Super Saturday.

It's been a festival of attacking rugby today. loads of tries ,plenty of excitement and a large dose of drama.
The question I have is why is it not like that every game instead of the turgid rubbish that we have been exposed to up until today?
I've been to two games this tournament which has cost me around £1500 in total.
Surely the teams have a duty to entertain like they did today, every game ,to justify the outlay required to support them ?

Today was fantastic, and I agree, why do teams not go out with the same attacking intent in every game?

No I don't think they have a duty to entertain- they have a duty to try and win for their fans and their country and the people who have invested their time and effort into helping them become the players they are, but sometimes that means doing whatever it takes.

When you pay for the tickets you kind of know that it could be a poor game, the weather could be bad or it could just be very conservative and cagey game. This isn't a new trend in rugby or in the Six Nations, so everybody knows that the game might be a low-scoring affair before they buy tickets.

However, if you're asking whether there is a conversation to be had about bringing in bonus points to reward tries scored right the way through and not just in Round 5... then I would say absolutely there is and that will be good value for the tournament and for the fans. It will make the games more open and entertaining on average and I think it's something that should be adopted.

There is no way teams could or would play like that every week.

Firstly, you only play like that when you have a target to get to because it is risky in all departments - mostly the potential for injury; and as we've witnessed, when you open up, the opposition are also given opportunities.  So it's always a balance of playing freely, getting as many of your best players through the championship without injury, and keeping track of defensive duties.
Because of the unique feature of this specific day, three sides had to forget caution and go for it.

BUT you do have to win games to get to that possibility of being forced to play all out attack to win a Title.  If you've been slack in defence in the earlier games then the chances of you being there at the end are less.  The first rounds will always be more coy because winning is the key.

The Six Nations will return to normal next year

Introduce bonus points. It would reward attacking rugby.

We go to the games to be entertained. Surely that's the whole point.
Bonus points would hopefully help though.
The All Blacks do not seem to struggle playing open rugby as much as they can regardless of stage of the competition they are in. They don't seem to accumulate a disconcerting amount of injuries in the process.
Contact should only be a by product of rugby not the end product as seems more common in the NH.

Heuer27 wrote:We go to the games to be entertained. Surely that's the whole point.
Bonus points would hopefully help though.
The All Blacks do not seem to struggle playing open rugby as much as they can regardless of stage of the competition they are in. They don't seem to accumulate a disconcerting amount of injuries in the process.
Contact should only be a by product of rugby not the end product as seems more common in the NH.

You think? I see a lot of resting and controlled incremental cautious rugby with New Zealand. They don't always break their necks when they don't need to. Pragmatic - probably the most pragmatic, considering what they've historically been able to do when in the mood to rumble.

We seem to interpret it differently then. Every time it's on they attack regardless of where they are on the pitch. If it's not they try to open teams up for a few phases and if that doesn't work they reboot and stick it in the opposition half.
Very simple and entertaining.

Well let me put it this way then, Heuer - and this is merely a discussion - I appreciate your desire to see games like today every day.  

But teams aren't suicidal.  They try not to be.  So in any encounter, there is a considered better side and a considered weaker one.  The better one will tend to want to attack (although sometimes not) whilst the lesser one doesn't want to commit suicide, so they'll try to perfect a better defensive game to contain the attacking side.

But they have a right to try to win the game their way using their tactics, acknowledging their limitations.  That's why there will always be games that aren't as exciting as the games today.

Lets not forget either that today there were mismatches on the quality scale as defined by the International Rankings.
Wales (5th) v Italy (14th)
Ireland (3rd) v Scotland (10th)
England (4th) v France (7th)

That last one was more open than it was ever likely to be had England only needed a win.  But we see the risks England made to be so open when you look at how many an always losing France managed to score.  They scored those because England needed more than a win.

If that was a World Cup final, things would be different.  England (and indeed France) would have been much more methodical and cautious.

I have some sympathy for this point of view as there is no way I would pay the ridiculous money they ask for World Cup knockout games, nor would I go to away games with the expense those incur.

But I really think the only responsibility players and coaches have is to win. That's why the Barbarians are such a great tradition. I also feel somewhat differently about the Lions, probably because I don't feel such an emotional attachment to them and see them as being a bit of a throwback.

I don't feel the Lions are me. Therefore, yeah, I just see them as entertainment and therefore enjoy them more when both sides go at it without really ever worrying too much about the final score.
The Lions are when I relax and enjoy.

I pretty much feel the same way. The Lions will never mean as much to me (I'm sure its different for the players) so I would rather those test matches just be a great showcase for the best parts of the sport.