Does Argentina prove how biased the AI's are to the SH teams???

First topic message reminder :

I'm not saying it is, but a point brought up time and time again that the tri (RC) nations battle hardens the SH nations and the NH teams generally go into the AI's rusty first game up.

I recently spoke to a professional (not player) within the game who states that the weeks between RC and AI's act as a perfect training camp and far exceeds the club comps of the non competitive Rabo, or even the HC.

When asked about the 6N and summer tours he claims the months between tournament and summer tours, in which the players return to club act as a deterent to performance.

In his opinion the only games where each nation is on an even keel is 6N's RC and WC's but not for cross sectional hemisphere teams. So the only way teams are competing from north to south fairly is at a world cup.

Now don't get me wrong, these are not my own opinions, I agree with parts and disagree with others of his theory, it seems in part a bit whingy after saturday for me, but I can see a number of points he makes.

Maybe the answer is re jigging the int season, haing the 6N in the summer and a club and international season? Maybe there isn't a problem and it is just whinging?

I know the title will draw in the certain few but lets keep it facts and opinions, and try to discuss it logically.

If only I had done any of those things.

Please - I have asked you politely several times. Where is the case for Wales being a better side? what is the gist of the case for this?

And please don't asay last years 6N as thats is irrelevant to the head to head comparison with tis Argentinian side

I have not ignored anyone. I have answered every question put to me. I am still awaiting a coherent case to be made for Wales being the better side.

OK lets just leave it there and I think it's safe to say that the one thing we all agree on is Wales is better

than Scotland

thebluesmancometh wrote:OK lets just leave it there and I think it's safe to say that the one thing we all agree on is Wales is better

And why is this? they were comprehensively beaten at home but remain a better team? Why? What is your reasoning for this?

Are you able to give a coherent reason or argument for Wales being better? i am perfectly prepared to ;listen t the case being made and will accept it if it makes sense.

thebluesmancometh wrote:than Scotland

I can agree with that

TJ wrote:If only I had done any of those things.

Please - I have asked you politely several times. Where is the case for Wales being a better side? what is the gist of the case for this?

And please don't asay last years 6N as thats is irrelevant to the head to head comparison with tis Argentinian side

I have not ignored anyone. I have answered every question put to me. I am still awaiting a coherent case to be made for Wales being the better side.

Wouldn't say politely, and several times is putting it lightly!

Read previous posts from Biltong, Bluesman, GunsGerms, Nobbled, Evernescing; you should find several cases there. You don't have to agree with it but you don't need to repeat yourself if that is the case.

Please point out the posts - I have read and reread and no where can I see any posts that make a coherent logical case for wales being better than argentina

Scroll back to page 2 and you'll find them. Do you expect to be spoon fed like a baby or something?

You have also said:

Are you able to give a coherent reason or argument for Wales being better? i am perfectly prepared to ;listen t the case being made and will accept it if it makes sense.

Now to answer your question, several others (from various nationalities) gave their views. You must not have listened, or does not make sense to you, which is why this is a circle. You won't accept what you do not want to hear. That is the reason you should move on.

I have just read the thread again for the third time and I still cannnot see it. Please point out the posts as I cannot see any that make the case for wales being better that is coherent in any way.

Its the bluesman that are simply saying "wales are better because they are better" others pinting out such things as Scotland beating Aus does not mean Scotland are a better team. However no one has given any coherent argument that Wales are better.

If you would do this then I might be able to see. I can only take your refusal to make the case or to point out the posts that do as acceptance that the case for Wales being better is no existent.

Read my post posted at 4:53pm.

oh jeez, my dads bigger than yours...

TJ wrote:Please point out the posts - I have read and reread and no where can I see any posts that make a coherent logical case for wales being better than argentina

How are any of my posts incoherent? Its mostly a matter of opinion. However, if you wish to use methodology to quantify whether one team is better than another then you should first define the time period. If you are focusing solely on 80 minutes on Saturday 10th November then yes Argentina came out on top. The score board says so.

However, when you compare two teams it is a much more reliable acid test to widen the time frame and quantity of matches to allow for freak results and to allow you to examine each team on a wider range of criteria. Although not an exact science the world ranking system attempts to do this and even after losing to Argentina on Saturday Wales still come out on top because of the the last two years they have won more matches, achieved more in a variety of different tournaments and have earned the right to be considered a better team.

As mentioned before to compare two teams in a one off match and use this as evidence that one is better than the other is a pretty flawed arguement:

Tonga are not better than France.
Scotland are not better than Australia.

So - no answers then from Morgannwg and the bluesman . Unsuprising.

Gunsgerms. thabnk you

I did not mean to be disrespectful to you but I could not see an logical case being made in earlier posts.

You lay it out well tho in this post. My contention is that as we know the rankings are slow to react to changing fortunes ( probably correctly) and give extra weight to WC placings. Argentina IMO have been getting better and better recently whereas wales are going backwards. I believe by the end of the autumn series Argentina will be above Wales in the rankings and that this is a true reflection of their place.

I remember people ( welsh IIRC) on these board decrying Argentina a couple of years ago and stating thath their high position on the rankings was merely down to a good run in the previous WC.

Again tho I think you are being disrespectful as you appear to be claiming this is a freak result. i do not believe it is. I believe its a true reflection of the relative strengths of the teams - unlike the Scotland Aus result which clearly was a freak result.

I just find and have done over a long time the attitude towards Argentina pretty poor. If they win its a freak result, Wales should expect to win against them, etc etc.

Argentina were the better team on the day, are only a few tenths behind in the rankings and are on an upward path , wales are on a downward path the rankings are slow to react to changes and couple this to the result of the game that was no freak result I believe Argentina are the better side. its not just from thsi one game but also from tehir performnces in the RC. I believe every NH side would struggle in that tournament and be unlikely to win a game. wales were well beaten in the SH.

We will see in the next few weeks but I would not be suprised to see Argentina go home undefeated and I think it unlikely Wales will win all their games

i didnt specifically say that result was a "freak" result though I think it was more than fair to consider Wales the favorites and therefore consider Argentina's result an upset though not a massive surprise as they have beaten Wales before.

I think you are basing your assesment of Argentina on potential and likely in your opinion future results rather than actual evidence or evidence based on one match anyway.

Dont see how you can accuse posters of being disrespectful of Argentina. Prior to their involvement in the RC they probably played NH teams more than anyone else so we all know how strong they can be.

"I believe every NH side would struggle in that tournament and be unlikely to win a game. wales were well beaten in the SH."

France, Ireland, England and even Scotland have much better recent head to head records against SH teams than Argentina so you could yourself be accused of being disrespectful or misinformed.

thought i'd come on here for some light reading and a little amusement while chicken roasts in the oven. mmmm

As all the soccer pundits say..........'at the end of the day, we were beaten by a better team' at the end of the day, that day that is, not the day before or a day to come , but at the end of the day, that day.

Sorry - I still think the general tone is very disrespectful _ I had Argentina as favourites and fully expected them to win. People are all over this thread and others claiming its an upset, Wales could expect to win, wales should have won, worst result ever for wales Etc etc. thats the disrespect to a powerful side well worth their win

Sorry I fail to see how expecting the favourite to win is disrespectful. It's just common sense. A lot will be revealed by the end of the NIs as to how good Agrentina are but until then the jury is still out.

For Pete's sake TJ, I am pretty sure everyone is aware of the fact that you deem some have disrespected the Argentinian win, you case is not getting stringer by repeating it for the umpteenth time.

Can we please move on now?

TJ wrote:So - no answers then from Morgannwg and the bluesman . Unsuprising.

Gunsgerms. thabnk you

I did not mean to be disrespectful to you but I could not see an logical case being made in earlier posts.

We answered you pages ago, everybody did. Yet you repeated the question, so I advised you to see earlier posts from posters of different nationalities and you still repeated yourself until one of those posters stepped in to try and explain it to you.

TJ

Your general tone on this thread is very disrespectfull, I think you need a time out!!

Morgannwg

at no point have you answered me that I can see. I have repeatedly asked you to point out where you have. You have refused to do so.


Biltong - agreed. I will drop it. The point is made. some welsh fans are hugely disrespectful to their opponents and are never beaten fairly by a better side in their eyes.

Open your eyes mate, it might help

thebluesmancometh wrote:TJ

Your general tone on this thread is very disrespectfull, I think you need a time out!!

Pot kettle and black. Just read your contribiutions. I have beennothing but polite.

deleted pointless as all I get are evasions

Bluesman, TJ has agreed to drop it, can we now all turn to the subject at hand please.

What I find most worrying about this thread is that the IRB employes some lunatic as a proffessional, who says that the only games where each nation is on an even keel is 6N's, RC's and WC's.

Then how come no Southern hemisphere team has ever won a 6Ns?
The RC has only been played once?
And the WC has been played in a variety of months since its inception in different seasons, How in gods name does that establish bias in either form?

If this is an example of an IRB proffessional then the game is doomed.

Biltong wrote:Bluesman, TJ has agreed to drop it, can we now all turn to the subject at hand please.

You're right Biltong, TJ agreed to drop it just before getting in more sly digs at Wales followed by childish attempts to get the last word in. Beggars belief how you can't take further action now and after repeatedly asking someone to stop posting their repetitive off-topic contributions. BTW, hope you don't lock this thread because I said that .

As I believe the topic is season structure? Yes it's debated often and the NH structure is inferior to the SH. You'd have to get English and French clubs to agree before we could reorganise it but they never would. The SH structure (in Aus and NZ at least) is aimed at building and pooling towards the national team. SA is too but as Biltong says the Currie Cup is on-going, right?

Yes, the Currie Cup is fitted in adter the June test series and the Autumn internationals.

Must say though, even though the Currie Cup has been reduced to six team this year it has been very entertaining and highly unpredictable.

Super 15 - June tests - RC - AIs - Currie Cup; would that be correct, or does the CC happen from June tests to AI's? The last time I watched it was a Bulls game. They lost to a lower rated team (maybe it was the Lions), but Stander had another stormer. How is that guy not your number 8?

Don't both hemispheres play around the same number of internationals? I'm not sure about club games as some or all of the top players in NZ tend to miss ITM duty. Not much advantage there. In terms of preparation, recuperation is where the advantage lies I'd say (Due to the season structure). Not that I hold it against the SH btw.

EDIT; could have been Western Province? I can't remember who Stander played for, before agreeing to move to Munster.

Stander played for the Bulls, In my view Stander left because he couldn't see himsellf play Spies out of the 8 jersey at the Bulls never mind the Boks, but remember Stander is on,y 22 yrs old, so I reckon he will finish his two year contract and then come home.

If you play international rugby for SA like Jannie du plessis as an example, he played 18 matches in the Super XV, so far 10 tests and he played 2 Currie Cup matches, can't remember whether he played any warm up matches pre Super XV

So in total about 30 matches for him thus far.

auckland

Have no idea what your talking about!

The 6N teams all have an level playing surface as in they all have the same club format run up, same time to prep, and same weekend games.

Therefore round 1 every team is as rusty as each other and all teams are as tired as each other by the end.

Your rant was regarding how you misread the thread...

thebluesmancometh wrote:auckland

Have no idea what your talking about!

The 6N teams all have an level playing surface as in they all have the same club format run up, same time to prep, and same weekend games.

Therefore round 1 every team is as rusty as each other and all teams are as tired as each other by the end.

Your rant was regarding how you misread the thread...

Well the Irish didnt have the same level of preperation as their Union chose to rest most of them for the first few weeks of the season.

It kind of works both ways though doesnt it, one teams too tired the other is undercooked.

wheeler

But thats their choice, they can choose whatever system they like, my point is if Wales played Ireland first game of the 6N, Wales had 3 months together and 6 games under their belt and Ireland had a weeks prep, who would your money be on?

Depends if its Barnes or Rolland reffing


The systems do differ though...with central contracting the Irish can withdraw their players, the Welsh can only do so by playing financial brinkmanship with the regions and the English through endless years of paying rob andrew to re-negotiate the EPS.

If the Welsh had come off the back of 9 months of solid rugby up against a side whos players had been through a few weeks of club rugby after a nice rest Id expect them to use fatigue as a reason for getting beaten 3 times in a row, again.

thebluesmancometh wrote:wheeler

But thats their choice, they can choose whatever system they like, my point is if Wales played Ireland first game of the 6N, Wales had 3 months together and 6 games under their belt and Ireland had a weeks prep, who would your money be on?

Ireland.

THE only solution to this is a universal season where test,Super/Heineken/club matches are played.It is no longer a Winter Sport in each Hemisphere it is a job
more and more test matches are squeezed in every year.The SH is disadvantaged in July and battle hardened in the AI`s where`s the difference?
The RWC started 14 days after the Super series ended !! talk about disadvantage injuries weakened the SH sides.Where is the SH advantage Fiji had one training session before meeting England.Australia and South Africa have been injury raddled all year,only NZ has been relatively injury free and that is because of there man mamagement policy.
Injuries happen all the time in a game which now lasts 11 months of the year in the name of money.Player burnout is inevitable injuries that in amateur days players would play on with are now weeks resting.The days when a player stayed on the park as long as he could stand/walk.or carry a ball are gone.
Look at the weekends results and see if the SH was advantaged Italy,France,England won.New Zealand won versus a spirited Scotland,the Boks scraped past Ireland,Wales lost to Argentina but were`nt disgraced.
Is the point that Argentina won?they have been a good side for years and notoriously difficult to breakdown.This year the side has been together for several months and under sevaral Nz Coaches.Has added a more balanced edge to there forward skills.For the first time since the 2007 RWC they have acted like a professional not an amateur side.IF the Pacific island sides were given similar support and regular exposure to Tier one tours home and away.
THEY would improve to you can`t blame any Hemisphere for injuries sustained due to over long season.Blame the bean counters for player burn out when money means more than player welfare.WHAT can be blamed is Clubs not releasing players for test duty under whatever pretext.This outside IRB window rubbish does`nt stand up,IRB rules are firm on this point .COUNTRY first the IRB needs to get a grip and jump on trans gessers hard.
THEN there will be no more whinging excuses incidentally well done ARGENTINA.
They can`t be blamed for facing teams with players missing due to selection problems it`s just the modern game.

I'm going to agree with Alan. I think the current format advantages the home nations in particular. I agree wit the OP in that I think they could increase their chances of winning by changing the date of the 6 nations to later in the yea, reducing the number of club games, ensuring they had good local development structures in place, require release of international players for training camps etc.

The other side of the story is that the SH and inor countries suffer the brunt og the disadvantage. Minor countries (like Fiji and Georgia) either don't get to play, don't play at home, don't have access to their players, can't train etc. To some degree Argentina is slightly less disadvantaged in it's game against Wales than normal, rather than actually having an advantage.

The stats show that the 6 nations perform better in the Autumn series, followed by the World cup, with the summer tours coming a distant last. The world cup is at a horrible time for the rc teams and couldn't be better placed for the 6 nations sides. The Autumn and Summer tours bring similar issues for all sides. NZ manage to limit the issues more than most as the NZRU controls the game and can rest and rotate.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Wales are the better team! Would England not be dissapointed by that performance against Oz? Would Ireland, or France? They are better teams who can be beaten by Argentina, but have the capabilities to outperform them at present!!

Keeping digging bluesman, eventually you'll either strike oil or ostrich yourself completely.

How about Argentina are a good team who have proven themselves capable of beating anyone, and who proved emphatically they were superior to Wales last Saturday?

Flush it and move on, you can't keep claiming to be "superior" to teams you lose to. My bet is you think Wales are superior to Australia too? Remember how annoying it was when Clive Woodward kept telling everyone England were still the best team in the world as they slunk from world champs to world chumps with humilating loss after humiliating loss?

AWOP, I managed to get the tedious circle of insanity to stop, now you go dig up old posts and want to renew the same old tired circle.

Move on please.

Biltong wrote:AWOP, I managed to get the tedious circle of insanity to stop, now you go dig up old posts and want to renew the same old tired circle.

Move on please.

Sorry Biltong! I replied to a post at the end of an old page thinking it was the last post on the thread! My bad.

The system is biased towards teams that have lots good players and some good depth and are lucky to not get injuries and get to spend a lot of time together.
So this year we could say the AI's are biased towards NZ and Arg (to some degree) but biased against SA, Aus, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji.

NH have home advantage in the AIs but are rusty and vice versa for the June tests. ABs fumble their way through the June series every time and I wouldn't discount the home advantage as a contributing factor as to why we still do ok. Is the argument that this isn't the case?

I think ultimately the Unions must take cognisance of the challenges they face, be it NH or SH, the facts are that currently NZ do it better than anyone.

You look at how SA manage their players and the resultant fallout of injuries and it is clear SARU has no control over protecting their top players.

Firstly if you look at the Currie Cup, between the Rugby Championship and the Autumn internationals there are three Currie cup matches left to play, why expose your Boks who have already played all year?

It cost the Boks, Andries Bekker and Bryan Habana, and almost cost them Jean de Villiers as well.

SARU needs to manage their contracted players on the basis that they are on "loan" to the Franchises and they must dictate how many games they may play.

As an example they should play a mximum of let's say 15 Super rugby matches, no Currie Cup and Tests only.

it will reduce player fatigue and injuries. What is particulalry relevant in the SH is the amount of travel the players do.

I don't think the AI's are biased to the SH teams and I don't think the fact that Argentina won proves anything other that Argentina was quite comfortability the better team.

I remember saying in the AI's already that I think Argentina is going to get a few scalps in the AI's and I thought Argentina was going to win the game against Wales because of the improvement Argentina made during the RC.

I am pretty sure that Argentina is probably going to get the 4th position on rankings soon as they have the talent, but never really had the exposure of this kind of tournament.

And I would also like to know how the tours a few months back is different to the AI's. Shouldn't the SH have been at a disadvantage then?

And yes I think that some posters on here (not this thread really) has been disrespecting of Argentina as I always reading of this tier one nations or something like that and Argentina is really mentioned in that. Or earlier this year when some one said "tier one nations and Argentina". I don't really know what this tier one nation means. Maybe it is to do with rugby income etc, then I am sorry.

But Argentina is the better team currently and thinking Wales are the better team can only be accounted for by blind patriotism.

If this two teams meet again, I would think Argentina will win again.

Yeah agree there FerN, particularly the way they ended the match. The last 20 minutes they were clearly on top and that will have been from the upping in intensity through six matches against the top 3, even though they never won one. They were competitive in four including the AB's in NZ.

Without those six matches- replaced perhaps by what they normally play during that period, there is no way that 20 minutes would have been the same.

thebluesmancometh wrote:TJ

Your general tone on this thread is very disrespectfull, I think you need a time out!!

Nothing annoys me more about the modern game than seeing players signal to the referee that another player should be yellow carded.
Looks like that poor attitude is getting everywhere.

FerN wrote:I don't think the AI's are biased to the SH teams and I don't think the fact that Argentina won proves anything other that Argentina was quite comfortability the better team.
I remember saying in the AI's already that I think Argentina is going to get a few scalps in the AI's and I thought Argentina was going to win the game against Wales because of the improvement Argentina made during the RC.

I remember too. I remember during the tournament someone said that after playing TRC, playing the AI's would be a walk in the park for Argentina.

FerN wrote:I am pretty sure that Argentina is probably going to get the 4th position on rankings soon as they have the talent, but never really had the exposure of this kind of tournament.

Me too, but I do not think it will happen this year, but the next.

FerN wrote:And yes I think that some posters on here has been disrespecting of Argentina as I always reading of this tier one nations or something like that and Argentina is really mentioned in that.

I do not believe it, I'm sure of that, there is irrefutable evidence.

FerN wrote:Or earlier this year when some one said "tier one nations and Argentina". I don't really know what this tier one nation means. Maybe it is to do with rugby income etc, then I am sorry.

The sport's international governing body, the International Rugby Board, organises its member unions into three tiers. All Tier 1 and 2 nations have competed in the Rugby World Cup (RWC). Tier 3 nations with RWC experience are shown in bold.
Tier 1:
England
France ("Les Tricolores" or "Les Bleus")
Ireland
Italy ("Gli Azzurri")
Scotland
Wales ("Dragons")
Australia ("Wallabies")
New Zealand ("All Blacks")
South Africa ("Springboks")
Argentina ("Pumas")

FerN wrote:But Argentina is the better team currently and thinking Wales are the better team can only be accounted for by blind patriotism.

Yes, some cry, like children who have taken away his toy.

The AI's will certainly not be a walk in the park for Argentina. I don't get this idea that they've suddenly become invincible just by playing (and not winning a game might I add) in the RC. That's disrespectful if you ask me but nobody bemoans that fact. I've always thought Argentina are a good team that punches above their weight, my opinion is still the same. I also think they'll get two wins (Wales obviously, and Ireland). So is that two from three? Decent enough but hardly dominant or outstanding.

Morg

I agree with you, catching Wales cold first up doesn't automatically make them world beaters, it was a decent performance but very Argie like.

I honestly think the fact they have been together for a few months (minus the few weeks recently) is of far more importance to this result than the tournament they played in.