Saturday’s 34–21 victory by France against Scotland in Paris came just over 100 years after the first-ever French victory in the tournament – coincidentally also against Scotland, 16–15 on 2 January, 1911 (an interesting hangover cure).
Last weekend’s game brought another significant statistic, however: it was the 100th home victory since the Five Nations became the Six Nations with the addition of Italy in 2000.
The 11 tournaments, 2000–2010, saw 99 home wins, 63 away wins and three draws (28–28 between Scotland and Wales in 2001, 18–18 between Wales and Italy in 2006 and 15–15 between Scotland and England last season). Or, to put it another way, 60 per cent of all Six Nations games played before the start of this season were won by the hosts.
This is not in itself unusual, given the extent to which home advantage equates to points on the board in any sport. But it does raise questions about the fairness of the Six Nations format, given that each season half the teams play three home matches whereas the other half only play two.
Generally, of the 15 games played each season, five or six are won by the visitors. Once – in 2006 – there were a mere four away wins, while 2005 saw the only instance of away wins (8) exceeding home wins (7).
![Six Nations table]( "Six Nations table")
Only twice has there been a clean sweep of three away wins in the same cycle of matches: the second weekend of the 2005 tournament and the final weekend in 2006.
Since Italy joined the party, only four teams have won the tournament: France five times, England three, Wales twice and Ireland once. That much is well known. It takes a bit more research to realise that in seven of those 11 tournaments (63 per cent), the winner has played three home games. The only exceptions have been England in 2000, Wales in 2005, France in 2007 and Ireland in 2009.
There has yet to be a tournament in which the top three nations have been the three with a majority of home games, whereas in the curious 2005 contest the top three each played a majority of away games. On seven occasions, two of the top three have had “home advantage”. Italy have three times been wooden-spoonists despite having played three home games (in 2001, 2005 and 2009), while same applied to Scotland in 2007.
Any assessment is complicated by Italy clearly having been the weakest team – they finished last eight times, fifth twice (2003, 2004) and fourth once (2007). This is in turn reflected in the breakdown of home defeats and away wins in the 165 games 2000–2010:
![Six Nations table 2]( "Six Nations table 2")
This table shows the weakness of Italy and confirms Scotland as the second-weakest nation over the 11 years in question. The only Italian away win was the notorious 17–37 game at Murrayfield in 2007, when the visitors scored three tries in the first six minutes. Scotland’s four away wins have been against Italy in 2002 and 2006, Wales in 2002, and Ireland in 2010.
With an even number of teams taking part, a home/away imbalance appears inevitable. There is however a second quirk, which relates to this and perhaps slightly increases the potential for the tournament to have an inbuilt unfairness. The various Six Nations fixtures alternate home and away without change, such that in any even year Scotland will host England and France while visiting Wales, Ireland and Italy. Similarly, Wales host England and Ireland in each odd year while visiting Scotland, France and Italy.
Quite what effect this might have on overall results is difficult to assess, because team and squad strengths vary markedly from year to year. But it is hard to imagine that, when linked with the home/away imbalance, there is no effect at all.
Over the decade or so of the Six Nations, France and – to a lesser extent – England have been the strongest teams. To always play both either home or away in the same season – as Scotland and Ireland have to do – could have a telling effect. It would surely be harder for Scotland to win the championship in a season such as the present one, when faced with England and France away – even though, as Hamish Macdonell pointed out in his preview of Scotland’s chances, the three home games they do have are “eminently winnable”.
There is no suggestion, of course, that there is any deliberate bias or unfairness in all this – but it is a curiously uneven playing-field, one which other sports have attempted to eliminate. Then again, think of the complexity (some might say dog’s breakfast) of the current SPL setup, where 33 games are played followed by the late-season split, guaranteeing that teams will play an unequal number of home and away fixtures.
A similar problem occurs in chess, where having the white pieces (and hence having the first move) is a slight but significant advantage at grandmaster level. Hence when a recent top-level all-play-all tournament in London included eight players – meaning that four of them would only have the white pieces three times – much discussion ensued. In the event, and to confound the complainers, Magnus Carlsen won the event with four blacks.
One advantage that the Six Nations has over the old Five Nations is that teams never sit out. Both formats require five cycles, so spectators and sponsors are better served by seeing 15 games rather than ten. But 60 per cent of games proving to be home wins is a hefty proportion, and would be even higher with the “Italy effect” factored out.
As to what could be done to make things more satisfactory, one possibility – that Argentina could be included in the competition, bulking it up to a Seven Nations with each team playing three home and three away matches – is no longer an option.
Los Pumas have gone the other way and from 2012 will join the former Tri Nations along with New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. (The Tri Nations, it should be noted, has its own home/away quirk, with the current format seeing each team play each other three times.)
So with that idea off the table, an alternative for the Six Nations would be to play one cycle of games somewhere exotic (and warm), such as Abu Dhabi. In an even year, the games could be Wales–Scotland, France–England and Ireland–Italy. In each instance the first-named team would be notionally fulfilling one of its three home fixtures, and similarly with away matches for each of the second-named teams. That would leave the standard two home / two away setup for the remaining four rounds in the sleety mists of Europe.
If attempted, it would create new complexity (and generate new complaints), but would solve the existing problem and could prove to be a moneyspinner, attracting fresh interest in terms of corporate sponsorship and media rights.
Another idea would be to only award the Six Nations title every second season, allowing a genuine home-and-away round-robin to be played, albeit in two parts. This would be very fair, and would involve no upheaval, but the chances of it ever being adopted are surely vanishingly slim.
Only twice has there been a clean sweep of three away wins in the same cycle of matches: the second weekend of the 2005 tournament and the final weekend in 2006.
Since Italy joined the party, only four teams have won the tournament: France five times, England three, Wales twice and Ireland once. That much is well known. It takes a bit more research to realise that in seven of those 11 tournaments (63 per cent), the winner has played three home games. The only exceptions have been England in 2000, Wales in 2005, France in 2007 and Ireland in 2009.
There has yet to be a tournament in which the top three nations have been the three with a majority of home games, whereas in the curious 2005 contest the top three each played a majority of away games. On seven occasions, two of the top three have had “home advantage”. Italy have three times been wooden-spoonists despite having played three home games (in 2001, 2005 and 2009), while same applied to Scotland in 2007.
Any assessment is complicated by Italy clearly having been the weakest team – they finished last eight times, fifth twice (2003, 2004) and fourth once (2007). This is in turn reflected in the breakdown of home defeats and away wins in the 165 games 2000–2010:
This table shows the weakness of Italy and confirms Scotland as the second-weakest nation over the 11 years in question. The only Italian away win was the notorious 17–37 game at Murrayfield in 2007, when the visitors scored three tries in the first six minutes. Scotland’s four away wins have been against Italy in 2002 and 2006, Wales in 2002, and Ireland in 2010.
With an even number of teams taking part, a home/away imbalance appears inevitable. There is however a second quirk, which relates to this and perhaps slightly increases the potential for the tournament to have an inbuilt unfairness. The various Six Nations fixtures alternate home and away without change, such that in any even year Scotland will host England and France while visiting Wales, Ireland and Italy. Similarly, Wales host England and Ireland in each odd year while visiting Scotland, France and Italy.
Quite what effect this might have on overall results is difficult to assess, because team and squad strengths vary markedly from year to year. But it is hard to imagine that, when linked with the home/away imbalance, there is no effect at all.
Over the decade or so of the Six Nations, France and – to a lesser extent – England have been the strongest teams. To always play both either home or away in the same season – as Scotland and Ireland have to do – could have a telling effect. It would surely be harder for Scotland to win the championship in a season such as the present one, when faced with England and France away – even though, as Hamish Macdonell pointed out in his preview of Scotland’s chances, the three home games they do have are “eminently winnable”.
There is no suggestion, of course, that there is any deliberate bias or unfairness in all this – but it is a curiously uneven playing-field, one which other sports have attempted to eliminate. Then again, think of the complexity (some might say dog’s breakfast) of the current SPL setup, where 33 games are played followed by the late-season split, guaranteeing that teams will play an unequal number of home and away fixtures.
A similar problem occurs in chess, where having the white pieces (and hence having the first move) is a slight but significant advantage at grandmaster level. Hence when a recent top-level all-play-all tournament in London included eight players – meaning that four of them would only have the white pieces three times – much discussion ensued. In the event, and to confound the complainers, Magnus Carlsen won the event with four blacks.
One advantage that the Six Nations has over the old Five Nations is that teams never sit out. Both formats require five cycles, so spectators and sponsors are better served by seeing 15 games rather than ten. But 60 per cent of games proving to be home wins is a hefty proportion, and would be even higher with the “Italy effect” factored out.
As to what could be done to make things more satisfactory, one possibility – that Argentina could be included in the competition, bulking it up to a Seven Nations with each team playing three home and three away matches – is no longer an option.
Los Pumas have gone the other way and from 2012 will join the former Tri Nations along with New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. (The Tri Nations, it should be noted, has its own home/away quirk, with the current format seeing each team play each other three times.)
So with that idea off the table, an alternative for the Six Nations would be to play one cycle of games somewhere exotic (and warm), such as Abu Dhabi. In an even year, the games could be Wales–Scotland, France–England and Ireland–Italy. In each instance the first-named team would be notionally fulfilling one of its three home fixtures, and similarly with away matches for each of the second-named teams. That would leave the standard two home / two away setup for the remaining four rounds in the sleety mists of Europe.
If attempted, it would create new complexity (and generate new complaints), but would solve the existing problem and could prove to be a moneyspinner, attracting fresh interest in terms of corporate sponsorship and media rights.
Another idea would be to only award the Six Nations title every second season, allowing a genuine home-and-away round-robin to be played, albeit in two parts. This would be very fair, and would involve no upheaval, but the chances of it ever being adopted are surely vanishingly slim.
We need your support. Please donate to The Caledonian Mercury
Related posts: