It's starting when, sorry?

Last Saturday night I landed in Manchester airport having spent a week skiing in Bulgaria. I don't like heights. My thighs burn to this minute, my back feels like a Jacobs Cracker after the first bite and I'm more exhausted than that bloke from Man V Food would be if he had to run marathons between McDonalds. I'd spent the day sitting around, waiting around stood up, waiting around sat down and then standing about. I could barely keep my eyes open during the drive to work this morning, and only when someone asked 'are you ready for Friday, then?' did it finally really dawn on me that the Six Nations is starting less than a week from now.

That's snuck up on me, has that.

But being a 'keep smashing your head into it and eventually it'll fall over' type of person, here is my first rugby blog since last year, having studiously and gracelessly ignored both the summer and autumn series.

Wales v England - Friday night

Right. Well. Chalk that one up to experience then, shall we lads? As it will most probably/definitely/maybe/never turn out, it's not a great idea to ignore the teams of Welsh ninjas roaming the land, hacking at legs, knocking on heads and generally ensuring England have more walking wounded than the opening scene of Saving Private bloody Ryan. Stuart Lancaster is without two complete second rows, a raft of centres (not that he knew which ones he wanted anyway) and his most reliant goal kicker. Wales, meanwhile, have a fully fit squad (Jonathan Davies having being named in the starting line-up) an axe to grind after last year, and the support of their home crowd on an opening night. Call me pessimistic, but if England win this it will be a HUGE result. England will compete, and might well dominate the scrums, but all Wales have to do is outsmart them at the breakdown and let Halfpenny kick his merry way over the Taff into Welsh delirium land. James Haskell suddenly becomes a huge player for England, as does any forward lump capable of maintaining a steady two feet over a ruck (looking at you, Billy). Even then you feel one of the backs is going to have to do something special, but whether or not Cipriani gets on the field is another matter. I hate myself for saying it, but I reckon Wales are going to sneak this one, albeit by a tighter scoreline than the 30-3 pasting they handed out last time England were in Cardiff. Prove me wrong, England. Please, please prove me wrong.

Italy v Ireland - Saturday afternoon

Last time Ireland travelled to Rome, they were shocked for some reason and Italy won. Personally, I'm calling limoncello. With all due deference to Sergio Parrise's ability to win games on his own and with a curt nod at the fact Ireland will not have their first choice half-backs, I can't see that happening again. Different year, different coach and inarguably the form side in Europe. This is about as foregone as conclusions can get, with the main point of interest being how many points England/Wales/France will have to make up when they play the Azzurri. I bet loads.

Get this game over with, and Ireland get to welcome back Connor Murray, Johnny Sexton and Sean O'Brien to the title-retaining effort. If they don't get off to a flier they might end up kicking themselves, so expect some Irish guns to blaze. 

France v Scotland - Saturday evening

This one should be interesting. Scotland improved tremendously in the Autumn under Vern Cotter and no one, ever, in the entire history of creation, has been able to predict whether France will play like a) some jam in a toaster, b) a lumbering, confused Ox that simply wants to punch something or c) a pack of ruthless, ravening wolves that haven't eaten in weeks and can see a Chinese over the hill. Once again I enter the Six Nations period with no clue as to what France's best XV might be, but rather unusually I enter it with one wary eye cast in the direction of Murrayfield. Where England have to play. From what I saw in November the Scots had renewed bite up front and some decisiveness in attack (they've finally found a 10 worthy of the name. No offence, Duncan.) but will they be able to translate that into something tangible in Paris against a team that, at least on paper, should be stronger?

I genuinely hope they can before fading away horribly, just to put the shits under France's campaign, but I think France will prove so ridiculously unpredictable that the result will be kind of normal. A tight French win.

In case anyone was wondering, my money's on Ireland to win the whole thing and this year I actually feel confident picking a winner. They're either better, more settled or more or on form (or all three) than anyone else so barring something unexpected, they'll clinch it.

And since when did anything unexpected ever happen in the Six Nations?

All Blacks Definitely the Best. Maybe.

Sometimes, stereotypes can wear a bit thin. Like the school of thought that says all Irishmen are drunken, brawling louts. I know two and only one of them is. Or the assumption that all Northerners must needs own either a whippet or ferrets. That's nonsense; stoats are just as good at taking burglars' fingers, and greyhounds are just as quick.

Or that the All Blacks always win and play rugby of the Gods. This stems from the pokey jibs and jabs of the uppity New Zealand press, who have (apparently) slammed England's 'go-slow' tactics, specifically at the line-out, and have been backed up by the coach Steve Hansen - at least in public. Their assertion is that England lack the lung capacity (honestly, that's what they're saying, look: here's the article) to keep up with the All Blacks, who play the game properly.

Never mind that England ran more metres or made more breaks in the first test. Honestly, if it wasn't the All Blacks, you'd think for all the world that England have rattled them. Like they've played three games against them under Stuart Lancaster, hammered them once and pushed them very close twice, or something. Like they have refused to roll over and invite the kick to the goolies that all teams must take when paying homage to the southern throne-seated deities of rugby union.

That article goes on to call England cynical and questions whether referee Nigel Owens should have allowed them to decide what they were going to do at line-outs before taking them. How very unreasonable of him.

As far as cynical goes, why don't we talk about Ma'a Nonu's tug on James Haskell? Or Conrad Smith killing the ball a metre from his own line? Here's a replay of the game, said incident being at 1:19:50 on the youtube clock, with some pretty telling commentary: 'bordering on a professional foul.' Er, bordering? Fast forward to 1:26:30 and you get to see Marland Yarde sin binned for something very - some might say 'exactly', 'precisely' or 'identical' -  similar much further from his goal line. This time Owens 'HAS to go to the pocket here'. The Ma'a Nonu incident is on 5:20.

The point of all this is not to moan about Nigel Owens (the 'whinging Pom' being another accursed stereotype, Owens being by far and away the best referee on the planet, and the Yarde thing being a stone-wall yellow) but to highlight some New Zealand hypocrisy. They can hardly claim to have been whiter than white themselves. Certainly if the Smith incident doesn't count as 'slowing the game down' I'm not sure what does. It's well known that they 'do what it takes to win' and that sometimes 'goes very close to the line' of what's legal. If they want to do that and they get away with it, no one can blame them, this is professional sport. But don't then hark on about other teams doing something that's actually legal to try and give themselves the best possible chance of winning.

Looking ahead to the second test, England will undoubtedly make changes with the players involved in the Premiership final coming back into contention. With Twelvetrees and Burrell working the midfield so well in the 6 Nations, the talk now is whether or not Lancaster will reinstate that partnership and put Tuilagi on the wing. The plan here being that he will exploit the resultant space to the maximum - if it takes 3 guys to tackle him at the best of times, he usually marmalises the one-on-ones. Like a rogue dragon chasing a lady rogue dragon in heat. It might not be a bad plan. And no doubt the speed-freaky New Zealand public will welcome Danny Care's quick taps and drop goals with open arms. Unless it's against the spirit of the New Zealand game to drop a goal? Who knows. They booed Freddie Burns on the stroke of half time, anyway. Incidentally, Burns had a cracking game and proved a few people, myself included, wrong. Good on him.

Whatever the side, England will have to improve dramatically, because the All Blacks have a history of doing just that. Last year, France thought they had done well to lose by 10 in the first test only to lose by 30 in the second. The year before Ireland ran them close in the second test, losing by 3, before they were dispatched quite unceremoniously 60-0. This side is at it's most dangerous coming off the back of a dodgy performance, and they will be out to put the Poms in their place.

What is refreshing and heartening about England, though, is that they were bitterly disappointed to have lost. This team is clearly sick of the 'plucky loser' tag and is desperate to shed it. They have not gone half way around the world to be beaten by a supposedly better team, they are there to win. New Zealand, I think, know that, and articles like the one above are almost proof of it. Lancaster, one hopes, might well read it and smile to himself. New Zealand resorting to pretty name-calling? Jog it on. And bring on the second test.

End-of-Season Niggles

With the close of the regular Premiership rugby season at the weekend and with the benefit of having watched at least 1, usually two and quite regularly more games per weekend, there are a couple of changes I'd like to suggest. If someone from the IRB could give this a read than ring me up to arrange employment/fiscal reimbursement, I'd be grateful. These are mainly to ensure the sanity of all involved and to give Austin Healy fewer opportunities to whinge down his microphone, but they would also definitely (maybe) speed the game up and improve it as a spectacle. Rather predictably, then, I would like to write briefly about the TMO and the scrum.

Re the TMO, I'm an advocate of using technology in general but it's simply being used far too often for too many inconsequential calls in the middle of games. What rugby has always had (and it's one of the great benefits over football) is retrospective punishment, which has served the game excellently as a means of dispensing justice, and endless replays on a screen at the ground for things like marginal forward passes or the slightest of obstructions are really helping no one. Least of all the fans at the ground, who cannot hear the referees explanation for something visually cryptic. What it is also encouraging is the now commonplace-and-inexorably-sliding-down-a-slippery-slope player 'advice giving' to the referees. That, above all, has to stop.

Further, there has been at least one example in a crucial game of the TMO adversely affecting the course of the game, when a referee gave a penalty advantage to Bath in the last minute. Believing it to be a kick to nothing, George Ford went for a drop goal - as you would expect - and missed. Upon watching the replay it was decided there was no penalty. Giving one would not have been fair on Saints, but not having one was equally unfair on Bath. Even with the tech, howlers can still happen (just ask a cricketer). The TMO can be pulled back and restricted to try scoring and serious foul play. It'll be better for everyone. Please.

Next, the scrums. They are better than the were with the hit (which was never legal in the first place and represented appalling dereliction of duty by someone, somewhere) but they are still a farce, following the pattern of set - mess - whistle. Simply, the rewards of milking penalties outweighs the uncertainty of, you know, er, playing the ball. There is currently zero incentive for the front rows to do anything other than force a penalty for their side, and equally zero incentive for the 8s and 9s to get the ball out the back of the scrum while they wait for the front rows. So you either need to get very harsh on offending props, which in some cases would simply not be fair (like sin binning someone for coming off second best in a tackle) OR you remove the penalty incentive for every front row offence known to man.

I do not wish to reduce the scrums to rugby league stuff (boring) but what used to be a contest with the aim of winning and using the ball has now become a game of woo-the-ref. Let's make no bones about this: props are perfectly capable of keeping it up, square and stable if that's what they want to do. They don't because the greater rewards are to be had by not doing so. So my solution? Reduce the penalty offences at scrums to free kicks. You take away their throw to any resulting line-out and the kick down-field becomes much less of an option and the penalty goal disappears. That almost guarantees stable scrums between the two 22s. Within the 22s the defending side would probably try and win the free kick in order to alleviate the pressure, but the attacking side would want the ball out quickly to stop them from doing so. It would, at worst, even out. And let's face it, it can't get much worse than it is now.

So there we are, and I hope the common sense isn't too much for the people in charge. If they could get those changes in place in time for the World Cup, there wouldn't be many complaining, I don't think. Over to you, IRB...

England's Mission Impossible

There have been some ever-so-slightly sensationalist reports about England's 'injury crisis' in the last 24 hours, with the combined effect of crocks and the premiership final meaning that a very difficult task for England, namely beating New Zealand in New Zealand, is rapidly becoming an impossible one. In fact, the first test is looking a lot like trying to play snooker with a rope at this point.

I say 'slightly' because the injury reports focus on the following names: Tom Youngs (not technically injured, but staying home with his ill wife. Quite right too, and my best wishes to them), Tom Croft, Alex Corbisiero, Jack Nowell, Christian Wade and Billy Twelvetrees. Of those, Croft, Corbisiero and Wade have been out for ages. England played a full 6 Nations without any of them and only narrowly missed out on winning it. They can cope, although (and with all due respect) the All Blacks are likely to present just a slightly sterner challenge than Scotland or Italy. Or even Ireland or Wales, for that matter.

Of the others, Nowell is capable but not world-set-alighting, not yet anyway, and there are other wingers on form vying for his place. He may not have started. The fact that Twelvetrees might miss all three games is concerning but there are other options at 12, not least Brad Barritt, who has tasted victory against the All Blacks before, and Luther Burrell, who plays 12 regularly for Northampton.

But then you look at the front row and you start to get seriously worried. There is not so much a crisis there as a scrummaging double-dip recession. Youngs would have played, at least from the bench, and first choice hooker Hartley is himself coming back from a shoulder injury, although expected to be fit. England's third choice hooker, Rob Webber, went down at the weekend for Bath. If the Saints make the premiership final, England will be fielding their FOURTH choice hooker against the best team in the world (possibly of any sport at any time ever, although that is another can of worms for another day) on their home turf. Ouch. I don't even know who England's fourth choice hooker IS. (David Paice, apparently.)

Then there are the props. First-choicers Corbisiero and Cole are out, and we've known that for a while. Although England do, at least, have cover in the loose in Joe Marler and Mako Vunipola (although a Quins v Saracens final is not totally out of the question and would take them both out of the first test) the tight options aren't exactly world-beating, although the same as the ones England finished the 6 Nations with. An injury to Dave Wilson at this point would be nothing short of disastrous.

Back to the first test. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that England will be coming from 1-0 down. It's not just the front row. If we assume hypothetically that the premiership final will be contested by Saracens and Leicester, then there go Owen Farrell, Brad Barritt, Alex Goode, Chris Ashton, Ben Youngs, Manu Tuilagi and Anthony Allen from any potential back row, not to mention the likes of both Vuniploas, Matt Stevens, Geoff Parling and Ed Slater from the pack. Quins making the final would render Danny Care, Chris Robshaw, Joe Marler and Mike Brown more useless than a fire proof match. Saints do well and there go Hartley, Lawes, Wood, Dickson, Myler, Burrell and Foden.

To sum up: this really is a no-win situation for Lancaster and you wonder how the organisers could have let it happen. For any England fans with plane tickets to New Zealand, especially front-rowers, I'd consider taking your boots. There's every chance you'll get a game. If England manage to win even ONCE, however (especially given the front row), then who'd be willing to bet against their world cup hopes?

Seeing red. But not Alex Goode, apparently.

So, Jared Payne, the Ulster fullback, has been banned for two weeks for knocking Alex Goode out of the air like a clay pigeon. To continue the metaphor, Goode was then removed like a clay pigeon (i.e. carried off in a bucket) and Payne was shown a straight red card that has been causing much, much consternation on rugby forums up and down the land. Especially, it seems, if you happen to be an Ulsterman.

Opinion at the time was divided, it must be said, with Will Greenwood on Sky supporting the referee's decision and the other two (Irish) pundits maintaining it should have been yellow. Hmm. Meanwhile, RugbyDump's facebook page has gone literally mental with sage social-media users bemoaning the demise of the Gary Owen, the advent of diving in rugby and the mental state of the referee, among other things. I have yet to read a piece of serious journalism that says it shouldn't have been red, but then I've not looked at the papers from Ireland, give me an minute...

That didn't take long. Belfast Telegraph, anyone?
Ulster Rugby launch fight for justice over Jared Payne red card.

The point is, they would say that, wouldn't they? Further, their assertion that the decision caused consternation among 'the vast majority of supporters and neutrals alike' is simply not true, in my experience. I can only assume they haven't been asking the neutrals I've been keeping an eye on, or asking me. I'm neutral.

Anyway, I watched that game (Ulster should have won, in the end. One shudders at the size of the thumping Saracens would have been dealt if the Irishmen hadn't given them a fighting chance by having a bloke sent off) and will hereby chuck in my penny's worth, despite it being worth less than said proverbial penny, ironically. But it will give me something to do while I listen to the cricket (incidentally, if anyone fancies giving me a job and/or money, feel free to leave your contact details/bank account access information in the comments section). Also, as it turns out, the IRB have quite a nice website for those who wish to research the laws.

So, then: preliminaries. As far as I have been able to read, no one but no one is disputing the following:

• Jared Payne took Goode out in the air
• Goode went down on his head
• There was absolutely no intent or malice on the part of Payne, who had his eyes on the ball the whole time
• It was a stonewall penalty

We effectively have a guilty plea, m'lud, as it cannot be argued from any of the available evidence that Payne did NOT, in fact, take Goode out like that peeping Stark lad in the first episode of Game of Thrones. The case for the defence says that Payne is perfectly entitled to compete for the ball, and he clearly didn't mean to take out Goode like he did.

Here's the rub, because to my mind, that last point is in fact a case for the prosecution. Bear with me.

Payne is, indeed, perfectly entitled to compete for the ball. But it is also Payne's (and anyone else's) responsibility to ensure that he places no other player in danger while doing so. What made this dangerous, not only to Alex Goode but to Payne himself, was not bothering to look for a split second and see where the defenders were, then ploughing straight into someone's legs at full tilt. It's a bit like driving a tank through a building, then claiming you didn't see the building. What did he expect? How often do you NOT have to battle a defender to reclaim a Gary Owen? He should have known, as a professional rugby player, that there would be someone underneath the kick and it was his duty to make sure he didn't hurt them. That he couldn't be trusted to do that is, to my mind, the most damning thing about the whole incident. 

Now, following the laws, that clearly constitutes a dangerous tackle, and we come to the severity of the punishment. As I said, no one (not even the good people of Ulster) are disputing the penalty but many are saying that it was a yellow, tops. I have to admit, my first inclination was 'yellow, borderline red'. You don't see a lot of red cards for tackles in the air, but then they are hardly ever that reckless. What the referee has to look at is HOW DANGEROUS the tackle was. Nothing else. Not the intent, or the extent of Goode's injury, but how dangerous the tackle was. Given the facts that Payne went into his legs with absolutely no thought of Goode's being there, the speed at which he did so and the fact that Goode went down head-first (regardless of any injury), this amounted to it being about as dangerous as a tackle in the air can possibly get, hence the red.


Thankfully, Goode was OK and rejoined his team mates on the bench. But it could have been much, much worse and remember: the laws that govern the Heineken Cup are the same laws that govern Sunday league matches between clubs you've never heard of. If you were allowed to do things like that without punishment, then sooner or later someone would end up losing the ability to walk. If Payne, the next time he chases a Gary Owen, sees the defender, slows down, then smashes him as he lands, then Mr Garces will have done rugby - and indeed Payne - a service. I understand Ulster feeling hard done by, but I think the Belfast Telegraph would actually find a lot of neutrals agree with the ref.


Options at 10?
In a totally unrelated note, Danny Cipriani has been named Premiership Player of the Month. Good for him. The lad's had a great season generally and comprehensively out-played George Ford when the two met down in Bath 2 weeks ago. Given Freddie Burns recent 'form' a trip to New Zealand surely beckons for Cipriani.

Umpires are Rubbish. Fact.

I was just about to slate Jos Buttler on facebook for botching a simple run out vs the Netherlands, citing the incident as evidence of why the lad, as good as he is, should not be anywhere near the test team if Matt Prior can score runs at an average of more than 5.

If you haven't seen the incident, the Netherlands batsman (apologies for not knowing his name) was miles of of his ground trying for two in something like the 18th over. The throw came in, and Buttler duly removed the bails, with the batsman so far out that he continued running in the direction of the dug-out without further ado. But wait, the umpires are checking something - there is a suspicion the Buttler knocked the bails of with his elbow before he caught the ball. For those of you sketchy on the laws, if both bails are removed pre-contact of ball with glove, a stump must be removed from the ground to constitute breaking of the wicket. If one bail stays on and then is removed when the keeper has the ball in hand, that's fine.

A couple of replays (or more accurately, the same replay a couple of times) is shown from the square leg position which appear to show, very clearly, the bails being removed before Buttler catches the ball, and it doesn't take long for the 3rd umpire to relate his 'not-out' decision. Shortly after the batsman is called back to resume, another replay from the bowlers position is shown on TV which shows, even more clearly, that only one bail was knocked off, then Buttler caught the ball and got rid of the over. It should have been out.

Now, notwithstanding the fact it it really shouldn't have been an issue if the wicket keeper had been doing his job properly, it gives me something else to write about which should kill at least half an hour: namely, umpiring incompetence in the face of flaw-exposing technology.

This was further illustrated in England's earlier game against Sri Lanka, when a clear catch (as clear as it gets, actually) being given not out because low catches always look dodgy on TV. That's a line that is routinely used by umpires to justify their dodging making a decision. And that's not to mention the 2013 England Ashes series, where there were more DRS-based mistakes than a pre-school spelling test. These errors are compounded by (sometimes) ambiguity over the 'protocol' (think of Trotts first ball lbw, where some of the tech wasn't available because it was being used for another replay) or (always) by bad decisions being paraded in front of the crowd on a massive screen. When you have 20,000+ boozy Englishmen and Aussies gathered in a relatively confined space and stick replays like Usman Khawaja's phantom nick (not out - given out) or Ashton Agar failing to get his foot behind the line (out - given in) in front on them for scrutiny you're simply asking for trouble. Because every single one of those drunken fans, dressed as nuns and cartoon characters, now know themselves to be a superior umpire to the two blokes in the middle and the muppet in charge of the replays. Which is a ridiculous situation and should not be allowed to happen.

You hear a lot about DRS being introduced to 'eliminate the howler'. All well and good, but giving captains more reviews not less means that they will be used tactically, especially in tight situations and especially now that they are reset to 2 after 80 overs in tests. Batsmen have referred nicks they probably got bat on on the off chance that hotspot would show nothing, especially the last recognised batsman with the team at 100/5. And every batsman, EVERY batsman, is going to refer the low catch, given umpires track record with giving benefit of the doubt. Personally, I would like to see a change of policy as far as these are concerned, with the catch assumed to be clean unless you can see it bounce clearly - as in change direction and move up. 90% of these are clean catches that just aren't being given.

Other than that, proposed changes include giving discretion over whether a decision is reviewed or not to the umpires. Hmm. Well that would certainly lend a different dynamic to the situation and it seems to work in rugby, but then how long before they review everything? Umpires would effectively be absolved of responsibility for their decisions, unless limits are imposed on WHAT they can review. So where do you draw the line there? Can you check whether a ball pitched outside leg for an lbw but not have the benefit of the predictive path to see if it would have hit the stumps?

Or - and I'm about to suggest something a bit controversial here so bear with me -  how about simply finding competent umpires? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but nobody ever complains when the umpires get stuff right, it's only when they get it wrong. So the answer, it seems to me, would be to get new umpires, or improve the ones we have, until they get the decisions right. And, lets face it, if 20,000+ pissed up half naked lunatics can tell if a foot's behind the line or not, why can't the sober, extensively trained and experienced umpire watching in high definition at close quarters in the comfort of a van, brew at hand? How hard would it have been to check that second stump angle for Jos Buttler's run out? How difficult would it be to give more benefit of the doubt to the fielder, to use balance of probability rather than working out if the batsman has a straw to clutch at?

Overall I'm a fan of using the technology. It's a constant source of exasperation to me when the most lucrative sport on the planet (i.e. football) refuses to use simple technology not to get more decisions right (and in football, there are no foots-on-the-line. Decisions are far more obvious and work over much wider margins, with the possible exception of tight offsides). But it's far easier for the idiots at FIFA to dig their heals when they can point to these issues as evidence that the tech doesn't work. My point is, the tech DOES work. The people don't, and the ICC should really be doing something about that. So far, their response has been to chuck more reviews at the captains, which simply does not address the root of the problem.


In other news...
England, as I write, are 37-4 chasing 134 against the Netherlands. Speaking as someone who has said, for a while, that I don't think Ashley Giles is the man for the coaching job and that the likes of Moeen Ali and Jos Buttler shouldn't be considered for test selection, I face a moral dilemma as to whether I want England to win or not. 

6 Nations Round-Up

I appreciate I'm a little late on the uptake here, and that there certainly has been more than enough reaction, post-reaction, analysis and verdict giving to render this totally pointless. But by George, I started so I'll finish. I can only offer my not getting back from Rome until early Tuesday morning, and then taking the Wednesday to recover from the most nerve-racking taxi journey of my life, as explanation. Rather than reviewing the games, I'll run through the teams one by one and do my upmost to avoid the blindingly obvious. In ascending order:

Italy

Unlucky not to pick up a win somewhere, the Italians will be disappointed. While it is heartening to see them play with more ambition, the side is clearly a work in early progress, although potential is there. The two new centres showed glimpses, but they did not help themselves with indecision as to their best half-back combination. They need to settle on a 9 and a 10 and then stick by them.

Meanwhile, I can report that the Italians love Sherlock Holmes, do some astonishing pistachio ice cream and would be served very well by banning the selling of flowers by bloody-minded miscreants who don't know the meaning of the word 'no'.

Scotland

New coach Vern Cotter can't come quick enough. There are only so many amusing interviews you can paper over gaping chasms with, and this was the tournament when Scott Johnson's metaphorical platitudes finally stopped washing. Muddled and misguided selections went a long way to helping that happen, with decisions to leave out Kelly Brown, Dave Denton and Richie Gray akin to hunting polar bears with a zippo and a pointy stick when you could have been using a semi-automatic. Otherwise, Scotland simply lacked attacking zeal and have strikingly similar issues at half-back to Italy, which just goes to prove how crucial those two positions are.

Winners of the Alan Titchmarsh award for Soggiest Cabbage Patch.

Wales

Mixed bag for the reigning champions. Anyone who says the Lions tour didn't take a toll is deluded, but that should not excuse some pretty clueless performances against Ireland and England. Tactically, Wales were comprehensively out-thought in Dublin and Rhys Priestland was then given a kicking lesson at Twickenham by Owen Farrell. Sorry to bang on about this, but now that I think about it, the only two teams with a settled first choice 9 and 10 were the two teams that finished top. Neither Priestland nor Biggar is completely convincing and, for whatever reason, Gatland does not seem to like James Hook.

The challenge now is to re-build and refresh. Wales are still a very good side but there is a sense that maybe they have been found out slightly, and Adam Jones and Gethin Jenkins won't be around forever.

France

No one knows how they finished 3rd. France were lucky against England in the first game (and ultimately cost Lancaster's side a Grand Slam) and then failed spectacularly to kick on. The thick fog of denial that prompted Nicholas Mas to storm out of his press conference was to recall certain French football teams of the past, and most observers' surprise at how badly they were playing was equalled only by their surprise that France went into the last game with a shot at the title. As it was, they nearly did England a favour, but then the chronic anti-rugby they have been playing reared it's head and some nutcase chucked it forwards.

With such as the case, the most satisfying aspect for the French will be denying the English the title not once but twice: one by beating them in the first game, and again when they failed to beat Ireland. He did it on purpose.

England

Indisputably one of the two form teams of the championship, although they will face sterner tests next year when they have to play both Wales and Ireland away instead of at Twickenham. The pack is now a bona fide force to be reckoned with and the backs produced the best attacking rugby seen from white shirts in years.

For an England fan, now is the time to start being critical. The side has shown vast improvement since Lancaster took over and has now finished 2nd for 3 years running. Next year, they need to win the 6 Nations, but there is opportunity to set down an even more telling marker. If you can beat the All Blacks in New Zealand, you can beat anyone anywhere. Any sort of victory in the summer will make the world sit up and recognise England as genuine World Cup contenders.

Ireland

No one who knows anything about rugby begrudges Ireland this win, because O'Driscoll deserves it and that is that. Filling his shoes will not be easy, which is a bit of a pain when you consider his knack for unlocking stubborn defences in this tournament. In Joe Schmidt, though, they also have a coach who could make a game plan out of ashes and thin air: he'll come up with something. And Ireland remain a very talented side with players to come back, Sean O'Brien, for example.

With all due respect to Argentina, the Irish may now wish they were going to one of the big three the summer before a World Cup year but, with a relatively easy fixture list you'd back them to at least make the semis. Where they may well play England.

Overall, the best thing about the tournament was it's unpredictability, with 4 teams in it after 3 games. The standard may be better down south, but they'd kill for the 6N history and drama. Probably.

Worst Game: Wales vs France
Scrums were a mess and France played like a club team. At least Italy v Scotland had last-ditch drop-goal drama.

Best Game: England vs Ireland
A non-stop roller coaster of a game that swung one way then the other, with some brilliant rugby played by both sides. What the 6 Nations is all about.