When did winning the 5/6 Nations become important?

Ed The Equalizer

So we did. Thanks :-)

Losty Dublin

Trophies never came for the Triple Crown and 5 Nations simply because it wasn't the done thing in the early years of the game. Back in the day, the RFU of old felt that competitive games and trophies distracted from the amateur ethos of the sport, a position that carried into the international game for a century.

There are plenty of challenge games played but all had no silverware save for two notable exceptions, namely the Calcutta Cup and the Bledisole Cup. Other that them, there was no international tournament trophy until the RWC and the Webb Ellis cup. Mind you, there were no international competitions to play for back then either

Chivito550

I started this thread 3 years ago, and the topic about the apathy towards winning the championship back in the amateur day fascinates me.

I just came across this piece from this article:

There's a bizarre kind of 'on the day' traditionalism to the whole thing which is mystifying to soccer fans. The culture probably stems from the amateur era when rugby men were too busy polishing their post-match banquet speeches to bother with the pedantic ritual of consulting the table or totting up points difference.

Ireland won 'the championship' - and won it outright - in 1982 and 1985 but those who remember it only ever reference the achievement of winning the Triple Crown. Ireland also won the Five Nations championship in 1974 but as it came unaccompanied by the Triple Crown, the compilers on Reeling in the Years paid no attention.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2018/0318/948458-how-does-2018-grand-slam-compare-to-delirium-of-2009/

Why is 1974 so overlooked? We were outright winners that year, the first time we managed that in 23 years, yet it is never talked about. Was success simply only measured in Triple Crowns, and the championship didn't matter? Why is a first championship in 23 years (we wouldn't win another for 9 further years) not something which is fondly looked back on?

It seems like 82 and 85 are only talked about because we won the triple crown, rather than the championship.

Funny enough too, in 1948, they didn't celebrate their success as winning the Grand Slam, but rather because of winning the Triple Crown. We also won the Triple Crown in 1949 too. So back in Jack Kyle's day, was there any extra hype in 1948 to what there was in 1949? It seems like 1948 has only retrospectively been hyped up as an incredible year for Irish rugby. But back at the time, was it viewed any differently to 1949?

The weird oddities of the 5 Nations history is quite fascinating.

prawnsambo

I suspect that the winning of the Triple Crown was viewed historically as the 'real' championship, since winning it effectively meant beating everyone but France. And France were late to the party in much the same way as Italy are now. So France could never win a Triple Crown and it was probably a 'clubby' thing to have something that France couldn't ever compete for.

So the chmpionship really was a late addition to the competition, whereas the Triple Crown was something of a grand slam in itself.

thebaz

I remember when the triple crown was a big deal - we hardly won them until Ciaran Fitzgeralds team of the 80s - today they mean little to me and others - given growth and professionalism in Irish rugby; strangely, for someone who questioned Italys automatic participation this year, think ther arrival helped give it a more international/European feal than just a smallish tournament in Northern Europe.

prawnsambo

Strangely enough, it seems that championship wins seem easier to come by than triple crowns. We've won 14 outright and 9 shared where we've only won 11 Triple Crowns. And that goes for all the home nations.

Chivito550

prawnsambo wrote: »

Strangely enough, it seems that championship wins seem easier to come by than triple crowns. We've won 14 outright and 9 shared where we've only won 11 Triple Crowns. And that goes for all the home nations.

Good point.

8 of our triple crowns were won alongside the championship. 3 of the recent ones (2004, 2006, 2007) were not.

jr86

thebaz wrote: »

I remember when the triple crown was a big deal - we hardly won them until Ciaran Fitzgeralds team of the 80s - today they mean little to me and others

Agree.

I can't seem to recall but was it even acknowledged by the English players/fans/media in 2014 when they won it?

I can see the relevance to Irish supporters in the early 00s when Ireland were coming off an awful period in the 1990s and England and France were at the peak of their powers, so a Grand Slam was a massive ask

CIARAN_BOYLE

Now the treble crown is 3/5 back then the treble crown was oh that used to be the grand slam before the French came in.

Chivito550

Triple crowns aside, is it not a bit odd that we seem to hear and read nothing about the 1974 Championship victory? I can literally find nothing online about it. No former players reflecting on it. Nothing of the sort.

We won our first outright title in 23 years, and wouldn’t claim another for a further 9 years. Surely this achievement would have been huge?

It leads me to think that they didn’t even keep tabs on league tables back then, and championships have only been awarded retrospectively.

prawnsambo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Triple crowns aside, is it not a bit odd that we seem to hear and read nothing about the 1974 Championship victory? I can literally find nothing online about it. No former players reflecting on it. Nothing of the sort.

We won our first outright title in 23 years, and wouldn’t claim another for a further 9 years. Surely this achievement would have been huge?

It leads me to think that they didn’t even keep tabs on league tables back then, and championships have only been awarded retrospectively.

It was a pretty crap championship year. Not surprised it doesn't get much mention. There were three draws and only two nations had two wins: Ireland and Scotland.

Chivito550

prawnsambo wrote: »

It was a pretty crap championship year. Not surprised it doesn't get much mention. There were three draws and only two nations had two wins: Ireland and Scotland.

Yeh but it was supposed to be a 5 team league. You’d think the winners would be mentioned. And you’d think the fact it was our first in so long would have been huge. The fact the quality may have been poor should be irrelevant really.

ArmaniJeanss

Winning the Championship without the Grand Slam was seen as a bit of a 'not real' win, I believe.

Whilst media reaction was more muted (for everything) back then I do remember the 85 Championship win being regarded as a reasonably big deal. Though there was also a bit of embarrassment felt when we went to tour Japan later in the year and they promoted it as games against the 'Champions of Europe'. Which was strictly true but no-one tended to talk that brash way.

20 page newspapers pullouts, homecomings, VHS releases and the like only really became a thing 5 years later for the soccer team in Italia 90.

sydthebeat

prawnsambo wrote: »

It was a pretty crap championship year. Not surprised it doesn't get much mention. There were three draws and only two nations had two wins: Ireland and Scotland.

we scored 4 tries in the whole competition and still 'won'

prawnsambo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh but it was supposed to be a 5 team league. You’d think the winners would be mentioned. And you’d think the fact it was our first in so long would have been huge. The fact the quality may have been poor should be irrelevant really.

Well as I said earlier, triple crowns were a bigger acheivement than championship wins. Especially when that championship win came from just two match wins. Bit of a consolation prize really, but not the big prize at that time.

Chivito550

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well as I said earlier, triple crowns were a bigger acheivement than championship wins. Especially when that championship win came from just two match wins. Bit of a consolation prize really, but not the big prize at that time.

How would the French have viewed winning the championship back during the 60s and 70s, given they had no triple crown to fight for? Was it a case of grand slam or nothing for them? Or did Championships mean more to them than to teams chasing a triple crown?

prawnsambo

Chivito550 wrote: »

How would the French have viewed winning the championship back during the 60s and 70s, given they had no triple crown to fight for? Was it a case of grand slam or nothing for them? Or did Championships mean more to them than to teams chasing a triple crown?

The French had their own goals. The Grand Chelem was clearly the top prize but beating the English came a close second.

Chivito550

prawnsambo wrote: »

The French had their own goals. The Grand Chelem was clearly the top prize but beating the English came a close second.

Was there a bit of an attitude at the time that losing to France didn’t matter as long as you won the triple crown? The 82 team is lauded for winning the triple crown. It is merely a footnote now that they subsequently went to Paris to try win the slam, and lost. It’s the least talked about Grand Slam showdown in Irish history I’d say.

Was there a lot of hype leading up to that French match in 82?

sydthebeat

Chivito550 wrote: »

Was there a bit of an attitude at the time that losing to France didn’t matter as long as you won the triple crown? The 82 team is lauded for winning the triple crown. It is merely a footnote now that they subsequently went to Paris to try win the slam, and lost. It’s the least talked about Grand Slam showdown in Irish history I’d say.

Was there a lot of hype leading up to that French match in 82?

'hype' is not something that existed in the pre digital age.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/donal-lenihan/donal-lenihan-france-and-the-sitting-ducks-of-1982-224658.html

prawnsambo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Was there a bit of an attitude at the time that losing to France didn’t matter as long as you won the triple crown? The 82 team is lauded for winning the triple crown. It is merely a footnote now that they subsequently went to Paris to try win the slam, and lost. It’s the least talked about Grand Slam showdown in Irish history I’d say.

Was there a lot of hype leading up to that French match in 82?

Hype wasn't a 'thing' back then.

But it was front page stuff the day of the match, you can actually see the Irish Times front page for that date on the IT website.

Going to Paris and getting a win was always a mountain to climb for us. But it was definitely a grand slam decider and a disappointment not to get it.

Here you go:

joseywhales

Jesus ,when the budget bites....so if you are struggling financially drink more beer? I wonder what crap gets advertised now that people will roll their eyes at in 30 years. I'm guessing all reality tv and talent shows.

Conqueror

The 1974 final table was printed after the final round of games, but as a footnote: https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1974/0318/Pg003.html
It does reference the fact that it was Ireland's first outright championship since 1951 but, for reference, it gets as much coverage as the semi-final of Division 2 of the Higher Education League between St. Patrick's, Thurles and St. Patrick's, Maynooth.

I think a factor might have been the space between matches. Ireland's championship finished on March 2, two weeks before the England-Wales and Scotland-France matches. Wales, having dominated ties against the English in the previous 15 years, would have been expected to win, while the Irish Times was more hopeful than confident of a Scottish win: https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1974/0316/Pg003.html

Regarding 1982, the preview ahead of the match away to France got a half page, and mentions the possibility of Ireland winning it's second-ever Grand Slam, while France were lauded for winning seven championships in the previous 23 years, including three Grand Slams. https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1982/0320/Pg002.html

Chivito550 wrote:

Was there a bit of an attitude at the time that losing to France didn’t matter as long as you won the triple crown?

I think it might be realism, more than anything. Ireland beat France four time out of five between 1972 and 1975 (there was an additional Test in 1972), but between 1960 and 1981, Ireland won five and drew three out of 23, with just the one win in France (1972), and that form was even worse for the rest of the century. I'm sure everyone involved were desperate to beat the French, but they were just out of our league.

prawnsambo

joseywhales wrote: »

Jesus ,when the budget bites....so if you are struggling financially drink more beer? I wonder what crap gets advertised now that people will roll their eyes at in 30 years. I'm guessing all reality tv and talent shows.

I think 'budget' refers to the government budget rather than the personal one. I'm assuming there was increased tax on booze, possibly spirits.

Chivito550

Conqueror wrote: »

The 1974 final table was printed after the final round of games, but as a footnote: https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1974/0318/Pg003.html
It does reference the fact that it was Ireland's first outright championship since 1951 but, for reference, it gets as much coverage as the semi-final of Division 2 of the Higher Education League between St. Patrick's, Thurles and St. Patrick's, Maynooth.

I think a factor might have been the space between matches. Ireland's championship finished on March 2, two weeks before the England-Wales and Scotland-France matches. Wales, having dominated ties against the English in the previous 15 years, would have been expected to win, while the Irish Times was more hopeful than confident of a Scottish win: https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1974/0316/Pg003.html

Regarding 1982, the preview ahead of the match away to France got a half page, and mentions the possibility of Ireland winning it's second-ever Grand Slam, while France were lauded for winning seven championships in the previous 23 years, including three Grand Slams. https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1982/0320/Pg002.html

I think it might be realism, more than anything. Ireland beat France four time out of five between 1972 and 1975 (there was an additional Test in 1972), but between 1960 and 1981, Ireland won five and drew three out of 23, with just the one win in France (1972), and that form was even worse for the rest of the century. I'm sure everyone involved were desperate to beat the French, but they were just out of our league.

This is great stuff. Are you able to screenshot these in readable quality? I need a subscription to view them on the links. No worries if it’s too much hassle.

It’s interesting to see how the championship was viewed in previous eras. The first 5 Nations I watched was 1995, so I’ve no recollection of much from the amateur era.

Webbs

From a Welsh perspective through the 80s and 90s when I was growing up the Triple Crown and obviously the GS was a huge deal. However the championship not so much, cant put my finger on it exactly but I think the fact that there was no bonus points or points differences to decide the championship had something to do with it.
Its also the influence of media and especially the rise of americanisation of coverage whereby there has to be a winner even its contrived (nailing my colours to the mast here and say I really dislike the bonus point system but that ship has sailed now).

Chivito550

Webbs wrote: »

From a Welsh perspective through the 80s and 90s when I was growing up the Triple Crown and obviously the GS was a huge deal. However the championship not so much, cant put my finger on it exactly but I think the fact that there was no bonus points or points differences to decide the championship had something to do with it.
Its also the influence of media and especially the rise of americanisation of coverage whereby there has to be a winner even its contrived (nailing my colours to the mast here and say I really dislike the bonus point system but that ship has sailed now).

Is it not a bit odd though that for over a century this competition ran without any real interest in who actually won it? That seems to go against the idea of competitive sport I would have thought.

irishbucsfan

Chivito550 wrote: »

Is it not a bit odd though that for over a century this competition ran without any real interest in who actually won it? That seems to go against the idea of competitive sport I would have thought.

It would be odd if they weren't competing for something equally, if not more, important to them at the exact same time.

It's definitely not against the idea of competitive sport to be fully targeting a win in every single game (or at least the home nations games). The opposite if anything.

prawnsambo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Is it not a bit odd though that for over a century this competition ran without any real interest in who actually won it? That seems to go against the idea of competitive sport I would have thought.

I don't think that's what people are saying though. And you're forgetting that when it was the home nations, winning the triple crown was concurrent with a grand slam and championship. Obviously they aren't true in reverse (except for the grand slam), but that's how the championship came to be considered to be a bit of a consolation prize if you didn't win the slam or the triple crown.

Chivito550

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It would be odd if they weren't competing for something equally, if not more, important to them at the exact same time.

It's definitely not against the idea of competitive sport to be fully targeting a win in every single game (or at least the home nations games). The opposite if anything.

True that. But say you lost your first game to another home nations team. The slam is gone, the triple crown is gone. With the championship seemingly unimportant, what would teams be playing for in their final 3 matches (other than pride)?

prawnsambo

Chivito550 wrote: »

True that. But say you lost your first game to another home nations team. The slam is gone, the triple crown is gone. With the championship seemingly unimportant, what would teams be playing for in their final 3 matches (other than pride)?

In many ways they were stand-alone games. There used often be weeks between games. The 1970 championship started in early January and wasn't finished until mid-April. It was very rare that there would be two matches on the same weekend, never mind the same day.