Face the facts.

by **Biltong** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 9:17 am

First topic message reminder :

I know we all support our teams with the passion of a first love, it is something or should I say someone you never forget, even if we move countries (well if I had to) we would still support our teams with the same passions.

It is high treason not to (well for some). But as much as we are passionate and optimistic at times how many of us are realists? Or is reality too far removed from what we would like to believe that we simply ignore the realities and build walls around the criticisms and doubters?

For me being a realist I often find myself very critical about the Springboks, and I must admit even amongst South Africans who are passionate about the Boks I rarely find someone who loves to talk Springbok rugby as often as I do, I find it a challenge to find supporters who knows our players as well and could tell you their weaknesses or strengths.

I look at our situation and think back to the days when we had a record superior to any nation against us with a longing memory of pride and trepidation. It only serves one purpose and that is to fire me up and make me want to rebel against the rugby administration in our country. I sometimes wish I chose a different path and went into journalism just so I could voice my criticisms on a public media format read by the all and sundry in SA, sadly the only format available are rugby forums read by people form other countries in the main and rarely cares whether we are on a downward spiral or not.

Anyway, for me the importance of not pulling an ostrich and sticking my head in the sand ignoring the realities of our situation is vital in not BS'ing myself when it comes to our chances of beating opponents or winning tournaments.

I probably over analyse the situation more than I should and can at times be very critical to the point where I want to slap the toffee out of someone, but hell that is who I am. Passion for your team doesn't disappear in the bad times, in fact I think that is when our disappointment provide us with more passion and creates a laager mentality to draw inward and begin the analysis in all earnest.

The question I have for you guys, are you realistic about your teams, do you prefer to ignore the opinions and criticisms of others, do you have a laager mentality, or are you blissfully ignorant and unaware of the reality you must face by choice?

In our case, I have little faith that we will win the Rugby Championship this year, will be too soon for us to compete in the next RWC simply because we are effectively starting over from scratch.

by SecretFly Wed 10 Jul 2013, 1:55 pm

I've given you facts...you didn't like them...the present is the present. The future is the future...the future (happening as Junior level - a level New Zealand has also dominated in the past) has been turned upside down. Some of your future was playing in the JWC. Unlike other years, they were shot down by better sides.

That's a gap closing in practical, easily identifiable terms. You mightn't like it but it's there in the records. When once New Zealand were cruising at JWC level, now they've fallen off the pace this year. We'll see if that influences the future. For now it's a gap closed. Or just when do you begin to measure gaps, Taylor?

I also stated that many SHers (including you if my memory is correct - by all means pull me up on that if untrue) didn't give much hope to the Lions taking the final Test. And you lot didn't give them much hope because you still believed (wrongly) that a bad Australian side still had much more know-how and creativity, and pace and all the extras to kill off the Lions. You were all wrong. Gap closed both in practical terms and in the minds of some SHers.

New Zealand won 3 from 3 against Ireland and now France. I've told you, both Ireland and France are hardly poster boys for NH rugby anymore. They been steadily wandering downhill arm in arm and were last two in the 6N. Meaning it doesn't take much to kill off either side these days.

You seem to continually assume that I'm saying there are better sides than New Zealand out there. No, I'm not saying that. I'm working on logic and to suggest such a thing is illogical.

But I am saying a gap is closing. Standing by that claim too.

by Taylorman Wed 10 Jul 2013, 1:57 pm

bc youre clutching at straws to find areas where we might be behind. Do you really think our losing u20's is significant? I dont. When we were winning them all everyone was saying the gap was closing as well. Its just something to say.

For me, beat the ABs again and again and again and then we're talking. SA did it in 09...just but since its been largely one way on the consistency front.

by Taylorman Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:02 pm

SecretFly wrote:I've given you facts...you didn't like them...the present is the present. The future is the future...the future (happening as Junior level - a level New Zealand has also dominated in the past) has been turned upside down. Some of your future was playing in the JWC. Unlike other years, they were shot down by better sides.

That's a gap closing in practical, easily identifiable terms. You mightn't like it but it's there in the records. When once New Zealand were cruising at JWC level, now they've fallen off the pace this year. We'll see if that influences the future. For now it's a gap closed. Or just when do you begin to measure gaps, Taylor?

I also stated that many SHers (including you if my memory is correct - by all means pull me up on that if untrue) didn't give much hope to the Lions taking the final Test. And you lot didn't give them much hope because you still believed (wrongly) that a bad Australian side still had much more know-how and creativity, and pace and all the extras to kill off the Lions. You were all wrong. Gap closed both in practical terms and in the minds of some SHers.

New Zealand won 3 from 3 against Ireland and now France. I've told you, both Ireland and France are hardly poster boys for NH rugby anymore. They been steadily wandering downhill arm in arm and were last two in the 6N. Meaning it doesn't take much to kill off either side these days.

You seem to continually assume that I'm saying there are better sides than New Zealand out there. No, I'm not saying that. I'm working on logic and to suggest such a thing is illogical.

But I am saying a gap is closing. Standing by that claim too.

Na. Juniors aint seniors and the gap was closing when we were winning. In the last 5 years have you ever thought the gap wasnt closing? If not...how long does it take to close. Last years stats would not be equalled by many sides in history. You havnt provided the facts.. all youve done is suggest the junior trend is closing the gap. No facts there.

by **rodders** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:03 pm

Taylorman European rugby has declined badly over the past few seasons.

Wales have been head and shoulders clear of the others, England continue to be inconsistant whereas Ireland and France despite club domination have declined steadily over the past few years.

SA are still rebuilding and Australia are the poorest I can remember yet both still are cut above the NH.

NZ are incredibly dominant to the point that they can loose guys like McCaw, Thorn, SBW, Carter and the likes and still win comfortably. I honestly can't recall a side so far ahead of the others.

The only clear improvements in recent times have come from Samoa, Argentina and some of the other tier 2 nations like Japan.

by **Biltong** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:05 pm

Taylorman wrote:Hi Rodders, perhaps I'm a bit tired of pointing these things out but its getting to the point where I miss the genuine competition. The Boks and Oz have tailed off the last few years and if anything a gaps been placed between us and them.

I miss the terror the Boks used to give me and the thrill and skill of the Wallabies. Somethings missing in the NH and it always has other than that freak side in 2002/03.

In looking at the Lions tour/ super xv all I can see is another RC title this year, but his time because SA is building blocks and Oz are in dissarray over Deans, JOC, Beale and Quade etc.

Sorry mate, but there I am not going to agree with you. During PDV our infamous custodian of Bok rugby we had a 56 record against you with not changing anything in our style.

We had you in NZ last year and should have won that match. The return trip was a disappointing one for BOk supporters, but Gap widening against SA? NO way, no how, not happening.

by SecretFly Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:06 pm

Taylorman wrote:bc youre clutching at straws to find areas where we might be behind. Do you really think our losing u20's is significant? I dont. When we were winning them all everyone was saying the gap was closing as well. Its just something to say.

For me, beat the ABs again and again and again and then we're talking. SA did it in 09...just but since its been largely one way on the consistency front.

beating them again and again and again is not closing a gap, that's beating them again and again and again. But you just don't want to do the closing of the gap debate, Taylor, so we'll leave it there.

But that "clutching at straws to find areas we might be behind" is a real humdinger. Yeah, I think losing u20 is significant. It's the closing of a gap that existed at that level. Wink

Not a straw clutcher - a fact.

by **rodders** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:07 pm

The 2015 RWC is a 4 horse race between NZ, England, SA and Wales.

But lets face it, NZ will win.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:29 pm

I think Taylorman always comes from the approach of looking at the facts. It's just that he focuses on the win ratio which is ridiculously high. Take the game in Brisbane with the world record winning streak in our sights. I remember being nervous about that game. Tman said on paper we should win. He was right but we drew and probably deserved to lose. Like in Dunedin we didn't lose but probably should have. I think the way our mentality is we react well to disappointment. We bounce back well so I'm confident of victory in England this November. What's that based on? Our record. The gap is closing. Not yet. Could it. Quite possibly. The u20 losses have shown there are some big packs and they can hurt teams if you don't have a solid set piece and try to get too cute running things from everywhere without putting in the hard work. We saw that in 2009 against SA.

I am ever mindful and fearful of the fact that a team could knock us off our top perch. I love this game and am so proud of my country's achievements in that sport. Naturally I want it to continue. Naturally that is not a right we have. It has to be worked hard for and sometimes we can take that hard work for granted or not acknowledge how hard teams are working to knock us off that top perch.

I prefer to consider the threat of losing. I admire Tman and the way he calls it as he sees it. At the moment the facts are compelling. But it's also unrealistic to think those stats will continue. We do lose games. Just not many. That combination of confidence and self belief and fear of losing is a powerful combination. I know the Crusaders for example are capable of playing like they did last weekend. The fact they haven't consistently played like that is a reality. That could conceivably happen to NZ. Some of us like to dwell on that. Others prefer to cross that bridge when it comes. Both are looking at the facts. The U20 may result in a weaker AB side in the future. Lessons may be learned. Is the fact they lost worrying? Is one loss for Nz in a season worrying? Depends on where you're coming from.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:33 pm

I think Taylorman always comes from the approach of looking at the facts. It's just that he focuses on the win ratio which is ridiculously high. Take the game in Brisbane with the world record winning streak in our sights. I remember being nervous about that game. Tman said on paper we should win. He was right but we drew and probably deserved to lose. Like in Dunedin we didn't lose but probably should have. I think the way our mentality is we react well to disappointment. We bounce back well so I'm confident of victory in England this November. What's that based on? Our record. The gap is closing. Not yet. Could it. Quite possibly. The u20 losses have shown there are some big packs and they can hurt teams if you don't have a solid set piece and try to get too cute running things from everywhere without putting in the hard work. We saw that in 2009 against SA.

I am ever mindful and fearful of the fact that a team could knock us off our top perch. I love this game and am so proud of my country's achievements in that sport. Naturally I want it to continue. Naturally that is not a right we have. It has to be worked hard for and sometimes we can take that hard work for granted or not acknowledge how hard teams are working to knock us off that top perch.

I prefer to consider the threat of losing. I admire Tman and the way he calls it as he sees it. At the moment the facts are compelling. But it's also unrealistic to think those stats will continue. We do lose games. Just not many. That combination of confidence and self belief and fear of losing is a powerful combination. I know the Crusaders for example are capable of playing like they did last weekend. The fact they haven't consistently played like that is a reality. That could conceivably happen to NZ. Some of us like to dwell on that. Others prefer to cross that bridge when it comes. Both are looking at the facts. The U20 may result in a weaker AB side in the future. Lessons may be learned. Is the fact they lost worrying? Is one loss for Nz in a season worrying? Depends on where you're coming from.

by Taylorman Wed 10 Jul 2013, 8:51 pm

Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:Hi Rodders, perhaps I'm a bit tired of pointing these things out but its getting to the point where I miss the genuine competition. The Boks and Oz have tailed off the last few years and if anything a gaps been placed between us and them.

I miss the terror the Boks used to give me and the thrill and skill of the Wallabies. Somethings missing in the NH and it always has other than that freak side in 2002/03.

In looking at the Lions tour/ super xv all I can see is another RC title this year, but his time because SA is building blocks and Oz are in dissarray over Deans, JOC, Beale and Quade etc.

Sorry mate, but there I am not going to agree with you. During PDV our infamous custodian of Bok rugby we had a 56 record against you with not changing anything in our style.

We had you in NZ last year and should have won that match. The return trip was a disappointing one for BOk supporters, but Gap widening against SA? NO way, no how, not happening.

Since 2010 I meant Biltong. Since 2010 the tally is 6-1 at 27-15 average, 3-1 tries scored.
2007-2009 it was 4-4 at 24-20, 2-1 tries scored in NZ's favour.

As Kia says its pure data, but how can you argue that since 2007 when the Boks were World champs that the gap hasnt widened on those numbers?
With Oz its now 14 out of 17- that has got wider sonce Deans took over.

One loss to a UK side in 10 years? When have Oz or SA got near that?

The numbers are compelling. Remove the emotion and draw on the numbers.

by **Biltong** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 9:26 pm

As I have been told before stats can only tell one story, the reality is since 2009 when the breakdown laws changed PDV had no impact or input on SA rugby, it stagnated as we all know, last year in NZ we could already see even NZ struggled against our forward pack.

If you want to see the gap widening then I suppose it is your perogative.

It ain't going to last.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 10 Jul 2013, 10:33 pm

I know it sounds like a dicky nerdy thing to do (Im meant to be doing bookwork) but Ive just looked at the IRB rankings for the last three Julys.

July 2011:New Zealand 95.19, Nearest NH Country Ireland 82.51,
A Gap of 12.68.

July 2012:New Zealand 91.43,England 83.09,
A Gap of 8.34.

July 2013; New Zealand 90.08,England 85.76,
A Gap of 4.32.

If that trend continued for another couple of years then at least one Northern Hemisphere country would be ahead of New Zealand in the rankings, only trouble is South Africa would be probably be ahead of everyone else by about 12 points.

by Hood83 Wed 10 Jul 2013, 10:53 pm

Taylorman wrote:ok..heres the facts...
the ABs have the World cup, Rugby champship, bledisloe cup.
last year beat SA, Oz and Arg twice each and Ireland 3 times without a loss to any of them.

We had one solitary loss in the last game and a draw vs oz when nothing was on either other than the win. Though the Hillary trophy went to England.

We had an average score of 33-14 at 4 tries to 1 for the season.

Based on that, and feel free to bring in other sides stats, how is the gap closing? of course based on the 'facts' that you deal with.

It's completely fair, and I'm not arguing with this. The only crumb of comfort I can give myself is by asking myself whether players coming into the ABs at present are better than those they are replacing? My feeling is, generally, no, but I can only see a year or two at best of a mild blip. I do think though that it may occur at the next WC. Otherwise, probably same old same old. If Oz keep their players fit and get their gameplan right though, I think they'll give you a few jitters.

by blackcanelion Thu 11 Jul 2013, 3:12 am

Rugby always evolves. This year will be interesting. I'm always guarded in my optimism. The pessimist is me looks at the current trend in refereeing of the scrum and ruck and thinks how do we modify our game. We rely on a contest at the ruck, but the game has moved to a ruck contest in the tackle. We're not going to be competitive if hold back as we are at the moment. I think it's the biggest challenge for us this year.

I think the previous posters are right about talent base. I'm not sure that people realise the scale the issue. We have more players playing in top leagues overseas than any other nation this year. It's the equivalent of about 4 super 15 sides. That's depth taken from super 15 and national championship competitions.

We are also losing the depth we've had. It shouldn't come as a surprise the under 20's are no longer dominant. The standard is going up, but we are also competing on one leg. the under 20's is now the only major tournement for NZ players. As with SA and Australian teams they are more a collection of players than a team.

We've had really good coaches in the past (most of who are coaching top clubs/provinces or international sides). The drain on coaches, below super 15 is high.

We are losing players who could be international player of the year to league at the moment. I suspect if the under 19 world champs were still here we'd have held on to a few. Here's a few examples. The flyhalf for the under 20's this year could have been Matt McGahn. he was man of the match for NZ schoolboys in 2010 and I've heard him described by one journalist as the most talented schoolboy player he'd seen. He's now playing for the Melbourne storm under 20's league team with a loose forward with called Cade Umaga (another promising union player). The senior side includes ex union school boy players Danny Solomona (19) and Tohu Harris (20). they are just 1 of 16 clubs.

The Warriors have their own union scouting program. In the recent past they've signed union converts like Konrad Hurrell, Omar Slaimankhal, Braxton Stanley, Hukatai and Shaun Johnson. They extended the contracts of under 20 players Laumape and Vete and signed Papalii.

There's another young star is Toevasa-Shrek at the Roosters. He's a blistering runner, who is one of the brightest prospects in the NRL. The scale of the problem is arguably becoming more significant than the loss of Players to Europe (even the growing no of young players).

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 7:39 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I know it sounds like a dicky nerdy thing to do (Im meant to be doing bookwork) but Ive just looked at the IRB rankings for the last three Julys.

July 2011:New Zealand 95.19, Nearest NH Country Ireland 82.51,
A Gap of 12.68.

July 2012:New Zealand 91.43,England 83.09,
A Gap of 8.34.

July 2013; New Zealand 90.08,England 85.76,
A Gap of 4.32.

If that trend continued for another couple of years then at least one Northern Hemisphere country would be ahead of New Zealand in the rankings, only trouble is South Africa would be probably be ahead of everyone else by about 12 points.

how do you work that one out??

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 8:15 am

mystiroakey wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I know it sounds like a dicky nerdy thing to do (Im meant to be doing bookwork) but Ive just looked at the IRB rankings for the last three Julys.

July 2011:New Zealand 95.19, Nearest NH Country Ireland 82.51,
A Gap of 12.68.

July 2012:New Zealand 91.43,England 83.09,
A Gap of 8.34.

July 2013; New Zealand 90.08,England 85.76,
A Gap of 4.32.

If that trend continued for another couple of years then at least one Northern Hemisphere country would be ahead of New Zealand in the rankings, only trouble is South Africa would be probably be ahead of everyone else by about 12 points.
how do you work that one out??

Was wondering about that myself.

We are rebuilding, in two years we will basically have a brand new team, average age around 23-24, I doubt we will challenge much over the next few years, including the RWC in 2015

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu 11 Jul 2013, 8:32 am

I guess if NZ were to slip in the rankings other teams would benefit. If SA are consistently 2nd in the rankings then I imagine they would benefit from NZ's drop.

I agree bc. That may be the biggest reason for the fall from grace in U20. Hopefully Jk and Ted can reverse that trend and retain the talent in the Auckland area. Japan and France are proving to be threats to retaining talent as well and add in the coaches overseas the potential for a major slip in standards is very much alive.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:03 am

That still makes no mathmatical sense..

If the top NH rankings is going upwards the points are with them/us not necessarily the 2nd placed team. clearly england winning that game made a biggish difference. SA may be closer to 1st but at the same time 4th(england) will be closer to them!)

However - SA are a great side.. I dont know how you are developing or what talent is coming up. But you are a consistant force and allways have been.. I wouldnt be to gutted about it tbh..

by aucklandlaurie Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:22 am

mystiroakey wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I know it sounds like a dicky nerdy thing to do (Im meant to be doing bookwork) but Ive just looked at the IRB rankings for the last three Julys.

July 2011:New Zealand 95.19, Nearest NH Country Ireland 82.51,
A Gap of 12.68.

July 2012:New Zealand 91.43,England 83.09,
A Gap of 8.34.

July 2013; New Zealand 90.08,England 85.76,
A Gap of 4.32.

If that trend continued for another couple of years then at least one Northern Hemisphere country would be ahead of New Zealand in the rankings, only trouble is South Africa would be probably be ahead of everyone else by about 12 points.
how do you work that one out??

Mystir where I come from on this one is:

A. New Zealands total is dropping but its dropping more than the top Northern hemisphere team is increasing, or to phrase it another way.
B. New Zealand is not losing any more games to Northern Hemisphere teams than we were 3 Julys ago.

So then the question has to asked; Where the bloodee hell are all New Zealands points going?

C. The convicts are stealing them? No thats not happening, So theres only one lot to blame.
D. The South Africans must be getting them somehow, I cant mathematically prove it, but I'll just blame them by way of association.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:28 am

well england have increased by 5 and NZ have decreased by 5 in that period. Does that answer your question

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:30 am

and sa have stayed pretty steady.

simple maths really mate..

Hug

by aucklandlaurie Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:34 am

I should have known that reverting to something authorised by the IRB wouldnt be any help.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:35 am

Btw just to get some real stats into this discussion rather than using your original ones.

"

1(1)	NEW ZEALAND	93.19
2(2)	AUSTRALIA	87.45
3(3)	SOUTH AFRICA	86.44
4(4)	IRELAND	82.51
5(5)	ENGLAND	82.48

that was july the 4th 2011

as you can see NZ have decreased by 3 pts.

england have increased by 3 pts

SA have increased by less than a pt

Aus have decreased by less than a pt.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:35 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I should have known that reverting to something authorised by the IRB wouldnt be any help.

by fa0019 Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:36 am

Rugby is a game where at any one time, 20% of your first choice players are probably injured or unavailable. Results, ranking points etc can be signficantly distorted by this. What I like about NZ is that they have been active in managing their players to get the most out of them. It serves them well and others should take note.

I don't see NZ being the same calibre in 2015 as the henry years. It doesn't mean they won't/can't retain the RWC as they are always strong... but I don't think they will be standout.

I think the RWC15 will be very competitive. England have great potential but Lancaster has to take a realistic approach to his players and fielding the best team... not the best XV individuals. He also have to look into his front five.

SA has a lot of potential too. A lot of young players coming through although most of their skilled players now look to be backs rather than forwards and they need to open their game up a little to exploit their strengths. The issue they have is that they base their side around a massive pack and if they don't have dominance their strategy falls apart.

SA and England are similar teams... they don't tend to play with natural openside as they have been able to leave out such a player when they have such front five dominance. We have seen with SA struggling against Scotland and England struggling against Wales... when you lack that dominance, their game plan is worthless and reliant purely on individual skill to get them over the line.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:37 am

and for reference this is the 8th of julys 2013 rankings.

1(1)	NEW ZEALAND	90.08
2(2)	SOUTH AFRICA	87.03
3(3)	AUSTRALIA	86.87
4(4)	ENGLAND	85.76

by **LondonTiger** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:42 am

26/11/12
1(1) NEW ZEALAND 92.91
5(5) ENGLAND 81.07

New Zealand are so far ahead that of NH rivals that they gained Zero ranking points for the wins preceeding the Tickenham match. Then that defeat cost them almost 3 ranking points.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:44 am

yep thats exactly it londontiger.

as i said- the points have been taken by england from that game..

not sa.. all the stats back it up

by **LondonTiger** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 9:59 am

Probably best to only look at rankings immediately after the RWC final:

November 2003: 1) England 93.99
November 2007: 4) England 85.55
November 2011: 5) England 81.58

Pretty much shows the decline we all know happened to England since winning the RWC.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 10:03 am

yes but in this case its not really the relevant.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 10:05 am

mystiroakey wrote:yes but in this case its not really the relevant.

Relevant to the OP though of facing up to where we are right now. (or rather where we were in 2011). Things look promising, but I will waight till November 2015 to decide Very Happy

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 10:09 am

Yes you are right that its the only way to really judge the teams relative form.. we can pick any time when rankings havent really synced to prove false truths for respective teams..

But the above does show where the raniking points have gone within the time scale aucks is talking about. It is as simple as that. it doesnt suggest anything else really..

Your point also shows up the world cup seedings..It is a ridiculas time and method to seed the teams..

by **LondonTiger** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 10:17 am

As to seedings, I think that the previous tournaments 1/4 finalists should be the seeds - with of course the semi-finalists being in the top pool.

That way it is transparent, and gives the marketing teams of the next hosts plenty of time to get to work.

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 11:14 am

that or just the rankings straight after the tourny

by **George Carlin** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 2:49 pm

Bilt - each team's fans judges itself by a perception of what they 'should' be achieving - hence most NH fans would look in bewilderment at some of the pannings handed down (with love, of course) by some of the Kiwi and Saffer posters here. So where you should be depends on your age and what you've already seen that your national side is capable of.

As a Scotland fan in my mid thirties, I have been both the best and the worst of things. Unfortunately as the first hinge I ever saw wearing the thistle were Roy Laidlaw and John Rutherford, I blithely assumed that we always got gold like that and I've spent the next two decades trying not to cry at the shotgun wedding that is a comparison to them with Phil Godman and Dan Parks.

It is a truth often spoken that current Scottish players are regarded as well liked and good professionals but, with some notable exceptions, are not seen as 'winners' which cannot be anything other than fair comment as the lost generation of the 2000s embraced professionalism like a dose of the clap in a convent. You have to applaud the regularity with which we turned out players with no particular talent in that era - something that is thankfully being halted with some of the amazing young ability coming through. However, it is undeniable that this is arriving despite the grass roots system and sure as sh!t not because of it.

Our urine poor and deeply naive approach to the professional game set us back 10 years and with the increased technical skills of the Pacific Islanders, the ferocity of the mainland European teams, the enthusiastic playing numbers of the Asian nations (particularly Japan) and the natural athleticism of the African nations (watch Kenya's rise in the full 15 a side rankings), we need to pedal like Bradley Wiggins on methamphetamine just to maintain the pace of our slide through the world rankings.

In my view (which will doubtless earn the inevitable e-wedgies of disagreement), the sheer volume of pain dished out to Scottish posters by their national team has meant that as a collective, I am confident the Scottish contingent on these boards is the most clear eyed and pragmatic shower around when it comes to assessing their team's detriments. Oh, and merits. I always forget about those.

by fa0019 Thu 11 Jul 2013, 2:56 pm

George... its pretty much been like that for all Scottish sport mind... wouldn't you say??? Football has gone the same way too and they were professional for years prior.

the 70s & 80s were our hayday... we batted well above our weight in rugby, football, motor-racing, athletics. Thanks god for Andy Murray and Chris Hoy!!!

The number of kids playing rugby is the lowest in the 6N, lowest out of all major rugby nations and similar to that of the USA. Its as much about numbers as it is having a great setup. Kids just aren't interested anymore... too much in playstation & facebook.

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 3:08 pm

yeah George, I believe the Scottish supporters deal with the reality of where their team is often, hence their objective view of their team.

by **George Carlin** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 3:38 pm

Biltong wrote:yeah George, I believe the Scottish supporters deal with the reality of where their team is often, hence their objective view of their team.

Or in other words:

Erm

+

+

+

+

+

=

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 4:32 pm

I suspect there is a little of this as well.

Cry

by mystiroakey Thu 11 Jul 2013, 4:33 pm

Scotoland don;t care anymore- they are all playing tennis instead these days

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 4:37 pm

And doing well from what I hear.

by **George Carlin** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 5:21 pm

Biltong wrote:I suspect there is a little of this as well.

Totally - OP amended. I wish that there was an emoticon that somehow showed John Inverdale being condescending.

by Taylorman Fri 12 Jul 2013, 12:47 am

Stats are a bit weird. We've lost one match since the world cup started two years ago and we've gone down? What is the next least tests lost in that period by anyone?

Oz lost 9, SA 4, Eng 7, Wales 13 (?), France 12

What does a closing gap on number 1 actually mean? Its obviously not the number of tests lost. Sure the periods a little selective- we lost a couple prior to the world cup but so did everyone else. But how England can be closing on NZ with a 7 loss count to 1 in the period is a bit weird...

by alive555 Fri 12 Jul 2013, 1:26 am

Biltong

I read some real bs about how you thought scotland had cheated the ref

As about as impartial as your commentators , who are cringeworthy .

Actually not only did we boss the scrum and loose with a second team we also played the smarter rugby

If Hamilton hadn't been incorrectly sent off you would have almost certainly lost - and well deserved

We replay in nov. don't squeak if u lose wont be a surprise .

by mystiroakey Fri 12 Jul 2013, 2:08 am

England rarely lose by much(the wales defeat is once in a blue moon!)

they mainly lose away and to teams ranked above by hardly any points(the wales result is an anolmoly)

when you lose games by the odd few to teams ranked above but then beat the best by 20 pts you should clearly close the gap..

however i am not really sure why you bring up england anyway.. Aus have lost 9 in that time. they havent really moved in the ranking..

remember rankings are based on home and away, pts won by(less or more than 15), when the game happened, and who you are playing- for obvious reasons.. It really is very clear cut- by only taking wins and loses isnt enough for a decent ranking system

england beat NZ by over 15 which is the reason this has happened. ANd offcourse you deserve the boost if you can do that.

To maintain a ranking of 94 odd- you have to win every game(i think england hit that mark 10 years ago and clearly NZ have recently- however you have to maintain a 90% win record and win alot of games by over 15 points. if you dont do both then you cant keep a 94 pt ranking.

by Taylorman Fri 12 Jul 2013, 3:35 am

no its just someone earlier mentioned the stats around Englands numbers. yes the big win must have helped I agree. Frankly I hope it does close. I wouldnt mind seeing us back in the pack having to fight a bit more. As Biltong says SA have some up and coming youngsters, so do we and Oz with a new coach will have a renewed energy.

by **Biltong** Fri 12 Jul 2013, 6:34 am

alive555 wrote:Biltong

I read some real bs about how you thought scotland had cheated the ref

As about as impartial as your commentators , who are cringeworthy .

Actually not only did we boss the scrum and loose with a second team we also played the smarter rugby

If Hamilton hadn't been incorrectly sent off you would have almost certainly lost - and well deserved

We replay in nov. don't squeak if u lose wont be a surprise .

Read this

by maestegmafia Fri 12 Jul 2013, 6:57 am

Interesting to read antipodean opinion on the U20s. Surprised that some pay it little relevance that Wales and England are becoming more consistent performers.

by **Biltong** Fri 12 Jul 2013, 7:09 am

I think the SH needs. U20 competition as well, we go into these tournaments less prepared than the NH, SA played Argentina and that is it, I don't know if NZ or OZ played any games before had.

by maestegmafia Fri 12 Jul 2013, 7:15 am

Biltong wrote:I think the SH needs. U20 competition as well, we go into these tournaments less prepared than the NH, SA played Argentina and that is it, I don't know if NZ or OZ played any games before had.

SA seemed very well prepared? They were a very good team again. The quality of school boy rugby in SA, England and NZ is very high.

by Sponsored content