Does the 6N's Really Need Another Two Week Break?

Simple question, after two weeks off the teams play one game before another two weeks off. Is this necessary?

Plus side:
Greater rest for players
Chance to recover from injuries
Extended time for tactics

Negatives:
Loss of momentum
Dragging out the competition
Some players still have to play for their clubs
Over analysing by staff, media and fans
Loss of interest by the general public


Just thought I'd get your thoughts on this.

To me one two week break is enough, after that it's just stopping a teams momentum by having another.

I would say that Ireland need it, just for players to recover from some knocks. Sexton seemed to have strained his hamstring but has gone back to Racing

The break between matches works but deals have to be formed between the International boards and the club boards to release players for the entirety of the 6N, even if that means 5 straight weeks of games.

I can't see why the 6Ns need any break weekends. Give the players an extra week for prep and a weekend off afterwards maybe (each nation to their own I guess), but lets just get the tournament started and finished in one solid block.

The RWC doesn't have any break weekends....

The old 5 Nations used to have a fortnight between every game and you'd get a month break if you were the side sitting out the round. I know the game has moved on, but the intensity of the 6N is such that you've got to take a breather at some point - unlike the RWC, there are no games in which you can sit back and take it a bit easier; no Uruguays or what have you in which the second string can rack up a cricket score. Think they've got the gaps about right as it stands.

Oh for the good old days before all these breaks lol, though one team always had a week off as it was only 5 teams (well as far back as I can remember).

Why did the change come about can't remember now but think player welfare was the big guiding force wasn't it?

No.
One two week break after 2nd or 3rd round is enough.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Oh for the good old days before all these breaks lol, though one team always had a week off as it was only 5 teams (well as far back as  I can remember).

Why did the change come about can't remember now but think player welfare was the big guiding force wasn't it?

By the way Bedford congrats on turning to the dark side as a mod. Sorry if it was a while ago and I didn't notice.

offload wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Oh for the good old days before all these breaks lol, though one team always had a week off as it was only 5 teams (well as far back as  I can remember).

Why did the change come about can't remember now but think player welfare was the big guiding force wasn't it?

By the way Bedford congrats on turning to the dark side as a mod.  Sorry if it was a while ago and I didn't notice.

Cheers mate, only been few days so just getting settled in then watch out lol

bedfordwelsh wrote:

offload wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Oh for the good old days before all these breaks lol, though one team always had a week off as it was only 5 teams (well as far back as  I can remember).

Why did the change come about can't remember now but think player welfare was the big guiding force wasn't it?

By the way Bedford congrats on turning to the dark side as a mod.  Sorry if it was a while ago and I didn't notice.

Cheers mate, only been few days so just getting settled in then watch out lol

Would it help if I post a string of profanities so that you can get some practice in?

Rather have one 3 weeks break than 2*2 weeks breaks... Gives time to team to regroup and make effective changes mid tournament and allow players to go back 2 weeks in a row to their clubs.

It doesn't. I do.

I think it works well as it is. Given the modern nature of the game and the increasing scrutiny of player welfare, there's no way it will be change to do the whole thing in a oner. Rugby medics are already saying the players need more breaks as it is, not less.

I also don't think one break would be enough, as then you'd have 3 weeks in a row and 5 international level games within 6 weeks, which would be tough on the players. Yes we already have that in the AIs, but it would mean having it in the AIs and in the 6n - the players wouldn't get a break.

And yes there are club games in between, but the vast majority of players won't actually be playing in those games, unless it is felt they need gametime.

Everyone wants to see the best players playing at their optimum level - if we reduced the breaks then key players would sit injured out more often, and player fatigue will be a greater issue.

Yes it does. Sexton pulled his hammy so two weeks should just about clear it up.

GunsGerms wrote:Yes it does. Sexton pulled his hammy so two weeks should just about clear it up.

Yes, but it will be like a little itch he can't quite scratch. A wee bit of doubt that creeps into the top 2 inches as he lines up that winning kick.....

Kearney should take our kicks. That's half a joke and fully the truth .

RDW_Scotland wrote:


Everyone wants to see the best players playing at their optimum level - if we reduced the breaks then key players would sit injured out more often, and player fatigue will be a greater issue.

Speak for youself, I'd quite like to see how young 14 year old Matthew Murphy from DunDawwwkkkk got on if he was forced to fill in for POM.

It does for me, rugby has become so utterly boring of late, with the only forms of attack seemingly the driving maul or kicks to the corner, the replacement of nippy wingers with lumps is ruining the game. Defences are becoming far too quick and with slow rucks - there being no rucking anymore- and interminable scrummaging, i even briefly consider watching the highlights- surely a bad sign for any rugby mad fan- I need 2 weeks off to peak my interest again.

Gwlad wrote: the replacement of nippy wingers with lumps is ruining the game.

Stand up and take a bow Gats.

SecretFly wrote:

Gwlad wrote: the replacement of nippy wingers with lumps is ruining the game.

Stand up and take a bow Gats.

Hardly but nice try, Lomu, Rockocoko, Banahan….the yearning for size AND speed is on every coaches mind, yet for me the most memorable wingers are always the dancers…Billy Whizz being my favorite with Ickle not far behind

But Gatland willingly got rid of little lads to actively promote the idea of 'size' being more useful in a modern game.

Of course we had our own Horgan too back in the day but Gatland made it kind of a blueprint.

But you have to chase after what's proving most effective. No side seems to be able to hold onto their smaller whizzes as they face the Orcs on another side.

SecretFly wrote:But Gatland willingly got rid of little lads to actively promote the idea of 'size' being more useful in a modern game.

Of course we had our own Horgan too back in the day but Gatland made it kind of a blueprint.

But you have to chase after what's proving most effective.  No side seems to be able to hold onto their smaller whizzes as they face the Orcs on another side.

I don't think dropping Cuthbert for Williams suggests a blueprint, the fact is that the 2 Welsh lumps have been very successful. My point is that big players don't have the nimble feet and tend to run through the opposition.

On reflection i should have added the lack of offload to my whinges about modern rugby. Gone are the days when support runners were on the shoulder to take the offload and surge into the space behind the defensive line, or so it seems to me at least

Gwlad wrote:

SecretFly wrote:But Gatland willingly got rid of little lads to actively promote the idea of 'size' being more useful in a modern game.

Of course we had our own Horgan too back in the day but Gatland made it kind of a blueprint.

But you have to chase after what's proving most effective.  No side seems to be able to hold onto their smaller whizzes as they face the Orcs on another side.

I don't think dropping Cuthbert for Williams suggests a blueprint

Cuthbert is dropped because it seems he can't defend, and can't crash through little guys as much anymore. Williams is only the beginnings of a change of mind from Gatland.  But don't tell me Gatland was always of a mind to pick a player as slick as Williams over a guy like Cuthbert who could smash rather than weave.

And in order to counter the Welsh ideas on big and beefy wings, the others just couldn't stand still and let their small whizzes take the punishment of being pushed so easily aside by a Welsh big lad.... or indeed needing two little lads to take down a big fella.

So, I'm saying rugby goes where it goes to remain competitive.  Welsh wings don't get as much leverage now because sides are choosing players able to withstand the strike runs.  So Gatland needs to take a step back and try to invent smart space rather than bulldoze some.
Rugby goes where it goes.  We'll see where Wales take themselves over the next few years and undoubtedly other sides will be adapting too to the conditions laid down for them.

I have said for a long time that the 6ns, should be played on a weekly basis, with NO breaks in between.

Why does it have to be a one game tournament? each team plays each team once and winner take the spoils.

Would it not be better if each team played home and away games? home one week away the next.

Yes it may mean a bigger playing pool due to injuries, but why can't the 6ns be played like the Rugby World Cup.

Fly, so your saying Gats bullied the other national sides into ditching small wingers by using lumps, the others had to go big to deal with them. And now Wales are using a smaller winger to utilise skill/pace as big lump players can't deal with that. Surely that would have meant North/Cuthbert would never have had the upper hand on the smaller silkier winger to begin with???

If the breaks are for player welfare shouldn't it be a game a fortnight?

We started phasing out backs a while ago - gone are the days you can look at a player and say there goes a second row. I agree, rugby goes where it goes.

Look if you replace a midget like Shane with a lump like North and then a mother lump like cuthbert of course you will be accused of using a blueprint…point is he has now replaced a lump with a rangy lanky mid sized player so where does that leave his blueprint. Add to that a tiny pool of players so inevitably we tend to stick with the same combo who just happen to be big and fast. Still think there is no blueprint that is ostensibly Gatland's.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, so your saying Gats bullied the other national sides into ditching small wingers by using lumps, the others had to go big to deal with them.  And now Wales are using a smaller winger to utilise skill/pace as big lump players can't deal with that.  Surely that would have meant North/Cuthbert would never have had the upper hand on the smaller silkier winger to begin with???

It would seem so but reality hits..... as did North and Cuthbert and Roberts in the old days.

You're forgetting. In the days of whizzes, everyone allegedly had them - small as distinct from any good!. So it was like with like. So in order to break that commonality, and finding his whizzes not getting the advantages, Gatland said let there be BIG to overpower the whizzes. The rest said OKAY..Let's JOIN THEM so they can't bully us. So Gat's MAYBE now says, let's go smaller and slicker again to run round these BIG eejits

It does compute.

Fly it doesn't compute, as the other coaches would have just said, "right you wee Laddies on the wings, instead of confronting them lumps head on use your skills to beat them", unless its taken international standard coaches longer than its taken Joe public on rugby forums to notice.

The 6 Nations should be at the end of the season.

How does mathew Morgan at 5.8 and under 12 stone and Jordan Williams at 5.8 and under 13 stones fit blueprint

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I can't see why the 6Ns need any break weekends.  Give the players an extra week for prep and a weekend off afterwards maybe (each nation to their own I guess), but lets just get the tournament started and finished in one solid block.

The RWC doesn't have any break weekends....

Maybe it's the clubs that need the breaks during the 6Ns.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly it doesn't compute, as the other coaches would have just said, "right you wee Laddies on the wings, instead of confronting them lumps head on use your skills to beat them", unless its taken international standard coaches longer than its taken Joe public on rugby forums to notice.

Never mind Joe Public.  Joe Schmidt is living proof that other coaches can be bamboozled by the truth.

England prepared two full weeks to wipe the smile off Schmidt's face because they admitted, they knew exactly, to the letter, what Ireland were going to do.  But they were still, and stated so publically, quite confident of the win.  So the theory goes that Lancaster had done some serious homework and rumbled Schmidtactics.  The truth proved otherwise.  For sections of the game the English looked like rabbits under headlights.  And I'm not saying they're a bad team, they're 4th best side in the world in the rankings and they're worth it.  But there's a coach preparing his men to take Schmidt's 'basic' tactics down and coming up way short. Coaches ain't always the smartest ones. They overlook things too.

Anyway, back to the more direct point.  

Stalemate is stalemate.  Gatland is in a position where he must try something to get back on track.  It's not a choice, it's a necessity.  Big men on each side close down space.  Big man rugby has kinda led us to the kind of games the complaints are being made about...bang, bang, bang in the middle, not much happening on the tryline - except maybe bang, bang, bang there too.

The shock of the new takes time to decipher.  It took time for teams to answer the big wing dilemma.  It was a shock tactic that worked.  whiz players were getting battered, they hadn't puff left or time given to them to run around.  But as time went on - big became the calling card for most sides.

And here we are.  Who is going to be first to give a serious long stint experiment to going back to evaders rather than hitters?  England are dabbling in it with Wade, but are oh-so-cautious because that's a very small man in a big forest of heavy trees.  But ideas are beginning to come to break down the BIG guy stalemate.  And back to small whizzes might be one of them.  But it's a constant balance between whizz and defensive bulk.

That isn't true…such a fallacy…remember Ickle owning Banahan….tackling is technique and if they are string enough height really doesn't matter. Neil Back was a fiddler in a pond of big hitters and was superb at under 6ft and 98kgs.

Gwlad wrote:That isn't true…such a fallacy…remember Ickle owning Banahan….tackling is technique and if they are string enough height really doesn't matter. Neil Back was a fiddler in a pond of big hitters and was superb at under 6ft and 98kgs.

You're talking about specifics................ I'm talking about what happened overall. It happened. It's no secret that even a guy like O'Driscoll was being considered 'too small' for the modern game in his last few years. He was a relic of what a 13 should look like.

Talk all you like about the individuals who bucked the trend. I'm talking about trends. And they've happened. You see them everywhere you look. Big hard direct runners were the new 'black' -certainly in Europe. Now, new ideas are needed to create space.

Oh, unfortunately i don't have your powers of incisiveness, i am just talking about the facts which disagree entirely with the contention that rugby is not for small players anymore. Rugby is still about mismatches, simple as that.

I think it's fine as it is and doesn't need to be changed.

Gwlad wrote:Oh, unfortunately i don't have your powers of incisiveness, i am just talking about the facts which disagree entirely with the contention that rugby is not for small players anymore. Rugby is still about mismatches, simple as that.  

Who the F**K said rugby was not for small players anymore?

Me?

No... listen to what I've been saying and stop getting bloody hot headed about a theoretical bloody debate!

  Now that's me hot headed too - thanks

I have - been - saying - that - those - have - been the theories out there.  You go back and read 606v2, read 606 BBC and read the tons of newspaper articles and thoughts that have gone down on the topic of rugby and how it's played over the last some 7 or 8 years.  

I don't care how many midgets you want on your team - that's your business.  I'm saying the strategizing theories have taken the game away from a focus on fast and furious runts and onto fast and physical giants.

Don't blame me for the truth.  And I'll look forward to seeing your team of 15 wizztastic runts in two weeks time

SecretFly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Oh, unfortunately i don't have your powers of incisiveness, i am just talking about the facts which disagree entirely with the contention that rugby is not for small players anymore. Rugby is still about mismatches, simple as that.  

Who the F**K said rugby was not for small players anymore?

Me?

No... listen to what I've been saying and stop getting bloody hot headed about a theoretical bloody debate!

  Now that's me hot headed too - thanks

I have - been - saying - that - those - have - been the theories out there.  You go back and read 606v2, read 606 BBC and read the tons of newspaper articles and thoughts that have gone down on the topic of rugby and how it's played over the last some 7 or 8 years.  

I don't care how many midgets you want on your team - that's your business.  I'm saying the strategizing theories have taken the game away from a focus on fast and furious runts and onto fast and physical giants.

Don't blame me for the truth.  And I'll look forward to seeing your team of 15 wizztastic runts in two weeks time

wow, let me know when you want your dummy back.

You don't like owning up to needless petulance, grand.

Enjoy the nailbiting.

One break but not two. Interest kinda wanes a bit.

SecretFly wrote:You don't like owning up to needless petulance, grand.

Enjoy the nailbiting.

WTF are you wittering on about, you talk in riddles like a donkey i once knew, only less intelligently.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:If the breaks are for player welfare shouldn't it be a game a fortnight?

Maybe the whole of rugby should look at reducing the number of the games? The Premiership already continues during internationals, add in the Anglo-Welsh Cup, European Cup, summer and autumn internationals and the rugby calendar is already overcrowded.

Nematode wrote:One break but not two. Interest kinda wanes a bit.

I think one two-week break after the first three games would work better. Alternatively, how about spreading the whole tournament out throughout the season? One game each in September, October, November, February and March.

I would also like to see the tournament scrapped every four years and replaced by a European Championship with the likes of Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal added.

Does the 6 nations need these breaks? In my opinion no. It's really annoying to have international games and clubs games in the same period.It's not good financially and on the field. 5 weeks for this competition should be enough.

Its the difference between what fans want and want is realistic. I think most of us would prefer a shorter tighter format, but the inuries and fatigue issue means that would be played by weakened sides. World cups dont take place in the middle of a long domestic season, theres extended rest before and after...but you still see squads rotated in the pool stages and often significant denuding of players toward the end through injury and fatigue.
It would be nice to shorten the tournament but the sheer weight of injuries, especially with the scrutiny on concussion protocols, could turn that it into a farce. Its especially rough on the nations like Scotland who lack squad depth.


I cant see it changing anytime soon, although the entire season may be up in the air again if the new Premiership deal goes ahead and the long mooted summer season really does happen.
I suspect any change would be driven by the radical restructuring of the entire season rather than driven by the 6 nations itself.