Sir Ian McGeechan has outlined his ideas (www.ruck.co.uk/sir-ian-mcgeecan-expects-the-six-nations-to-become-seven-very-soon-following-major-change/) of the way the men’s Six Nations should develop. At its simplest it is ‘bring in South Africa’. (btw, Ruck spell his name incorrectly in their heading)
Before we try to assess similar changes for the women’s version, one or two details of his thinking. He is not in favour of promotion-relegation; he recognises that Australia and New Zealand would look askance at his proposals.
Behind his statement lies the hope that the 6N board is willing and able to make groundbreaking changes. For years their policy has been very ‘steady-as-she-goes’; do they see a revolution as desirable?
One barrier is the calendar. As soon as you add an extra team, it means lengthening the schedule. The global calendar is already full to bursting; player welfare is a priority, which helps to explain 6N’s unwillingness to tinker.
Now to the women’s version
First and foremost, the two tournaments are crucially different, despite their outward look of similarity. The similarity was first underlined when Spain were ousted from the women’s 6N in 2007 in favour of Italy, to bring it into line with the men’s.
But the balance of power within the ranks is very different. In the men’s version England find it very difficult winning matches; the women find it equally difficult losing them. And within the six unions the rankings are equally varied.
In the women’s list England lie 1st, France 3rd, Italy 6th, Scotland 7th, Wales 8th and Ireland 10th; in the men’s it’s Ireland 2nd, France 4th, England 5th, Scotland 6th, Italy 8th and Wales 10th. The men’s relative positions have shifted across the decades, but England have never enjoyed the chain of triumphs experienced by the women.
In his rejection of promotion-relegation Mcgeechan is facing facts. The effect of relegation in either competition would be catastrophic for the nation concerned. It is equally clear that no two people can agree on who should replace the wooden spoon holder. He opts for South Africa, which has the advantage of being in a similar time-zone to western Europe. Others suggest Georgia.
For the women, the attainment gaps between nations are all too plain to see. The last time England and France failed to occupy the top two positions was 2019, when Italy just scraped ahead of France by one point, thanks to a late bonus-point try in their final game. As for possible replacements only Spain come into consideration; they win the European Championship with ease year after year, but their absence from the 6N has proved costly for them.
The last time they had the chance of challenging the established order came with the innovative WXV. There they finished third in the third tier, a distance behind Ireland (1st) and Fiji (2nd).
So talk about the future of the womens’ 6N tends to concentrate on ‘narrowing the gap’ – helped by the introduction of contracts. The improvements they have brought are plain to see, but in my view they won’t lead to a change in the established order; in particular the gap between England and France and the four other nations.
Here are the (anonymous) scores in the first two rounds of the 2024 Championship: 38-17, 18-20, 0-48, 5-15, 46-10, 21-27.
There are very pleasing features here: three very tight games with margins of 2, 6 and 10 points; and no side reaching 50 points. Against that, it’s still the leading two nations who won their four games; Scotland did outstandingly well to limit the French to a measly 15 points, but they still came away without a bonus.
For the coming third round we can expect the unexpected in Cork. Wales should have the beating of Ireland, but we can’t be sure. France should be too much for Italy, but they have found that transalpine game a tricky hurdle in the past. It will be fascinating to see how far Scotland can manage to hold the Red Roses in check. If they achieve a result similar to Wales’ 10-46, they will have done very well.
So the message must be: stick to what we have and enjoy it.
