The Women’s Six Nations is Faster and Smarter – But is it Better?

Rewind to the final day of the 2024 Women’s Six Nations. England full-back Emma Sing sliced through the French defence not once, but twice, as the Red Roses snatched a breathless 43-42 victory in Bordeaux. It was a finale that had everything: lead changes, ferocious collisions, and a try count that would make a sevens player blush. The tournament had never looked more athletic, more tactical, or more explosive. Yet, as we approach the 25th edition of the competition, a nagging question lingers in the stands and the press box: in the rush to become faster and smarter, have we lost something precious?

The Women’s Six Nations is no longer a quiet undercard. It is a prime-time, high-stakes spectacle. But the paradox of progress is that improvement often comes with a cost. Let’s dissect whether the modern iteration of this championship is truly superior to its grittier, more idiosyncratic past.

The Evolution: From Grassroots Grit to Global Blueprint

To understand the present, we must revisit the origin story. The first 40 minutes of the inaugural Women’s Six Nations was, at best, a half for the purists. Estelle Sartini, a PE teacher from Caen, kicked the only points as France, one of the favourites for the title, headed for the dressing rooms with a 3-0 lead over Spain. Spain, remember, contested the first five editions before being replaced by Italy in 2007. Those early matches were defined not by blistering pace, but by dogged defence and occasional flashes of individual brilliance.

Back then, the game was slower, but it was also more chaotic. Players were often part-time athletes balancing teaching, nursing, or corporate jobs. The result was a competition that felt raw, unpredictable, and deeply human. Mistakes were frequent, but so were moments of pure, uncoached instinct. The scrum was a lottery, the lineout a gamble, and the backline moves often relied on a single star player breaking the line.

Fast forward to 2025. The professionalisation of the women’s game has been seismic. England’s squad are full-time athletes with access to sports science, nutritionists, and advanced analytics. France’s power game has been refined by years of centralised contracts. Ireland, Wales, and Scotland have invested heavily in pathways. The result is a tournament that is demonstrably faster—ruck speeds have dropped from four seconds to under two in many phases—and smarter, with defensive systems that mimic the men’s game.

• Speed: Ball-in-play time has increased by nearly 15% over the last decade.
• Tactical kicking: Teams now use box kicks and cross-field bombs with precision, not panic.
• Defensive structures: The blitz defence, once a novelty, is now a standard tool.
• Set-piece dominance: Lineout mauls are now a primary scoring weapon, not a secondary option.

But does this relentless pursuit of efficiency sterilise the very essence that made the women’s game special?

The Case for “Better”: Why Athleticism and Intelligence Win

Let’s start with the obvious argument. The 2024 final between England and France was a masterpiece of modern rugby. Emma Sing’s two tries were not just fast; they were tactically brilliant. Her first score came from a perfectly timed support line off a break. Her second was a chip-and-chase executed with the composure of a player who has rehearsed that move a thousand times. This is not the same game Estelle Sartini played in 1996. This is a sport that demands cognitive speed as much as physical speed.

The modern player is a hybrid. Consider the role of the full-back. In the early years, a full-back was a last line of defence. Today, they are a playmaker, a counter-attacking threat, and a secondary distributor. Emma Sing, for example, averages more metres per carry than many wingers, while also directing the defensive line. This evolution is not just cosmetic; it is a sign of a sport maturing.

Increased athleticism has also reduced the injury risk. Better conditioning, improved tackling technique, and structured contact training mean that the brutal collisions are now safer. The days of a player being concussed by a poorly executed tackle are less common. The game is smarter because it has to be—players cannot survive at this pace without understanding angles, timing, and body positioning.

Furthermore, the tactical depth has created new heroes. The fly-half is no longer just a kicker; they are a chess master. France’s lineout strategy, England’s blitz defence, and Italy’s offloading game are all products of a smarter generation. The 2025 tournament will likely feature more set-piece variations, more dummy switches, and more multi-phase attacks than ever before. For the purist who loves the chess match of rugby, this is a golden age.

The Case Against: Has the Soul Been Sacrificed for Structure?

Yet, there is a counter-narrative that deserves attention. The first 40 minutes of the 2024 tournament between France and Spain—a game that ended 38-3 to France—was a microcosm of the problem. The first half was sterile. France, with their superior fitness and systems, suffocated Spain. The scoreboard barely moved, not because of defensive brilliance, but because both teams were terrified of making a mistake. The game became a series of structured phases that lacked spontaneity.

This is the dark side of “smarter” rugby. When every player knows their exact role in a pre-programmed pattern, the game can become robotic. The distinctive character of the women’s game—the unpredictability, the raw emotion, the moments of individual magic—risks being engineered out. In the early years, a player like Sartini could win a match with a single, audacious run. Today, that run would likely be snuffed out by a well-drilled defensive system.

Consider the scrum. In the 1990s, scrums in the women’s game were often messy, but they were also a test of pure will. Now, with professional props and specific bind techniques, the scrum is more stable—but it has also become a penalty-generating machine. The introduction of the women’s scrum law variations was meant to speed things up, but it has instead created a new set of technical infringements that can stall the game.

There is also the question of entertainment value. The 43-42 thriller between England and France was an outlier. Many matches in the 2024 tournament were decided by large margins, thanks to superior conditioning and tactical systems. The gap between the top two (England and France) and the rest is widening. A smarter game often means a more predictable game, and that is dangerous for a competition that needs parity to grow.

Finally, we must ask: has the increased focus on structure stifled creativity? In the past, a player like Ireland’s Nora Stapleton or Scotland’s Rhona Lloyd could roam freely, inventing plays on the fly. Today, they are often shackled to a system. The best moments in the 2024 Six Nations—Sing’s chip-and-chase, a brilliant offload from France’s Gabrielle Vernier—came when players broke the script. But those moments are rarer than they used to be.

Predictions for 2025: What the 25th Edition Tells Us

As we prepare for the 25th edition, the trajectory is clear. England remain the favourites, thanks to their depth and tactical sophistication. Their ability to rotate players without dropping quality is unmatched. France will push them again, but their reliance on a few key stars (like Vernier and Romane Ménager) makes them vulnerable to injury. Italy is the dark horse—their offloading game is the most creative in the tournament, a throwback to the chaotic days of the 1990s.

However, the key battle will be between system vs. instinct. Ireland, under new coaching, are trying to blend structure with flair. Scotland have the athleticism but lack the tactical nous to close out tight games. Wales are rebuilding, but their young players are being taught a rigid system that may take years to pay off.

My prediction: England will win the 25th edition, but the most memorable moment will come from an individual breaking the pattern. A 50-metre solo try from a winger. A dummy pass that leaves three defenders grasping at air. The game is faster and smarter—but the heart of rugby still beats in those unscripted moments.

Conclusion: Better, But Not Yet Perfect

So, is the Women’s Six Nations better? The answer is a nuanced yes. The increased athleticism and tactical intelligence have elevated the competition to a level its founders could only dream of. The 43-42 thriller in 2024 was a testament to how far the game has come. Emma Sing’s performance was not just a display of speed; it was a showcase of rugby intelligence that would impress any men’s international.

Yet, the sport must guard against becoming too formulaic. The distinctive character of the women’s game—its history of grit, its underdog stories, its moments of pure, uncoached joy—is its greatest asset. The 25th edition should celebrate progress, but it must also remember that rugby is, at its core, a game of chaos. The best teams are the ones that can be smart without being sterile, fast without being frantic.

The Women’s Six Nations is faster. It is smarter. And for the most part, it is better. But the true test will come when the systems fail, and the players are left to rely on instinct. That is when the soul of the game shines brightest.

Source: Based on news from BBC Sport.