The Gap between NH and SH has narrowed...!

Gwyn Jones offers his opinions on the Tournament and the gulf between Six Nations and Tri-Nations having narrowed considerably.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2011/09/22/gwyn-jones-world-cup-proves-gap-between-north-and-south-has-been-dramatically-reduced-91466-29463363/

I do wonder though whether the great result by Ireland over the Aussies and Wales' narrow loss to SA was purely early tournament jitters?

The truth will be found as France take on the All Blacks this weekend. A result for the french could really open up this tournament and our perceptions on currently who is where in world rugby and whether the permanently perceived chasm between the standards of North and South are really that accurate in 2011.

More fruitful again though is how the gap between all teams involved has narrowed and that the minnows are now a rough ride and not a cricket score. Some great performances be Georgia, Romania and the PI nations attests to that so far.

I think it's way to early to say that. Certainly the results over the past few years don't indicate that at all and neither do the IRB rankings.

I don't think any team has shown their full hand yet so lets see where things stand after the competition.

Right now you'd still expect the Web ellis trophy to remain in the SH.

I hate to say it, but Wales have really impressed me recently, and Ireland when on song have been superb. There is still a big gap though in my eyes and it's a pure psychological gap. The 3N sides expect to win EVERY game. The 6N sides would often be happy with a good performance against the 3N sides.

When Wales lost to SA the supporters and the team should've been furious with the fact that the game was there for them to take and they didn't take it. The Irish fans should be happy with their win but it shouldn't be seen as some kind of amazing performance, just a solid win. I'm not picking on those two nations in particular, it's just that they had the most recent examples of this. Until this psychological difference is corrected there will always be a big gap because at the top level it's the top three inches that play the biggest part.

As for the "minnows", they are getting closer but have a similar thing to the 6N that the 6N have to the 3N. They need to believe they can win.

I think it's failry clear that the NH teams have now figured out ways of neutralising the threats posed by Australia and South Africa (noting also Engalnd's two wins over Australia last year) - OK, so they still have to play exceptionally well to actually be successful, but at least the game plan is there. So yes I think it's fair to say the gap has narrowed a bit.

Not so sure we (i.e. any of the NH teams) really have a way of stopping the All Blacks (other than incapacitating Carter and McCaw) - while both the Boks and Wallabies have significant weaknesses in their games, the ABs are a very strong combination of forwards and backs.

The only hope I give France is if they just have one of 'those' games and run tries in from everywhere, and so win by out scoring NZ rather than by stopping NZ playign.

roddersm wrote:I think it's way to early to say that. Certainly the results over the past few years don't indicate that at all and neither do the IRB rankings.

I don't think any team has shown their full hand yet so lets see where things stand after the competition.

Right now you'd still expect the Web ellis trophy to remain in the SH.

rodders, that is true, but the final is now most likely to be contested between the hemispheres rather than just between countries from the SH? Interesting article on this in today's Herald (ignore the part about ScovsArg): SH vs NH final

roddersm wrote:I think it's way to early to say that. Certainly the results over the past few years don't indicate that at all and neither do the IRB rankings.

I don't think any team has shown their full hand yet so lets see where things stand after the competition.

Right now you'd still expect the Web ellis trophy to remain in the SH.

I dont disagree that it is early to say that the gap has narrowed, and the inevitable draw in the semis at the moment alludes to being a fifty fifty split NH and SH. The post was in relation to the article linked to the thread, not a personal opinion, just something I thought may spark an interesting debate.

With regards to teams potential.. I think any top ten nation that has come up against each other, bar injury has put out their best team. Why wouldn't they, they need to win those matches, and by the performances given by those teams, it looks like they were playing with their best against their oppositions best too.

I agre though that NZ or SA are most likely to be the winners. Thank god that Rugby is less predictable

screamingaddabs wrote:I hate to say it, but Wales have really impressed me recently, and Ireland when on song have been superb. There is still a big gap though in my eyes and it's a pure psychological gap. The 3N sides expect to win EVERY game. The 6N sides would often be happy with a good performance against the 3N sides.

When Wales lost to SA the supporters and the team should've been furious with the fact that the game was there for them to take and they didn't take it. The Irish fans should be happy with their win but it shouldn't be seen as some kind of amazing performance, just a solid win. I'm not picking on those two nations in particular, it's just that they had the most recent examples of this. Until this psychological difference is corrected there will always be a big gap because at the top level it's the top three inches that play the biggest part.

As for the "minnows", they are getting closer but have a similar thing to the 6N that the 6N have to the 3N. They need to believe they can win.

I agree, most of us were very annoyed that we didn't win that match. I guess that some decorum encouraged us to be polite.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

roddersm wrote:I think it's way to early to say that. Certainly the results over the past few years don't indicate that at all and neither do the IRB rankings.

I don't think any team has shown their full hand yet so lets see where things stand after the competition.

Right now you'd still expect the Web ellis trophy to remain in the SH.

rodders, that is true, but the final is now most likely to be contested between the hemispheres rather than just between countries from the SH? Interesting article on this in today's Herald (ignore the part about ScovsArg): SH vs NH final

any chance of a copy and paste on that article mate???

Although, we'll see what happens at the business end of the tournament...

ASBO as someone pointed out on here somewhere before the last 3 finals were contested by a team from the SH v NH. I wouldn't take too much comfort in that because it comes down to the draw too.

I agree above that it's a psychological gap. However there is also a skill gap too. Apart from France and occaisionally Wales, the NH players just aren't as comfortable with the ball as the SH players.

One thing that has closed is the physicality and fitness gap. The NH teams don't fall away any more after 60-70 min the way they used to and in some cases are arguably fitter. Similarly the "minnows" are much fitter and more organised hence they don't concede massive amounts of points the way the used to.

I'd say the gap between the top 16-17 sides has narrowed a lot but the Tri Nations sides are still the standard setters and the odd victory by the 6N sides doesn't change that.

screamingaddabs wrote: The Irish fans should be happy with their win but it shouldn't be seen as some kind of amazing performance, just a solid win.

Sorry but it was much better than a solid win. To beat the Tri Nations champions by 9 points, preventing them from scoring a try or securing a losing bonus point is an amazing performance and I don't say that lightly. You'll find no more critical Irish fan than me but in 17-18 years of watching Irish rugby that was the best performance bar none.

There is plenty to improve on from an Irish perspective, no question, but in no way shape or form would I describe that as "just a solid win".

maestegmafia wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

roddersm wrote:I think it's way to early to say that. Certainly the results over the past few years don't indicate that at all and neither do the IRB rankings.

I don't think any team has shown their full hand yet so lets see where things stand after the competition.

Right now you'd still expect the Web ellis trophy to remain in the SH.

rodders, that is true, but the final is now most likely to be contested between the hemispheres rather than just between countries from the SH? Interesting article on this in today's Herald (ignore the part about ScovsArg): SH vs NH final

any chance of a copy and paste on that article mate???

"As the World Cup moves towards its biggest collisions, the team that travelled furthest to be here stands alone in trying to prevent a separation of the Hemispheres.

If local commentators are to be believed, we are poised for a straight split in the draw: the four countries that will contest the Southern Hemisphere’s new elite international competition next year will have a practice run at it in one half, while the four countries that have won grand slams in Europe over the past eight years, contest the other.

On form there is justification for taking that view. Certainly, Ireland and Wales are on course to meet in one quarter-final with the winners to meet the winners of what is expected to be an England v France clash, while South Africa and Australia will meet to decide who faces the All Blacks, who would surely overcome Argentina’s Pumas in their quarter-final.

Unrated Scotland could, though, change all of that with two matches inside a week that will decide first who goes through in Pool B, then who wins it.

A combination of Argentina’s performances at the last World Cup and relative performance here in New Zealand have resulted in most of those not in and around the Scotland camp having decided to overlook the current world rankings and make the Pumas favourites for Sunday’s match, while it is all but assumed that England will win the pool.

Admittedly, Scotland have slipped down those rankings in the course of this tournament, but that is not a result of their failure; it is simply a result of that astonishing Irish performance in beating the Tri-Nations champions Australia which made up for all the harm they did themselves with their abysmal run of results in World Cup warm-up matches.

The rankings have their critics and an imbalance in the number of playing opportunities, even among some of the top countries, leads to anomalies in the years in between, but World Cups, with the extra weighting matches receive, tend to sort things out.

Right now, few would argue that the Springboks, having looked hugely impressive in their demolition of Fiji last weekend, prior to that surprise defeat for the Wallabies, are entitled to return to second place in the rankings behind the All Blacks.

None of the European nations have been consistently impressive, but again the listing of Six Nations champions England as the best of them in fourth place, with France next and now Ireland, then Wales, would also be accepted by most as correctly reflecting current status.

Yet the general consensus seems to be that the rankings are wrong in having Scotland still in the top eight and Argentina, third at the end of the last World Cup, one place behind them.

We shall see on Sunday, but Andy Robinson’s understanding of tournament play has to be a factor and, while there has been nothing stylish about it, Scotland’s performances seem to have been building steadily towards this match. If they win it, then a European team is certain to be heading into the “Southern Hemisphere” half of the draw. In that case, every New Zealander would be on tenterhooks as much as the Scots and English ahead of the Pool B decider.

The reality is that the Kiwis would dread facing England in the quarter-finals, and would see Scotland as the easiest possible route through, a constant refrain in these parts having been that Scotland have never beaten New Zealand and no-one here thinks they ever will.

That is as maybe, but it is moot whether the hosts’ route to glory has already been made easier or has been toughened by what happened when Ireland beat the Wallabies last week.

There is no question that the Australians remain the opponents they fear most and there was initially some surprise at the idea of having to take them on ahead of the final.

Realisation quickly dawned, though, that this means the two countries they see as their biggest rivals – such is the Southern Hemisphere view of the rugby world – will knock lumps out of one another immediately ahead of a probable meeting with the All Blacks in the semi-final.

If all goes according to plan, the All Blacks will have what they expect to be a relatively straightforward task of cruising through against one of two sides that have never beaten them, Argentina or Scotland.

There is genuine belief in the Scottish camp that not only will they qualify but that they can still finish top of the pool and face a probable quarter-final with France which, on neutral territory, they would also believe they could win.

That is not what New Zealanders want to see but, on the other hand, records such as those of the Scots and the Pumas against the All Blacks have to be broken some time.

Perhaps these Kiwis should be just a little bit careful about what they wish for."

roddersm wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote: The Irish fans should be happy with their win but it shouldn't be seen as some kind of amazing performance, just a solid win.

Sorry but it was much better than a solid win. To beat the Tri Nations champions by 9 points, preventing them from scoring a try or securing a losing bonus point is an amazing performance and I don't say that lightly. You'll find no more critical Irish fan than me but in 17-18 years of watching Irish rugby that was the best performance bar none.

There is plenty to improve on from an Irish perspective, no question, but in no way shape or form would I describe that as "just a solid win".

Agreed, rodders, but given the nature of the tournament, it's a 'nothing' performance unless you build on it or there is some repetition arguably?

roddersm wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote: The Irish fans should be happy with their win but it shouldn't be seen as some kind of amazing performance, just a solid win.

Sorry but it was much better than a solid win. To beat the Tri Nations champions by 9 points, preventing them from scoring a try or securing a losing bonus point is an amazing performance and I don't say that lightly. You'll find no more critical Irish fan than me but in 17-18 years of watching Irish rugby that was the best performance bar none.

There is plenty to improve on from an Irish perspective, no question, but in no way shape or form would I describe that as "just a solid win".

This is the difference between the teams though. If NZ or SA had just beaten Aus by the same margin would they be calling it an amazing performance? Their expectations are so much higher and they really believe in themselves to meet those expectations. Ireland played well and deserved their win but they should be saying that that is how they should always perform instead of viewing it as some kind of super human effort. Maybe "solid win" is perhaps a bit far, but I wouldn't go beyond a "good win" if it were SA or NZ describing the performance. That is the difference. Same applies to all the NH teams.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Agreed, rodders, but given the nature of the tournament, it's a 'nothing' performance unless you build on it or there is some repetition arguably?

Absolutely ASBO. In terms of the result, it is just another win, no more important than beating Italy in the context of the competition. The performance was amazing non the less.

I agree it means nothing if we don't build on it and show some consistancy. That said I'll happily take 1 point wins over Russia and Italy

roddersm wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Agreed, rodders, but given the nature of the tournament, it's a 'nothing' performance unless you build on it or there is some repetition arguably?

Absolutely ASBO. In terms of the result, it is just another win, no more important than beating Italy in the context of the competition. The performance was amazing non the less.

I agree it means nothing if we don't build on it and show some consistancy. That said I'll happily take 1 point wins over Russia and Italy

Good man

I see little changing.



New Zealand are the best but could lose to France.

The 6 Nations are capable of beating SA and Australia.



Mentally New Zealand represent a big barrier for all bar France.

screamingaddabs wrote:
This is the difference between the teams though. If NZ or SA had just beaten Aus by the same margin would they be calling it an amazing performance?

Well the 1st point I would say is I'd imagine NZ would have taken a 9 point win over Australia if it meant retaining their Tri Nations title.

The second thing is you can't compare the expectations of NZ to Irelands or even England or France's. NZ are the number one ranked side in the world. SA are the reigning champions.

No one in Ireland will be resting on their laurels and basking in glory. They'll be scrutinizing the performance to the nth degree to find ways to improve.

For example Jonny Sexton, BOD, Heaslip, Earls etc. have all been singled out for criticism for instance because we are not satisfied with just winning a one off game. We know we need to be better.

However beating Australia in WC's is not the norm for Ireland so you have to understand why the result was a bigger deal for us than say NZ or SA.

roddersm wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:
This is the difference between the teams though. If NZ or SA had just beaten Aus by the same margin would they be calling it an amazing performance?

Well the 1st point I would say is I'd imagine NZ would have taken a 9 point win over Australia if it meant retaining their Tri Nations title.

The second thing is you can't compare the expectations of NZ to Irelands or even England or France's. NZ are the number one ranked side in the world. SA are the reigning champions.

No one in Ireland will be resting on their laurels and basking in glory. They'll be scrutinizing the performance to the nth degree to find ways to improve.

For example Jonny Sexton, BOD, Heaslip, Earls etc. have all been singled out for criticism for instance because we are not satisfied with just winning a one off game. We know we need to be better.

However beating Australia in WC's is not the norm for Ireland so you have to understand why the result was a bigger deal for us than say NZ or SA.

Plus at the time, the match was between the 2nd ranked team in the world (that had recently beaten the first ranked team) and the then 8th ranked team in the world who had had a torrid time of it in preparation for the RWC?

Of course the gap has narrowed - results are there to prove it. The gap however is still significant and I feel that the NH is usually playing catch up to the big three SH teams who are imo more innovative in evolving the game.

red_stag wrote:
Mentally New Zealand represent a big barrier...

That seems to be the biggest hurdle.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

roddersm wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:
This is the difference between the teams though. If NZ or SA had just beaten Aus by the same margin would they be calling it an amazing performance?

Well the 1st point I would say is I'd imagine NZ would have taken a 9 point win over Australia if it meant retaining their Tri Nations title.

The second thing is you can't compare the expectations of NZ to Irelands or even England or France's. NZ are the number one ranked side in the world. SA are the reigning champions.

No one in Ireland will be resting on their laurels and basking in glory. They'll be scrutinizing the performance to the nth degree to find ways to improve.

For example Jonny Sexton, BOD, Heaslip, Earls etc. have all been singled out for criticism for instance because we are not satisfied with just winning a one off game. We know we need to be better.

However beating Australia in WC's is not the norm for Ireland so you have to understand why the result was a bigger deal for us than say NZ or SA.

Plus at the time, the match was between the 2nd ranked team in the world (that had recently beaten the first ranked team) and the then 8th ranked team in the world who had had a torrid time of it in preparation for the RWC?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be very happy to beat a team far higher up in the rankings, I'm just saying that it would happen more often if teams really believed they could do it all the time. This idea that teams from the NH need to play an exceptional game to beat the SH holds them back. In the back of the mind there always seems to be a slight feeling that the NH is not as good. Obviously results have shown that they aren't as good, but it's a vicious circle.

Basically my main point is that the biggest difference between the SH and the NH in my opinion is the mental side of the game rather than the physical side.

For the gap to be truly considered Narrowed NH teams need to emulate England and take on the SH giants in their own backyards.England last year proved they have it when they beat the Wobblies home and Away and hence are a deserved fourth on the rankings .

Just my two cents.

To assess whether the gap has norrowed won't be answered by a few one off matches in a world cup.

To detect any trend you need to measure it over time.

beginning RWC 1995 to beginning RWC 1999
NZ win ratio 91%
OZ win ratio 93%
SA win ratio 91%

Beginning RWC 1999 to beginning RWC 2003
NZ win ratio 74%
OZ win ratio 65%
SA win ratio 60%

Beginning RWC 2003 to beginning RWC 2007
NZ win ratio 100%
OZ win ratio 74%
SA win ratio 64%

Beginning RWC 2007 to beginning RWC 2011
NZ win ratio 92%
SA win ratio 85%
OZ win ratio 78%

From this SA was dragged back between 1999 and 2007, Australia dragged back between 1999 and 2003, but has slowly pulled away again.

England and France are the main contributors for these figures and Ireland next.

But in my opinion the gap seems pretty much constant.

Lol Biltong let them have this one bru

Observations,Australia has always been the most beatable SH side,the All Blacks the least.
RWCs are different games to the general scheme of things,Scotland and France won all there warm up games,England and Wales some each Ireland none.
RWC always throws up odd results,Wales have won one and drawn one with the Boks.That has`nt changed,they`ve beaten the All Blacks 3 times too.
Ireland had a great result,who was most surprised Australia or Ireland?
France beating the All Blacks any time is not a surprise,they are the only side from NH to beat them in a RWC.
For all the jibes about choking the All Blacks about them choking,they still have the best RWC record.
Only 33 matches have been lost by them in the professional era ,only 8 0f them to NHsides.The Great England side 1994-2005 played them 11 times,won just 2 have`nt beaten them since 2003.
Australia are 3Ns champions and have beaten both SA and NZ,SA has beaten NZ.NZ has beaten them both,this years like 2007 was prioritized not considered important in RWC years.
NZ has 3 times the Super titles,and 3Ns titles than the other two sides in
SH,but only 1 RWC.A about 76% overall win ratio over ALL teams since 1903,an 81% ratio in the PRO era,near 85% under Graham Henry and co.
Ireland have only done the Grand slam twice,but have had some very near misses in between.
SH sides arn`t intimidated by each other,neither are NH sides because they play each other so often.
To sum up NO

biltongbek wrote:
But in my opinion the gap seems pretty much constant.

In terms of results yes but thats only half the story. You don't often see the SH teams putting 20-50 points in the NH teams the way they once did.

I bet if you look at say Wales v SA over the past 15 years you'll see that the Matches have become much closer even if it's one way traffic in terms of results.

Rodders, I am sorry but the problem with your theory is that if and when we get NH sides to tour SA they send half baked teams to us and get pastings.

When we go north we send halfbaked teams there, so it is difficult to be truly accurate with these stats either way.

I think the gap is closing but it is still there and rather wide.

Take ENG & FRA out of the equation and we see the other 6N's sides ave. point gap in 3N opposition matches fall consistantly post RWC99.

I took these figures from pick & go from matches between the various 3N sides and the 6N teams minus FRA & ENG.

New Zealand

99-03 ave. points scored 49. Conceded 15 (+34 point gap).
03-07 ave. point scored 42. Conceded 12 (+30 point gap).
07-11 ave. point scored 33. Conceded 11 (+22 point gaps).

Australia

99-03 ave. points scored 27. Conceded 13 (+14 point gap).
03-07 ave. point scored 32. Conceded 17 (+15 point gap).
07-11 ave. point scored 24. Conceded 14 (+10 point gaps).

South Africa

99-03 ave. points scored 31. Conceded 18 (+13 point gap).
03-07 ave. point scored 32. Conceded 17 (+15 point gap).
07-11 ave. point scored 28. Conceded 16 (+12 point gaps).

Its slow progress but progress nevertheless... not something to shout from the roof tops though.

There' still definately a gap - there aren't too many occasions in which a NH team wins a match when playing a SH team in their own country.

However, I do think that the SH team can become a bit complacent (obviously not arrogant ) when playing NH teams. the way the Australian press have reacted to the ireland defeat is close to being very disrespectful to Ireland. Oz may have been favourites to win the game, but it was never a certainty.

the only gulf that has closed is Ireland and Wales have caught up with France and England, and South Africa and Australia have regressed. you expect one of them to be average, but I think both of them are very iffy at the moment.

The problem is most Nations will lose a few players after the world Cup and we will all be back to square one again.

But everyone is in the same boat... SA loses Smit, Matfield, Bakkies, Du Preez and probably Russouw, JDV, Habana, James, Muller so they will be team most affected by the end of the RWC 4 year cycle.

Lineout wise SA have been king since 04 so it will be interesting to see how things far with that. Bekker will be back and players like Kruger at the bulls will want to establish themselves as test players. It won't be easy though.. especially in a key area of ball retention.

bismarck for smit - OK
Andries Bekker for Victor - OK
? for Bakkies - Problem
Sarel Pretorius, Francois Hougaard, Dewald Duvenhage for Fourie du Preez - OK
Frans Steyn,Juan du Jongh, Johann Sadie for Jean de Villiers - OK
Mvovo for Habana - OK
Lambie, Jantjies, Steyn for James - OK
Muller hasn't been part of the set up for so long, he is merely a replacement himself.

I agree the team is not in bad shape for the future whatever players emerge as first team replacements, but such a drop in experience will hurt any team regardless of replacements.

Personally I'm not convinced about strength in depth at 12. De Jongh is just a little small and the way the game is played he will always be a target. I'd rather throw him in at 13 where he is less of a target. Whatever happened to Barry Geel.... I had high hopes for that guy

Leadership will be key to the boks.... who takes over with Matfield & Smit leaving? I think Schalk would be the best player to become Captain but can he retain his place for a further 2 years min?

Lets just hope post RWC its Rassie pulling the strings.. if thats the case I'm sure Schalk will be the man.

Frans Steyn looks like he's writing his name in cement for the 12 jersey ,DE jongh is a 13 i've always said it not a 12 i dunno why PDv insists on chucking him in at inside center.

As for leadershio i think the Boks will be moving from the bulls players(fdp,Victor,danie ) and smit to the stormers core ( schalk ,fourie ,bekker) with ultimate captaincy going to Schalk burger ....or Sa goverment will feel the need to shake things round a bit in which case Chiliboy will be made captain

http://www.iol.co.za/sport/rugby/boks-prefer-to-be-boring-1.1143014 funny article

Cool article thanks Bullsbok

Cheers AsLongAsBut100ofUs...!

Maes