How do you face up to history?

This weekend SA take on Australia in Brisbane. Since 1996 there have been 9 tests between these two sides and SA have lost all 9. The following weekend they take on NZ where they haven't won since 1937. If you count up the tests the latter seems less daunting than the year but both stats stand out.

NZ have traditionally struggled at altitude when touring SA so there is definite trepidation when said fixtures are announced. It's easy to say that teams embrace challenges but the weight of history must play on the minds of the players. France say they fear the All Blacks but deep down it must be a source of psychological comfort to know that they are beatable and that you have beaten them before. Compare that with teams who have never beaten certain opponents and you wonder how high an obstacle it is knowing you are trying to create history rather than bow to it.

Teams are motivated to become the first to beat somebody or win at a certain ground. But psychological points are worth defending and the opposite is true for those who guard it: no one wants to be a part of the team who loses for the first time against somebody or at a certain ground. Building a fortress takes time and sacrifice. No one wants to see it burnt to the ground or overtaken.

That is not to say what has happened is an indication of what is to become. In 2011 NZ faced Oz in a semi final having never previously beaten Australia in a World Cup match. NZ seemed to play with the belief and composure of having history for rather than against them.

SA will sense Australia are experiencing a dip in form and will think this is their chance to show that history is not a guide. They will inevitably and rightly say that what has happened is irrelevant. This match is all that counts. But how much do you think that this has an effect on players and is there a difference before and during the game? Is it one thing to say you're going to win but if you're behind in a game or the game is in balance how much does history have a say in performance and the decision making process?

I don't know whether a specific place is as important as the opponent you play.

It is tough to win in NZ either way. No matter which ground you go to.

Similarly for us the East coast of Australia is as tough as anything.

but you can change it.

When Jake White took over his goal was to learn how to win at Twickenham before the 2007 RWC, it required a specific focus, a specific mindset and the right attitude, since 2006 we have not lost at Twickenham.

I suggest it plays a role, but the opponent as well.

The ground is more a SH thing as the 6N teams play more or less at the same ground. Playing SA away is always a challenge but I'd say the players have preferences. Eden Park is our fortress and recently we have played our best rugby there. Both Australia and SA have experienced recent joy in the House of Pain.

Kia what is your worst ground, record wise?

Bet it is still close to 90%

They are all tough, because of the quality of NZ.

Take SA as an example.

Our home record is 75% in the pro era.

so if that is our median, then compare grounds.

Ellispark 81%
Port Elizabeth 93%
Bloemfontein 78%
Durban 58% (Incidently our cricket team's worst ground as well)
Loftus 79%
Newlands 72%

Ground First Test First Test Last Test Tests at that ground Win Percentage
Athletic Park, Wellington, North Island 1904
v British Lions 1904 1999 42 69%
Tahuna Park, Dunedin, South Island 1905
v Australia 1905 1905 1 100%
Potter's Park, Auckland, North Island 1908
v British Lions 1905 1905 1 100%
Carisbrook, Dunedin, South Island 1908
v British Lions 1908 2011
v Fiji 38 86%
AMI Stadium, Christchurch, South Island
Formerly Lancaster Park and Jade Stadium 1913
v Australia 1913 2010
v Australia 48 81%
AMI Stadium, Christchurch, South Island
Formerly Rugby League Park 2012
Ireland 2012 2012
Ireland 1 100%
Eden Park, Auckland, North Island 1921
v South Africa 1921 2012
v Australia 72 82%
Epsom Showgrounds, Auckland, North Island 1958
v Australia 1958 1958 1 100%
McLean Park, Napier, North Island 1996
v Western Samoa 1996 1996 1 100%
North Harbour Stadium, North Shore City, North Island 1997
Fiji 1997 2005 6 100%
Rugby Park, Hamilton, North Island 1997
v Argentina 1997 1997 1 100%
Westpac Stadium, Wellington, North Island 2000
v Australia 2000 2012
v Argentina 16 88%
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton, North Island 2002
v Italy 2002 2012
v Ireland 9 89%
Yarrow Stadium, New Plymouth, North Island 2008
v Samoa 2008 2013
v France 3 100%
TOTAL 236 81.78%

We've lost 37 games at home for a record of 81.78 per cent. Athletic Park was a relatively happy hunting ground for touring teams. The weather may have played a part in that. The Cake Tin has a much better record.

I take your point that NZ is a challenge anywhere but frankly Id rather face Oz at Sudney each year than Brisbane. Do you think the players feel the same way?

Against Nz I'd wager Durban is a happier hinting ground than Ellis Park though. Soccer City on the other hand has been kind to us.

I don't think the players worry about the venue, they are reminded by the media and pundits what their record might be at a ground, but they would be focused on the opponent, it is an away game, so I doubt they care much about that, and if they do, it is but for a fleeting moment,

I'd like to believe that BB but something tells me they do. Brisbane last year had a world record successive victory at stake. Apart from Twickenham our worst performance against a side who had injury and form issues. Just another game?

Hamilton saw the Chiefs ABs raise their game against Ireland after Messam in Christchurch was anonymous. Coincidence? Maybe.

I await the Brisbane match with interest. You can be sure whatever the result it will be dismissed as a topic of relevance as it should. But Ewe Man must be hoping his Reds selection fires at their home ground and Australia rise to the occasion at a ground where they have experienced good fortune. Expect rabbit feet to be rubbed vigorously in the coach's box out of the public view.

If I remember correctly, altitude, or lack thereof has been put down as the reason the Boks struggle so often at Brisbane. I think sometimes physiolgy is a great equalizer, Robbie Deans used to fervently refute that altitude made a real difference to players. But his super rugby stats at the highveld read P11 W6 L5, and that was at a time when the Bulls were the Beat-a-Bulls, and the Lions were :sigh: the Lions. These two teams were a few classes below the Crusaders in terms of quality, and yet he was only just better than 50% vs them at altitude. So, while I dont know enough to back the theory, I could see it being true.

The Auckland issue is blindingly obvious, its like explaining why Nadal is only once defeated at Roland Garros, the venue is nearly irrelevent, the issue is the leviathon in front of you who doesnt believe they can lose at the venue

But why do they feel they are unbeatable there and yet slipped up so many times uncharacteristically at Athletic Park. Was it the wind?

Will the Wallabies play on Saturday like a team who feel they are unbeatable in Brisbane. I doubt it given the season they've had so far. And yet...

One game at a time, in days before Professionlism All Blacks results were 1928 [50%],1949[0 %],1960[26.666 %.1970,76,86 [25%].It is now about 48% away to the Boks.At one time they had a 10 year win record in Capetown.Port Elizabeth I think was there hoodoo ground
all hoodoos are there to be broken.Haven`t seen the Bok side but if Meyer has any sense he will pick his MOST RESTED players.Australia have nothing to lose had a fortnight to get to
develop things.IF the get there set piece right they will push the Boks all the way a Penalty
shoot out would be interesting.