feel embarrassed to be honest. I certainly wouldn't be bragging. More realistically lets say Eng win the triple crown but finish below Ireland, am I to brag to Scotland and Wales fans but keep quiet around Ireland fans?

I do agree with one thing though. It's all about the GS. The championship with 4 wins is just a consolation prize.

That's nonsense. Grand slams are great but you dont get a trophy for them you get a trophy for winning the championship so really thats all that matter. A GS is just a cherry on top.

Grand Slams come with a free trophy... the 6 Nations one.. Win one, get the other free ...

GunsGermsV2 wrote:That's nonsense. Grand slams are great but you dont get a trophy for them you get a trophy for winning the championship so really thats all that matter. A GS is just a cherry on top.

Agree. It's like saying a World Cup win doesn't count unless you win all of your group games.

There are so many trophies nowadays awarded during the 6Ns, we sometimes forget just how recently some of them were introduced.

While the term "Triple Crown" will have been used back in teh days before France joined to make it 5Ns, there was no actual trophy until RBS commissioned one in 2006.

There is, and has never been a Trophy for the Grand Slam, though of course since 1993 you would receive the Championship Trophy as it is impossible to get a Slam and not win the title. Previous to that winning the championship was merely a moral award.

It is funny that when England won the Grand Slam in 1980 (first championship I can remember clearly - previous ones I may have watched have faded with the years) the only trophy anyone could win was the Calcutta Cup. Since then we have seen the two previously mentioned introduced (with teh Championship trophy replaced last season with a new one representing all 6Ns) as well as trophies for the winners of England/Ireland (1988), Ireland/Scotland (1989) and most recently France/Italy (2007). Now some may argue that this just gives the lesser countries something to play for when Wales take the meaningful trophies



All irrelevant of course The Triple Crown is a dated tradition, but without dated traditions the Six Nations becomes rather meaningless/tedious.

The grandslam/championship thing, thats just how I see it. I don't remember Englands 2011 success too fondly. I do cherish the grandslams of 2003 and 2016 though. But that's really an aside to the point of the thread.

Point being, the triple crown means nothing, and is not a direct indicator of anything. You get six points for beating Ire,Wal and Sco, same as you do for beating any other 3 teams. That you try make that achievement in itself any more special is flawed. As I have pointed out could still finish below all of these teams.

If you win the championship, the triple crown has got nothing to do with it. You've won the championship because you've won most games regardless of who they are against.

I'm glad you mentioned the calcutta cup, because that's a load of rubbish too. It doesn't make the game any more special than if we beat Fra or Italy IMO. I will grant you that there is a tradition with that though. It's a bit more manufactured with the triple crown. There wasn't a trophy until 2006!

munkian wrote:If you win the Triple Crown you are more than likely to have won the 6 Nations...

That's a bold statement.... Think the French (and Italians) may disagree there.

As to the title vs GS. Try telling England 2011 that they succeeded. Perhaps it is just a sign of my age, and my dated traditions, but winning teh GS allows a team to go down in the history books, winning the title but losing a game is ...meh.

If/when a side wins the RWC after losing a pool game, then we can discuss the merits of that. Seems unbalanced though to compare a Quadrennial tournament with all teams eligible, to an annual one where just a select group are invited to participate.

No9 wrote:

munkian wrote:If you win the Triple Crown you are more than likely to have won the 6 Nations...

That's a bold statement.... Think the French (and Italians) may disagree there.

And in 2014 the Irish would have had something to say.

cascough wrote:The grandslam/championship thing, thats just how I see it. I don't remember Englands 2013 success too fondly. I do cherish the grandslams of 2003 and 2016 though. But that's really an aside to the point of the thread.

Point being, the triple crown means nothing, and is not a direct indicator of anything. You get six points for beating Ire,Wal and Sco, same as you do for beating any other 3 teams. That you try make that achievement in itself any more special is flawed. As I have pointed out could still finish below all of these teams.

If you win the championship, the triple crown has got nothing to do with it. You've won the championship because you've won most games regardless of who they are against.

I'm glad you mentioned the calcutta cup, because that's a load of rubbish too. It doesn't make the game any more special than if we beat Fra or Italy IMO. I will grant you that there is a tradition with that though. It's a bit more manufactured with the triple crown. There wasn't a trophy until 2006!

Perhaps you cant remember England's 2013 success as there wasn't any success.. Think you'll find Wales stopped England taking a Slam and ALSO took the 6 Nations Title off them.

No9 wrote:

munkian wrote:If you win the Triple Crown you are more than likely to have won the 6 Nations...

That's a bold statement.... Think the French (and Italians) may disagree there.

Indeed, of the 11 triple crown wins, only 6 have won the 6N that year.

indeed, obviously i meant 2011

LondonTiger wrote:As to the title vs GS. Try telling England 2011 that they succeeded. Perhaps it is just a sign of my age, and my dated traditions, but winning teh GS allows a team to go down in the history books, winning the title but losing a game is ...meh.

If/when a side wins the RWC after losing a pool game, then we can discuss the merits of that. Seems unbalanced though to compare a Quadrennial tournament with all teams eligible, to an annual one where just a select group are invited to participate.

So if England win the 6 Nations this year but not a Slam, you wont be happy...

Ok.. but don't believe you

It is a tournament.. Win the tournament first and then if you take a Slam, its a bonus... and I wont believe ANY rugby fan who says different. If they do, they don't really understand this tournament. Which is why the media muppets want to ruin it with BPs.. What next, have a telephone vote to see who gets knocked out...

No9 wrote:

munkian wrote:If you win the Triple Crown you are more than likely to have won the 6 Nations...

That's a bold statement.... Think the French (and Italians) may disagree there.

Quite.

If you win the triple crown you have won 3 games. In the context of the championship those 3 games are no more special and worth no more points than if you won a different combination of games incuding fra and/or italy.

To say the triple crown means something is to say it means something outside of the context of the competition itself, which I firmly reject. All that matters to me is to see my team do well in the 6N, I'm not bothered who we beat to do that.

No9 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:As to the title vs GS. Try telling England 2011 that they succeeded. Perhaps it is just a sign of my age, and my dated traditions, but winning teh GS allows a team to go down in the history books, winning the title but losing a game is ...meh.

If/when a side wins the RWC after losing a pool game, then we can discuss the merits of that. Seems unbalanced though to compare a Quadrennial tournament with all teams eligible, to an annual one where just a select group are invited to participate.

So if England win the 6 Nations this year but not a Slam, you wont be happy...

Ok.. but don't believe you

It is a tournament.. Win the tournament first and then if you take a Slam, its a bonus... and I wont believe ANY rugby fan who says different. If they do, they don't really understand this tournament. Which is why the media muppets want to ruin it with BPs.. What next, have a telephone vote to see who gets knocked out...

Sort of. I'll be as happy as I will be frustrated. The feeling when you have when you get a consolation prize. It's not bad, but it's not what you wanted.

It's an excellent point regarding the history of the grand slam/trophy. I'd forgotten about that, London Tiger.

No9 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:As to the title vs GS. Try telling England 2011 that they succeeded. Perhaps it is just a sign of my age, and my dated traditions, but winning teh GS allows a team to go down in the history books, winning the title but losing a game is ...meh.

If/when a side wins the RWC after losing a pool game, then we can discuss the merits of that. Seems unbalanced though to compare a Quadrennial tournament with all teams eligible, to an annual one where just a select group are invited to participate.

So if England win the 6 Nations this year but not a Slam, you wont be happy...

Ok.. but don't believe you

It is a tournament.. Win the tournament first and then if you take a Slam, its a bonus... and I wont believe ANY rugby fan who says different. If they do, they don't really understand this tournament. Which is why the media muppets want to ruin it with BPs.. What next, have a telephone vote to see who gets knocked out...

I certainly was not happy in 2011, nor would I have been happy if we had won by points difference in 2013. If two teams both get 4 wins I believe the title should be shared. I find using points difference or now bonus points to decide it to be an artificial construct that devalues the competition and it's traditions. Of course a shared title, is just half a title - while when I first watched teh 5Ns there was minimal talk of winning teh title, GS (and indeed Triple Crown) were the be all and end all.

cascough wrote:

No9 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:As to the title vs GS. Try telling England 2011 that they succeeded. Perhaps it is just a sign of my age, and my dated traditions, but winning teh GS allows a team to go down in the history books, winning the title but losing a game is ...meh.

If/when a side wins the RWC after losing a pool game, then we can discuss the merits of that. Seems unbalanced though to compare a Quadrennial tournament with all teams eligible, to an annual one where just a select group are invited to participate.

So if England win the 6 Nations this year but not a Slam, you wont be happy...

Ok.. but don't believe you

It is a tournament.. Win the tournament first and then if you take a Slam, its a bonus... and I wont believe ANY rugby fan who says different. If they do, they don't really understand this tournament. Which is why the media muppets want to ruin it with BPs.. What next, have a telephone vote to see who gets knocked out...

Sort of. I'll be as happy as I will be frustrated. The feeling when you have when you get a consolation prize. It's not bad, but it's not what you wanted.

It's an excellent point regarding the history of the grand slam/trophy. I'd forgotten about that, London Tiger.

Well I feel sorry for you guys in that case...

When the rest of us, cant sleep with excitement of the best tournament in the world. All you guys can look forward to is disappointment in not winning a Slam. If that's the way England fans think, no wonder more English watch the football than the rugby.

Never mind...

LondonTiger wrote:

No9 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:As to the title vs GS. Try telling England 2011 that they succeeded. Perhaps it is just a sign of my age, and my dated traditions, but winning teh GS allows a team to go down in the history books, winning the title but losing a game is ...meh.

If/when a side wins the RWC after losing a pool game, then we can discuss the merits of that. Seems unbalanced though to compare a Quadrennial tournament with all teams eligible, to an annual one where just a select group are invited to participate.

So if England win the 6 Nations this year but not a Slam, you wont be happy...

Ok.. but don't believe you

It is a tournament.. Win the tournament first and then if you take a Slam, its a bonus... and I wont believe ANY rugby fan who says different. If they do, they don't really understand this tournament. Which is why the media muppets want to ruin it with BPs.. What next, have a telephone vote to see who gets knocked out...

I certainly was not happy in 2011, nor would I have been happy if we had won by points difference in 2013. If two teams both get 4 wins I believe the title should be shared. I find using points difference or now bonus points to decide it to be an artificial construct that devalues the competition and it's traditions. Of course a shared title, is just half a title - while when I first watched teh 5Ns there was minimal talk of winning teh title, GS (and indeed Triple Crown) were the be all and end all.

Being well into my 50s I remember those days as well.. The Welsh team in the 70s winning streak, meant we (Wales) expected Slams each year, but that just doesn't happen. I remember shared titles, and agree, they become a little bit of a anti-climax. As such, I don't mind the points diff, to separate the spots, but BPs isn't needed and will not work.

Every match England win, I am pleased, every match they lose I am disappointed. (Though both to a much lesser degree than Leicester's fortunes - hence my current state of irritability)

If we had won either of the 2014 or 2015 titles by scoring a few more points on the last weekend, then I would have been happy with that - but not all that much happier than I already was by two good wins on the final weekend.

Correspondingly any gloss on winning the title in 2011 was removed by that hammering in Dublin. When I grew up the 5Ns title was not something viewed as especially important unless you won the slam (or Triple Crown if France won the slam). In fact officially there was no title.

So sure being the joint best team is good, but not as good as actually being the best.

In 2011 we weren't the join best team, we won by number of wins.

Scottrf wrote:In 2011 we weren't the join best team, we won by number of wins.

Indeed we did. Yet the fact we were hammered, for me, removed all the sheen from teh title win. You only have to look at the players to see it did the same to them too - they could not have cared any less about that title and probably wish they did not have to receive the trophy.

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:In 2011 we weren't the join best team, we won by number of wins.

Indeed we did. Yet the fact we were hammered, for me, removed all the sheen from teh title win. You only have to look at the players to see it did the same to them too - they could not have cared any less about that title and probably wish they did not have to receive the trophy.

Maybe, but that will be because the trophy was awarded that day. If the loss came earlier in the tournament they would be smiling and I'm sure on reflection were glad they won the trophy.

If level on points difference in the tournament I'm sure a team would appreciate a try that wins the tournament more than another try.

Bonus points have nothing to do with the Triple Crown.

The Triple Crown is based on beating the other three teams.  If you draw a match, then you're out.  It's wins - simple.  Bonus points do not come into it.

Pot Hale wrote:Bonus points have nothing to do with the Triple Crown.

The Triple Crown is based on beating the other three teams.  If you draw a match, then you're out.  It's wins - simple.  Bonus points do not come into it.

Thanks for condescendingly explaining what the triple crown is. But really the question posed is...

If the triple crown is a reflection of beating the other home nations (which you correctly point out that it is), why should anyone care about that achievement given that one or all of those teams may still finish above you in the table (a situation that has increased in likelihood following the introduction of bonus points)?

cascough wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Bonus points have nothing to do with the Triple Crown.

The Triple Crown is based on beating the other three teams.  If you draw a match, then you're out.  It's wins - simple.  Bonus points do not come into it.

Thanks for condescendingly explaining what the triple crown is. But really the question posed is...

If the triple crown is a reflection of beating the other home nations (which you correctly point out that it is), why should anyone care about that achievement given that one or all of those teams may still finish above you in the table (a situation that has increased in likelihood following the introduction of bonus points)?

It still affects WRB ranking points and allows for bragging rights. Im sure Scotland fans for example wouldn't pass up beating Wales but coming below them in the tournament.

It affects ranking points no more or less than any other game in the 6N. The triple crown has no effect on that.

The last bit of your post is the essence of our differences. I cannot fathom the logic behind doing worse than a rival in a competition, but yet somehow holding bragging rights. It's an odd concept to me. i don't measure success against a particular rival, I measure it in the context in the competition as a whole.

So basically, noone is bothered that the bonus point introduction will potentially mean the winner of the triple crown will be outperformed by losers of the triple crown more often because they think the triple crown is special in it's own right.

cascough wrote:It affects ranking points no more or less than any other game in the 6N. The triple crown has no effect on that.

The last bit of your post is the essence of our differences. I cannot fathom the logic behind doing worse than a rival in a competition, but yet somehow holding bragging rights. It's an odd concept to me. i don't measure success against a particular rival, I measure it in the context in the competition as a whole.

So basically, noone is bothered that the bonus point introduction will potentially mean the winner of the triple crown will be outperformed by losers of the triple crown more often because they think the triple crown is special in it's own right.

I don't see the point in bonus points unless there are home and away fixtures.

cascough wrote:It affects ranking points no more or less than any other game in the 6N. The triple crown has no effect on that.

The last bit of your post is the essence of our differences. I cannot fathom the logic behind doing worse than a rival in a competition, but yet somehow holding bragging rights. It's an odd concept to me. i don't measure success against a particular rival, I measure it in the context in the competition as a whole.

So basically, noone is bothered that the bonus point introduction will potentially mean the winner of the triple crown will be outperformed by losers of the triple crown more often because they think the triple crown is special in it's own right.

I think Londontiger explained it well.

In 2011, England won the 6 nations but it was a hollow victory. We had been stuffed by Ireland.

It's also linked to the sense of achievement. If England get the triple crown this season it's an impressive feat with both Ireland and Wales away. Last time England did that was in 2003 when they did the clean sweep.

Getting the triple crown last season was obviously easier (with Wales and Ireland at home) which lessens the achievement.

I think the triple crown still holds merit.

beshocked wrote:

cascough wrote:It affects ranking points no more or less than any other game in the 6N. The triple crown has no effect on that.

The last bit of your post is the essence of our differences. I cannot fathom the logic behind doing worse than a rival in a competition, but yet somehow holding bragging rights. It's an odd concept to me. i don't measure success against a particular rival, I measure it in the context in the competition as a whole.

So basically, noone is bothered that the bonus point introduction will potentially mean the winner of the triple crown will be outperformed by losers of the triple crown more often because they think the triple crown is special in it's own right.

I think Londontiger explained it well.

In 2011, England won the 6 nations but it was a hollow victory. We had been stuffed by Ireland.

It's also linked to the sense of achievement. If England get the triple crown this season it's an impressive feat with both Ireland and Wales away. Last time England did that was in 2003 when they did the clean sweep.

Getting the triple crown last season was obviously easier (with Wales and Ireland at home) which lessens the achievement.

I think the triple crown still holds merit.

That was an anomaly though as six nations winners if they lose a game normally don't lose by much. Also that was the year Kaplan awarded Mike Philips a try against Ireland that shouldnt have been allowed for lots of reasons. So in many ways Ireland were the real champions.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

cascough wrote:It affects ranking points no more or less than any other game in the 6N. The triple crown has no effect on that.

The last bit of your post is the essence of our differences. I cannot fathom the logic behind doing worse than a rival in a competition, but yet somehow holding bragging rights. It's an odd concept to me. i don't measure success against a particular rival, I measure it in the context in the competition as a whole.

So basically, noone is bothered that the bonus point introduction will potentially mean the winner of the triple crown will be outperformed by losers of the triple crown more often because they think the triple crown is special in it's own right.

I think Londontiger explained it well.

In 2011, England won the 6 nations but it was a hollow victory. We had been stuffed by Ireland.

It's also linked to the sense of achievement. If England get the triple crown this season it's an impressive feat with both Ireland and Wales away. Last time England did that was in 2003 when they did the clean sweep.

Getting the triple crown last season was obviously easier (with Wales and Ireland at home) which lessens the achievement.

I think the triple crown still holds merit.

That was an anomaly though as six nations winners if they lose a game normally don't lose by much. Also that was the year Kaplan awarded Mike Philips a try against Ireland that shouldnt have been allowed for lots of reasons. So in many ways Ireland were the real champions.

Even if Ireland had won that Wales game England would still have been loads ahead on points difference - the Irish way of winning the title

Fair enough then they deserved to win the championship.

I don't see the issue with the Triple Crown and finishing placing in the table. The TC (like the one-off trophies) is a nice bit of frippery and largely mentioned by the media but fine in itself.

I don't agree that a non-Grandslam championship means little though. It's not all-or-nothing. There have been plenty of years when 2, 3 or 4 sides have been pretty evenly matched. Winning on points difference is fine too (everyone knows the rules at the outset).

Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Sexton loop again this tournament.

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I remember it well. They did have a terrible team against Ireland though. Hape and Banahan were centres. I had a good laugh when I read the team sheet.

England provided a lot of entertainment that year.

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Sexton loop again this tournament.

So is Owen Farrell so he can learn it for the Lions.

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Sexton loop again this tournament.

So is Owen Farrell so he can learn it for the Lions.

My favourite bit is when it gets thrown at speed into somebody's face.

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Sexton loop again this tournament.

So is Owen Farrell so he can learn it for the Lions.

My favourite bit is when it gets thrown at speed into somebody's face.

Just cos your lads can't catch with their faces don't be jealous

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Sexton loop again this tournament.

So is Owen Farrell so he can learn it for the Lions.

My favourite bit is when it gets thrown at speed into somebody's face.

I look forward to Owen Farrell attempting to face catch it on tour.

Cyril I disagree. The TC is not something that is necessarily that easily achieved.

Ireland haven't for 7 years. Scotland in 25.

A TC for Scotland is much rarer in the last 20 years than beating Australia or SA for example.

Each to their own I guess. I don't think Ireland really proved themselves to be superior in 2014 and 2015, despite squeaking the tournaments by points difference.

Perhaps Irish fans feel differently - maybe they feel proud of winning the tournament courtesy of PD.

2011 is slightly different because England did win more games than anyone else but even then the loss to Ireland did put a dampener on proceedings.

2016 is a tournament as an England fan I'll always look much more fondly at. 5 outright victories. Got the TC too.

beshocked wrote:Cyril I disagree. The TC is not something that is necessarily that easily achieved.

Where did I say it was?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:Balls they did Guns, once everyone worked out they only had one move, the inside ball from Flood to Ashton, they were found out.

That was the year of T-shirt gate if I recall correctly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Sexton loop again this tournament.

So is Owen Farrell so he can learn it for the Lions.

My favourite bit is when it gets thrown at speed into somebody's face.

I look forward to Owen Farrell attempting to face catch it on tour.

Is that because of his (Irish roots?) punchable face?

Brown, Hartley and Farrell lead the six nations in punchable faces just ahead of Sexton and Morgan Parra.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Brown, Hartley and Farrell lead the six nations in punchable faces just ahead of Sexton and Morgan Parra.

Liam Williams is surely in the top 5? Great player but I just can't look at him without wanting to slap him silly