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?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't think its about Southern rugby being superior but more NZ being superior.

NZ are the best because it's their national sport and they can cherry pick from the Pacific Islands who produce monster athletes ideal for the physicality.

I suppose Wales is the mirror of NZ in the Northern hemisphere. They have a small pool to pick from but it's a priority sport so they constantly do well or punch above what they should.

England/France/Scotland/Ireland will never command the top spot for a prolonged period as the sport isn't as popular as say football, although they may have a purple patch every few years.

Think you'll find NZ can't cherry pick anyone,
in fact the net flow goes the other way. Secondly population of the PIs is roughly the same as a small suburb of London so that brings me back to my original point...

Think NZ is just a case of a perfect storm, plain and simple. Same with South Africa and golf, or Spain and Tennis. When perfect conditions, talent and motive meet... Boom!
No clue why South Africa is so great at swimming though. Couldnt fill a league 3 stand with the amount of semi/professional swimmers we have.

The PI's are still a conveyor belt of top talent and a percentage of those players end up in NZ by one means of another. They'll always be a good number of AB's that were not born in NZ, it's an accepted fact.

You don't address my other points, I take it you agree with them?

Lets call a Spade a shovel,Rugby Union has been played to some extent in both Hemispheres
for about 150yearsdating from mid 1880`s to date.It has been dominated by 2 SH sides until
1980-1 since the Professional era almost exclusively by the AllBlacks.[brief blips 1998-2000,2003-4,2009]] .
NZ `s abilitys is down to infrastructure 4 and 5 year olds playing non contact,touch,and similar handling games.THE SH used in the main to be outdoors folk,farmers etc with natural
as opposed to Gym muscle.
SA and NZ were run on professional lines since early 1900`s with Coaches being used at all levels.NH didn`t catch up Coaching wise until late 1960`s early 1970`s when the SH had a relatively poor by there standards run.
SA has been bedevilled by politics,and it was a rule of thumb two Bok forwards equal ability
heaviest and tallest won selection.
Australia only really has RU in NSW,NSW Country disricts and Queensland,it is only in the pro era that they have not gone RL for cash once established.
Also RU used to be a Winter sport in both Hemispheres played on afternoons with uncovered grounds,balls etc.Hurricanes,Heavy snow qccur in NZ to especially in Wellington or Invercargill.

I think you can safely say South African rugby is superior to any NH rugby nation.

Biltong wrote:I think you can safely say South African rugby is superior to any NH rugby nation.

I think 'more effective' is the correct wording

Biltong wrote:I think you can safely say South African rugby is superior to any NH rugby nation.

I don't think there's too much between England and SA over the last decade or so, SA prob just shade it but not by much.

NZ are the clear super power, Aus do really well to stay in the mix.

We're on a nine match winning run against England. Since 2006,

New Zealand, I believe, have always been the sports great innovators in terms of tactics and in the professional era have always contributed the best coaches to the world of rugby union. Just look at how many NZ coaches there are in Europe right now. 4 NZ Head Coaches in Ireland alone, a country where there are essentially only 5 top-level Head Coach positions! NZ produces a ridiculous surplus of talented coaches- I believe NZ have better coaching at every level of rugby from grassroots to international when compared to pretty much every NH side. Thats the difference

While South Africa and Australia are often better than the NH sides, no-one is comparing them to the All Blacks. South Africas traditional advantage is due to size and strength, and other nations are catching them up. Australia are beginning to feel the pinch of a small player pool. We no longer fear the Boks and the Wallabies, but NZ simply reign supreme over the rugby world and that looks set to continue for a generation.

Attitude and education to sport just is just better. The dry weather does help plus the SH doesn't lose its potential young talent to football.

Biltong wrote:We're on a nine match winning run against England. Since 2006,

It's only actually a winning 'run' of one

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think you can safely say South African rugby is superior to any NH rugby nation.

I don't think there's too much between England and SA over the last decade or so, SA prob just shade it but not by much.

Still holding on to that draw in 2012 then.  

Sgt_Pooly wrote:The PI's are still a conveyor belt of top talent and a percentage of those players end up in NZ by one means of another. They'll always be a good number of AB's that were not born in NZ, it's an accepted fact.

You don't address my other points, I take it you agree with them?

I think it's about 10 foreign all blacks in the history of the game, far fewer than any country other than South Africa or Australia (no coincidence). 

In the last World Cup, nz were second to last in terms of imported players, and the highest exporter by twice the next highest. Samoa topped the importers list using 15 NZ born players. 

I thought your other points were as laughably uneducated so I didn't even bother indulging them.

I would say Ireland have probably given us a greater fight from 2004-2013 than England if Im being honest. But then again, NH teams generally have a reason for their oblong records vs 3N teams, lose the Tours because you were just fresh from 6N. Lose the inbounds because its in the middle of the season, or something. Wait for the blue moon occasion victory is achieved... then Owen Farrel, of all people is the best flyhalf going around

It is actually a bug bear of mine, the pass NH players get come IRB awards time. Understandable during a world cup year, but I think they are sorely overrepresented during the awards season, given the fact that SXV is generally regarded as the Premier Provincial/club competitions, and 3N was seen as the prime national comp. Never seen Copa Libertadores success give anyone any recognition!

The player pool argument doesn't hold much sway. NZ only has a population of 4.5 M but a player pool of under 100 000. Even taking into account good athletes going to other sports there's still a healthy player pool from which to choose. The same applies to funding.

Biltong wrote:We're on a nine match winning run against England. Since 2006,

However, that came after England posted a seven match string of victories over you during the previous six years. South Africa were the last of the SH big three to record a win over England following our 2003 World Cup - New Zealand and Australia both managed it in their next matches.

South Africa have now gone back to being a team England supporters doubt we'll beat but, for a long time, we probably fancied our chances against the Boks more than the other two. It actually took a while for the penny to drop that you had our number.

Still, a seven match winning streak against you is the best record any NH side has against the SH big 3. That's a major reason why you'll get some argument about the superiority of South African rugby over us since your return from isolation.

A draw...if only eh Saint?  

South Africa: The Boer factor.Plus they eat lotsa beef.

Australia: Criminal cunning. Plus they eat lots beef

New Zealand: ugly women so a higher testosterone level, plus eat lotsa beef.

Argentina: They only eat beef.

Pacific Islanders :On the 8th day god decided to make rugby players, so he made Samoans, Tongans etc because they dont have any beef.

Breadvan wrote:A draw...if only eh Saint?  

Oh come on you know you lot didn't shut up about the draw when it happened. It's also the impression I got from Sarge, but Rugby Fan actually put it into perspective.

lol. Felt like a victory tbh after what happened in one of the tests. 20 odd down after 10 mins if I remember...

Laurie, PIs don't have beef but they have vegetables with GI values through the roof.

Whats GI ebop?

You put starch in shirts to stiffen them.

You put taro in people and you build hard case rugby players.

and a rich diet of kentucky duck.

And they do have beef, corn beef in a can

At one stage wasnt Palm corned beef the sponsor of Manu samoa?

Whocares, GI is glycemic index (something like that). Root vegetables like taro and kasava which fuel the big engines of the PI nations. Very bland to eat but great fuel. It's a staple in their diet. PIs would eat through 1-2 taro whilst mere mortals like us could only get through a 1/5 of one before our taste buds fell out and jaw gave way.

The fish in the Pacific ocean is made from beef.

ebop wrote:Whocares, GI is glycemic index (something like that). Root vegetables like taro and kasava which fuel the big engines of the PI nations. Very bland to eat but great fuel. It's a staple in their diet. PIs would eat through 1-2 taro whilst mere mortals like us could only get through a 1/5 of one before our taste buds fell out and jaw gave way.

Oh thanks Ebop. Now I get it. thought most roots have a low glycemic index (at least compared to potatoes) so it should keep them lean? (My better half developed diabetes hence my interest in that field! )

Don't feed her taro then who cares!

True, got my facts wrong there whocares, low GI as it turns out. More calories is more accurate I think. You're educating me here:)

Well never heard about that taro root before so I am the one educated

Thing is in this part of the World we all eat pretty good.

If you ever go to Samoan wedding there is absolutely no point in eating for a day before, and saying "Im full" just doesnt wash with them, even if you can hardly stand up.

Ive been to the odd bbq put on by expat South Africans, and I tell you salad is well down the list of priorities.

Yep, the salad is really just there as garnish.

You guys only have salad for the women to eat, so that it leaves more meat for the men.

That works as well.

If i could mod the op id add taro. Can't sorry.

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.

Funny posts on this thread, makes me chuckle.

NH teams will pick players specifically for set piece prowess. They get the best props for example which is why we see Adam Jones or the sight of Jason Leonard: great unfit tubs if lard who outside the scrum lumber from ruck to ruck a full minute behind play adding nothing at all - where as the All Blacks will pick a pair who can hold their own in the scrum but also offer what the All Blacks look for in attack - work rate, fitness, ball skills. 

So often you will hear NH pundits screaming that players must do their "core job" first.  In NZ the attitude is probably similar, except they realise you don't get any points for set piece style, so the core job is always to aid in the scoring of points. 

That's not to say you can't generate penalties for dominant set piece : just that All Blacks style also dictates you aim for 7 before 3. 

Its all about the overall combination of individuals, a delicate and precise balancing act. Like a Swiss watch or a gyroscope. 

Team above the technical prowess of individuals.

Which is why the lions usually fail, and cause so many fights. Gatland got it. But then he's a Kiwi too.

I think this thread has exposed a major reason why the SH are superior .....because too many people in the NH actually believe that they aren't.......

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.

GloriousEmpire wrote:NH teams will pick players specifically for set piece prowess. They get the best props for example which is why we see Adam Jones or the sight of Jason Leonard: great unfit tubs if lard who outside the scrum lumber from ruck to ruck a full minute behind play adding nothing at all - where as the All Blacks will pick a pair who can hold their own in the scrum but also offer what the All Blacks look for in attack - work rate, fitness, ball skills. 

So often you will hear NH pundits screaming that players must do their "core job" first.  In NZ the attitude is probably similar, except they realise you don't get any points for set piece style, so the core job is always to aid in the scoring of points. 

a bit of an extreme picture but have to say that I agree with that  

although nowadays, irish and welsh props are much more than pure scrummager (see jenkins and healy). In france we still ask them to "scrummage" first, hit the rucks second. they are free to walk around the pitch the rest of time to recover. as a result they spend most of their energy in scrums which makes it perhaps more intense over here.

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.

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.

BB

You're comparing this class to previous bok teams... thats not the same as comparing them to their current competition.

All teams go through cycles... vintage era's, bad times, rebuilding times. The boks are in a rebuilding phase.., when you lose chaps like Smit, Matfield, Smith, Burger and Botha from the pack... you're rebuilding. Yet they are still the top scrummaging nation out there... perhaps France and Wales are par... but no one is superior.

I was being facetious mate.

Sorry dude... my understanding of humour continues to fall the longer I stay married!

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. 

fa0019 wrote:Sorry dude... my understanding of humour continues to fall the longer I stay married!

Maybe you're just getting old?