Who Will Be "The Big Three" ?

A common term used to collectively described the SANZAR nations of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia is "The Big Three". This arises from their perennial monolpoly on the top three IRB ranking spots.

England and France are the only two nations to challenge this domination. England, having won the remaining world cup and having occupied the no.1 spot when the rankings were introduced. France, three time defeated finalists have occassionally upset the apple cart by sticking their nose into the the top three, and periodically popping up to knock NZ out of the world cup.

England coach Stuart Lancaster has proclaimed his intention of reaching the world number two spot by mid 2014 (the end of this season for England). This is a glaring departure from previous English coaches obsession with being judged on world cup performances. Personally I respect that position despite the inherent risk that self imposed objectives pose to one's role.

Having bravely declared England may reach the number two spot seven months ahead of schedule, he now faces the reality needing to finish first in the six nations and then beat NZ at least once next June (in all likelihood) to reach his stated goal.

However for now, the best he can hope for is that traditional rival Wales will break their own hoodoo and beat Australia. This occurence will nudge England back into a medal place and break up The Big Three. A result that will stand until atleast March. But will denying England this achievement be any consolation to Welsh fans should they go down to Australia again this weekend?

GloriousEmpire wrote:A common term used to collectively described the SANZAR nations of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia is "The Big Three". This arises from their perennial monolpoly on the top three IRB ranking spots.

England and France are the only two nations to challenge this domination. England, having won the remaining world cup and having occupied the no.1 spot when the rankings were introduced. France, three time defeated finalists have occassionally upset the apple cart by sticking their nose into the the top three, and periodically popping up to knock NZ out of the world cup.

England coach Stuart Lancaster has proclaimed his intention of reaching the world number two spot by mid 2014 (the end of this season for England). This is a glaring departure from previous English coaches obsession with being judged on world cup performances.  Personally I respect that position despite the inherent risk that self imposed objectives pose to one's role.

Having bravely declared England may reach the number two spot seven months ahead of schedule, he now faces the reality needing to finish first in the six nations and then beat NZ at least once next June (in all likelihood) to reach his stated goal.

However for now, the best he can hope for is that traditional rival Wales will break their own hoodoo and beat Australia. This occurence will nudge England back into a medal place and break up The Big Three. A result that will stand until atleast March.  But will denying England this achievement be any consolation to Welsh fans should they go down to Australia again this weekend?

That would be quite a drop for NZ to go from first to third in one year... 

I don't get the hang-up with being number 2 or number 3 or number 9 in these rankings. Rankings don't win matches, so to me are pretty irrelevant. Everyone knows NZ are the best team in world Rugby and that SA are next best. So who need rankings?

If Lancaster is fixated on being number 2 (wtf that really means) then I think he missing the biggest point of all: If the team keeps winning and beats the best, everyone will know where England are. This silly 'I want to be number two' is actually grating.

doctor_grey wrote:I don't get the hang-up with being number 2 or number 3 or number 9 in these rankings.  Rankings don't win matches, so to me are pretty irrelevant.  Everyone knows NZ are the best team in world Rugby and that SA are next best.  So who need rankings?

If Lancaster is fixated on being number 2 (wtf that really means) then I think he missing the biggest point of all:  If the team keeps winning and beats the best, everyone will know where England are.  This silly 'I want to be number two' is actually grating.  

 
I suggest his target of two is pragmatically based. Achieved the number one spot would mean winning every game between now and the end of the three match series in NZ.
 
Given visiting team's records in NZ, suggesting it as a "target" might be seen as insane bravado. You also always need to leave the door open to having over-achieved.

To me, it's really a statement that he is intent on winning matches, not just "building for the world cup" which is what so many England coaches have used as a cop-out.

Disagree completely. Sounds like a bureaucrat-speak. Defeat is 'somewhat' acceptable? Never.
Every team wants to beat the All Blacks. Every team wants to win all the time. What do rankings or bravado have to do with it?

Wales are used to helping the English, in 2008 when we beat France by more than 3 points to win a 2nd Slam we helped England into their usual 2nd place in the 6 Nations. Ironic since many English fans use their consistent finishing at 2nd or 3rd in that competition to suggest they are consistently more successful at it.

Agree with your sentiment DG, but if you were coach would you publically set your target as winning every single game between now and the end of the season? including your three match away tour to NZ where you know you will denied your best players (potentially) for the at least the first match?

We know that first, and maybe second, game against the All Blacks will probably be weaker that England's best. But, do you really think it is OK for Lancaster to tell that first team it is OK to lose? Sorry, Mr. Alastair Campbell, but no. Not on this earth.

On the other hand. If you tell the first team the target is winning everything, and they lose the first match they play. Where's the motivation for the rest of the season?

Really, seriously guys, win the rest. Ok, you lost again...but this time win the rest! Starts to sound a bit empty.

Targets have to be achievable or they get ignored.

It's not a goal or aspiration in itself. It's a measure of his (and England's) success since he became the boss. It's quite the done thing these days doncha know. Bit risky though as he's likely to fail it. Still, we all know the real goal is to win the next RWC.

If you set low targets, you become mediocre.

If they lose the first match, then tell them to pick themselves up and win the next one. The goal is always to win that very next match in front of you. That is the only goal. Just win.

I believe this kind of target was probably raised in order for Lancaster to elevate his own profile to his superiors, rather than being an actual target actually set for the team. I suggest. This tends to be the way that you need to operate in such a position. From my experience. Not that I'm claiming to have ever held such a lofty and high profile position myself personally.

I felt sorry for South Africa in the AIs (well, not that sorry as they were pretty good at handing out a thrashing!) as a number of media outlets, commentators and pundits kept referring to them as the 2nd best team in the world (which they are, according to the rankings). It just didn't sound right, a bit condescending perhaps. Comments like: "proving there why they're number 2 in the world" as if it's a compliment. Not sure why it annoyed me really. Just seemed a bit demeaning to a team who are pretty bloody good.

Could just be me though I suppose...!

I think Lancaster is set through the RWC unless the team makes a total hash of everything here on out. So he doesn't need to appease his superiors or anyone. If he has nothing of value to say, then he should zip it. The best words are those often left unspoken.

Personally I don't give a flying feck who or how the rankings are affetced this weekend. All I am bothered about (getting nervous already) is that we beat Australia this weekend.

doctor_grey wrote:I think Lancaster is set through the RWC unless the team makes a total hash of everything here on out.   So he doesn't need to appease his superiors or anyone.  If he has nothing of value to say, then he should zip it.  The best words are those often left unspoken.    

""

GloriousEmpire wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think Lancaster is set through the RWC unless the team makes a total hash of everything here on out.   So he doesn't need to appease his superiors or anyone.  If he has nothing of value to say, then he should zip it.  The best words are those often left unspoken.    

""

TYou really do like to get the last word in, don't you?
Fun stuff, mate.  

Griff wrote:I felt sorry for South Africa in the AIs (well, not that sorry as they were pretty good at handing out a thrashing!) as a number of media outlets, commentators and pundits kept referring to them as the 2nd best team in the world (which they are, according to the rankings). It just didn't sound right, a bit condescending perhaps. Comments like: "proving there why they're number 2 in the world" as if it's a compliment. Not sure why it annoyed me really. Just seemed a bit demeaning to a team who are pretty bloody good.

Could just be me though I suppose...!

Was a bit annoying to hear that too . We want to be the best not the 2nd best and we've gone a long way to achieving that goal now the only team standing in the way is those pesky all blacks  

I you base it on the 6ns then you would/could say that Wales should be on of the big 3. But in all honesty, have they ever been any whear near the BIG 3?

To get to number 2 in the world, and stay their untill the RWC 2015. is a big ask. in my opinion.

Will England even get close to the number 2 spot???? Dont know to be honest, but we will give it a go.

Wales haven't broken into top 3 at all as far as I am aware, think 4th is highest we have achieved.

Can't see anything being a consolation for Wales if they lose to Oz when they are more than equipped to get the win ...

majesticimperialman wrote:I you base it on the 6ns then you would/could say that Wales should be on of the big 3. But in all honesty, have they ever been any whear near the BIG 3?

To get to number 2 in the world, and stay their untill the RWC 2015. is a big ask. in my opinion.

Will England even get close to the number 2 spot???? Dont know to be honest, but we will give it a go.

Don't understand how you can say that first big Majestic. Given that most of the time NZ, SA and Aus have been the big 3 then winning the 6Nations (even if you grand slam it 10 years in a row) would only make you number 4.

For Wales to get into the top 3 just Grandslam the 6N and beat Aus a couple of times. Done

Anyway I agree with some of the others the ranking is nothing. The winning is everything.
IF we had lost to Ireland the other day do you think I would have cared that we were still number 1? No we would have lost to an old foe we had never lost to before. It would have been a sad day and McCaw would have gone down as one of the ABs worst captains of all time. Okay I made that every last bit up

 the world rankings only counted last year when the world cup groups was decided . incidentally Wales decided to have a eight game losing streak  

I can understand how Lancaster made his target of a #2 IRB ranking for england by mid 2014, but i dont think he should have shared it. It will just become a rod to beat him with, and unless England win at least 2 of their tests against NZ in NZ (hard to imagine with 10-15 first choice squad players unavailable for the first test due to AP Final) its not going to happen.

I don't think there is a "Big Three" at the moment. There is definitely a "Big Two", and then a "Big Gap" to everyone else.

The rugby hierarchy. NZ at the top with an ominously dangerous looking SA closing in on the heels.

Then a cluster of teams all capable of, to varying degrees, of claiming the big three: England, Australia, Wales, France, Ireland in that level of probability in my view. If Australia can defeat somebody in the RC above them they cement that 3rd spot and don't stand to lose many ranking points for losing. Nor do England in June but a win gives them a good jump. Wales against Australia would give them a good start and then like France and Ireland 6N games can be of use.

We know that already so why the bee in the bonnet about rankings doc? We must win all our games. Very hard to do! We rode our luck and had to dig deep. Consistency is getting better for some in that cluster but it's still a long way off the consistency of SA and NZ for all games.

In Africa the big 5 is the lion, water buffalo, leopard, rhino and elephant. In rugby we have the kiwi, black rhino and then a very strange hybrid animal that is yet impossible to make out and distinguish. Next year will give us a better idea.

These are the arbitrary types of things which reward failure.  Society does this all the time.  Drives me bananas.  As I said, we know who is the best.  I don't need a rating to tell me that.  And for Lancaster to basically come out and say I want to be second best is silly.  Winning the next 6 Nations match is the only priority, and then the next after that.  To aspire to some theoretical number is something I can't understand.  

Kia, It's not really that big a deal for me - its something I can't change and really doesn't impact me in the slightest.  But to hear my head coach talking like that makes him sound like a banker with some arcane profit number to meet and not a head coach of a Rugby team.

Even as a Welshman I've always thought of England as being a rightful and deserving Number 2  

RubyGuby wrote:Even as a Welshman I've always thought of England as being a rightful and deserving  Number 2  

I am assuming that follows the same logic that the team at the top is no.1 because it pi$$'s over the competition....

As if!

When the head coach position was posted for candidates that's what it sounded like to me doc. At least part of the job description anyway. Maybe Andrew is asking for these goals so he can make some PowerPoint presentations and then hang SL with it and justify his own job.

You are probably right, mate. The RFU sometimes sounds so bureaucratic, it doesn't see very Rugby at all.

So Lancaster actual words "they want to knock South Africa off the number two spot"
Wouldn't like to be England next time they meet South Africa, with such a disrespectful comments.

BTW biltong what has happened to my last two articles? it like they never existed!

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:BTW biltong what has happened to my last two articles? it like they never existed!

A mystery View, not like they were wums or anything hey?

Btw, your raw work in progress Stand-Off from Llanelli is really progressing in a better, testing atmosphere at Leicester......just what are they NOT doing in West Wales that drives your young stars East?

I think the AB strategy for the next two years will be to closely monitor the progress of South Africa while continuing to strengthen depth as they have been. The trouble with having so much depth is only 15 can take the field to start with and the dilemma becomes a selection one- who is best in 'this role, for this game' etc.

I can see Sam Cane being more suitable in some tests than McCaw as a 7 and for that reason see the captaincy going to Read so McCaw can focus on his position. Read will be No. 8 for the next 3 years at least bar injury so no selection issues there...yet.

But the Boks are definitely the threat. Theyve done a lot with little width and scope to their game to date so this breakout into better habits is going to become a problem. Once they tip the AB's over- possibly as soon as their next meeting its back to square one- we simply dont have the improvement levels in us as they do.

I would think we can improve more than thr AB's can, purely from the perspective that our fitness can improve more relative to theirs which in turn will improve our execution and decision making.

It's hard to call. Ireland briefly broke into the top three back in 2006 I think (we may even have got to 2 very briefly) but even though I think we will improve it is hard to look past NZ and SA dominating. 

I have said for a while I like the shape of SA going forward. Louw, Vermeulen, etzebeth, Strauss, and their new props (I'm not going to spell them) are established and with guys like Kolisi and Du-Toit coming through. 

Behind the pack they seem to be adding creativity to their game. Le Roux looks like a superstar in waiting and engelbrecht, serfontein and Goosen (if he gets an injury free run) already have great experience. They might not all come through but given Pietersen and Habana look in great form and FDP and Fourie are back I have them down as favourites for 2015. My hope would be Schmidt can take Ireland to the top of the NH and then we can look at the SH with some new guys coming in. I could be wrong but I had a feeling we have Argentina next summer which is very winnable.

tigerleghorn wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:BTW biltong what has happened to my last two articles? it like they never existed!

A mystery View, not like they were wums or anything hey?

Btw, your raw work in progress Stand-Off from Llanelli is really progressing in a better, testing atmosphere at Leicester......just what are they NOT doing in West Wales that drives your young stars East?

Get lost,talk about cloak and daggers you robbed him from us.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

tigerleghorn wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:BTW biltong what has happened to my last two articles? it like they never existed!

A mystery View, not like they were wums or anything hey?

Btw, your raw work in progress Stand-Off from Llanelli is really progressing in a better, testing atmosphere at Leicester......just what are they NOT doing in West Wales that drives your young stars East?

Get lost,talk about cloak and daggers you robbed him from us.

Yeah, last seen walking out of Pemberton Park with his arm pushed up behind his back.  

Let's just play well and win every individual game as it comes along. The rest will follow

If you look at rugby since professionalism its not really been a big 3 but a big 1 and then 4 pretenders.

Win rates since 1996 between 3N and ENG + FRA

1. NZ 73% 101/138 matches. 12 3N titles, 1 RWC WIN.

2. AUS 46% 65/140 matches. 3 3N titles, 1 RWC WIN, 1 RWC RU.
3. SA   44% 59/134 matches. 3 3N titles, 1 RWC WIN.
4. ENG 38% 34/89 matches. 5 6N titles, 1 RWC WIN, 1 RWC RU.
5. FRA 33% 26/80 matches. 7 6N titles, 0 RWC WIN, 2 RWC RU.

The rest have at at best a 22% win rate over the above 5 sides and no RWC final appearances to speak of.

also thought to put it into perspective from a Lions point of view...

Away wins since 1996

NZ 62%
LIONS 40%
SA 27%
AUS 25%
ENG 24%
FRA 16%

The lions get a lot of stick but its no doubt if they were a full test side they would be well above SA & AUS in the chasing pack behind NZ.

fa0019 wrote:also thought to put it into perspective from a Lions point of view...

Away wins since 1996

NZ 62%
LIONS 40%
SA 27%
AUS 25%
ENG 24%
FRA 16%

The lions get a lot of stick but its no doubt if they were a full test side they would be well above SA & AUS in the chasing pack behind NZ.

Congratulations! The most gratuitous mis-use of statistics I've ever seen on 606. Well done!  

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:also thought to put it into perspective from a Lions point of view...

Away wins since 1996

NZ 62%
LIONS 40%
SA 27%
AUS 25%
ENG 24%
FRA 16%

The lions get a lot of stick but its no doubt if they were a full test side they would be well above SA & AUS in the chasing pack behind NZ.

Congratulations! The most gratuitous mis-use of statistics I've ever seen on 606. Well done!  

That's some accolade coming from you

why is it a mis use?

The lions win rate of 40% in away matches over 5 tours is not valid?

Sure they play less games but they also have a lot of factors going against them too i.e. being strangers.

The more games you play the more statistically significant the result. How many games for the lions stat, 15? Compared with how many for the rest, plenty more.

fa0019 wrote:why is it a mis use?

The lions win rate of 40% in away matches over 5 tours is not valid?

Sure they play less games but they also have a lot of factors going against them too i.e. being strangers.

Ok. Please quote the Lions home win rate since 1996...

well for instance England & France has only played 25 & 26 matches respecitvely since 1996 against 3N away matches. Thats not that far away from 15 is it?

Yet their figures are valid and the Lions are not?

Yeah, we should probably t-test all of these stats in order to use them correctly , get some proper p-values and do a power calculation...

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:why is it a mis use?

The lions win rate of 40% in away matches over 5 tours is not valid?

Sure they play less games but they also have a lot of factors going against them too i.e. being strangers.

Ok. Please quote the Lions home win rate since 1996...

GE - well thats why I only compared away games now isn't it because they don't play home games. Had I compared the Lions win rate vs. a NZ or SA overall rate then that would be stupid now wouldn't it. At least give them a level playing field.