World Top 3 Rankings.......can any NH side consistently stay there?

Given my current post regarding France I thought I would widen the discussion to all NH sides. I feel NH sides are seriously disadvantaged in maintaining the top spots consistently.

Our setup for a season is a total mess. International coaches have them for a few weeks here and there then 3 spells in February-April, June-July, November.
Basically its a total mine field. We've already seen what Gatland achieved with Wales when he had them for longer training periods. Given there are so many Rugby commitments in the annual calender we are hindered compared to our SH counterparts who have geared their season to performing against us and maintain the status quo.

They play S15 from Feb to July, Tri Nations & Autumn tours. That essentially means that a national coach over there gets to prepare his side for months. With that amount of time its no suprise to me that the SH sides do so well when they come over in November. Given that our June Tours tend to be warm ups for the Tri Nations games you can see why the focus is so great on their part. They have a far less complex season to deal with and their system works in block format. Essentially they need to be in the top 3 though as IRB money is handed out on a scaling model.

If they could move the HC to April & May with a late season kick off in the Leagues from June to Oct a national coach could actually keep the players from Nov to April without having to worry about it. I'm sure the Tours could fall during Jan-Feb to accomodate both the SH and NH teams. Plus it would be summer as well so as a spectacle the Rugby would be better. I admit that it would bunch International Rugby together a little though but it could allow us to perform at the highest level.

Added bonus ofc would be that Club/Regional Rugby would get to play during the Summer which I think we can all aggree would be a good thing.

Anyone else feel the current system does not really allow us to compete against the best in the World?

It definitely doesn't help however I think we are getting closer to the SH.
Unfortunately the reason I believe this is because the SH have started to mess up their season by expanding the Super series to 15 and using a horrible conference system.They are more likely to fall to our level than we are to climb up to theirs.

No. Possibly intermittently.

It's because they have better weather and climate than us up here. So play outside more at an earlier age and learn basic skills better than us.

That is a very good point.

I do wish that the season would be looked at because I am convinced if we had summer rugby in the NH we would see bigger attendances (no one likes staying in when its sunny out), not competiting against Football and I cant think of a better past time that having a pint while watching rugby.

I think you should refer to 3N, not SH. We have yet to see how Argentina's expansion into the 4N will affect their performances, but we've seen how well Samoa performed at RWC with a 35 day preparation period. If they had the access and organisation of their players that 6N has through the year, let alone 3/4N, I have little doubt that they would be a fair bit higher in the rankings. Similarly with Fiji (internal strife excepted) and Tonga.

There's always someone worse off.

Their (SH) ability up until this point has and does disadvantage NH sides from maintaining top spots consistently.

What happens from here on in is just another rung on the usual ladder - will this be the year NH sides gain parity or dominance? Well, the truth is out there.

Blaming timings of seasons, rain, muck, low attendances, longer seasons, tougher leagues have all been tried in the past, and it insults the SH sides who have simply been consistently stronger, faster, tougher, wiser and fitter than their NH colleagues.

Changing what we play when we say we're playing rugby is the way to gain parity not saying we'd do well if logistics better suited us.

What if your clubs/regions/provinces are strong and successful and you don't like going to an International set-up you don't fully trust - you're then stuck with organisers you don't trust or believe in telling you how they want to play for long stretches in a year - perhaps taking the edge off the skillsets you use so effectively at club level?

Now, turn that same argument vice versa. International players might hate being so long away from the umbilical cord of a system they thrive under to return to a depressed and depressing club set-up where a long run of bad results might take the sheen off your considered abilities and have them replaced by the next new thing when the International season starts up again.

International coaches tend to use continuing form of clubs to keep an eye on player strengths and form... they'd be without that vehicle to work through problems if International operated in a time period when club was closed down. Plus - that year you have is a full calendar one?.

gowershowerpower wrote:No. Possibly intermittently.

It's because they have better weather and climate than us up here. So play outside more at an earlier age and learn basic skills better than us.

Having experienced 19 of them, NZ is known to have miserable weather in winter.....not an excuse! You do alude to another point though....what kids do in the parks here (UK) is play football. In NZ, it is touch rugby in the parks, at school, anywhere....

SF - talking shoite.

gowershowerpower wrote:SF - talking shoite.

Do explain for me.

Welshmushroom wrote:Given there are so many Rugby commitments in the annual calender we are hindered compared to our SH counterparts who have geared their season to performing against us and maintain the status quo.

They play S15 from Feb to July, Tri Nations & Autumn tours. That essentially means that a national coach over there gets to prepare his side for months. With that amount of time its no suprise to me that the SH sides do so well when they come over in November. Given that our June Tours tend to be warm ups for the Tri Nations games you can see why the focus is so great on their part. They have a far less complex season to deal with and their system works in block format. Essentially they need to be in the top 3 though as IRB money is handed out on a scaling model.

Anyone else feel the current system does not really allow us to compete against the best in the World?

Sorry welshmushroom, but you cannot be more incorrect with your assumption of how long the international coaches have with our players.

Last year two of our teams were involved in the play offs, as for most of the last 5 years. That meant our national coach has in some cases less than a week with some players.

This year the super Xv runs past the June test window which means once again the coaches will be lucky to get their hands on the players for more than a week.

Our November tours are right at the end of our season, often SA leaves a handfull of their top players at home and they don't even tour then, plus the fact that after 10 months of some of the toughest rugby on the planet they get to travel to the cold weather of Europe, I am frankly surprised that we still win 75% of our tests during november as I would expect a lack of hunger to perfrom of so many tough months.

The reason why they are in the top three has little to do with the fact that our coaches have more time with our players.

I just came back from a months holiday in NZ and its clear why they are the best.

In every town I visited I saw people chucking a rugby ball about. I watched a bunch of teenagers playing touch and their passing skills and speed were amazing.

An im not lying by saying every single Kiwi I met mentioned the Rugby world cup in some way. If you are Rugby mad, I would move to NZ you'll be very happy.

People often say England should be the best rugby team down to the number of players and resources they have available. New Zealand may have less players, but they definitely have a much better crop than England.

SA and AUS have a similar rugby loving culture aswell(except the aussies like league and Aussie Rules more), and they get to constantly play against NZ in the Super 15 and Tri nations.

Now Argentina are in the Quad nations I bet they will take the 4th place spot in the world ranking regularly. They will get to play 6 matches against top opposition within a short period.. They will only get better! I think winning just one match a series would be enough to keep them above 5th?

Until UK mentality changes then they will never be able to vie with NZ. Tom has seen it in a month, I have had 20 years of seeing how NZ dominate the game.

Kids in the UK for the vast majority turn to football first, if you are no good, too tall or overweight then you may be pushed to the lonely pitch with large poles at each end of the field rather than goals with a net!

From a Welsh prospective the WRU ignore North Wales and 1000's of players. George North and Robin McBryde are some of the fortunate ones (or ones that went down south to get better), many Gog's I argue have been missed. Unfortunately it only takes and hour and a bit to get to Liverpool and Manchester from the West of N Wales, so kids with their wendy ball loving dads get attracted to Anfield and Old Trafford. WHY? No top class rugby club in N Wales. Now with a regional team N Wales would be given the opportunity of seeing it's hero's in the flesh, North, Gethin, 1/2 penny, Sam, ......yeah possibly see where this is going! Kids see their heros live at a game rather than on TV and only playing for Wales where ladies in pink cowboy hat's get the tickets before the true supporters.

Not going to go on, I think it is quite black and white in the way Wales need to sell the game to kids. Well to this Ex-pat GOG in NZ it is.

Why s it that there is no rugby structure in north wales.

From what I see on V2 the welsh are very passionate about rugby union.

Does Morth Wales have such a different culture, economy, what?

Its a possibility that they could but i still feel that the NH is a way off from achieving that.

North Wales and South Wales are a great divide.

Industrial S Wales, agricultural N Wales. North Wales has the majority of Welsh speakers although S Wales are improving on this

Gwynedd one of the counties in N Wales is the historical area where most of the Ancient Welsh history was made, you know, kicking english asses and all that.

There is, believe it or not no major road or train access between N & S Wales!! The Snowdonia ranges are in the way. so N&S Wales are quite different. N Wales have the players 1000's of them despite football being the bigger sport (like S Wales) the fact is the WRU have always decided to ignore us.

Thanks woodstock, it does seem kind of strange that a country with such a relative small land mass are so devided.

England proved that it is possible to get into the top three and stay there a while (a bygone era perhaps )

SA and NZ in particular have dominated world rugby for a long time so I don't think we can look at the current system, coaching or playing seasons for answers.

Of course a NH side can consistently be in the top three, but only by identifying what that success requires from grass roots to professional test level and then relentlessly executing against that plan. Now, do any of the NH countries have the will to do that? ....tha's the real question.

Sure England can again if they get Mallet. Those canny Saffers are good at employing hotel staff to poisen other teams players before big matches

eirebilly wrote:Sure England can again if they get Mallet. Those canny Saffers are good at employing hotel staff to poisen other teams players before big matches

Ja, but only in our hotels, not offshore.

Hee hee, i wish the fish would bite as well as you do biltong

why doesnt north wales have a club for the WRU to support

eirebilly wrote:Hee hee, i wish the fish would bite as well as you do biltong

That was but a mere nibble my friend, the hook it is still securely fastened to your line.


We only nibble at bait, we leave the devouring to those with upset stomachs on the field of play. It is a way of keeping all parties interested.

Its difficult for one northern hemisphere team to stay in the top 3. every year they play in the 6 nations against teams that would be ranked below them, home and away. any defeat would drag them back down again. you would have to win the 6 nations every year and beat tri-nations sides consistently to stay up there.

i think 2 sides would have to break into the top 3 to have a chance of staying there.

HQ matt wrote:why doesnt north wales have a club for the WRU to support

CLUB?? We need a regional team there mate. Presently N Wales is as I recall partof the Scarlets set up! It is adisgrace to be honest.

HQ matt wrote:Its difficult for one northern hemisphere team to stay in the top 3. every year they play in the 6 nations against teams that would be ranked below them, home and away. any defeat would drag them back down again. you would have to win the 6 nations every year and beat tri-nations sides consistently to stay up there.

i think 2 sides would have to break into the top 3 to have a chance of staying there.

The theory to stay top 3 is simple.

you need to win 75% of your matches against the six nation teams and 50% of your tri nation matches.

biltongbek wrote:
The theory to stay top 3 is simple.

you need to win 75% of your matches against the six nation teams and 50% of your tri nation matches.

So that equates to always loosing to the AB's, winning 1 in 3 against the Aussies and always beating the Saffers?

Why are Ireland so low in the rankings then

eirebilly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
The theory to stay top 3 is simple.

you need to win 75% of your matches against the six nation teams and 50% of your tri nation matches.

So that equates to always loosing to the AB's, winning 1 in 3 against the Aussies and always beating the Saffers?

Why are Ireland so low in the rankings then

You have to do it away as well mate, not only 3 times at home with help of Paul honiss.

As i said biltong, when you get a side together that may challenge Ireland, we may come and visit you

eirebilly wrote:As i said biltong, when you get a side together that may challenge Ireland, we may come and visit you

you aren't doing a good job in hiding your fear mate. If you want to climb those rankings, then now is a good time for a stop over.

By the way, our last team beat your team last.

I have no memory of that biltong, i am still living the life in my own world

The KidneyMark2 experimental model, with turbo-boost as standard will be down your way next year Biltong....with the lowest centre of gravity unit in the entire world, one Fergus McFadden!

SecretFly wrote:The KidneyMark2 experimental model, with turbo-boost as standard will be down your way next year Biltong....with the lowest centre of gravity unit in the entire world, one Fergus McFadden!

Fly, have you seen Heinrich Brussow? He doesn't have a center of gravity, he IS gravity.

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The KidneyMark2 experimental model, with turbo-boost as standard will be down your way next year Biltong....with the lowest centre of gravity unit in the entire world, one Fergus McFadden!

Fly, have you seen Heinrich Brussow? He doesn't have a center of gravity, he IS gravity.

Well keep him off the field then! We want a fair game when we come down, not to see our God O'Driscoll disappear down a mini blackhole. Bad show, I say - caddish behavior!

HQ matt wrote:why doesnt north wales have a club for the WRU to support

I think its called Sale

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The KidneyMark2 experimental model, with turbo-boost as standard will be down your way next year Biltong....with the lowest centre of gravity unit in the entire world, one Fergus McFadden!

Fly, have you seen Heinrich Brussow? He doesn't have a center of gravity, he IS gravity.

Well keep him off the field then! We want a fair game when we come down, not to see our God O'Driscoll disappear down a mini blackhole. Bad show, I say - caddish behavior!

no worries mate he isn't anti gravity, so O'Driscoll won't disappear completely.

eirebilly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
The theory to stay top 3 is simple.

you need to win 75% of your matches against the six nation teams and 50% of your tri nation matches.

So that equates to always loosing to the AB's, winning 1 in 3 against the Aussies and always beating the Saffers?

Why are Ireland so low in the rankings then

Maybe they should try winning more than 50% of their matches against the 6 nations then Billy

Lost 2, won 2 and drew one this year PSW, that equates to 50% last time i looked

eirebilly wrote:Lost 2, won 2 and drew one this year PSW, that equates to 50% last time i looked

Yes which is less than "more than 50%"

Aslo its not winning 50% , its winning 40% ...but I wouldnt want to suggest you're a gap toothed simpleton a genius as that would be offensive and racist too kind :p

Well it can be seen as 50% in results as 1 game is nullified being a draw. Thats the way i look at it.

I was only joking with biltong and having my daily light hearted dig at the Saffers so i am not sure why you feel the need to jump in but hey ho.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Maybe they should try winning more than 50% of their matches against the 6 nations then Billy

Six Nations Foundation Year - 2000

2000 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2001 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2002 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2003 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2004 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2005 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2006 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2007 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2009 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2010 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2011 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations

Dont bite Fly. He is just trying to bait me again

Actually Biltong even said that the Irish should win 75% of their matches against the NH as well

My original comment was just a little light hearted joke with biltong that should be seen as just that and nothing more, biltong saw it as such

SecretFly wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Maybe they should try winning more than 50% of their matches against the 6 nations then Billy

Six Nations Foundation Year - 2000

2000 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2001 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2002 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2003 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2004 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2005 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2006 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2007 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2009 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2010 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2011 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations

All that is necessary now is to win 75% of the matches against them, what are the actual stats Fly?

eirebilly wrote:Dont bite Fly. He is just trying to bait me again

Actually Biltong even said that the Irish should win 75% of their matches against the NH as well

My original comment was just a little light hearted joke with biltong that should be seen as just that and nothing more, biltong saw it as such

Says who? I went of crying for a little while becuase of what you said, ... and I'm still not over it.

Ya big sook

No, I'm not.

oh I know where you're at and where Biltong is at, billy... having a little fun.

But I still like bringing up a stat or two when a comment (PSW's) challenges history without refering to it! I enjoy those kind of stats. And I do it with a sense of fun.

SecretFly wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Maybe they should try winning more than 50% of their matches against the 6 nations then Billy

Six Nations Foundation Year - 2000

2000 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2001 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2002 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2003 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2004 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2005 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2006 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2007 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2009 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2010 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations
2011 - Ireland win more than 50% of the matches in the Six Nations

2011 - 2012 Ireland win 6, draw 1 lose 9, vs 6 nations

The point remains, you arent ranked in the top 3 because beating Australia was a one off in context of other recent results.
Did Ireland manage to maintain a 60% average against Sanzars for a number of years running in any of the years they were beating 6Ns teams?
Nope. Hence why just like the rest of the NH losers they havent got a cat in hells chance of anything other than occassionaly appearing in 3rd place because of statistical anomilies in the way the ratings points are worked out that will soon be adjusted for by following results.


I dont see any signs of a fundamental shift in the balance of power in world rugby, unless NZ really does go bankrupt and Australia just stops bothering with Union altogether.


( PS nice edit, assume that was you Biltong)

Go and have some fun Fly. What are Irelands full stats since the 6N's then?

That would be interesting