Ok so this gap...

First topic message reminder :

Between the SH and NH, its a popular topic and many already have refered to the fact Scotland are the only northerners to have won this summer. But lets face it even those scottish victories do not really indicate a closing of the gap given the nature of the oz lineup in that nidweek game. However, is it just me or are these games much closer than in recent years? We cant escape the fact that Ireland, Wales and England are all 2-nil down and have lost their series but with the exception of the first Ire vs NZ test all of the other results were in doubt going into the last 10 mins.

Now its clear that the SH still have an edge but perhaps not as pronounced as it has been, I think there is some cause for optimism for the final weekend of the summer tours and even more for the AI's later this year.

I'm not so sure Africans are naturally suited to rugby, at least those from South Africa.

Unfortunately people are quite narrow minded (although often innocently). People think black people and they think Usain Bolt or Linford Christie. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on earth.
In fact, Europeans are more closely related to Chinese/Indians then East Africans are to West Africans.

The problem with that is that most American/Carribbean african originated peoples are from West Africa.

Genetically, Africans in South Africa are closely related to East Africans.

The difference is huge. West Africans are built for sprint power, East Africans for long distance. Its well documented.

How come East and Southern African cannot produce any world class sprinters? In fact the best sprinters generally are white. Its not about money & equality.... SA has always produced world class long distance runners.

Rugby is a sprint power game.

From my own experience the fastest people in SA are Cape Coloured.... Africans generally are always 1 or 2 steps behind.
The tallest and strongest people tend to be the boere... no surprisingly they come from majority dutch stock (the tallest nation in the world).
It could be because rugby is the main game of coloured people as football is for Africans... but rugby amongst africans is still popular... and given they out number coloured people 10:1 you would expect at least one African player to have broken through... as of yet not one has done so... Chilliboy is the closest... Beast is Zimbabwean.

Due to this the boks will IMO always be dominated by Coloureds and Boere. Its not just Africans who lose out however....

ENG people in SA make up 40% of the white pop but they provide far less players in proportion.. why, because Boere are just naturally bigger guys. Rugby is just as much a tradition amongst ENG South Africans as it is with Afrikaans.

For every Kankowski, Daniel & Watson the boere have have Burger, Smith (trust me he's a boer) & Spies. Its no contest.

PS - Cape Coloured are a mix of Malay Slaves, the original Boere, and the SW Bushman of Southern Africa. Malays and the SW Bushmen (much like indigineous Namibians) are very short in stature... hence why many coloureds are short.... or better put, not tall.

fa0019 wrote:I'm not so sure Africans are naturally suited to rugby, at least those from South Africa.

Unfortunately people are quite narrow minded (although often innocently). People think black people and they think Usain Bolt or Linford Christie. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on earth.
In fact, Europeans are more closely related to Chinese/Indians then East Africans are to West Africans.

The problem with that is that most American/Carribbean african originated peoples are from West Africa.

Genetically, Africans in South Africa are closely related to East Africans.

The difference is huge. West Africans are built for sprint power, East Africans for long distance. Its well documented.

How come East and Southern African cannot produce any world class sprinters? In fact the best sprinters generally are white. Its not about money & equality.... SA has always produced world class long distance runners.

Rugby is a sprint power game.

From my own experience the fastest people in SA are Cape Coloured.... Africans generally are always 1 or 2 steps behind.
The tallest and strongest people tend to be the boere... no surprisingly they come from majority dutch stock (the tallest nation in the world).
It could be because rugby is the main game of coloured people as football is for Africans... but rugby amongst africans is still popular... and given they out number coloured people 10:1 you would expect at least one African player to have broken through... as of yet not one has done so... Chilliboy is the closest... Beast is Zimbabwean.

Due to this the boks will IMO always be dominated by Coloureds and Boere. Its not just Africans who lose out however....

ENG people in SA make up 40% of the white pop but they provide far less players in proportion.. why, because Boere are just naturally bigger guys. Rugby is just as much a tradition amongst ENG South Africans as it is with Afrikaans.

For every Kankowski, Daniel & Watson the boere have have Burger, Smith (trust me he's a boer) & Spies. Its no contest.

PS - Cape Coloured are a mix of Malay Slaves, the original Boere, and the SW Bushman of Southern Africa. Malays and the SW Bushmen (much like indigineous Namibians) are very short in stature... hence why many coloureds are short.... or better put, not tall.

I agree with most of that.One issue I disagree with is it has little got to do with sprinting. The strongmen in the packs are usually slow.

Also, the Boer doesn't have a physical advantage over the English. They're European neighbours and the ENglish population is part Anglo Saxon which is basically the same race as the Dutch.

Btw we also have to take diet into account and body shapes. About 100 years ago the average Dutch were almost a foot smaller than they are nowadays.

profitius wrote:
I agree with most of that.One issue I disagree with is it has little got to do with sprinting. The strongmen in the packs are usually slow.

Hmm not really, most likely they are strong because they have a high proportion of fast twitch type II muscle fibres... just like sprinters and powerlifters... if they are slow its probably because they are fat feicers....

rodders wrote:

profitius wrote:
I agree with most of that.One issue I disagree with is it has little got to do with sprinting. The strongmen in the packs are usually slow.

Hmm not really, most likely they are strong because they have a high proportion of fast twitch type II muscle fibres... just like sprinters and powerlifters... if they are slow its probably because they are fat feicers....

East African sprinters have narrower hips, smaller calf (sp) muscles etc. Not what you'd assiociate with a rugby pack.

When I said the strongmen in ther pack are usually slow, I ment slow compared to the backs.

I stand corrected

profitius wrote:
Yet the gap IS closing. A few years back Australia would be beating Wales by 20 - 30pts.

10 years ago the best team in the NH (England) were beating SA and NZ away from home. Today the best team in the NH are 2 zip down to Australia in a 3 match series. I would not call this progress exactly...

Fantasticbarnsmell wrote:

profitius wrote:
Yet the gap IS closing. A few years back Australia would be beating Wales by 20 - 30pts.

10 years ago the best team in the NH (England) were beating SA and NZ away from home. Today the best team in the NH are 2 zip down to Australia in a 3 match series. I would not call this progress exactly...

Using a trick that don't work anymore...or rather one that most can match now. I'd consider it's closing okay...but closing isn't anywhere close to being near. England were world beaters and a blip for a time but the sand trickled out of the timer because they couldn't sustain the effort - the SH have and can. But sustaining the effort IS becoming more prevalent in the NH amongst the top sides. That's the beginning - not close enough but it is progress.

SecretFly wrote:Using a trick that don't work anymore...or rather one that most can match now. I'd consider it's closing okay...but closing isn't anywhere close to being near. England were world beaters and a blip for a time but the sand trickled out of the timer because they couldn't sustain the effort - the SH have and can. But sustaining the effort IS becoming more prevalent in the NH amongst the top sides. That's the beginning - not close enough but it is progress.

I understand what you are saying... I rate Wales and their current group of players rather highly, but despite the small losing margin, they have been very disappointing in my opinion. The quality of rugby being played by Australia on this tour has been nothing special or even good at all, yet still Wales are not able to step it up and put them away. Maybe this will be the year the NH produce some good results in the November tests though, we will have to wait and see.

Fantasticbarnsmell wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Using a trick that don't work anymore...or rather one that most can match now. I'd consider it's closing okay...but closing isn't anywhere close to being near. England were world beaters and a blip for a time but the sand trickled out of the timer because they couldn't sustain the effort - the SH have and can. But sustaining the effort IS becoming more prevalent in the NH amongst the top sides. That's the beginning - not close enough but it is progress.

I understand what you are saying... I rate Wales and their current group of players rather highly, but despite the small losing margin, they have been very disappointing in my opinion. The quality of rugby being played by Australia on this tour has been nothing special or even good at all, yet still Wales are not able to step it up and put them away. Maybe this will be the year the NH produce some good results in the November tests though, we will have to wait and see.

I agree with you, about Wales but most especially about Australia. The idea of sustaining effort is to me more like a series of waves. I think Wales bloomed and might bloom even stronger but, also, the bloom might actually be over for now. But, I think the wave effect is that if Wales falls off again, Ireland or England will be rushing into shore to keep the steam and threat up for their period and then perhaps Wales again. I thing England were the lone sailors ten years ago but now there is a bit of a wave cycle developing amongst European sides... it's not really a secret that when Wales bloom France have fallen away. France will charge back in its time too.