SA Rugby Mag Credits South For Recent Northern Wins

I was among numerous rugby writers to dismiss England's 38-21 defeat of New Zealand in December 2012 as an aberration. In hindsight, it was an immature position to hold and failed to take into account numerous factors that had contributed to it...

...The Lions' Test series victory challenged me further. The northern hemisphere's best teams have improved significantly and it has been coming for a while....

...I feel much of this has to with the positive effects of southern hemisphere players, particularly the elite ones, in European leagues and particularly in the European Cup...

Read the rest here:

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/southern-influx-bearing-fruit

Fair points, well made.

I still feel there is a style gap. The north prefer, whether they will admit it or not, a penalty driven style based on the set piece. Wet dank weather rugby for dense pitches and rainy days. The south prefer a more evolved counter attacking game based on running around and giving the ball some air and allowing individuals, rather than a team per se, to thrive.

The injection of these individuals into NH rugby had broken the mould to some extent and unleashed the exact kind of players celebrated now up north - George north, Halfpenny, Tuilagi, 36, Ashton, and so forth.

Anybody would think that men like Duckham, Gerald Davies, Bennett, John, Gibson, various people called Williams, Irvine, Renwick, Woodward (yep, he really could play), Ward, Jonathan Davies, Ring, Rutherford, Guscott, Ieuan Evans, Geoghegan, Rory Underwood, O'Discoll, Greenwood, Robinson and Lewsey, to say nothing of a score of Frenchmen, had been non-existent until the advent of the sainted modern era of the "individual".

No wet, dank weather in New Zealand, is that right? The Grant-Fox piloted All Black teams of the late 80s/early 90s didn't do much in the way of counter-attacking that I can recall. They began by crushing their opponents up front and reaped the rewards as the game progressed. South Africa won the 2007 RWC largely through absolute aerial supremacy and a generally solid all-round forward effort, rather than counter-attacking pyrotechnics. Set piece excellence was crucial. The 1999 Wallaby RWC winners weren't blessed with the attacking flair of their 91 predecessors, but defensively, they had no peers; their set-pieces, aided by men such as Eales, were virtually impregnable.

You make the best of what you have, essentially. Historically, NZ and the Boks have done that streets better than anyone else, whether their men in possession of the shirts have been counter-attacking wizards or grind 'em down merchants. The style gap these days is arguable less pronounced than ever - teams from the North and South field big guys, supremely athletic with ferocious pace, looking to overpower their opponents and deny them space when they don't have the ball.

As ever, whatever works for each side - when Scotland had their great sides from 84-90, a quick, fluid rucking style, based on traditional All Black methods was what worked for them. If you don't have the players to manage that, as Scotland don't quite at the moment, you look for other methods.

Ah but what is your "best". Encourage rank and file and the rank and file rise to the top. SH rugby in the modern era has added the dimension of fluidity and those players rise to the top - the game changers. So many are plying their trade and being celebrated for it up north - enough to precipitate a revolution of style.

A revolution of style? I see.. Do you mean like the much maligned Saffacens and their brand of 'giving the ball some air' rugby?

He has a point. It would be good to see more NH players heading South. Can only be good for the game to have a greater exchange of ideas and experiences etc.

Coaches heading north have also played an important role. No need to get sensitive about it.

Saracens or saffacens if you prefer have been a good addition to the English rugby landscape. They have played decent stuff and advanced their play a lot in the last couple of years. No doubt Brits, Joubert, Barrit etc have been good additions and a positive influence on the league.

Credit also to the south sea islanders for their contribution.

Disagreeing is like saying that the exposure of African footballers to European leagues hasn't been good for the game in Africa.

I think the NH must go play in OZ or NZ, I like the fact that our domestic rugby is played by our own countrymen.

Maybe the author is correct, but there's also a chance that he's simply mistaking correlation for causation. You can tell he's not entirely sure of the argument by the way he tries to meet head-on the obvious counterexample of English football.

In that sport, while the jury may be out on whether the fortunes of the English team have suffered as a direct consequence of so many overseas players in the Premiership, few would argue, as Verde does, that they have benefitted.

Back in rugby, some of those same questions are being asked in France, since a growing number of foreign players now dominate the ranks of the top teams, and limit opportunities for local players

The article also takes for granted a two-tier world of North and South which we know wasn't the case ten years ago when England ruled the roost. Not only is the causation argument on overseas players and national performance open to question, it's arguable whether there is any correlation.

Wales also doesn't seem to fit neatly into this model. The regions can't afford to keep their own top players, let alone attract marquee names, and have struggled to make an impact in European competition. Meanwhile, the Welsh national team is racking up Six Nations titles.

Similarly, it's difficult to know how to credit recent Northern success at junior levels to the influence of overseas players because few would have much experience with these senior pros.

It's possible that increased numbers of foreign players in domestic competitions has little impact on national team performance in the North but does disrupt development cycles in the south.

Rugby Fan wrote:Maybe the author is correct, but there's also a chance that he's simply mistaking correlation for causation. You can tell he's not entirely sure of the argument by the way he tries to meet head-on the obvious counterexample of English football.

I can't help but feel the author may be making a mistake. For me, why would England's win against NZ be an aberration? We may well lose more than we win against the SANZAR teams, but we have been consistently and regularly getting a result each season.

This season the win against NZ, the 11/12 season a draw against SA (better than nothing and we had no home matches due to the world cup), thumped Aus at home in the 10/11 season, beat them away in 09/10, don't think we got one in 08/09, beat Aus in 07/08 at the world cup, beat SA in the autumn of 06/07, Aus again in 05/06, SA in 04/05 - and for a few years before that we were wining a lot more than 1 game per season.

The aberattion for me is a season like 08/09 when we didn't get any kind of result against the SANZAR teams - I think it's the only season in the pro era that we have lost all our games. I suspect you'd see something similar if you look at the records of Ireland and France - I half suspect they've actually done a bit better over that period. The only real change is that Wales have got a lot better over the last few years, and I suspect that has more to do with getting in a good coach and having a decent set of players coming through which in turn may mean they have a good academy system.

I also think that the English academy system that was set up is starting to bear fruit now, with a lot of talented players now coming through. Something that (dare I say it) the RFU deserve credit for, not to mention Brian Ashton who did a lot of work while they were originally being set up.

I definitely think that SANZAR coaches have had a positive impact, but I'm less convinced that the players have.

How much did Haskell learn in just one season of super rugby? Point proven.

Not really, never rated him as one of the top dogs and still don't.

I think Haskell learnt more at Stade France actually.
 
The jury is out on him as he hasnt had a rest in how many years and looks knackered. Ill judge him from the start of this season.
 
I agree that having top foreigners has helped instead of average journeymen that were coming up.
But we shouldnt forget as mentioned above the world class talent that has been produced through the years from the 70's welsh guys to the French etc...

Indeed the biggest thing has provbably been the profesionalism (eating, training habits) that NH have finally taken on, and the coaching ability of NH coaches is improving.

Though dont forget also as far back as the 91 WC, England should have won the WC...if they hadnt played up to the Aussie mind games...

One thing that I thought was different between the teams in this last series of (particularly in the third test) interminable bombing was the running lines of retreating defenders.

Oz defenders ran straight back whereas the Lions used a much more the usual NH curvilinear interpretation of the term retreating directly.

Not that I'm suggesting that this was in any way deliberate or coached or anything...
It is probably down to poor education in the NH in teaching what is the shortest distance between two points.( )

I think its kind of a bull argument given that both the 2 matches where the SH teams were dominated Eng vs. NZ and Lions vs. AUS 3rd test where built upon traditional NH rugby where they smashed the opposition up front, got a nice lead from penalties and when the SH opened up a bit to try and force their way back into the game they got destroyed.

Have the NH players learnt from some of the great players playing in their league... sure but in reality its hurt them more by lowering the number of domestic players... look at France for instance.
Also, if they're taking the best players at the moment then I would tend to agree... but they're taking the best players from 4 years ago... not now. Perhaps part of the reason why they're always playing catch up.

Personally I think one of the biggest differences is the weather and the time of year that rugby is played in the respected nations. It alters player decisions, who makes the grade year in year out and how a player develops.

NZ bombed two certain tries that day and DC returning from injury missed a bunch of sitters. I think NZ did enough to win the game but poor execution and a silly intercept pass from the normally immaculate Smith let England in. I guess the norovirus didn't help on the normally robust defensive line. I'm not sure you can celebrate northern rugby in that win, but perhaps British food hygiene standards.

In terms of who was winning the contest though their was only one winner. NZ were being smashed from the go and only individual talent was keeping them in the game. It goes to show what players are capable of... consistency is another thing though.

Its the good old food poisoning line again, and in your other thread you spout on about NH whingers.

For a 60 year-old, you sure haven't learned how to read a game, GE. Too much A3 traffic passing your door and dulling the senses, perhaps?

same in 95...its all an excuse. If they were so ill then why did they play over guys who weren't affected. Watched a testimony by Eric Rush on the 95 illness... he was one who didn't fall ill as he didn't eaten at dinner with the rest of the team (as he had sneaked off to grab a pizza beforehand)... yet he didn't feature over those who "apparently" were ill.

Had they won that day it wouldn't have even been mentioned no doubt.

Good old Suzie, maybe she still harbours her grudge against the ABs and dosed them up again in 2012.

GloriousEmpire wrote:NZ bombed two certain tries that day and DC returning from injury missed a bunch of sitters. I think NZ did enough to win the game but poor execution and a silly intercept pass from the normally immaculate Smith let England in. I guess the norovirus didn't help on the normally robust defensive line. I'm not sure you can celebrate northern rugby in that win, but perhaps British food hygiene standards.

It's no wonder the other Kiwi fans distance themselves from you and your comments ghostie. This is prime AWOP. It took a while for you to get back round to your usual posting style but you're back on 'form' again.

I was just wondering what his motivation is? What drives his constant need to belittle? What trauma has he experienced at the hands of NH rugby?

captain carrantuohil wrote:For a 60 year-old, you sure haven't learned how to read a game, GE. Too much A3 traffic passing your door and dulling the senses, perhaps?

If the A3 traffic was passing my door, it would be my opinion that the drivers weren't following a direct route to their destination.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Anybody would think that men like Duckham, Gerald Davies, Bennett, John, Gibson, various people called Williams, Irvine, Renwick, Woodward (yep, he really could play), Ward, Jonathan Davies, Ring, Rutherford, Guscott, Ieuan Evans, Geoghegan, Rory Underwood, O'Discoll, Greenwood, Robinson and Lewsey, to say nothing of a score of Frenchmen, had been non-existent until the advent of the sainted modern era of the "individual".

No wet, dank weather in New Zealand, is that right? The Grant-Fox piloted All Black teams of the late 80s/early 90s didn't do much in the way of counter-attacking that I can recall. They began by crushing their opponents up front and reaped the rewards as the game progressed. South Africa won the 2007 RWC largely through absolute aerial supremacy and a generally solid all-round forward effort, rather than counter-attacking pyrotechnics. Set piece excellence was crucial. The 1999 Wallaby RWC winners weren't blessed with the attacking flair of their 91 predecessors, but defensively, they had no peers; their set-pieces, aided by men such as Eales, were virtually impregnable.

You make the best of what you have, essentially. Historically, NZ and the Boks have done that streets better than anyone else, whether their men in possession of the shirts have been counter-attacking wizards or grind 'em down merchants. The style gap these days is arguable less pronounced than ever - teams from the North and South field big guys, supremely athletic with ferocious pace, looking to overpower their opponents and deny them space when they don't have the ball.

As ever, whatever works for each side - when Scotland had their great sides from 84-90, a quick, fluid rucking style, based on traditional All Black methods was what worked for them. If you don't have the players to manage that, as Scotland don't quite at the moment, you look for other methods.

excellent post!

Not you, PC, the other self-confessed sexagenarian on the board, although congratulations for having a name like that at your advanced age!

MMaaxx wrote:He has a point. It would be good to see more NH players heading South. Can only be good for the game to have a greater exchange of ideas and experiences etc.

Coaches heading north have also played an important role. No need to get sensitive about it.

Saracens or saffacens if you prefer have been a good addition to the English rugby landscape. They have played decent stuff and advanced their play a lot in the last couple of years. No doubt Brits, Joubert, Barrit etc have been good additions and a positive influence on the league.

Credit also to the south sea islanders for their contribution.

Disagreeing is like saying that the exposure of African footballers to European leagues hasn't been good for the game in Africa.

I think we as a rugby community in oz would welcome more NH players doing a stint in Oz playing for our teams. Regardless of how the Lions tour was perceived externally, we loved it. We've also had enough blokes come here in Aussie rules (jimmy, tadgh), league (the Burgess boys currently are genuine guns, plus blokes like Carney who we're good, and funny which hurts no one), rugby with Delve, Lipman (bit each way) and even Cips was interesting. I think we have gotten over ourselves a bit in the past 10-20 years, and while we need to ensure enough spots are available to ensure the Wallabies are sound, the variety adds flavor.

I like the fact that each country has its own style and methodology in how they approach the game, one of the things that I don't like about Rugby League is the fact that most teams employ the same structures and plans to play. Rugby is unique in the way where there are different ways to approach the game and when some of these styles clash rugby is at its bets.

In particular I like the fact that we play our own game and even though our evolution takes longer than most we have stayed to our roots and strengths, I there for am not really keen to see mass migration of overseas players to SA.

In fact I want our rugby to remain proudly South African.

Percy Montegomery acknowledges his time at Newport turned his career around and gave him a perspective on professionalism that he never previously had. He then went on to help the boks win the RWC, without him I doubt they would have done so.

Graham Henry added a forwards steel into the NZ game, one which had been lacking under Mitchell and something he learnt from his time coaching Wales and playing the big England and France teams.

Chaps like Frans Louw and Ruan Pienaar have become better players from learning the NH game... but then again it didn't go so well for Frans Steyn who fitness suffered greatly.... more of an issue with French sides today.

Biltong wrote:I like the fact that each country has its own style and methodology in how they approach the game, one of the things that I don't like about Rugby League is the fact that most teams employ the same structures and plans to play. Rugby is unique in the way where there are different ways to approach the game and when some of these styles clash rugby is at its bets.

In particular I like the fact that we play our own game and even though our evolution takes longer than most we have stayed to our roots and strengths, I there for am not really keen to see mass migration of overseas players to SA.

In fact I want our rugby to remain proudly South African.

You mean the Bakkies Botha, Cobus Weise style where the man of the match award was given to the person who caused the most intra-match retirements right?

Biltong wrote:I like the fact that each country has its own style and methodology in how they approach the game, one of the things that I don't like about Rugby League is the fact that most teams employ the same structures and plans to play. Rugby is unique in the way where there are different ways to approach the game and when some of these styles clash rugby is at its bets.

In particular I like the fact that we play our own game and even though our evolution takes longer than most we have stayed to our roots and strengths, I there for am not really keen to see mass migration of overseas players to SA.

In fact I want our rugby to remain proudly South African.

I completely agree Biltong. I didn't grow up with Rugby, but what attracts me to it is the variety of styles, that it accounts for the short fatty and the tall skinny, that players have to specialize, that in picking your bench you have to take a gamble, and even that the ref plays a part.

fa0019 wrote:Percy Montegomery acknowledges his time at Newport turned his career around and gave him a perspective on professionalism that he never previously had. He then went on to help the boks win the RWC, without him I doubt they would have done so.

Graham Henry added a forwards steel into the NZ game, one which had been lacking under Mitchell and something he learnt from his time coaching Wales and playing the big England and France teams.

Chaps like Frans Louw and Ruan Pienaar have become better players from learning the NH game... but then again it didn't go so well for Frans Steyn who fitness suffered greatly.... more of an issue with French sides today.

I am going to disagree, Frans Louw weren't ever going to be first choice for the Boks whilst Burger, Brussow, Rossouw, Spies and Juan Smith was around.

He merely grabbed the opportunity when he got it, Ruan Pienaar is most definitely a hell of a lot more pedantic at the ruck than ever before.

We all know about Frans Steyn.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:I like the fact that each country has its own style and methodology in how they approach the game, one of the things that I don't like about Rugby League is the fact that most teams employ the same structures and plans to play. Rugby is unique in the way where there are different ways to approach the game and when some of these styles clash rugby is at its bets.

In particular I like the fact that we play our own game and even though our evolution takes longer than most we have stayed to our roots and strengths, I there for am not really keen to see mass migration of overseas players to SA.

In fact I want our rugby to remain proudly South African.

You mean the Bakkies Botha, Cobus Weise style where the man of the match award was given to the person who caused the most intra-match retirements right?

Well, yeah if you want to put it that way.  

boomeranga wrote:

Biltong wrote:I like the fact that each country has its own style and methodology in how they approach the game, one of the things that I don't like about Rugby League is the fact that most teams employ the same structures and plans to play. Rugby is unique in the way where there are different ways to approach the game and when some of these styles clash rugby is at its bets.

In particular I like the fact that we play our own game and even though our evolution takes longer than most we have stayed to our roots and strengths, I there for am not really keen to see mass migration of overseas players to SA.

In fact I want our rugby to remain proudly South African.

I completely agree Biltong.  I didn't grow up with Rugby, but what attracts me to it is the variety of styles, that it accounts for the short fatty and the tall skinny, that players have to specialize, that in picking your bench you have to take a gamble, and even that the ref plays a part.  

Absolutely, it is important to me that countries have their own identity not only in the players selected but also their mantra on rugby.

So Bilts,

How would you view each individual nations identity / style?

GeordieFalcon wrote:So Bilts,

How would you view each individual nations identity / style?

If you look at ideally what each team tries to do.

NZ - they play an intelligent game of outfoxing forward packs with a collective effort and even though they aren't always the biggest pack their collective effort in playing as a team in an intelligent manner allows them to win the contact area by playing and clearing it fast, their backs and Forwards have the ability like no other team to combine well. The only way to beat them is you must beat their forward pack and blitz their backline to put them under pressure.

OZ - They remind me of a team trying to emulate the All Blacks in what they do, however there is a distinct difference between the two, they rely on individual brilliance to score their points, I like to believe they aren't as cohesive as their mind set is more individualistic and their forward pack rarely dominate, their aim is to gain enough parity to strike with their open runners, unfortunately it hasn't been very successful in the last 18 months. Their pack has been under more pressure than usual and it impacted the space for their backs to move in and they have crept closer to an SA style of play by employing kicks too much and struggling to gain front foot momentum.

SA - We rely on our forwards to execute setpiece better than anyone, our line out for the past decade or more has been unparalleled and been used as an attacking weapon, we still are in a mindset that we can dominate teams physically even if they are smarter than us. We don't attack from our own half often and rely on direct running channel one be it a forward or back to break the gainline, when our forwards are on song virtually no team can live with us. However we do get outsmarted from time to time. Our backs out wide have lots of pace but is underused, although the style won't change the ball could go wide more often something we sometimes do, and other times not enough.

England - They are very similar to SA, but their set piece and breakdowns are a tad behind us, they try to be more expansive than SA, unfortunately it doesn't work often enough.

Wales - Wales likes to believe they play an open game similar in style to the All BLacks, but that is what was, what they do now is they play channel one rugby like SA, when they manage to dominate in the forwards they can be expansive, but they also have a tendency to look very busy without pulverising opponents above them.

Ireland for me is similar to OZ, but they usually can compete in the forwards contrary to what many Irish supporters believe, they have individual backs with lots of talent, but at times can come woefully short in the pack.

Scotland - They are mostly conservative and employ a spoiling tactic, they are a defensive orientated side, even though in recent years they have tried to be more expansive.

One thing I believe, the more teams try to change the more they stay the same, your mantra doesn't change even if you want to believe it does.

There are certain trends in rugby but you make the best use of your resources at the time.

You can't be slaves to the stereotypes because the game moves on and no nation has played an unchanging style of rugby over the decades.

England in the seventies had good backs and the opposition expected us to use them. We didn't win much because our forwards couldn't get them a lot of ball.

John Pullin believes the reason England managed a shock win over the All Blacks in Auckland in 1973 is that we switched strategy back to the forwards, and caught them on the hop.

fa0019 wrote:In terms of who was winning the contest though their was only one winner. NZ were being smashed from the go and only individual talent was keeping them in the game. It goes to show what players are capable of... consistency is another thing though.

Isn't it funny how the mind plays tricks in the collective recollection? It's the emotive use of words like "smash" and "buckle" and "destroy" that reveal an emotional rather than intellectual recollection of the actual events that transpired on any occasion.

A caricature of events with reality occluded unfortunately.

(The All Blacks) "conceded the advantage line, conceded the physicality contest, and never got up to speed with what their hosts were doing..." Best add Justin Marshall to the collective amnesia, then.

"Almost as frightening is the continued lack of a plan B when things are not going right and the All Blacks' inability to create space and revert to trying to crash over the top of their opposition. England did to the All Blacks what the All Blacks have done to numerous sides this year, and good luck to them." That's the Taranaki Daily News who have to bow before Glorious Empire's peerless ability to assess a match.

..."a pack that was alarmingly outmuscled. Being physically dominated isn't something any All Blacks side easily stomachs." And the Dominion Post regrettably takes leaves of its senses to add to the emotive memories of the game.

Or possibly, it's the old fella from the 'burbs who should have gone to Specsavers and might need to have another look at the match.

There's no doubting that the off-colour ABs weren't there usual selves defensively or their aggressive best at the ruck. But neither would Anyone be just 4 days after a norovirus attack, 2 days into recovery after defeating 6N champions and overwhelming majority share Lions in the Welsh team just a week prior!

Yes, I say too that the top form players should've turned out for NZ rather than bringing back so many players from injury for that match - a real learning curve for Hansen in his longest ever season. But as I recall it, quite a few players were out with conspicuous IRB appealant bans as seems to be the current monotonous want when a SH team plays a NH counterpart.

Hard to know where to begin in picking apart a post so full of grammatical solecisms and inane speculation, thinly disguised as a rational argument. Kindest not to, on balance.

Night school AND Specsavers, then, and you'll make a useful member of society yet, not to mention someone qualified to comment about a sport that appears to have passed you by.

fa0019 wrote:I think its kind of a bull argument given that both the 2 matches where the SH teams were dominated Eng vs. NZ and Lions vs. AUS 3rd test where built upon traditional NH rugby where they smashed the opposition up front, got a nice lead from penalties and when the SH opened up a bit to try and force their way back into the game they got destroyed.

Have the NH players learnt from some of the great players playing in their league... sure but in reality its hurt them more by lowering the number of domestic players... look at France for instance.
Also, if they're taking the best players at the moment then I would tend to agree... but they're taking the best players from 4 years ago... not now. Perhaps part of the reason why they're always playing catch up.

Personally I think one of the biggest differences is the weather and the time of year that rugby is played in the respected nations. It alters player decisions, who makes the grade year in year out and how a player develops.

I would have thought NZ and SA were masters of smashing the opposition up front, getting a nice lead and then going on from there. To me the debate about styles is more that NZ has more than just the ability to smash the opponents up front but can also do the other thing with the backs and forwards combining.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Hard to know where to begin in picking apart a post so full of grammatical solecisms and inane speculation, thinly disguised as a rational argument. Kindest not to, on balance.

Night school AND Specsavers, then, and you'll make a useful member of society yet, not to mention someone qualified to comment about a sport that appears to have passed you by.

It's funny how when posters can't attack the logic, rationale and truth in an argument they resort to exactly this kind of pyschogenetic fallacy.

Ill take it as a form of resentful and reluctant agreement that I'm right.

How does he explain Wales then? The exception that proves the rule?

Glas a du wrote:How does he explain Wales then? The exception that proves the rule?

Ad Hominem I imagine. They way he explains everything else.

GloriousEmpire wrote:There's no doubting that the off-colour ABs weren't there usual selves defensively or their aggressive best at the ruck. But neither would Anyone be just 4 days after a norovirus attack, 2 days into recovery after defeating 6N champions and overwhelming majority share Lions in the Welsh team just a week prior!

Yes, I say too that the top form players should've turned out for NZ rather than bringing back so many players from injury for that match - a real learning curve for Hansen in his longest ever season. But as I recall it, quite a few players were out with conspicuous IRB appealant bans as seems to be the current monotonous want when a SH team plays a NH counterpart.

You see you never give credit to the winners.

It seems you believe:

• New Zealand lost because they were off colour and Hansen brought back players he should not have done. If he had not done so and they had lost you would have had another excuse.
  
• Australia lost because of injuries and Robbie Deans selection choices.
  

You know what, sometimes the guys who won a match deserve some praise.

Yes, and I praise England in the way they competently took advantage of the situation, and similarly the Lions executed their series victory, for whatever its worth under the circumstances albeit nervously and without some small element if disharmony.

Talk is cheap as they say and true judgement lies in the performances and not in unfulfilled potential. To that end the Northern Hemisphere is distinctly second best and we cannot argue with that. We have been roundly beaten in the AI's for years with only the odd win keeping our interest going. Away series wins are proper gold dust. I can only pray that things continue to improve, but until it does we must accept where we are in this part of the world. We really need our national sides to not have the traditional dip post Lions tours and to secure some wins this autumn. No excuses for Wales, England and Ireland (sorry Scotland but you can continue with honest endeavor). You have to earn respect and we all need to deliver this autumn.

As for playing styles I believe this is only a reflection of the weather conditions. When the sun shines and pitches are firm we have seen loads of running attractive rugby, but too often it is cold and wet and muddy and a certain style has been found to be successful in those conditions!

hugehandoff wrote:Talk is cheap as they say and true judgement lies in the performances and not in unfulfilled potential. To that end the Northern Hemisphere is distinctly second best and we cannot argue with that. We have been roundly beaten in the AI's for years with only the odd win keeping our interest going. Away series wins are proper gold dust. I can only pray that things continue to improve, but until it does we must accept where we are in this part of the world. We really need our national sides to not have the traditional dip post Lions tours and to secure some wins this autumn. No excuses for Wales, England and Ireland (sorry Scotland but you can continue with honest endeavor). You have to earn respect and we all need to deliver this autumn.

As for playing styles I believe this is only a reflection of the weather conditions. When the sun shines and pitches are firm we have seen loads of running attractive rugby, but too often it is cold and wet and muddy and a certain style has been found to be successful in those conditions!

It is not just conditions though, two tough opponents facing each other doesn't always produce scintillating rugby either. I have seen plenty of wrestling matches in the SH.

Too true Biltong. My comment was a generalisation which holds some truth to it, but no doubt when the pressure is high the risk taking can reduce.

hugehandoff wrote:Too true Biltong. My comment was a generalisation which holds some truth to it, but no doubt when the pressure is high the risk taking can reduce.

RWC2011 - NZ played France twice. First match a pool game, little pressure and Kiwis played really good rugby. Second match, huge pressure and NZ looked nervous and played accordingly.

It happens to the best of teams.