On the final day of the Six Nations, England, Ireland and Wales started with the same number of points. It wasn’t enough to win their final games: the winning margin mattered.
England had their noses just in front but faced the toughest opponents in France. Ireland faced Scotland, and Wales faced Italy. The games would be played in reverse order to the points differential.
It led to an incredible trifecta of rugby that played out like a creative lesson on kinetic energy.
It didn’t start out that way. Wales only led by one point at halftime. The loss of their ever-reliable points machine, Leigh Halfpenny, seeing the more attack-minded and defensively frailer Scott Williams come on may well have caused Wales to chance their arm.
Whatever was said at halftime worked, Wales scoring seven second-half tries, including a hat-trick to George North. Suddenly the pressure was on Ireland, who needed to win against Scotland by 20. Ireland duly responded, and after a sluggish start – they only led 20-10 at half-time – they pulled away and defeated Scotland by 30 points.
That meant England at home needed to win against France by 26 points, which looked beyond England when after the first quarter they trailed 15-7.
On a day when the Canterbury Crusaders came down from 14-10 to put on 47 unanswered points, England nearly pulled off something similar.
England racked up their largest ever score against France, eventually winning 55-35. Whichever brand supplied drinks at half-time to these teams seriously needs to cash in.
Ireland ran out eventual Six Nations winners by a mere six points, with Wales only three points behind second-placed England. But if these matches were played without the overall context behind them, would the games have had different results?
Of course, we have witnessed something similar in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 2012, South Africa went into their final game of the inaugural Rugby Championship with only a bonus-point try good enough to take the title. The Springboks scored four tries and got their bonus point but it wasn’t enough to take the overall title.
The All Blacks felt under siege after people wrote off their Eden Park win due to the poor officiating by referee Romain Poite in terms of his first yellow card to Bismarck du Plessis. However, the following year saw all pressure taken away from the Springboks in that the Rugby Championship had already been decided. They literally had nothing to lose as it had already been won by another team.
The difference between winning and losing can often be minimal, but New Zealand’s best World Cup displays – the inaugural tournament and the 1995 and 2011 semi-finals – were when the All Blacks’ ability to win was called into question.
The fear of losing can be as psychologically damaging as the thought of having nothing to lose can be liberating. For example, England went into their final match against Wales in the very last Five Nations with a Grand Slam in their sights and ended up coming away with not only a loss but losing the Six Nations crown to Scotland.
This is by no means a universal rule, but it does seem when the pressure goes off in terms of public expectation to win, teams can put in special performances.
An obsessive hunger to win can prove debilitating. Up until Wales’ scratchy win against South Africa last autumn, they couldn’t get a win against a Southern Hemisphere team, and it wasn’t for lack of trying. Heyneke Meyer was also probably wondering until last year whether he was ever going to be brought a beer by his New Zealand counterpart, Steve Hansen.
When that monkey climbs onto your back and makes his home there, it’s hard to shake the little nuisance off.
A coach has to justify his job by results. This may well explain a reluctance for coaches to go all out on attack and tend towards the conservative.
Stuart Lancaster, for example, has yet to taste Six Nations success. The only saving grace is his consistency. Days like Saturday, however, must gnaw at the back of his mind. Why can his team play without inhibitions in the second half, but look so fragile the previous year against the same opponent when it mattered? The Six Nations title wasn’t at stake at that stage of the tournament but it was definitely touted as a crunch match.
Saturday was a case of not dying wondering. So why can’t teams always approach games with that attitude?
Frederick
Guest
Good post. I believe Shaun Edwards has said for a while that "defences win Championships", and Ireland proved it. England's defence has gone off the boil quite badly since the New Zealand tour. I think they've lost confidence in their aggressive line speed, and I guess the loss of Farrell and Barritt has softened them up a bit too.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Nice post and couldn't agree more. It wasn't so much NZ's faltering attack that concerned me last year. It was their faltering defence. Read today that this is the fourth-consecutive year that England have come second and that this is not good enough. I didn't realise it was four in a row but if that's the case then they only have themselves to blame.
Derm
Roar Guru
I agree with your point, Kia. I was more seeking to balance up the analysis from one that said England failed to score the winning try to also include they failed to prevent one or two as well. Of course, the final round of matches did not operate by the simple normal rules of whoever is ahead at the end of 80 minutes is the winner, since PD was the determinant for that specific day. However, it's also true to say that PD actually is a factor from day one given the rules of the tournament. It's a scoring points driven competition. Everyone knows that from day one. (Bonus points would not work in my view given home/away alternates each year.) Thus England were hyped as a try-scoring attacking team after their six try victory against Italy in round two. The few naysayers pointing out that they'd also conceded three tries were drowned in the resulting hoopla. If England had played with a bit more defensive nous, they could have been sitting on a much stronger PD before they started the French match - the exact scenario that Ireland were in when playing France last season. England failed to overtake them on PD against Italy. Ireland then just has to concentrate on winning the match which they won by a whisker 22-20. That leads into your over-arching point about risk v reward for players and coaches. England were Keeganesque in the approach they took to the game - it didn't matter how much France scored, they would score more. And they nearly got there. This laissez-faire approach has to come with a modicum of good defence and players "expressing themselves" must surely come with an assessment of how well they defended as well as attacked - witness Jamie Heaslip's last-ditch tackle on Hogg who had just brilliant;y stepped two players only to have Heaslip dive-tackle him and knock the ball out of his grasp as he dived over the line. That was two players expressing themselves fully - in attack and defence.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Thanks for the post Pot Hale. You and Bakkies are right to point that out. Ireland were definitely concentrating on that side of things and they certainly deserve the title for not conceding valuable points. I wonder though whether the same praise would be given to the Irish team if England had scored a try at the end and took the tournament away from them. I did not mean for the focus to be only on the Six Nations. NZ, for example, seem to have great difficulty in putting in consecutive performances. Consistency is very difficult to achieve and motivation and intensity can waver much like pressure and execution. The mental side of any sport should not be underestimated. When rugby became professional, probably more onus across the board was placed on teams to win. After all it's their job and targets must be reached or there's hell to pay. I wonder how much enjoyment has been sucked out of the game as a result. Do teams have a fear of expressing themselves because they're weighed down by the possibility of not playing well and getting axed or making a mistake that will cost their team the game. Do coaches have a fear of adventurous play as it's seen as high risk?
Derm
Roar Guru
I think what's being overlooked in this discussion and a fair amount of hype about the final weekend of the 6N, is this sentence: "With no bonus points and the unlikelihood of a Grand Slam, it’s important not to ship points but it’s equally important to score them." I'd agree with this sentiment, except put it the other way around: it was important to score points, but equally (if not more) important not to ship them. As Bakkies has observed above, the focus and hoopla has been on the amount of tries scored. Wales, England and France received plaudits for their attack-minded approach. There's been little focus on the amount of tries conceded. And on that measure, Ireland are streets ahead. Ireland didn't win the Six Nations on the amount of points/tries they scored. Here's how the final table looks on points scored and tries scored and penalty kicks. England 157 - 18 Tries - 12 pens Wales 146 - 13 Tries - 20 pens Ireland 119 - 8 tries - 21 pens France 103 - 9 tries - 16 pens Scotland 73 - 6 tries - 11 pens Italy 62 - 8 tries - 4 pens On the other hand, here's how it looks from the defence side of the ledger: Ireland 56 - 3 tries 11 pens Wales 93 - 8 tries - 13 pens England 100 - 11 tries - 11 pens France 101 - 9 tries - 14 pens Scotland 128 - 12 tries - 16 pens Italy 182 - 19 tries - 19 pens Ireland conceded nearly a third less tries than England and the same amount of penalties. And over twice less than Wales and less penalties. France had the meanest defence until they decided to play 'jouer, jouer' against England.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Yes but as a Grand Slam comes so rarely - Wales have bucked that trend this decade - you shouldn'tt bank on winning one even in a year where the odds are more favourable. You have to take into consideration that there will likely be another team with the same amount of points at the end. That's two years in a row England have been on the same number of points but have failed to take the overall tournament. Hindsight is annoying but when history repeats itself you need to look at the missing element.
Bakkies
Guest
'Perhaps the one-off nature of the 6N places more onus on the win in terms of bragging rights. It doesn’t matter how it comes about just so that it happens.' That's due to the Grand Slam the goal is to go undefeated and in every second season you only get two home matches. This year Ireland had England and France at home and it is rare to win both of those.
Bakkies
Guest
Ireland under Schmidt have a focus in the Six Nations on points difference hence the strong defensive work in his two tournaments to date. Very few penalties were conceded in last year's tournament which reduced the amount of cheap points given away through the boot.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
RobC I think England's performance was more noteworthy as France looked good early on. Then again you could say so did Scotland and Italy did as well. There was a hunger there that was missing in the first few games of the tournament. The RC has the luxury of home and away games to right wrongs. NZ put in a dreadful performance in Sydney last year but got it right at Eden Park. Perhaps the one-off nature of the 6N places more onus on the win in terms of bragging rights. It doesn't matter how it comes about just so that it happens. I'd love to see a game in Ellis Park where all SA need is to win the game without the need for bonus points and see how they approach that game. I suspect though that might bring the best out of NZ. That said, my hope is that last weekend was a Eureka moment for some of the teams in terms of recognising what they're capable of when they put their minds to it. The trick is to take that approach against higher-ranked opposition.
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Kia. Havent seen the games yet. Maybe it was a unique aberration due to: - need to win 6N by points - competition on lower end of the top 10 Or maybe its part of 6Ns long term plan, to be able to play 10 man and 15 man Rugby. The trick to win, as the ABs and SBs have shown is to win the 23 man game.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Cheers Allanthus. I think the RWC pool of death is a good place to see that type of game. The RWC is all about pacing and it's impossible to maintain consistency throughout the tournament. The 1987 tournament is arguably the exception but thereafter every winner has had a squeaky-bum match in the knockout round. Necessity is the mother of invention. Look at how France came back from 24-10 down in 1999. Sometimes you need to throw caution to the wind and not die wondering. My problem with many 6N sides is that they wait for the final weekend to wake up to the fact they need to have a good points differential. With no bonus points and the unlikelihood of a Grand Slam, it's important not to ship points but it's equally important to score them. I think with the bonus points, the RC teams are much more conscious of accumulating points early on in the tournament. Too often, 6N teams go in with the attitude of just getting the win and worrying about points later. Teams like England, however, only have themselves to blame when they come second place and miss out by just a few points. Of course you can't approach a game with the mindset that you can steamroll your opponent. Like a cricket innings you have to craft it and then know when to put the foot down. The problem is it's too often thought a war of attrition and you don't expend unnecessary energy. There lacks a killer instinct and a certain degree of positivity to impose yourself when you've set yourself up for victory.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Nice piece Kia. Saturday was fascinating because it proved what all of these sides are capable of when not shackled or limited by their own defensive or safety first mindsets. It would be fantastic on many levels if they were to take this to the world cup - but I'm not holding my breath...
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Note to Ed: it was 2013 when SA needed a 4-try bonus point for victory and put on a fantastic show with Habana on fire and forced to retire hurt.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Not when consecutive victories or a World Cup (not 2011) are at stake! But you're right. Their high standards are in part attributed to a fear of losing.
mania
Guest
it shouldnt. ABs use the fear of losing as an incentive