Why is Southern Rugby Superior?

First topic message reminder :

A question that never really gets addressed is the reasons behind Southern Hemisphere rugby's superiority.

SANZAR teams dominate world rankings, having only ever ceded first spot once briefly to England. SANZAR sides have been ranked 1,2,3 83% of the time, and held first spot 94% of the time.

SANZAR teams have won all but one RWC.

But why? The home nations and France hold approxkmately 400% more wealth and roughly 1000% more player resources. More stadiums, more junior coaches, more domestic competitions. More of everything.

Aside from 15 man senior domination. The SH holds the women's World Cup, dominates age grade championships, are the sevens world champs and series holders almost every single time. They are commonwealth champs too, in fact only the USA (Olympic champions) fly the flag for the NH in major competitions.  

SA, Samoa and NZ are a breeding ground for imported northern and Japanese club sides.

Trying to deny it is clearly silly.

But parking that, why? Is it Nature? Or Nurture? Or Something Else?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Southern rugby is really a question about South Africa and New Zealand. Apart from the Catchpole-Hawthorne era of the mid-60s, Australia were only a sporadic force in the game until that 84 tour. Even during this golden three decade spell, they have remained by far the most beatable of the SANZAR nations and have rarely represented THE standard to be emulated.

The Boks and the Blacks are a different matter. They are part of the fabric of each nation - in the case of the All Blacks, I would go so far as to say that they actually embody their nation. As the All Blacks go, so goes the country, say my Kiwi friends, who have also suggested that election results have been swayed by All Black successes or unexpected losses.

When a side's results assume such importance in the wider scheme of things, it becomes easier to see how such excellence becomes an enduring tradition. Such traditions become virtually ineradicable with the passage of time - I certainly wouldn't expect to see the basic story change over the next fifty or a hundred years, although there will, of course, be relatively fallow periods even in South Africa and New Zealand. These will undoubtedly prompt the kind of collective self-examination of the national psyche that wouldn't happen in any other country in the context of rugby (England does it in soccer, Australia in cricket), which helps to explain why the two giants will remain essentially the pre-eminent force in the game.

Great post indeed.

In terms of Australia the fact that they have 2 Web Ellis trophies in the bag plus the odd Tri-nations title shows they haven't done too badly for a side that have only been a sporadic force and as you say that they regarded generally as not the force of NZ and SA only reinforces how superior the SH have been.

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway, threads like this will all be obsolete before long, the NH teams especially the European champions and WC semi finalists who are getting better year on year start beating you lot on a regular basis, we will start the spanking of you lot this Auntumn. Not only are we catching up, but we will emulate you by the time the next world cup comes around. 

there that's why

nganboy wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway, threads like this will all be obsolete before long, the NH teams especially the European champions and WC semi finalists who are getting better year on year start beating you lot on a regular basis, we will start the spanking of you lot this Auntumn. Not only are we catching up, but we will emulate you by the time the next world cup comes around. 

there that's why

Glad you agree old chum.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:Depends on what areas of the game you mean. I mean Scrummaging wise the Northern Hemisphere far more superior than the weak (Australian) or average (Boks/All Blacks) southern hemisphere teams.
But when is comes to the wide open game that the Southern hemisphere team like to play clearly are the more superior than the Northern Hemisphere teams.
Honestly it all comes down to what type of game a team play.
However even though the All Blacks don't have the strongest scrum in the world they are just a machine. Their all round game is just amazing, their support play, open play and physicality make them the most superior team in world rugby.

When was the last time any NH team out scrummaged a springbok side?

England in 02-04 perhaps... other than that perhaps France in 09 when the boks were knackered from their Lions season.... otherwise, its never happened.

Bok scrum average.... total jokes.

FA the question you should ask is how is it possible for SA to be at the top tier of rankings.

After all we have an average scrum, unimaginative backs, a boring game plan, we kick to much and maul all the time. We will hardly have any representatives in a world XV as your players aren't really world class either.

They struggled against Italy in the summer. They have an average scrum, end off

Jhamer25 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:Depends on what areas of the game you mean. I mean Scrummaging wise the Northern Hemisphere far more superior than the weak (Australian) or average (Boks/All Blacks) southern hemisphere teams.
But when is comes to the wide open game that the Southern hemisphere team like to play clearly are the more superior than the Northern Hemisphere teams.
Honestly it all comes down to what type of game a team play.
However even though the All Blacks don't have the strongest scrum in the world they are just a machine. Their all round game is just amazing, their support play, open play and physicality make them the most superior team in world rugby.

When was the last time any NH team out scrummaged a springbok side?

England in 02-04 perhaps... other than that perhaps France in 09 when the boks were knackered from their Lions season.... otherwise, its never happened.

Bok scrum average.... total jokes.

FA the question you should ask is how is it possible for SA to be at the top tier of rankings.

After all we have an average scrum, unimaginative backs, a boring game plan, we kick to much and maul all the time. We will hardly have any representatives in a world XV as your players aren't really world class either.

They struggled against Italy in the summer. They have an average scrum, end off

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnd, ...... We have a bite.

Thats just what the boks want.... doubters to prove wrong.

A 600kg front five and 940kg pack is likely come the AIs. One Prediction... pain!

Yeah, it will be pain for them when they play Wales...

Look forward to it.... there can be no true despair without hope.

There's more to a pack than just weight

I for one look forward to France-South Africa in november (more to the NZ game for instance). hope there wont be too many injuries by then.

I'd pay a lot of money to see Ras Dumisani belt out the South African national anthem with pride again.

In most of the Home Nations Rugby Union is pretty much a minority sport (apart from Wales but Wendyball is fast overtaking that too)

In England most young talent goes to football or cricket.
In Ireland it mainly goes to the Gaelic games.
In Scotland it goes probably goes into football too.
In Wales it goes into blaming England for everything... (you know I don't mean it really).

They all get attendances and grass roots that Rugby can only only dream of.

It isn't really taught in most of our schools (let's face it most schools near cities have a playing carpark not a playing field. Most peoples exposure to the sport is like mine... Getting involved in the local club at 14 (ish) years old.

Seeing as some like to bring up the bigger population/player base/more money arguement I will indulge...

What's going to produce better players..... 1000 school kids starting to play in their teens (when there are seriously more important things to pay attention too, such as girls, drinking cider in the park or fixing up that 'Phat/Sick' moped you just brought off Conner for £40)....

Or 50 kids that have been introduced & coached from the minis and for whom to play for their school at rugby is one of the greatest honours they can achieve and not just an excuse to skip geography?

More does not always mean better.

 

fa0019 wrote:I'd pay a lot of money to see Ras Dumisani belt out the South African national anthem with pride again.

not sure I'd pay for that but it brings back some good memories (the result not the singing although the guy was probably high on weed or something)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=beg0-kMN3fM

Metal Tiger wrote:In most of the Home Nations Rugby Union is pretty much a minority sport (apart from Wales but Wendyball is fast overtaking that too)

It isn't really taught in most of our schools (let's face it most schools near cities have a playing carpark not a playing field. Most peoples exposure to the sport is like mine... Getting involved in the local club at 14.
Seeing as some like to bring up the bigger population/player base/same old boring flannel arguement I will indulge...

What's going to produce better players..... 1000 school kids starting to play in their teens or 50 kids that have been introduced & coached from the minis and for whom to play for their school at rugby is one of the greatest honours they can achieve and not just an excuse to skip geography?

More does not always mean better.

In Wales, well to my knowledge anyway, the schools do cricket in the summer and rugby in the winter, the only time you get to play football is when the weather is way to extreme, like snow or monsoon rain and wind, and then it is only 5 a side in the gym, trust me, in the valley's rugby is played in every comprehensive from year one (form one for all us oldies) until you finish school. Also, now that there is a living to be had in rugby it is taught more in the games/PE classes in the comps.

LordDowlais wrote:
In Wales, well to my knowledge anyway, the schools do cricket in the summer and rugby in the winter, the only time you get to play football is when the weather is way to extreme, like snow or monsoon rain and wind, and then it is only 5 a side in the gym, trust me, in the valley's rugby is played in every comprehensive from year one (form one for all us oldies) until you finish school. Also, now that there is a living to be had in rugby it is taught more in the games/PE classes in the comps.

That may be and it certainly fits in with what one of my Welsh friends at work tells me... Both his kids have played rugby since pre school and are rugby mad. As is he... when he is not watching Swansea City. I suspect Pro Soccer is where the money is, even in Wales.

Southern Rugby is not superior its just different and they win more.

Are the registered playing numbers in Wikipedia right? Was surprised at how few players Wales have, considering.

There must be a catch because Oz have twice as many as NZ. Aren't Oz supposed to be struggling for numbers? And what about Sri Lanka, twice as many as Wales, these numbers must be wrong.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

For the record Australia like SA have won 3,3Ns and 2RWCS,and have actually beaten NZ once
more than SA.NZ has 2 RWCs and has won the 3/4Ns twice as many matches as the other 2
Top3 combined.SA with 2 RWCS from 2 Finals has the best strike rate for the trainspotters.Incidentally NZ wanted the IRB to change the qualification rules so that Tier 2
sides could pick ex Wallabies or All Blacks surplus to requirements to strengthen there sides
rejected by the NH majority.

Sorry, numbers don`t mean anything England has more registered players than anyone but
spread very thinly over the various comps.

Regisitered players really only reflect the generation before it.

Ireland is getting better depth in numbers with skills as we have built on the system of the generation before.
Sri lanka might have twice the numbers of wales but they are starting from a super low skills base.  Players in their one percent can't push each other as fast as in wales where skill levels are higher.

The reason that SA and NZ produce the most numbers of top players is they have roughly the following numbers

5x30 at super level
8x30 at Currie/ITM
ETC
Players have to push themselves to make it.  An 18 year old who is going to be an international knows he needs to be at ITM/Currie squad level or he wont make it.  If they make ITM/Currie teams at 20/22 they wont make it.  As a result all under age levels are raised. At 20/21 they should be S15 squad

In ireland the level need to be at 18 is All ireland club level which is atleast one level lower the currie/ITM probably 2.  Because of this we are starting our players off with a handcap because they don't need to be as good.
Irish youngsters are getting better because in the last few years the standard has increased required to get a pro contact at one of the 4 pro teams

I also think that NH players aren't as balanced in overall play but are good in their position.  Players like Hook and Earls if they were SH players would be given a postition and praise for their other skills.  Instead they are moved around to cover weaker postitions.  If our players were required to have more all round skills we would see the support play the SH has.  Aus's back line when fit is good because they all have the skills of the whole back line.  So during the game they can be more fluid.  We pick an all round and tell them to play like the position they are picked in.

Brendan we have a number of tiers.

Springboks (45 players)
Super rugby (170 players)
Currie Cup Premier division (about 140 of super rugby plus another 100 players)
Currie Cup First Division ( 240 players)
Vodacom Cup. (the 100 that doesn't play super Rugby plus 300 players)
Currie Cup U21 (420 players)
Currie Cup U19 (420 players)
Varsity Cup and Club rugby (300 players)
Craven Week for Juniors at various age levels where they get to represent their provinces from age 13

I know the numbers are kind of made up but the point is that to be a springbok every SA teenager knows that if he is still in the Currie u21 team until he is too old to play in it he probably wont make Super Rugby.

In ireland to make a pro contract usually you would only need to be at semi pro level at 18 at most. I am sure all springboks of the last 10 years were at a much higher standard at 18 so are that much better.

Yeah, sorry didn't mean to criticise your post, just wanted to provide you with full details, Full disclosure, you know.  

Just out of curiousity most of the boks at 20 would they have been in super rugby squads or would they have just been in the Currie cup squads while the big boys were away on international

Difficult to recall all of them, but if you look at Habana, Burger, Etzebeht, JP Pietersen, Frans Steyn, Goosen, Lambie etc they were all still youngsters, the list goes on, Kolisi, Coetzee, Coenie Oosthuizen, Willie le Roux, JJ Engelbrecht, Jan Serfontein.

ebop wrote:Are the registered playing numbers in Wikipedia right? Was surprised at how few players Wales have, considering.

There must be a catch because Oz have twice as many as NZ. Aren't Oz supposed to be struggling for numbers? And what about Sri Lanka, twice as many as Wales, these numbers must be wrong.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

Must be because I doubt Ireland has more players than NZ.

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:Are the registered playing numbers in Wikipedia right? Was surprised at how few players Wales have, considering.

There must be a catch because Oz have twice as many as NZ. Aren't Oz supposed to be struggling for numbers? And what about Sri Lanka, twice as many as Wales, these numbers must be wrong.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

Must be because I doubt Ireland has more players than NZ.

I'm pretty sure the Irish numbers include tag rugby,not sure if that's the case for all the other countries.

I think the weather plays a huge part also. What disappoints me is we start our sxv in February and its played on hard and fast grounds for thre months. Then like clockwork, the 1st June rolls around and the temperature and pressure seems to plummet overnight the start of winter and a week or two later the international side for the year starts their tour here.

If these tours were held in April or even beginning of May they would have a completely different look to them- much faster and a better environment for fans. I thinks its partly why our scoring is not as high as it could be.

I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that better SH weather amounts to better SH rugby. The SA has what many would presumably consider the perfect weather for rugby in winter: dry and not too cold (during the daytime at least) yet SA plays the most 'conservative' rugby in the SH.

I think it's much more a sporting-culture thing. In SA if you gather any men/boys (The demographics has been explained above by Biltong and KingRaf: so I'm referring to white/coloured people here) and they'll all talk rugby, and given the time and adequate space, will begin a game of touch rugby. Whereas, my experience of the UK is that in the same scenario, the lads will automatically talk and/or play football as default sport.

blackcanelion wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think choice (or lack or) is a factor.

In New Zealand you've basically got three options:

a) Play rugby
b) Work in the Gollum museum
c) Move to London and get a bar job

d) move overseas and work in merchant banking or IT

Interesting. I suspect club/school/provincial system possibly has a bit to with it in NZ. Clubs nurture junior talent, schools are uber competitive, provinces/super teams cherry pick the best.And everything is controlled by the AB's.

I think cracks are beginning to show. I'd be surprised if the golden age lasts. We have some significant systemic problems at the moment.

Do you not have this worthless, parasitic profession in NZ? Truly a blessed land! The nurturing element Im sure you're right on, but you also get NZ's best athletes. In England we may have a massive population, but ALL the best athletes go to other sports.

ebop wrote:Are the registered playing numbers in Wikipedia right? Was surprised at how few players Wales have, considering.

There must be a catch because Oz have twice as many as NZ. Aren't Oz supposed to be struggling for numbers? And what about Sri Lanka, twice as many as Wales, these numbers must be wrong.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

No, they're not right. Unless you think about 1 in every 25 people in England plays rugby - I can assure you they don't. Sport England used to do the numbers, an organisation that was 'encouraged' to show greater participation year on year. It's utter bunkum but it's a myth perpetuated for the tired old trope of 'Why aren't England better with all those players'.

So if its not because of all those plAyers, then why is it?

GloriousEmpire wrote:So if its not because of all those plAyers, then why is it?

I'm sorry, what's the question? Is it 'why are we still rubbish?' - God, where would I start?!

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:So if its not because of all those plAyers, then why is it?

I'm sorry, what's the question? Is it 'why are we still rubbish?' - God, where would I start?!  

Or is the question about the figures? I've got no idea about how the over a million was found but it is patent nonsense. Even Sport England now put the level at less than a tenth of that, and that includes tag rugby and various other non-measures. It's a shame there isn't a universal applied standard, it'd be interesting, but as it is it's only useful for posters who want to invent the idea that rugby is more popular in England than NZ, that England has a population the size of China or that rugby is taken seriously as a sport at grassroots level in this country, competing with football for kids' attention. All of which is obviously BS.

Anyway, I seem to recall us having this conversation before GE...

Actually it looks like the IRB has NZ as having 146,893 registered and unregistered players. Unless that includes tag and touch rugby i'd imagine that means you have far more players than England does. So perhaps that explains why the ABs are so good - they have more players to choose from...

So our numbers are correct but yours are not.  

Fair dues Hood, 1-25 seems a stretch.

But the percentages are quite similar between England (3.8 %) and NZ (3.3%), or thereabouts. I wouldn't have thought 1 in 30 play in NZ either. But 146,000 players seems feasible when you see it like that.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:So our numbers are correct but yours are not.  

Haha, yes that was exactly what I'm saying! Yeah I'm trying to have my cake and eat it here. Actually that sort of is the point - they're clearly compiled differently in different countries, so at best it's comparing apples and oranges, at worst you may find you don't like the results if they're standardised.

ebop wrote:Fair dues Hood, 1-25 seems a stretch.

But the percentages are quite similar between England (3.8 %) and NZ (3.3%), or thereabouts. I wouldn't have thought 1 in 30 play in NZ either. But 146,000 players seems feasible when you see it like that.

Yeah, I can imagine it's quite similar. Would have expected a little higher percentage in NZ though!

We have to trust the figures produced by officials, as we have to trust the officials for everything else: team selection, management structure, season structure, club franchising, stadium management, oversight of touring food hygiene standards, appointment of appropriate referees and security and so on.

Perhaps overstated playing numbers might be indicative of similar failings elsewhere given that: is the RFU and British unions in general just overly optimistic?

GloriousEmpire wrote:We have to trust the figures produced by officials, as we have to trust the officials for everything else: team selection, management structure, season structure, club franchising, stadium management, oversight of touring food hygiene standards, appointment of appropriate referees and security and so on.

Perhaps overstated playing numbers might be indicative of similar failings elsewhere given that: is the RFU and British unions in general just overly optimistic?

Two things. 1 - No we don't, in fact given our Government has had its knuckles wrapped (IDS) for its misleading use of statistics, I'd say we have to be cautious of the figures produced by officials. 2 - The point is that the officials are different in different countries. For example we have an official that is there entirely to spread debilitating illnesses among touring teams wearing black. Now I know this person is reliable and good at their job, but would I trust an AB equivalent to similarly afflict England if their remit was the same but for teams wearing white/knock off AB kits, no I wouldn't.

The RFU just knows which side it's bread is buttered is all. If numbers fall, so does its funding. But either way it is Sport England that compiles it, or did. There are probably many failings you can highlight at the RFU, but failing to secure funding for itself on the basis of little or no success is not one of them.

So you are saying  reason for England is that the RFU is more interested in money than success and honesty?

GloriousEmpire wrote:So you are saying  reason for England is that the RFU is more interested in money than success and honesty?

...yes :-). That and the fact they're locked in a system that, to an extent, rewards participation above success at the elite level. Although I don't know how funding is allocated exactly so it may be that funding based on participation goes exclusively to grassroots (?). I'll infer from your line of questioning that you now accept the pointless nature of these figures.

The Saint wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I can only speak for Scotland, but the basic issues are:

1. We are fat and drink too much.
2. The sun never shines.
3. We prefer football, because we are so good at it.
4. There aren't very many of us.
5. We poach dodgy players like Dan Parks.

I'd do one for Ireland, but fear a collective sense of humour failure of epic proportions....and threats on Twitter.....

#ah_go_on_go_on_go_on_go_on_go_on_go_on_go_on

• It's their tenth choice sport.
  
  

• It's only played in Dublin.
  
  

• The people are small and red haired.
  
  

There's more but I just can't think.

4. Everyone is called 'Patrick' and it makes teamsheets very confusing.
5. Doing hurling instead makes you more attractive to women.
6. Staying outside for extended periods makes Irish players' skin combust like a strip of aereated magnesium.
7. The leprechauns are against it, therefore guaranteeing several generations of Bad Luck for the international team.
8. BOD is about to retire and be put out to stud.
9. There's more money in block paving driveways*.
10. Irishmen are so cool, they don't need to be good at sport as well.
 
(   )
* Please don't kill me.

Wow it only took you 4 days to come up with that.

Yep. Only the quick and the brain dead here.

I would say it's an attitude and aspiration thing. While England have a lot of registered players, the vast majority only aspire to playing at a social level. They by choice don't have the attitude required to make it at elite level.

I would say that in NZ and SA there are more players who aspire to play for the national team and set out to do what it takes.

GloriousEmpire wrote:So you are saying  reason for England is that the RFU is more interested in money than success and honesty?

I don't think the RFU always knows what its priorities should be, which is part of the problem. The appointment of Martin Johnson was clearly aimed primarily at appeasing sponsors. I think they genuinely felt that any kind of steady hand on the tiller would get results, which didn't speak volumes for their appreciation of the value of good management and coaching.

I think it's probably structural in NZ. Rugby's not the major sport sport in the suburb I'm in. It's declining in many ways in secondary schools and at senior club level. We lose many very good athletes to other sports. What it still has going for it is good structure, especially development and an ability to adapt.

We have enthusiastic, quality parents as coaches (My kids junior team was coached by a recent international captain). It's quite small scale.  A lot of kids grow up playing hand ball sports, touch, basketball, league, etc  which adds to the skills base. At some high schools it's still the big sport at many of the major schools. It's like american high schools with rugby programs. The club professional game is very good at developing the talent it does get. Everything is focused on the All Blacks and we've possibly managed to minimise parochialism more than most other nations.

I think there is also a history of adaptation in NZ rugby, nation wide. Part of it is due to location, it's essentially sport ruled out of Britain. The other side is physique. Our biggest rival's were always the boks, we could never overpower them so we had to look to mobility and strategy. In other words we've always had to mix a hard nosed approach, with fitness, ballskills, mobility and a readiness to change tactics to win. I think this where NZ's strength, that Andy Farrel recently alluded to, comes from.