Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎


zero000

Recommended Posts

Next weekend will be interesting!

I think the points difference will be too much to make up against Ireland, possibly England as well depending on their game. It's probably right that there is no grand slam winner, as the top 3 are pretty similar.

Frustrating that Wales could have been on for another grand slam, but for an awful second half against England. Then again we could easily have lost other games, so swings and roundabouts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its going to be pretty interesting next week, we won't 100% know the winner until after the last game which is england vs france.

amount of chances thrown away today was poor, teams would put you away for that kind of thing in the world cup quarters onwards. need some work on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unreal. What an effort from England.

We came within a missed tackle of the slam.

Although it wouldn't have taken much for Wales to have won the grand slam either. The quality of the teams competing for the title has gone down, but the competition has definitely become more interesting than the days when England or France won in a procession. Its hard to believe since Englands dominant world cup winning team they have only won 1 of 12 titles.

As a Welshman theres a tinge of disappointment because I feel one bad half against England has really cost us, although we got our fair share of luck in the games we won. Once Ireland had overtaken us, I was behind the Irish. I couldn't have coped with the smugness of John Inverdale (assume he was there, didn't watch anything other than the game) if England had won.

I think Ireland probably just about deserved it, in the games between the 3 teams your win against England was pretty comprehensive, while the other 2 could have gone the other way. I still suspect England to be the strongest Northern hemisphere team in the world cup. they have home advantage and are generally more consistent against the southern hemisphere teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does "much" mean something different in Welsh? :P

5 point gap, its a game Wales easily could have won. If they had played averagely (instead of crap) in the second half I think they would have won. They should also have taken their chances better in the first half when not playing crap, but thats life. Over the last 10 years we have generally been good at taking advantage when we have put ourselves in the postion to win the six nations or grand slam, cant really complain it didnt happen this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 point gap, its a game Wales easily could have won. If they had played averagely (instead of crap) in the second half I think they would have won. They should also have taken their chances better in the first half when not playing crap, but thats life. Over the last 10 years we have generally been good at taking advantage when we have put ourselves in the postion to win the six nations or grand slam, cant really complain it didnt happen this time.

Typically no recognition of the opposition playing well to nullify the threat?

No recognition of the fact the score was a lot closer than the game actually was in reality?

If Wales had won the grand slam it would have been a travesty. I thought Ireland were unlucky in Wales - certainly that was a closer game than Wales v England was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Wales had won the grand slam it would have been a travesty. I thought Ireland were unlucky in Wales - certainly that was a closer game than Wales v England was.

I certainly would be in agreement we didnt desrve to win a grand slam, we were lucky to beat Scotland. However overall theres very little difference between the 3 teams in terms of points difference, so neither would be undeserved winner of the 6 nations title. As a welshman I wouldnt have thought it a travesty at all if we had won another grand slam, but thats my bias!!

I wouldnt argue that Ireland could have easily beaten Wales. In fact if you read above, I state Ireland were the most deserved champions because I think in the matches between the 3 Irelands win against England was the most dominating. Interestingly I think (no way of proving either way) that if Wales hadnt been in the mix for the title, that England would have won the 6 nations, as I think Ireland were helped by having a target to chase. However as we all know England dont do 6 nation titles anymore:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall theres very little difference between the 3 teams in terms of points difference, so neither would be undeserved winner of the 6 nations title.

I don't think the first bit leads to the conclusion you've drawn. It's too simple. It's looking at one statistic and not taking into account any others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the first bit leads to the conclusion you've drawn. It's too simple. It's looking at one statistic and not taking into account any others.

The 3 teams all beat Scotland, Ireland and Italy. They all played wach other twices and won and lost a game. Overall the points difference was pretty much the same. If you want to remove any element of doubt that your comfortably the most deserving winnners then go and win the grand slam. Despite what Lancaster says, its not that rare!

Of course it could be argued that the format of the compeition doesnt necesarily produce the most deserved winners, as it doesnt involve everyone playing each other home and away like most traditional leagues. The fixtures are therefore an important factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

But I thought we didn't need to examine any other factors because the points difference was near enough the same?

I hadnt thought about the format, but the format is what it is. Its difficult to know what would have happened over 10 games. I think I argued in the past for extending and you against, i think I have re-evaluated and think from an entertainment and practical purpose this is the one that worked well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadnt thought about the format, but the format is what it is. Its difficult to know what would have happened over 10 games. I think I argued in the past for extending and you against, i think I have re-evaluated and think from an entertainment and practical purpose this is the one that worked well.

It was fairly shit up until the last day. All very "keep it in the forwards, don't lose".

But when theres something there to be won we had three great games. Bonus points maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was fairly shit up until the last day. All very "keep it in the forwards, don't lose".

But when theres something there to be won we had three great games. Bonus points maybe?

The trouble with bonus points as someone mentioned on the radio is the grand slam winner could end up not winning the title. That wouldnt seem right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with bonus points as someone mentioned on the radio is the grand slam winner could end up not winning the title. That wouldnt seem right to me.

Give a grand slam in its own right bonus points, so as to make it impossible to lose a championship to bonus points in the case of a slam.

eg if there is only 1 scoring bonus point on offer in each game then make the GS bonus points 4. It would be impossible for someone to get a GS and lose a championship then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...