What is Wrong With the NH?

by anotherworldofpain Wed 20 Jun - 7:50

The NH include 84% of the world registered development age group player, gettingg 78% of the revenue about rugby annually (over last 5 years), owning nearly 90% of the capital holding to club and union and each international capped player getting 15% more rugby and club level or above to practise and development.

But yet SH is net exporter of the player to the ratio mark of nearly 10:1, with except Eng in 2003 own IRB rank 1-3, win all but one world cup (about 85%) and we all know about the "gap" is still there and is some big thing for NH to beating the 3N, Ireland, Scotland never beat NZ and Wales not beating them for about over 60 years. We even call to them "Big Three". Not just about 15s but in U20s SH winning all the time (this year the final is SA v NZ so there go another one again!) and 7's dominate by NZ who when not winning the IRB Series is a "blip" and get the commonwealth medal to.

That is metaphor like NH have 80% posession and 80% territory but losing the game and cant get the try. To be honest is a bit embarrassing.

So what is going wrong to the NH make like this? Is they can't born the players with the right physical? they developing wrong? or they growing in the community to make the weak mind? Or something different you know about?

Is there about the culture? Is hard to think because Fra, Sco, Ire, Wal, Eng, ... all so different place with so much different culture and diverse.

My mind is time for the IRB to have the crisis meeting and make the plan to helping remedial because so hard to growing the game when is not true competitive!

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 8:10

It's only NZ that dominates NH teams, apart from Italy SA and OZ have lost to all the six nation teams.

by protea438 Wed 20 Jun - 8:24

biltongbek wrote:It's only NZ that dominates NH teams, apart from Italy SA and OZ have lost to all the six nation teams.

Yes the Boks have lost to some of the NH teams, but overall you still have to agree re SH over NH. We keep on hearing about "The Gap" closing for years but I am not so sure.

by **profitius** Wed 20 Jun - 8:39

Well, NZ are always the best team and I think the secret is their little dance. To even it up all teams should be allowed do a little dance before the match starts. A dance off. Ireland could do Irish dancing - Michael Flately style - and England could do a bit of morris dancing etc.

by LordDowlais Wed 20 Jun - 8:47

Well, I know what I will be called on here after this, but, if you put a NH ref in charge of the first two test for Wales in Australia I think we would have seen different results, it's a shame really as until things like this happen you will always see and advantage to the different hemispheres as each hemisphere's refs interprate the game differently and the players are used to it, am I saying they could be biased as to keep the status quo ? Me, na never. Wink

by QuickBall Wed 20 Jun - 9:11

The Southern teams play in better weather conditions through out the year which means the ball can be played more quickly, which effects the skill levels of the players.

If we want to improve, switch our season to summer time, not during the annual ice age.

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 9:23

Which would immediately also allow for a global season.

by TrailApe Wed 20 Jun - 9:29

Ahh yes - sipping a chilled white in the baking heat of a northern summer whilst watching the Falcons thrash allcomers

Obviously so wrong on a number of levels, "but if you don't have a dream - how you gonna have a dream come true"?

by **rodders** Wed 20 Jun - 9:37

Well switching to the summer would be a great idea.... except for one point.... its feicin wetter in the summer than it is in the winter these days! steam

by Brendan Wed 20 Jun - 9:50

As has been shown at the JWC and Scotland in the last few weeks that in a rough day of weather the NH has the SH number. As a result we should move the AIs to Jan and it would be a 50% win rate for the NH.

On a more serious note if this article can be called that this summer has shown that the NH is more consistant. Before the Celts had one shot at a win and that was the first match and after that it was bad defeats, so we are getting better levels of fitness which was always our problem.

England of 2002 time was the best in the world so it has nothing to do with NH v SH but just each country, which is why each world cup final has never had 2 SH teams in it when Fra and England knocked out NZ and Aus.

Also AWOP as you will see from the IRB members that Europe has by far the most countries playing followed by Asia and then north america. so the NH is growing the game fine both standards rising. Money will be our weapon of mass destruction as we go down the germany route of owning everyone's souls. devil

Also I think it is interesting to see how at the JWC the teams seem to have less fear of each other and so in a few years I'd expect the NH teams to win more games as they are doing at underage.

NZ also is the only country using all their resources. If SA every get the Zulus on board it will be the end for everyone

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 9:56

I absolutely agree with you Brendan, It isn’t about NH vs SH, it is about the big 5 and their results.

In 1987 France eliminated Australia
In 1991 Australia eliminated New Zealand
In 1995 England eliminated Australia
In 1999 Australia eliminated SA and France eliminated New Zealand
In 2003 NZ eliminated SA and OZ eliminated NZ
In 2007 England eliminated OZ and France eliminated NZ
In 2011 OZ eliminated SA and NZ eliminated OZ.

So France has eliminated NZ twice and OZ once
England has eliminatedOZ twice.

So it has little to do with NH vs SH, it has to do with the traditional big 5 teams. Perhaps in future more teams will come into the mix and eliminate one of the Tri Nation teams

by RubyGuby Wed 20 Jun - 9:57

"If SA every get the Zulus on board it will be the end for everyone.
Brendan"

Not if us welsh have anything to do with it thumbsup

Get my Drift! thumbsup

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 10:01

RubyGuby wrote:
"If SA every get the Zulus on board it will be the end for everyone.
Brendan"

Not if us welsh have anything to do with it Get my Drift!

I think you'll have some competition mate. Whistle

by Brendan Wed 20 Jun - 10:24

I think the Rabo is helping the Irish and Welsh to make the step up and the 4N will help the Argies. Except for wales the playing numbers in the other countries are now only starting to attract more people and from a better spread of the people.

by SecretFly Wed 20 Jun - 10:50

anotherworldofpain wrote:
That is metaphor like NH have 80% posession and 80% territory but losing the game and cant get the try. To be honest is a bit embarrassing.

Embarrassing for whom? Us or you? If it's you who gets flush faced about it, I'd relax - you're the Outlander Neutral from the country to the left of the one a little to the right afterall. Relax. You're not part of the circus, just an observer.

Now for my solution attempt: More reds rather than whimish yellows might even out the playing field. I love the colour of red in the mornings when a SH player walks for doing little or nothing. Delicious.

How's that? That's the only explanation I can come up with that might put a smile on your face.

by protea438 Wed 20 Jun - 10:55

biltongbek wrote:I absolutely agree with you Brendan, It isn’t about NH vs SH, it is about the big 5 and their results.

In 1987 France eliminated Australia
In 1991 Australia eliminated New Zealand
In 1995 England eliminated Australia
In 1999 Australia eliminated SA and France eliminated New Zealand
In 2003 NZ eliminated SA and OZ eliminated NZ
In 2007 England eliminated OZ and France eliminated NZ
In 2011 OZ eliminated SA and NZ eliminated OZ.

So France has eliminated NZ twice and OZ once
England has eliminatedOZ twice.

So it has little to do with NH vs SH, it has to do with the traditional big 5 teams. Perhaps in future more teams will come into the mix and eliminate one of the Tri Nation teams

Yes they did win games(knockout games these things happen) but who won the World Cups and the head to head records across a long period.

Ill use another sport cricket. In test cricket Proteas have beaten the might of Steve Waughs Australian team on occassion, but they werent closing the gap nor were they in the same league as that team (tried hard but no cigar)

by dallym Wed 20 Jun - 10:56

Brendan wrote:
England of 2002 time was the best in the world so it has nothing to do with NH v SH but just each country, which is why each world cup final has never had 2 SH teams in it when Fra and England knocked out NZ and Aus.

But what happens when the All Blacks steamroll the English catt and the Springboks eliminate the French? You get the 1995 RWC final

by SecretFly Wed 20 Jun - 11:06

biltongbek wrote:
So it has little to do with NH vs SH, it has to do with the traditional big 5 teams. Perhaps in future more teams will come into the mix and eliminate one of the Tri Nation teams

Nah, even if they did - it'd be the blip deal - and they wouldn't get the respect they'd deserve - that which comes to one of the big 5 automatically because of tradition. There'd be the excuses of "we're in development/transition/bad coaching blues/catching us off guard" and the word 'elimination' wouldn't be even considered. Respect is generally a five way process in this here Union game up until now and it'll take lots of time, not a one-off elimination, to change it.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 20 Jun - 11:29

QuickBall wrote:The Southern teams play in better weather conditions through out the year which means the ball can be played more quickly, which effects the skill levels of the players.

If we want to improve, switch our season to summer time, not during the annual ice age.

The SH play their rugby during their winter, the same as we play our rugby during our winter. Generally at the start of the season we have pretty good weather and we also have decent weather at the back end of the season, especially seeing as we tend to get he best weather around Easter and August-October.

by blackcanelion Wed 20 Jun - 11:35

I agree that respect is a product of time. But sport is pretty brutal in it's assessment and teams at the top change. Only NZ and South Africa have generally been at the top (even they've had the odd fluctuation). England have been up and down and for much of history wouldn't be considered inn the top echelon. Their current occupation in the big five dates back to the start of the 90's. France are a post WW2 phenomenon. Australia only really hit it big in the 80's. Wales, Argentina and Ireland arguably have the potential to break into this group. To do that they need to beat these countries away and/or in tournaments.

by blackcanelion Wed 20 Jun - 11:37

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
QuickBall wrote:The Southern teams play in better weather conditions through out the year which means the ball can be played more quickly, which effects the skill levels of the players.

If we want to improve, switch our season to summer time, not during the annual ice age.

The SH play their rugby during their winter, the same as we play our rugby during our winter. Generally at the start of the season we have pretty good weather and we also have decent weather at the back end of the season, especially seeing as we tend to get he best weather around Easter and August-October.

Spot on, went training with the oldest boy on Monday. Field was it's usual boggy winter self, rain was coming in horizontal....

by Thomond Wed 20 Jun - 11:38

Wet and Windy Wellington eh Lion? guinness

by protea438 Wed 20 Jun - 11:38

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
QuickBall wrote:The Southern teams play in better weather conditions through out the year which means the ball can be played more quickly, which effects the skill levels of the players.

If we want to improve, switch our season to summer time, not during the annual ice age.

The SH play their rugby during their winter, the same as we play our rugby during our winter. Generally at the start of the season we have pretty good weather and we also have decent weather at the back end of the season, especially seeing as we tend to get he best weather around Easter and August-October.

I can only talk for Cape Town , but at the start of Super Rugby the weather is nice even nice braai weather, but come mid to end of Super Rugby its cold, rainy and windy - not nice Crying or Very sad

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 11:43

Up here in the civilised side of SA, we think about the western cape as a baby, always wet or windy. Whistle

by Geordie Wed 20 Jun - 11:44

Whilst i think the Gap is there...I do think its closing.

Wales should have beaten Australia. One poor bit of play by Preistland cost them. They will win the next test.

How close were Ireland to beating NZ. They had them at the breakdown...the area the NH teams are supposedly light years behind the SH. It will be interesting to see the last test...if Ireland show the same...they will win.

Scotland have beaten Australia and Fiji and should beat Samoa. And lets not go on about conditions...you play the conditions...Scotland did Aus didnt. And Scotland beat the Boks aswell recently.

England - Well, i think at the moment we are possibly a little bit further away...and i dont think the close score with the Boks shows the full picture...we were blown away by their physicality....but then to be fair...i think NZ and Aus might find that aswell in the 4n. We shall see how we develope.

But the gap shows all the test series are 2-0 so theres the gap!

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 20 Jun - 11:46

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wales should have beaten Australia. One poor bit of play by Preistland cost them. They will win the next test.

I missed him collapsing the maul at the end, I though he was in the backline. Being serious the team were at fault fo not winning as a collective.

The gap is more of a mental thing. When the AIs come we will all be expecting to see more NH wins than SH wins.

by Brendan Wed 20 Jun - 11:54

If Europe got its act together it would be as good if not better then the south.

our advantages are
1. We have money - no exporting our best talent
2. We are all conpacted together - no jet lag and easier to get the best teams to play each other
3. Better Level teams - We are the only ones who have a steady level of teams from top to bottom with the bottom riswing as shown by the improvements of the 6Nb teams
4. We can harness small area's of interest as they can be lumped with other small areas eg north italy and south germany can link together but it is hard for tonga and samoa as they are islands miles apart and no real cities
5. More players means more competion in the long run as shown by geogria as their players fight with the 6N players for places in top teams have risen.

Disadvantages
1. We aren't breed for brute force like the ruffins sent to the colonies and the willy locals who had to out run them censored

- Ireland is doing better now that it's moving out to the mountain men as will scotland in the highlands. Wales did great in the 70s because of their miners
2. We gave them a head start
3. We think they are better then us - Eng/Fra = Wales/Ire = Aus but Wal/Ire < Aus and all that. Hopefully its changing as is seen by the JWC to some extent

by TrailApe Wed 20 Jun - 11:58

Come on SecretFly - don't be bitter.

All this BS about top five, top tier, SH are best etc are is all just generalisations.

Even the title of this 'What is wrong with the NH' is an indicator of the percieved problem.

Is the original poster really of the opinion that the teams currently in the 6N cannot beat Japan, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and Namibia on a regular basis?

So the real question is why did Ireland, Scotland, Enbgland and Wales not beat the AnzacBok teams away from home?

Well Scotland did and Ireland came within a Gnats whisker.

How many of the HC teams 'expect' a win away from home - normally everyone focuss on winning their home games and trying to pick up bonus points away from home - so why should we expect our International sides to go darn sarf - after a hard season - and beard the lion in its own den?

I'm a bit sceptical of the OP - he arrived on 606v2 claiming to be from elsewhere but seems to have very fixed opinions on RU - the NH in particular and is generating a lot of posts.

Makes you wonder.....................

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 12:00

I have always wondered how thick is a gnats whisker?

by tomhughesnice Wed 20 Jun - 12:00

I think the NH and SH gap exists purely because New Zealand are a cut above the rest and the benchmark of a great rugby team always. Australia and South Africa play in the Super 15 so have regular exposure to the best players the Kiwis have to offer. So this leads to the Saffas and Aussies regularly filling the 2 and 3 spot in the world rankings.

I visited New Zealand recently for a few months earlier this year and it was obvious why they are so good.

Culture : EVERY town every person I met had something to say about rugby, this was just after the world cup. But still I wouldnt have imagined so many people would have cared in the NH.

I always saw people walking about with a rugby ball in hand, and playing mathes in the parks. So while New Zealand may have a small population. I would bet an overwhelming percentage of people play rugby in comparison to NH nations.

Breeding : I know people state poaching of pacific Islanders is a reason New Zealand are so good. But its hard not to notice the large amount of Polynesians(Māoris, Pacific Islanders etc) in the North Island. These people are tradionally Strong and large so perfect rugby players. Probably should say these people are not poached, they migrated to New Zealand along time ago.

by Geordie Wed 20 Jun - 12:03

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Wales should have beaten Australia. One poor bit of play by Preistland cost them. They will win the next test.

I missed him collapsing the maul at the end, I though he was in the backline. Being serious the team were at fault fo not winning as a collective.

The gap is more of a mental thing. When the AIs come we will all be expecting to see more NH wins than SH wins.

No he didnt colapse it mate...but he did kick the ball away from the safety of his pack straight to their back three which led to the maul you mentioned.

He should have kept it with his forwards and run down the time...with only minutes left.

Anyway its pointless now. Hopefully they will be more aware for the next game.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 20 Jun - 12:10

Geordie - yeah I se your point, I'm just tired of seeing him get the majority of the heat when there seems to be a tactic of kicking etc. Anyway a different arguement for a different thread etc.

TrialApe - I was thinking the same about you with regards to the OP. Its amazing how quick someone can learn a new language, and then learn to fire off complicated view points in that language.

by protea438 Wed 20 Jun - 12:16

biltongbek wrote:Up here in the civilised side of SA, we think about the western cape as a baby, always wet or windy.

And the big cheque books. Soon there will be rugby recruiting offices in Cape schools Whistle

by **rodders** Wed 20 Jun - 12:19

I think if you look at the official IRB world rankings it doesn't look good for the NH....but in the unofficial rankings things look a bit brighter:

1. NZ
2. Leinster
3. Wales

Very Happy

....

by SecretFly Wed 20 Jun - 12:21

rodders wrote:I think if you look at the official IRB world rankings it doesn't look good for the NH....but in the unofficial rankings things look a bit brighter:

1. NZ
2. Leinster
3. Wales

....

Now that'll start a fight! No problem with Leinster 2nd...but Wales 3rd? You're 'avin' a larf??!!!!

by Geordie Wed 20 Jun - 12:22

rodders wrote:I think if you look at the official IRB world rankings it doesn't look good for the NH....but in the unofficial rankings things look a bit brighter:

1. NZ
2. Leinster
3. Wales

....

by disneychilly Wed 20 Jun - 12:28

The gap is pretty funny. The English guys obviously hark back to 2003 when they ruled the roost, but that's from a solely English point of view. From a NH point of view-well I recall the three next best sides were the 3N sides (though France would have something to say given that was the worst Bok team I've ever seen).

The NH sides aren't as good we all know that. But they do get themselves into winning positions a lot and can't finish them off. The difference is they play like they have nothing to lose and then as the game goes into the later stages they start thinking about that, and play like a team WITH something to lose. This distracts from the team's objectives and the SH teams know how to keep their focus for the 80 better.

What was significant about the Irish performance is that I didn't see any of that. They were there for the 80 all right. There was no letup, no doubt and that makes this week so tantalising. It was just a cliffhanger of a game and the Irish are so gutted because they got the mental side spot on. One call that could have gone either way and you see the ABs focus click into another gear as they smelled the win. The first time I've ever seen Carter win a game with a last minute drop. Was expecting ROG to get the chance to do that for Ireland.

by LordDowlais Wed 20 Jun - 12:40

What is it with this weather bullox. I mean it when I say this, if Wales had a northern hemisphere ref for the last two games we would have won them. the weather has got feck all to do with it, if you are good enough the weather should not make any difference.

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jun - 12:41

And as I have been reminded the referee shouldn't make any difference either. Whistle

by Full Credit Wed 20 Jun - 12:42

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wales should have beaten Australia. One poor bit of play by Preistland cost them. They will win the next test.

Can you tell me what the lottery numbers will be next week or do your precognitive powers only extend to rugby?

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 20 Jun - 12:43

LordDowlais wrote:What is it with this weather bullox. I mean it when I say this, if Wales had a northern hemisphere ref for the last two games we would have won them. the weather has got feck all to do with it, if you are good enough the weather should not make any difference.

AH don't worry Lord, when they come over we will have the homea advantage, and a northern hemi....oh hang on no we will hath a southern hemisphere ref, even at home. God knows why but that seems to be a rule when Wales play the SH they get their own refs.

by Guest Wed 20 Jun - 12:48

tomhughesnice wrote:I think the NH and SH gap exists purely because New Zealand are a cut above the rest and the benchmark of a great rugby team always. Australia and South Africa play in the Super 15 so have regular exposure to the best players the Kiwis have to offer. So this leads to the Saffas and Aussies regularly filling the 2 and 3 spot in the world rankings.

I visited New Zealand recently for a few months earlier this year and it was obvious why they are so good.

Culture : EVERY town every person I met had something to say about rugby, this was just after the world cup. But still I wouldnt have imagined so many people would have cared in the NH.

I always saw people walking about with a rugby ball in hand, and playing mathes in the parks. So while New Zealand may have a small population. I would bet an overwhelming percentage of people play rugby in comparison to NH nations.

Breeding : I know people state poaching of pacific Islanders is a reason New Zealand are so good. But its hard not to notice the large amount of Polynesians(Māoris, Pacific Islanders etc) in the North Island. These people are tradionally Strong and large so perfect rugby players. Probably should say these people are not poached, they migrated to New Zealand along time ago.

Good call buddy, made some good observations there thumbsup

I'd say with respect to sanzar teams though, that we all keep each other honest and that breeds strength. No game between sanzar teams is a gimme, and each team will aim to expose weaknesses, thus highlighting them, and giving that team things to work on and improve.

When it comes time to play NH, we've seen it all already and have the gameplans to dominate as they've been honed against the best. You try the running game against the ABs, no problem, we play oz all the time. Play a forwards game against the ABs, no problem, we've learnt from the best in SA. Nothing the NH throws up is a surprise and nothing all sanzar teams can't handle.

Your more likely to see SH blow NH away on the scoreboard than vice versa through innovative game plans, skill, tempo, brutality. If NH win, they're generally tight hard fought games won on guts/determination.

by LordDowlais Wed 20 Jun - 12:52

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:What is it with this weather bullox. I mean it when I say this, if Wales had a northern hemisphere ref for the last two games we would have won them. the weather has got feck all to do with it, if you are good enough the weather should not make any difference.

AH don't worry Lord, when they come over we will have the homea advantage, and a northern hemi....oh hang on no we will hath a southern hemisphere ref, even at home. God knows why but that seems to be a rule when Wales play the SH they get their own refs.

I am sure they do it just to keep the status quo. thumbsup

by blackcanelion Wed 20 Jun - 12:53

Thomond wrote:Wet and Windy Wellington eh Lion?

Pretty similar to Cork I suspect...... guinness

by anotherworldofpain Wed 20 Jun - 13:00

SecretFly wrote:
Now for my solution attempt: More reds rather than whimish yellows might even out the playing field. I love the colour of red in the mornings when a SH player walks for doing little or nothing. Delicious.

How's that? That's the only explanation I can come up with that might put a smile on your face.

Identity found. SecretFly is PdV.

by Thomond Wed 20 Jun - 13:02

blackcanelion wrote:
Thomond wrote:Wet and Windy Wellington eh Lion?

Pretty similar to Cork I suspect......

We have had twenty minutef sunshine today. Ah it's better than Auckland. My aunt lives there.

by **Pal Joey** Wed 20 Jun - 13:20

LordDowlais wrote:What is it with this weather bullox. I mean it when I say this, if Wales had a northern hemisphere ref for the last two games we would have won them. the weather has got feck all to do with it, if you are good enough the weather should not make any difference.

OK, then you're not good enough. Scotland and Samoa are. Simples. Rolling Eyes

by Geordie Wed 20 Jun - 13:49

Full Credit wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Wales should have beaten Australia. One poor bit of play by Preistland cost them. They will win the next test.
Can you tell me what the lottery numbers will be next week or do your precognitive powers only extend to rugby?

i could tell you them....but i want to win it myself this week...fed up seeing everyone else getting the money... Wink

by TrailApe Wed 20 Jun - 14:05

but i want to win it myself this week

Hah - then you'll go and join all the lardy-dahs in the posh part of the West Stand.

Have you no principles man?

by MMaaxx Wed 20 Jun - 20:21

Courtesy The Roar

Since reading many articles of late regarding the old North vs. South issue in rugby union, I felt the need to add my five cents. First, let’s have a look at all the stats from a North vs South perspective.

Between 20 June 2007 and 20 June 2010 (3 Years)
(Wins-Losses-Draws(if any)-Win%)
New Zealand vs.
Eng 4-0-100
Fra 2-2-50
Ire 3-0-100
Sco 2-0-100
Wal 3-0-100

A win ratio of 87% for NZ.

South Africa vs.
Eng 3-0-100
Fra 1-1-50
Ire 0-1-0
Sco 2-0-100
Wal 5-0-100

A win ratio of 84% for South Africa.

Australia versus
Eng 3-2-60
Fra 4-0-100
Ire 1-0-1-50
Sco 0-1-0
Wal 2-1-66

A win ratio of 66% for Australia.

In the two years that followed, 20 June 2010 to 20 June 2012.

New Zealand vs.
Eng 1-0-100
Fra 2-0-100
Ire 3-0-100
Sco 1-0-100
Wal 2-0-100

A win ratio of 100% for New Zealand

South Africa vs.
Eng 3-0-100
Fra 0-0-0
Ire 1-0-100
Sco 0-1-0
Wal 2-0-100

A win ratio of 85% for South Africa

Australia vs.
Eng 0-1-0
Fra 1-0-100
Ire 1-1-50
Sco 0-1-0
Wal 5-0-100

A win ratio of 70% for Australia.

Over the last five years, dating from 20 June 2007 to 20 June 2012.

New Zealand vs.
Eng 5-0-100
Fra 4-2-66
Ire 6-0-100
Sco 3-0-100
Wal 5-0-100

A win ratio of 92% for New Zealand.

South Africa vs.
Eng 6-0-100
Fra 1-1-50
Ire 1-1-50
Sco 2-1-66
Wal 7-0-100

A win ratio of 85% for South Africa.

Australia vs.
Eng 3-3-50
Fra 5-0-100
Ire 2-1-1-50
Sco 0-2-0
Wal 7-1-87

A win ratio of 68% for Australia.

From this we can conclude the following; if we take the periods 2007-2010 and 2010 to present:

SANZAR vs. Five Nations
New Zealand’s win ratio went from 87% to 100% at an average of 92%
South Africa’s win ratio went from 84% to 85% at an average of 85%
Australia’s win ratio went from 66% to 70% at an average of 68%

Five Nations vs. SANZAR –

Englands win ratio went from 16% to 20%.
Frances win ratio went from 30% to 0%
Irelands win ratio went from 16% to 16%
Scotlands win ratio went from 20% to 66%
Wales win ratio went from 9% to 0%

Against Five Nations opposition, New Zealand are far superior, followed by South Africa, with Australia trailing behind.

Against SANZAR opposition between 2007 and 2010, France were the best followed by Scotland, then England, Ireland with Wales trailing behind.

The order has since changed and has Scotland leading by far, followed by England, then Ireland, with Wales and France trailing behind.

The statistics clearly put an end to the North versus South debate; one can conclude that the Southern Hemisphere has been and is still dominant over the Northern Hemisphere.

Between 2007-2010, the southern hemisphere had won 35 of 44 tests at an average of 79%,
2010 – 2012 the southern hemisphere had won 22 of 26 tests at an average of 84%
2007-2012 the southern hemisphere had won 59 of 72 tests at an average of 81%

Scotland seem to be the best performing northern hemisphere team, with Six Nations champions Wales the worst performer of both periods.

If anything, the only argument that the North can make is that the scorelines have become somewhat closer to the old wallops the northern hemisphere constantly received at the hands of the SANZAR nations. But results are what matter in world rankings, and there cannot be any doubt as to New Zealand’s spot at number one

Thereafter, there may be some debate as to which of South Africa or Australia should occupy second place.

With South Africa having a better record against both Five Nations, and New Zealand than Australia, the conclusion is that the only reason Australia are in second spot, is that they have had the better of South Africa in recent years.

That New Zealand, South Africa and Australia are the top three sides cannot be denied.

What happens therafter is rather interesting and one can only conclude that Wales success against their Northern hemisphere rivals may be the only reason they are ahead of Scotland and England. Based only on North versus South results it would be Scotland leading the way followed by England.

The stats would also suggest that in terms of bogey teams, England find it easiest against Australia, France have had their most success against New Zealand, Scotland have had the best of Australia, and Wales haven’t done anything other than win the Six Nations to suggest they are the fourth best team in the world

Makes interesting reading.

From an SA point of view I know the five year period referred to in the attached article involve:

1) The majority of games being played in the NH often in conditions more suited to the opposition than the Boks
2) Bok teams that are usually injury depleted, fatigued and under prepared
3) Bok teams that in the last four years have not been as well trained and selected as they could've been. As much as I enjoyed PDV's funny expressions and interviews, his coaching left alot to be desired.

Considering the above (and the NZ and AUS stats), there is a GAP quite a big
G A P.

Saying otherwise is like saying there is no GAP between Italy and Ireland or Italy and Wales. The odd close game or victory does not hide this fact.

by Sponsored content