What is Wrong With the NH?

First topic message reminder :

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!

The answer for England is pretty simple really:-

A. Rugby is a minor sport in England. Football, cricket, fishing etc, all come first.
B. Rugby is not played in state schools.
C. Nearly all England players in the past have come from Public Schools.

If you are a good rugby player in England but don't get noticed in one of the posh rugby schools then you have very little chance of getting anywhere near an England shirt other than being a spectator.

This whole approach leads to only a very small rugby gene pool to chose from compared to the size of the population.

China, USA and Russia with all their millions have similar problems.

Small countries like SA, Aus and NZ have some of our problems but Rugby tends to be the No1 sport in their country.

englandglory4ever wrote:The answer for England is pretty simple really:-

A. Rugby is a minor sport in England. Football, cricket, fishing etc, all come first.
B. Rugby is not played in state schools.
C. Nearly all England players in the past have come from Public Schools.

If you are a good rugby player in England but don't get noticed in one of the posh rugby schools then you have very little chance of getting anywhere near an England shirt other than being a spectator.

This whole approach leads to only a very small rugby gene pool to chose from compared to the size of the population.

China, USA and Russia with all their millions have similar problems.

Small countries like SA, Aus and NZ have some of our problems but Rugby tends to be the No1 sport in their country.

le
Wrong, rugby is third of 4th in OZ behind AFL,Cricket and rugby League (though i'm not sure which one is more popular union or league here) . In South Africa Rugby is second behind football and even then its only the minority boer population really into rugby, the majority black population prefer football.

englandglory4ever wrote:Small countries like SA, Aus and NZ have some of our problems but Rugby tends to be the No1 sport in their country.

The population of England and South Africa are almost identical so they're hardly a 'small' country. Secondly, rugby might be the number one or two sport in SA and NZ but it's a long way back in Aus unfortunately.

Bullsbok, league leaves union for dead here.

Bullsbok, league leaves union for dead here.

Still rugby though innit! You still get league and union players swapping codes every now and then. League in England is only for a handful northerners who have difficulty counting past 6.

Cant understand why league is so popular over there in aus

biltongbek wrote:I have always wondered how thick is a gnats whisker?

By the sounds of it, a gnats whisker is the same thickness as an Irishmans little finger blocking a drop goal.

Must be a big gnat then.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Cant understand why league is so popular over there in aus

Easy answer. Watch the style that the Wallabies backs play.

englandglory4ever wrote:Still rugby though innit! You still get league and union players swapping codes every now and then.

So what are you saying, that league and union are essentially the same sport? Once in a blue moon a leaguie will switch codes. When they do it's usually for wads of cash and they're generally stuck out on the wing where they don't have to do much technical stuff. Sailor, Tiquiri, Rogers, and Tahu are the most recent that spring to mind. They were all outstanding league players but hardly set the world on fire in union, and all of whom ultimately returned to league. Not everyone's a Dally Messenger.

Union is still seen as an upper class, private school sport here (probably because it is) which is why most self-respecting, working class league players wouldn't be caught dead making the switch.

In what countries is rugby 'not' an upperclass private school rah rah sport? Definitely not in NZ and the islands, what about other countries?

This is a really interesting point because although there is a traditional view that UK rugby was only played by posh boys that has never been my experience and nobody can say the likes of Teague, Guscott, Skinner, Dooley, Richards and Leonard are posh boys but of course Carling, Underwood, Rodber and Andrew definitely were.
Histroically if you went to grammar or public school you played rugby and if you went to the comp you probably played football but rugby is no longer exclusively an 'upper class' sport in any country.
Only in the UK was it ever really the domain solely of the public and grammar school system and that has long since changed.

EBOP wrote:In what countries is rugby 'not' an upperclass private school rah rah sport? Definitely not in NZ and the islands, what about other countries?

Although we have our elite schools where rugby is probably the place to be, it is definitely NOT an upperclass sport in SA, even though it is only popular amongst 20% of the population which has more to do with traditions and our previous political dispensation.

mowgli wrote:This is a really interesting point because although there is a traditional view that UK rugby was only played by posh boys that has never been my experience and nobody can say the likes of Teague, Guscott, Skinner, Dooley, Richards and Leonard are posh boys but of course Carling, Underwood, Rodber and Andrew definitely were.
Histroically if you went to grammar or public school you played rugby and if you went to the comp you probably played football but rugby is no longer exclusively an 'upper class' sport in any country.
Only in the UK was it ever really the domain solely of the public and grammar school system and that has long since changed.

ermmm well in fairness i think your wrong.

In my experience its only toffs that play- it really hasnt long since changed at all so i have no idea where you are coming form with your assesment- maybe your experience is from up north or weteher- but then I would say that league dominates the north anyway.

You may come back and just say its only a toff sport in the south east- thing is there is half the population in the south east!! and the rest is on the whole is dominated by league..Many peopole in the south east dont even know what rugby be is(i kid you not- and many that do dont realise there is a league version of the game, and yes it is on the whole played by toffs)

anyway what is wrong with the NH.

The NH (well basically europe in rugby sense- no one is including japan here- we need another name!!!!) is a place where football is dominated- europe holds a euro cup that is possibly of higher overall quality than the world cup!! thats how goo it is at football. We concentrate on other sports here, simples, most of europe just doesnt care about the game- the only country that does (wales) isnt at the level of NZ, so our benchmark is at a lower quality. Year in year out we play oposition of a lower quality . Much tougher to rise to the top.

It is what it is.

I will say this though, with the amounts of money thrown around in Europe little of the reasons above is a justification for their performances.

Just saying.

Bilt this is the thing-Where the heck is all that money going!! No one even knows what this sport is where i come from(yes exageration but it illustrates a point)

Actually I just make up the numbers but my mind is its probably true.

Why do you think SA are so good at rugby and cricket bilt, yet not so at football.

Even though lets be honest you probally have way more football fans/players in your country.

I know the answer- is the disparity of wealth even after the apartheid..

mystiroakey wrote:I know the answer- is the disparity of wealth even after the apartheid..

Here we go.

Its all good saying a country has money- but its all about getting it to the right areas

Id argue you should be better at football , you seem to have a massive following in your country-thats all!

mystiroakey wrote:Id argue you should be better at football , you seem to have a massive following in your country-thats all!

Money's useful oakey, but not the only reason. So how does money as the overarching factor explain SH dominance over their rich colonial cousins in the amateur era, extending back over 100 years?

AWoP, you made those numbers up?

EBOP wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Id argue you should be better at football , you seem to have a massive following in your country-thats all!

Money's useful oakey, but not the only reason. So how does money as the overarching factor explain SH dominance over their rich colonial cousins in the amateur era, extending back over 100 years?

AWoP, you made those numbers up?

Yes but must be something like that is my mind.

Even if his numbers were correct there would be based on these ludicrous claims that england have 2 mill registerd players- what the heck does that mean??

I think we have to put the dominace over the years down to passion and genetics, and utilsing there resources better

Maybe those reasons are the same today, and the 'bogey' factor of playing SH. We all saw with our own eyes, most with glee, what 24 years of choking by the ABs did to their mental state during WCs

mystiroakey wrote:Why do you think SA are so good at rugby and cricket bilt, yet not so at football.

Even though lets be honest you probally have way more football fans/players in your country.

I know the answer- is the disparity of wealth even after the apartheid..

Mystir, I can't tell you exactly, but I can tell you what one of my clients told me.

He is a black businesman who is in the mix with the people that count, I asked im one day how the football works and it was explained to me that there is a lot of money in football, Supersport recently renewed their contract for broadcasting of our local football PSL for an amount of 150 mollion pounds for the next five years, Vodacom has just signed a sponsorship deal for 100 million pounds for two clubs Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates, but this money doesn't get to the players, some of the players are paid as little as 2000 pounds per month, and if they are unhappy, the owners don't care, because they can get more players than they need for nothing.

So there is no "development" culture, rather just money making for the owners.

Whereas in rugby and cricket it is all about the winning.

i do find since nh turned professional we have competed more . just before graham Henry took over we lost to sa by 96 or something was the worst day to be a Welsh fan . we beating them at home a year later was one of the best at that time . yes the sh teams are better but nh teams are catching up aus beat Wales recently four times now but adding all the points diff which i cant be bothered to do tho total cant be much over ten . well done Scotland for flying the nh flag and Ireland so so unlucky .

So there is no incnetive to win in SA football then. No proper structure to it. Just individuals plying there trade hoping to be spotted by a european scout!

It needs fixing from my pov. I look at SA as two countries in fairness. And we have to look to the future and steps are being made. However your situation i feel is just a more exagerated version of what happens to sports in england. There are still very classist/creedest/whateverist and each sport operates on its own back for its own gain

Mystir I think many people's perception is skewed about the economic realities in SA, yes I would say 70% of the population still lives a very basic life, however the rest of the population is living a middle class and better life.

Consider this, research have shown a few years ago that the market with the higest purchase power in SA, is young and middle age black woman. Not the whites.

Ok thats interesting. however whats the demographic of the 70% poor.

Anyway this more about sport. and in its simpliest form the white mans games are successfull. the black mans isnt in SA. yes i have to generlise slightly to make my point.

Now use nz as a counter example. what sport does better the maouri game or the white mans game.

Nz are great at this sport because rugby as a sport has almost defined its country. the haka is a perfect example of this.there are successfull because rugny has embraced.theyre indeginous population.

Posting on my phone btw. its so annoying

Biltong,
It is of course heartening to see that more people in RSA with more opportunities to improve their quality of life, and buying power is one indicator of that... well for the 30% you mention.
Is that market reserach purchasing power not due to sheer demographic weight of numbers, as opposed to per capita purchasing power ?

Per capita Gregor.

The situation of the 30% is the formal sector, the 70% is very difficult to measure due to a lot of informal businesses, low income labour market etc.

We do still have a high unemployment rate, but the situation isn't getting any better due to Illegal immigrants, economy, lacklustre effort from government, and of course the mentality of entitlement.

What's wrong is not down to economics or player numbers in my opinion. You can have as many players as you want but if they don't have the right mentality or aren't developed properly you end up with only the very few who instictively understand the game who become world class. You can have the richest Union in the world but if the money isn't spent in the right ways it counts for nothing. Their are huge sporting cultural differences between the big three SH and everyone else. Here in England I don't see the intensity or passion that constantly drives good players to become great players. At any stage I don't see the emphasis on core skills that often defines the difference between us and others.

It is often said that the more you enjoy playing a game the better you become and the better you become the more you enjoy it. I don't see the expression of joy in playing manifesting itself in improving performance. This is a coaching issue starting at the very youngest age.

EBOP wrote:In what countries is rugby 'not' an upperclass private school rah rah sport? Definitely not in NZ and the islands, what about other countries?

Wales.

Though when I was at school, football was way more popular, and most of my friends much prefer football over rugby, even if everyone does turn out to watch the national rugby side, its support is not what it was.

I am sure everyone how plays rugby in england love it in the same way as people that play football,golf or cycling.

However you are kind off right. Mentality/standard of coaching goes a long way.

What is kind off obvious to me is that Wales and NZ love this game with a passion and i suppose are both were they are today with that love.

Wales obviously need abit more than love mind!!

Why do you support England, Romania, Kenya, Spain, Japan?

If Europe didn't have so many Europeans in it, it would be getting on for perfect. You have your arctic snow areas for winter fun...in the jacuzzi!... your summer sun areas for Mediterranean lurve, your rainy no-go areas for catching up on some depression

Yeah, yeah, so New Zealand has all these things too but they don't have Angela Merkel with the shiny boots and leather jackets! No, Europe is almost perfect and danke schön for listening.

You grouping us british isles dudes as europeans or not Mr fly

mystiroakey wrote:You grouping us british isles dudes as europeans or not Mr fly

Europe can be Europe if it wants to be, oakey... but for me personally, I'm Irish and for me, that's distinctly not being "European" with Chancellor Merkel as head. I think England feels the same on that one, thank God

To add to some previously discussed points:

I would say, contrary to Biltong, that rugby in SA is still quite an elitist sport. At school level it is probably only offered at less than 15% of schools nationwide. And the list of schools that produce Springboks is probably less than 100 schools, and most of these are private schools or elite government ('model C') schools. And this is in a country that has about 10 000 schools in total!

As to why SA does so poorly in soccer: Even though the vast majority of South Africans (80%) prefer soccer, there is simply no grass-roots development of the game. In 80% of schools in SA - the schools that the above mentioned 80% of the population attend (or have attended) - there is no sport on offer. so even though the people might prefer soccer and like to kick a soccer-ball about on the street, they are not getting any coaching. This is compounded by the fact that there is a very weak amateur club soccer environment in SA. If you think of the UK Sunday leagues that play amateur Football in English parks, that must contain thousands of teams in London alone, there is not really any comparable set up in SA. There is no school soccer, very little amateur club soccer, and only a handful of development academies for professional clubs. So the wide-spread 'preference' for soccer only goes so far as watching it on telly and playing it in the back yard.

As a result of the lack of soccer-infrastructure, and because of concerted efforts by Some Rugby unions, rugby is slowly, but steadily developing a foothold in the townships, the previously soccer-only parts of the country. And when rugby is played and loved by 100% of South Africans in the same way that is currently played and loved by 15% of South Africans, the rest of the world will have to watch out... (even more)

I think that European teams might be better if they played in a super rugby type league.

As it is the h cup guarantees only 6 matches against the best sides in Europe. 9 maximum for the two that make the final. And these sides in England and France now could be stronger if they had a provincial style system.

I'm actually kind of amazed the way that the top three sides have banded together and designed their competitions purely to keep their national teams so strong. It's something that I can't remember seeing in another sport. The elite three countries working together for mutual benefit and thinking of the big picture before national or club preferences.

It's an established "us" that sides in Europe don't have. There are deep divisions between the 6 nations countries. 5 of the 6 countries want England to lose but that's the only unifying thing and it excludes one side. There is no "us" in NH rugby. Look at this thread. The word Europe is a dirty word for some of us. We cannot be as strong as the top 3 sides when we don't pull together for mutual benefit. When we see us as "us".

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:You grouping us british isles dudes as europeans or not Mr fly

Europe can be Europe if it wants to be, oakey... but for me personally, I'm Irish and for me, that's distinctly not being "European" with Chancellor Merkel as head. I think England feels the same on that one, thank God

I feel european sometimes but if that means merkel is head then i am with ya

Europe is stranger than fiction. The entire population of so many country get slowly drag into fiscal, economic and political union that noone wants. They make the taxes, the make the laws nobody wants or vote for. The "euro politicians" vote their own income and live the life of exquisit and nobody make a riot about it. Look on the mess they make! Is some disaster and still people vote for the government to support it and it continue. It makes me crazy. And help understand how the Nazis came to power.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Europe is stranger than fiction. The entire population of so many country get slowly drag into fiscal, economic and political union that noone wants. They make the taxes, the make the laws nobody wants or vote for. The "euro politicians" vote their own income and live the life of exquisit and nobody make a riot about it. Look on the mess they make! Is some disaster and still people vote for the government to support it and it continue. It makes me crazy. And help understand how the Nazis came to power.

can someone please explain the rugby connection?

is this not getting a bit out of hand?

Godwins law, Mowgli. Is sort of a joke.

awop, again

anotherworldofpain wrote:Europe is stranger than fiction. The entire population of so many country get slowly drag into fiscal, economic and political union that noone wants. They make the taxes, the make the laws nobody wants or vote for. The "euro politicians" vote their own income and live the life of exquisit and nobody make a riot about it. Look on the mess they make! Is some disaster and still people vote for the government to support it and it continue. It makes me crazy. And help understand how the Nazis came to power.

well it is just the new diplomatic nazis without killing people directly. good point mr wop