Who Will Be "The Big Three" ?

First topic message reminder :

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?

The Lions have won every single match they have played at home against the teams mentioned above, so they are way ahead with 100% winning record

Ok let's have a look.

1) The Lions are inherently a touring team. So as such that don't really play matches at home (except that draw against Argentina). You'd be hard pressed to say a team that have never own a home game might be the 2nd best team in the world right?

2) The Lions always play a 3+ test series. Whereas the assorted matches of England and France are most usually a one-off match or two test series.

3) The NH season tends to be based around the Lions tour when it occurs. So the players build their season around it as the most important specacle. Whereas other teams have often toured with sub-strength teams, or as England next year, outside the international window and hence with reduced player numbers. A trip to the antipodeas is often treated as a development excercise.

4) The Lions have a larger pool of resources on tour, and play warm up matches and hence theoretically are better prepared and have better depth as the choice between a starter, reserve and guy who missses out might be a narrow margin across three or four constituents, whereas the same gap within a country is much greater.

FA, you need to provide a weighting on your stats mate.

SA and OZ play the number one team many more times than England and France does which affects their stats dramatically.

GE I never said the lions were the 2nd best team in the world... I said that if they were a full test side, the statistics would point them towards being the clear 2nd best side... over the last 17 years or so.

Lions = 4 countries doesn't it? The best of the NH (minus France). Not really oranges and oranges.

More like lemons and pineapples

Biltong wrote:FA, you need to provide a weighting on your stats mate.

SA and OZ play the number one team many more times than England and France does which affects their stats dramatically.

no problem then mate, we can take NZ out if you like for the rest

for AUS, SA, ENG & FRA amongst themselves 1996-2013

AUS 56% 48/85 matches
SA 52% 43/83 matches. 4% down from AUS
ENG 44% 31/71 matches. 12% down from AUS, 6% down from SA.
FRA 39% 22/57 matches. 17% down from AUS, 13% down from SA, 5% down from ENG.

now compare that with NZ onboard and its not that much different albeit the rates being obviously slightly better. The placing is exactly the same and the gaps are very close. See below for details.

with NZ the teams rates are thus as previously mentioned.

2. AUS 46% 65/140 matches.
3. SA   44% 59/134 matches. 2% down from AUS
4. ENG 38% 34/89 matches.   8% down from AUS, 6% down from SA
5. FRA 33% 26/80 matches. 13% down from AUS, 11% down from SA, 5% down from ENG

In essence, take away NZ and whilst everyones rates improve, the positioning and the relative differences between sides stays almost the same.

great WORK, gotcha.

lets be honest mate we're all eating crumbs off the kings table in that specific regard. We have to give them something to keep them happy though... I mean Valerie Adams was voted hottest female in NZ last year for starters.

ebop wrote:More like lemons and pineapples

more like lemons and cherry strudel?

Compelling stats fa. Never considered it like that. Including the lions, who as you have pointed out...do 'feel' a stronger side overall.
That gap...looks bigger than I'd thought. And since 2010 it is only one offs that have hurt the ABs. If anything the gaps growing.may not feel like it watching the matches but if the ABs are now winning matches they shouldn't...who knows what will be.