Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dumbo" data-source="post: 105756"><p>I disagree.</p><p>The English indeed did win the World Cup in 2003, but in general Southern Hemisphere teams have one everything before and since.</p><p>Since 2003 how have the English got on?</p><p>The IRB rankings have normally had NZ, AU and RSA sitting within the first five rankings.</p><p>Current rankings are;</p><p>1 NEW ZEALAND 94.59 </p><p>2 FRANCE 85.66 </p><p>3 AUSTRALIA 85.55 </p><p>4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.71 </p><p>5 IRELAND 84.65 </p><p></p><p>But that’s digressing... the question is - 'Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations' in regards to influence to World Rugby.</p><p>If the teams listed in the Tri Nations have been listed in the top 5 teams for the past 10 years... then... remedial math’s mate, 1 and 1 makes 2.</p><p>Then they are pretty much defining how the game is to be played, like it or not â€" it’s simple.</p><p></p><p>I’ll put it another way, you will not find the All Blacks, Wallabies or the Springbok trying to replicate the game played by Wales, Italy or Scotland (credit is given to the other teams though).</p><p>Most coaches instruct their players to replicate the best, this is ‘influence’ and that’s owned by the Tri Nations teams.</p><p></p><p>Also how can three teams that are good playing three teams that are not really good be considered a true test? </p><p></p><p>That's laughable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dumbo, post: 105756"] I disagree. The English indeed did win the World Cup in 2003, but in general Southern Hemisphere teams have one everything before and since. Since 2003 how have the English got on? The IRB rankings have normally had NZ, AU and RSA sitting within the first five rankings. Current rankings are; 1 NEW ZEALAND 94.59 2 FRANCE 85.66 3 AUSTRALIA 85.55 4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.71 5 IRELAND 84.65 But that’s digressing... the question is - 'Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations' in regards to influence to World Rugby. If the teams listed in the Tri Nations have been listed in the top 5 teams for the past 10 years... then... remedial math’s mate, 1 and 1 makes 2. Then they are pretty much defining how the game is to be played, like it or not – it’s simple. I’ll put it another way, you will not find the All Blacks, Wallabies or the Springbok trying to replicate the game played by Wales, Italy or Scotland (credit is given to the other teams though). Most coaches instruct their players to replicate the best, this is ‘influence’ and that’s owned by the Tri Nations teams. Also how can three teams that are good playing three teams that are not really good be considered a true test? That's laughable. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Is the Six Nations Bigger than the Tri Nations?
Top