The point I was making was that because a win on its own wasn't good enough, but teams had to win AND score points, it changed the way they approached the game and thus changed the way the games were played.
That's the thing: Events conspired to help create the spectacle we saw today, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect that that's how the game can be played all the time (at least at Test level).
First of all, you have three of the top five teams in the world playing a team that's falling apart, a team that still finding its footing, and a team that's a powerful basket case. Right now, if any of Wales, Ireland or England played New Zealand or South Africa or Australia, they might try to throw the ball around a bit and run up a score, but it wouldn't happen because each side's defense is too good (England would probably leak a few more than the rest; not sure about Australia). We saw record scoring today in part thanks to opposition teams that just didn't or couldn't defend well against the attacks they faced. Go back to last week's Wales-Ireland match, and Ireland attempted to play a bit more like they did today (they certainly tried to run and hammer the ball across the line), but Wales' defense just wasn't having it. Hence a lower score.
But both weeks were spectacles. I wouldn't trade Wales' record-setting tackles in that game for a higher score any day -- that kind of defense was something you rarely see. But I think today was something unique, and not something we should expect on a regular basis. Who wants to see Italy's second half every week?
But I agree that the squawks about changing rugby are over-blown, and frankly more political than anything else. Steve Hanson complained about the kicking in this year's 6N, but up until the Ireland-England game, the two teams to kick the most against England this year were New Zealand and South Africa (both kicked 25 times against England this past November). I think today showed how much refereeing also plays a role. How many scrums were blown up Saturday? I don't know if any game was stained with constant scrum resets and scolds from Sir. Offsides also seemed to be called more than in recent weeks, and when the players are keeping onside, that opens up a bit more space to create more positive, attacking rugby.
I don't think most NH teams
don't want to play the kind of rugby we saw today (at least from the winning sides, and some from France). But to run up scores like that you need an opposition defense to capitulate somewhat, and you need referees who will let them play and keep them honest about the offsides law.
Just to be clear, attacking rugby doesn't always equal more points. That's where my disagreement is, not with wanting to see attacking rugby.
(At club level that kind of open play is a little more possible, but a lot of factors have to be in place -- like a healthy team with plenty of game time together, and yeah, favorable conditions. Harlequins try to play like that, and haven't had much luck with either factor this season, and their record shows it. And when things aren't clicking, the factors aren't in place and the opposition has a decent defense, Quins have given up loads of points.)
EDIT: Just saw
an article about how introducing bonus points into the 6N would encourage more of the attacking rugby we saw today. I don't disagree. Just need to make sure something is worked out so that a team doesn't lose on points after winning every game.
