Talk:Triple Crown (rugby union)

Coal trophy

Prior to the new (2006) trophy donated by RBS, I recall a trophy carved from coal (and presumably treated in some way to prevent its erosion and soiling the hands of the dignitary charged with presenting it) being featured in the television preamble to a (then) 5 nations championship a few years ago. Was this just a short lived novelty, or was it regarded as a genuine tangible award to the victorious side? Kevin McE 12:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of this, but according to this pdf. There was a 'trophy' made out of coal but there is no suggestion that it was taken seriously.GordyB 10:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Have to get a photo of it, there's one in the RBS Press Section but not very clear. Stabilo boss 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Name Triple Crown

I think "Triple Crown" was attributed to James I/VI in Macbeth but am unsure.

James I / VI did have a 'Triple Crown' but whether the rugby union one is named after it is another matter. It is possible, but I think it is impossible to say where it derivates from. The above link I cited for the 'lump of coal' says that the term is first recorded in the Irish Times and nobody knows what they origin was. I don't think we'll get a better answer than that. The Triple Crown disambig page says for example that a Triple Crown is often awarded in sport for the winning of three things - this in my view is a possible origin of the name. Of course it is possible that other sports copied the title from rugby.GordyB 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess there's a fair chance of that. Certainly it must have its origins in a British sport played between the home nations, as a reference to James VI/I's rule over England, Scotland and Ireland, and rugby is the best candidate. Wouldn't surprise me if it was a Welshman who coined it originally, as it makes most sense as Wales "owning" England, Scotland and Ireland. FlagSteward (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand Slam

So if either of the home nations win all of the games they'd win both the Triple Crown and the Grand Slam? --Howard the Duck 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wales did it in 2005.GordyB 09:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wooden spoon

Means finishing bottom not losing all games. If you read the article on the wooden spoon, it comes from Cambridge awarding a wooden spoon for the person getting the bottom mark in maths. In other sports competitions e.g. the NRL - the bottom team gets the wooden spoon.

This article here [1] descibes Scotland as winning the wooden spoon even though they beat Wales.

Losing all games is a 'whitewash'.GordyB 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First use

The Oxford English dictionary give the fist use as "1899 Whitaker's Almanack 1900 648/2 In their last match at Cardiff against Wales, Ireland won by a try to nothing, securing the triple crown with three straight victories as in 1894." --PBS (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I added this to the article.Victor Yus (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Table

In my opinion, the table of past winners is a little inefficient. Would anyone be dead against the idea of grouping together the years with no winner as follows?

1883	England
1884	England
1885-90	Not achieved
1891	Scotland
1892	England
1893	Wales
1894	Ireland
1895	Scotland
1896-98	Not achieved
1899	Ireland
1900	Wales
1901	Scotland
1902	Wales
1903	Scotland
1904	Not achieved
1905	Wales
1906	Not achieved
1907	Scotland
1908	Wales
1909	Wales
1910	Not achieved
1911	Wales
1912	Not achieved
1913	England
1914	England
1915-19	Not held due to World War I
1920	Not achieved
1921	England
1922	Not achieved
1923	England
1924	England
1925	Scotland
1926-27	Not achieved
1928	England
1929-32	Not achieved
1933	Scotland
1934	England
1935-36	Not achieved
1937	England
1938	Scotland
1939	Not achieved
1940–46	Not held due to World War II
1947	Not achieved
1948	Ireland
1949	Ireland
1950	Wales
1951	Not achieved
1952	Wales
1953	Not achieved
1954	England
1955-56	Not achieved
1957	England
1958-59	Not achieved
1960	England
1961-64	Not achieved
1965	Wales
1966-68	Not achieved
1969	Wales
1970	Not achieved
1971	Wales
1972-75	Not achieved
1976	Wales
1977	Wales
1978	Wales
1979	Wales
1980	England
1981	Not achieved
1982	Ireland
1983	Not achieved
1984	Scotland
1985	Ireland
1986-87	Not achieved
1988	Wales
1989	Not achieved
1990	Scotland
1991	England
1992	England
1993-94	Not achieved
1995	England
1996	England
1997	England
1998	England
1999-01	Not achieved
2002	England
2003	England
2004	Ireland
2005	Wales
2006	Ireland
2007	Ireland
2008	Wales
2009	Ireland
2010

DrFishcake (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it - even better, put it into 5+ columns. FlagSteward (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--27.33.234.172 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC) seems logical, although for Ireland pre 1922, would the St Patrick's flag be suitable as that was their flag at the time? (following football flag usage conventions)?

Triple crown winner not winning six nations

I made an edit that it was not only France or Italy that could win the six nations when another nation won the triple crown, stating that any other home nation could also win it.

The edit was reverted on the grounds of "improbable scenario".

I would dispute this - with all due respect to Italy I would say it is just as likely for a home nations team to win the six nations when another wins the triple crown. A perfect example is this year:

Wales have won the triple crown. However if they were to lose to France, and England won their remaining two games - all of which is possible - the winner of the six nations would then come down to points difference. The current wording implies that it is impossible for a home nations team to win the six nations and another to win the triple crown. It should be removed, or expanded to mention that it is "simpler" for Italy or France to end up in that situation.

In fact, this almost occured in 1996. England won the triple crown and the five nations. However, Scotland also won 3 games. Had they won by bigger margins, or England by smaller margins, Scotland would have taken the five nations despite England winning the triple crown.

I know this is original research, but so is the current statement.

Richjhart (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

... on points-difference...

Unlike the Grand Slam, the Triple Crown winners will not necessarily be the tournament winners, since France or Italy–or even another of the home nations– could outperform them on points-difference within the Six Nations Championship. This first occurred in the 1977 Five Nations Championship, when Wales won the Triple Crown by defeating the other three British Isles teams, while France won the Championship by completing the Grand Slam over all four of the British Isles teams. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily on points-difference even, it could be outright, couldnt it? If England took the Triple Crown but lost to both France and Italy, while Wales won all their matches except the one against England, then Wales would be above England in the table regardless of points-difference.--Victor Yus (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, results of matches will always take precedence over numbers of points won or leaked in determining the Championship winner.

I am sure you don't need to ask who I support. What about yourself? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm of mixed ancestry so I can take my pick, but I admit I always find a Welsh victory particularly rousing. Perhaps because the brilliant performances of G. Edwards & co. are among my earliest sporting memories... Victor Yus (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We are clearly of the same generation. The coming weekends should be great. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it will always be possible for a team - even another home nations team - to win outright on points alone. I only specified points difference because that scenario is more likely at the moment because Italy are CURRENTLY less likely to beat a triple crown winner. There is nothing to say that should the competition get closer then the scenario of a different home nations team being the outright winner on points starts to get more likely. There is nothing mathematicaly stopping it this year in fact - although to be honest it seems unlikely to me. Note as well that it was not possible until it became the six nations.Richjhart (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't entirely follow this conversation, but is there anyone who now objects to removing the "on points-difference" from the current text? I would just say "...since France or Italy - or even another of the home nations - could outperform them over the Championship as a whole". This covers all the mathematical possibilities.Victor Yus (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Agreed. This is, after all, the article on the Triple Crown, and not the Grand Slam.

I have just taken the comment from view.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

... and ammended the sentence to match your suggestion. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What say we move this paragraph out of the intro, where it dominates unnecessarily? Well, I'm about to do it anyway - anyone who disagrees, just revert me.Victor Yus (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Current revision looks good to me.Richjhart (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree,too. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hunting

Great 77.75.244.13 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)