On Rugby: For interest's sake, it's perhaps no harm that this is perhaps the most open Six Nations since it became a sextet at the turn of the Millennium, and that four countries are tied on four points and can realistically entertain notions of winning the 2006 title. But sexy rugby, by and large, it ain't.

Eight home wins out of nine, defences on top by and large, a surprising lack of backline cut and thrust from setpiece play, and an awful lot of wearing down of opponents amid unexceptional skill levels or creativity.

Put another way, those watching from the other side of the world won't be quaking in their boots at the thought of Coupe du Monde 2007. Certainly none of the six competing nations have come close to emulating the attacking brio of the All Blacks last autumn, especially when you think of tries like the one scored direct off a lineout by Doug Howlett against Ireland when coming across field from his notional position on the right to provide an extra man.

France, currently held together by sticking tape it seems, and England, undoubtedly, have the most obvious capacity to find their range between now and then. But French players are simply overworked, and it must be a huge concern for Bernard Laporte and the French Federation, or at any rate it should be, that between club and Test commitments they have much the heaviest workload up to RWC 2007.

England, as Jeremy Guscott has opined, are perhaps better off having suffered the kind of defeat they inflicted in large part on themselves in Murrayfield on Saturday than in a World Cup quarter-final, always presuming this brand of stultifying rugby might get them there.

They had enough ball to win several matches, but when they decided to go wide through their pack, seemed not to have the slightest inclination to use the inroads being made by Josh Lewsey, especially out wide as an opportunity to create opportunities for others by offloading in the tackle, say, or finding close-in supporters - had there been any - before the tackle.

England looked like they were trying to play running rugby for the first time ever, seeming almost to seek contact and invariably coughed up the ball to the scavenging Scots at the breakdown.

Even Ireland don't seem to be as ambitious or as potent off setpieces through their backline as they used to be, especially when you think back to the Triple Crown success of two years ago. Eddie O'Sullivan yesterday contended that the gap between the supposed heavyweights and lightweights had narrowed, citing the Italians and in particular their "phenomenal scrum" against France on Saturday. It all helps to make Brian O'Driscoll's pre-tournament forecast that there might not be a Grand Slam winner this year far-sighted and wise.

Moreover, O'Sullivan maintained that defences in the Northern Hemisphere are currently more dominant, which means the Six Nations isn't throwing up high-scoring try feasts and end-to-end running rugby, but to the purists out there, he didn't think this was necessarily a bad thing. He also ventured that the pre-eminence of defences was, like all trends in the game, cyclical.

Certainly, you think of Scotland against England and France, even Ireland against Wales to a degree, and for that matter the Italians' defence against Ireland, and it would support O'Sullivan's theory.

O'Sullivan backed the idea on the basis that a Super 14, European Cup-type game, with a bonus point on offer might precipitate more risk-taking. It was a point made in these pages yesterday by Matt Williams, but then again as the last bastion of the old traditional virtues of two points for a win and none for a defeat, there's also something to be said for holding on to it.

Mightn't a desperate rush toward four tries in the second half have devalued Sunday's Lansdowne Road affair, even if it might in part have livened up the old place? (Sunday matches, as we all know, may suit TV schedulers but just don't cut it, in any shape or form.) Besides, it arguably makes the Six Nations the most relevant comparison to the knock-out stages of the World Cup, where the All Blacks have regularly floundered since winning the inaugural 1987 tournament.

When Ireland are confronted with the Scots and their new-found bullishness and defensive ferocity, they may well have to come up with the odd setpiece move through their backs to open them up. By sheer dint of numbers, it will probably afford them their best opportunity before the game moves into a rugby league style match-up across the pitch.

As for the increasingly vexed question of Ireland's tendency to work their way into games off slowish starts, O'Sullivan pointed out that Wales had eight setpieces to Ireland's four in the first 20 minutes, as well as three penalties and a free kick, which in turn meant Ireland received the ball deep in their territory and were obliged to kick it back to them.

"I'm not sure what you can do apart from defending," commented O'Sullivan, although he made the point that a team can win a psychological battle in the first 20 minutes with the quality of their defence.

As for receiving kick-offs, he said he was quite content for Ireland to kick to touch and back their defensive lineout. Running kick-offs back was a less viable option when faced by an invariably aggressive and well organised defensive wall in the game's opening play.

Later in the game, he added, Ireland moved a few kick-offs into the middle of the pitch and gave O'Gara a better angle to find touch. There is also, of course, the option of boxkicking and chasing, as many sides do, but you sense Ireland might have to become more pro-active and take more risks in the opening exchanges.