‘Love tradition and hate convention.’ That understanding has held many a free spirit in good stead; lets a man reap the benefits of conformity whilst maintaining his integrity. Powerful stuff. Hakas are tradition.
A royal on Lions tours, the Scottish crowd singing the second verse of Flower of Scotland without music, absolute silence whilst a kicker lines up at Thomond Park and, more recently, bad facial hair on touring Wallabies’ upper lips are rather enjoyable traditions.
Meaningless post game platitudes in interviews have become convention. New English alternate jerseys every season, silly post-try hand gestures, deriding even French domestic rugby as being a ‘soft northern hemisphere’ respite and the constant selection of Dean Mumm are largely unwanted conventions.
Of rugby’s most highly prized traditions is the reverence paid to the Grand Slam, a clean sweep of victories against the Home Nations. There is also a Six Nations Grand Slam which involves any of the competing teams defeating all comers but I’ll concern myself with the former.
It sounds such an imperious achievement. The Grand Slam or, as I imagine the French might call it, le Grand Slam. Indeed beating the Home Nations with a scrum as robust as an undercooked pavlova is quite an achievement, particularly on their own soggy turf.
But I think as far as naming rugby achievements goes we are all missing a trick? Lets turn this thing upside down; surely it is much harder for a northern hemisphere team to defeat all three SANZAR nations.
I’ve long been an advocate of intuition over research but I am sure someone out there will know the answer to this question. Has a home nation ever successfully defended their home ground during the Autumn/Spring Internationals against the Big Three?
Did England do it around the turn of the millennium? Did France? If it has been done it can’t have been more than twice.
It would be quite an achievement. Grand even. But what would you call it? A Real Grand Slam? The Grandest Slam? I Can’t Believe Its Not a Grand Slam? It needs a name.
As with my research skills I’ll concede my marketing skills are minimal and mostly derived from my box set of Mad Men Series One to Three however, never one to fear dipping a toe into someone else’s waters, I think there is something in it.
Like all countries, the Home Countries’ rugby supporter’s love something to boast about so why not give it to them. The Autumn Internationals offer the tourists a shot at one of rugby’s greatest traditions but offers nothing to the Home Nations.
The challenge is already there, the games area already being played, we just need to market it.
Don, get the guys from creative in here. We’ll work hard through the night and won’t stop till we hit the liquor cabinet.
Derm
Roar Guru
I gotta an idea. Don't come touring to the NH for the next 5 years. Just put your foot down and say you're not gonna play these crummy teams anymore. That oughta do it.
Geoff Brisbane
Guest
All Blacks have achieved Grand Slam 3 times over the past 5 seasons so can we find something new please?
katzilla
Roar Guru
Its not really grand unless you make hard work of every stage of it like the Saffas do.
Derm
Roar Guru
None Campbell - that's one heck of a Grand Slam tour achievement. What's a rock and roll wrestling term, soapit? I confess to not knowing the sport. It started in Contract Bridge and is the opposite of a "Small Slam" in which you win all but one of the tricks in a hand of bridge.
Campbell Watts
Guest
The New Zealand rugby union team which toured the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Canada in 1924–25 was nicknamed ‘The Invincibles’ after it won all 32 of its games overseas. The tour included four test matches, one each against Ireland, England, Wales, and France. Overall the team scored 838 points and conceded only 116. Now THAT Poth is a Grand Slam! Any disagreement? ;-)
jake
Guest
Whatever you want to call it why give the home unions the benefit of home ground advantage? Any of them (or even a Lions side) beating NZ, Aust. & SA (in whatever order) on consecutive weekends and on enemy soil - now THAT would be a great achievement.
soapit
Guest
wasnt it a rock and roll wrestling term initially and got brought into bridge?
Nick_KIA
Guest
Yep. Grand Sham might be closer.
jeremy
Guest
Garth, for your stats enjoyment please visit www.pickandgo.info, which will no doubt help in working out these things. The names should be as follow: The Grand SHlam (Southern Hemisphere) The GraNHd Slam (Northern Hemisphere). Right. Where's my cheque from the IRB?
Jason
Guest
Why do they persist? Because that's what everyone knows it as; playing the "home nations" on consecutive weekends and winning all four Tests.
Derm
Roar Guru
"Grand Slam - you've got to be kidding." Why do they persist with calling them that then? It would maybe be more interesting if there was a sense of the opposing teams working collectively to prevent it - in setting a collective goal - but even that doesn't happen.
Derm
Roar Guru
It's not a UK Grand Slam Tour, which is partly my point. Of course it could happen. I'm not arguing that there should be 5 test matches - for the reasons you outline. Four is probably the minimum though. Or you could add in midweek matches to the mix. So you could have Australia with four tests against Ireland, England, France and Italy with midweek matches in England and France - that would be a good Grand Slam win to achieve on tour in my view. And of better merit than beating UK and Ireland teams - in my view. NZ's victory was a Grand Slam victory. I think a Grand Slam should be something that is not easily achieveable for those attempting it. Winning the 3N title is one thing - there's a victor every year. A Grand Slam 3N is much less frequent and should be all the more cherished and respected - as a result. Similarly, a team can be 6 nations champions without achieving a Grand Slam.
Marcel Proust
Guest
You got there before me, Silverback. I was about to make that point. You snooze, you lose. "Je ne partage pas vos idees, mais je me battrai jusqu'a la mort pour que vous puissiez les exprimer..."
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
However it's not really going to happen though is it .... we're only seeing these UK grand slams more frequently now because the SH tack on an extra test to garner extra revenue ... were the AB's meant to be playing Wales this year ? ... so there's no way we'll ever see NZ or SA playing Eng / Ire / Scot / Wales / France in one swoop The question is what to call the AB's unbeaten TN achievement this year ?
Jason
Guest
The Grand Slam held mystical importance for New Zealand teams simply because it was so difficult for them to achieve, missing out from drawing a Test, disease, etc. The more New Zealand goes without achieving something in rugby, the higher the importance that gets ascribed to the achievement; hence the marvellous series win of '96 and the recent fascination with the Bledisloe Cup - if the Wallabies had never won it, nor managed to retain it through last gasp wins, most New Zealander's wouldn't have cared. It would have remained in a cupboard somewhere.
Derm
Roar Guru
Jerry - you've seized on the wrong end of the stick. Again :) For a start - it's a hobby horse - not a high horse. I'm not being snooty about it. The reverse in fact. Read my post again and it may make more sense the second time. The term Grand Slam derives from Bridge. In other sports it does not mean basically whatever the hell people say it does. It always refers to winning all the bouts, rounds, matches, events, tournaments, etc, within a series of comps or within a given timeframe. That's the principle. I know when the Grand Slam Tour was created and I'm not disputing its age or what it applies to currently. I'm disputing its relevance, and questioning why would the games be limited only to teams from GB and Ireland. You say there's usually only one or two decent teams in the 6N in any one year. That's true of the 3N as well - so I don't get the relevance of that comment. There's usually only one or two decent teams in the current GS Tour structure, so for a SH team to beat all the others isn't that big a deal either by your logic - and by the facts - witness Scotland yesterday. Getting a Grand Slam in the 6 Nations is more difficult than you think - but I'm not arguing or defending that point. If you want to be dismissive that's fine - I ain't going to get injured. I'm simply saying that SH teams could pursue a different kind of Grand Slam achievement (and a better one in my view) when they are on tour, as could NH teams when touring South. OK?
Jerry
Guest
Poth Ale, you've got on this high horse before. While the term Grand Slam was first used in union to refer to the 6N version, it was co opted from other sports and in other sports it basically means whatever the hell people say it does. And while the Grand Slam tour version may have been named a bit later (though probably not as much later as you suspect it was) it's still been a recognised term for at least 50 years so it's not like it's some new commercialised invention. Also, to claim that the SH version could have more allure and bragging rights - no offence, but from and NZ rugby fans perspective, the 6N Grand Slam is kind of a damp squib. Yeah, it's got tradition behind it, but from a rugby perspective there's usually only 1 or 2 decent teams in the 6N in any one year so for one of them to beat all the others isn't that big of a deal considering they get to play half their matches at home.
Darky
Guest
Here's the stats guys: New Zealand have played 112 games against the home nations in 105 years of rugby. How many have they lost in total to England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Nine. In case you missed that: Nine. 8%. "Grand Slam" - you've got to be kidding.
Derm
Roar Guru
"Of rugby’s most highly prized traditions is the reverence paid to the Grand Slam, a clean sweep of victories against the Home Nations. There is also a Six Nations Grand Slam which involves any of the competing teams defeating all comers but I’ll concern myself with the former." Except the 6 Nations Grand Slam is the real Grand Slam since it actually involves a competition and includes all the teams playing in it, as opposed to the somewhat artificial one of beating teams from UK and Ireland - and far too colonial. (I know VC likes his traditions but this is one I could happily do without) Surely, the SH teams should create a more elevated Grand Slam tour - one that involves beating all the teams on their test tour - wherever they hail from. Would a Grand Slam involving beating France, England, Wales and Ireland not have more allure and bragging rights? Or to be more egalitarian a tour involving Italy, Scotland, Ireland, France and England give a real 5 Nations tinge to it? This focus on Home Unions is out of date - and given the result against Scotland yesterday - somewhat devalued. Taking Garth's proposal in hand, a Southern Grand Slam could include Australia, Fiji, Samoa and New Zealand. Still difficult to attain but equally worthy of consideration.
Jerry
Guest
England beat the Wallabies, All Blacks and South Africa at Twickenham over 3 weeks in 2002, for the record. Don't quote me, but I think I recall people saying at the time it hadn't been done before. If you think about it, it's not particularly likely to have. Northern tours weren't as regular in the amateur days, so there would have been very few opportunities for an NH team to play the big three SH sides in one season. And as I can only recall 3 AB losses in the NH (excluding the 99 and 07 WC losses) over the pro-era (95 and 00 to France and 02 to England) those would be the only years when it could have happened recently. A quick pickandgo search tells me that France didn't host SA or Aus in 95. In 2000 they beat NZ and Aus (and lost a second test to NZ) but didn't play SA.