Trivia Question

SA have lost 134 ,and drawn 21 out of 434 games according to Wikipedia,how many were lost at home?
Of these how many were lost on the high Veldt as opposed to sea level?

It depends who's data you use, SA counts the Cavalier matches.

Played 437, won 279, drawn 21, lost 137

At home played 233, won 162, drawn 13, lost 58

Played 110 on the highveldt, lost 29.

I guess what you're trying to ask is whether or not altitude is a factor in South Africa winning so many games at home.

Not 100% straight forward as for instance SA are known to prefer not to face NZ at sea level for some reason. Personally I think it's a superstition but Newlands hasn't graced NZ for 6 years.

So I have only included stats vs the best teams... 3N, ENG, FRA and Lions as otherwise you could potentially skew the data with wins vs Italy etc etc.

In history

Sea level

Newlands Win rate 59%.
Kings Park Win rate 58%.
PE Win rate 67%.

Overall - win rate 60.4%.

Altitude

Bloem Win rate 64%. Est altitude 1400m.
Joburg Win rate 58%. Est altitude 1750m.
Pretoria Win rate 62%. Est. Altitude 1350m.

Overall - Win rate 60.2%.

So from the initial stats it suggests that altitude doesn't have an impact in the bok win rates historically. In fact historically speaking the boks have a better record at sea level than at altitude and at altitude the stadium at the highest elevation has a below average win rate.

By the look of that it is more or less identical,just two other things pardon my ignorance
always ready to learn.How does that work out during touring period pre 1996?,and after
and does it rain more at sealevel than on the veldt?

I ask because most All Blacks teams post 1945, based there game on second phase rugby
the classic Cavanagh style Ruck.On the veldt a fleet Flanker a la Hennie Muller would be
first to the ball BEFORE the Ruck could form.

It was always felt the Ruck was most effective on heavier grounds Nz ,SA at sealevel,UK
etc.It suiting the driving play style of tight=loose back row forwards which went out
of style with demise of Gray and Tremain circa 1968-9.

The most successful Team post war fielded two flyers in Conway and Graham,after the
legendary Peter Jones was injured first test.Plus of course Don Clarke was the only kicker
who equalled his home kicking record in the period.

The highveldt is dry between April and September, you will find the grounds in general to be hard.

Interesting post Alan. The commonality of the sxv teams visiting the highveldt seems to have eroded the difficulty theory in playing at altitude. It's an area I thought the Boks would be able to exploit if they fashioned a wider game- i.e.- run sides off their feet due to superior fitness.

Instead the AB's being generally fitter can either keep up or end up playing out the game better because of the wider game requiring greater fitness, and therefore larger oxygen intake and more suitable in the thinner air. At least that seemed to work last year...

Yep it rained once here in the colder season. Always thought a little much was made of the altitude advantage. While it is a physiological fact that the highveldt does mess you up from 60-65 minutes (probably one of the reasons why the 2010 fifa world cup wasn't exactly filled with late late winners, finals excepted), there's also the fact that around half our squad are from the coast themselves, and will also be huffing and puffing just the same when that time arrives. Also most teams "bat" deep now, so there isn't a massive drop off quality wise when the starting XV does start tiring.

Anyway, I would think there's an innate advantage in being a highveldt based team playing on the highveldt. After all, Robbie Deans great Crusaders team boasted a winning percentage around 75-80%, and it dropped off to just above 50% at the highveldt, and with respect the Bulls, Lions, and Cheetahs of that era really weren't that close.

kingraf wrote:Yep it rained once here in the colder season. Always thought a little much was made of the altitude advantage. While it is a physiological fact that the highveldt does mess you up from 60-65 minutes (probably one of the reasons why the 2010 fifa world cup wasn't exactly filled with late late winners, finals excepted), there's also the fact that around half our squad are from the coast themselves, and will also be huffing and puffing just the same when that time arrives. Also most teams "bat" deep now, so there isn't a massive drop off quality wise when the starting XV does start tiring.

Anyway, I would think there's an innate advantage in being a highveldt based team playing on the highveldt. After all, Robbie Deans great Crusaders team boasted a winning percentage around 75-80%, and it dropped off to just above 50% at the highveldt, and with respect the Bulls, Lions, and Cheetahs of that era really weren't that close.

yeah good point, so logic says the Boks should be primarily based on the high veldt, should expand their width and therefore their fitness and try to have most home test matches up there. (Ideally obviously) but with that and the hard grounds I just can't fathom the reason for a largely non ball in hand game.

One of the things I think is missing that the others have is Rugby League. Its fairly big in NZ, Oz and Eng/ France.

By its nature its largely a ball carrying game (for every 5 out of 6 tackles anyway) and that means in summer both codes get together and play touch football instead of say cricket which is possible what South African Rugby players might play. So its basically ball carrying all round all year. SA has adopted 7's I suppose but the typical SA gameplan certainly conflicts with the opportunities the harsh dry environment provides for.

Taylorman wrote:

kingraf wrote:Yep it rained once here in the colder season. Always thought a little much was made of the altitude advantage. While it is a physiological fact that the highveldt does mess you up from 60-65 minutes (probably one of the reasons why the 2010 fifa world cup wasn't exactly filled with late late winners, finals excepted), there's also the fact that around half our squad are from the coast themselves, and will also be huffing and puffing just the same when that time arrives. Also most teams "bat" deep now, so there isn't a massive drop off quality wise when the starting XV does start tiring.

Anyway, I would think there's an innate advantage in being a highveldt based team playing on the highveldt. After all, Robbie Deans great Crusaders team boasted a winning percentage around 75-80%, and it dropped off to just above 50% at the highveldt, and with respect the Bulls, Lions, and Cheetahs of that era really weren't that close.

yeah good point, so logic says the Boks should be primarily based on the high veldt, should expand their width and therefore their fitness and try to have most home test matches up there. (Ideally obviously) but with that and the hard grounds I just can't fathom the reason for a largely non ball in hand game.

One of the things I think is missing that the others have is Rugby League. Its fairly big in NZ, Oz and Eng/ France.

By its nature its largely a ball carrying game (for every 5 out of 6 tackles anyway) and that means in summer both codes get together and play touch football instead of say cricket which is possible what South African Rugby players might play. So its basically ball carrying all round all year. SA has adopted 7's I suppose but the typical SA gameplan certainly conflicts with the opportunities the harsh dry environment provides for.

Not sure I agree wit you, the Bulls is the only Highveldt team that traditionally don't play running rugby.

Surely at the highveldt you play a kicking game.

Firstly, the ball travels farther on hand to foot kicks, let the ball do the work. Also the lesser oxygen means that those who play a more ball in hand game will run around a lot more.

It makes sense looking at the bulls who have always been big upfront with a strong kicker. They keep possession well (exert less energy ball in hand then chasing) and make the opposition run from deep.

Probably why they are so successful especially at home.

fa0019 wrote: historically speaking the boks have a better record at sea level than at altitude and at altitude the stadium at the highest elevation has a below average win rate.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned because I didn't read all subsequent posts.... but I think the idea of altitiude, and what it might do for you, actually works best when you come back down to play at sea level.  
I think the idea is you take your benefits with you down hill rather than hoping to ambush a side by dragging them uphill.
Also, the scant air at high level can theoretically advance the cause of both sides as the ball travels longer, whether you're acclimatised to altitude or not.  So a good kicker on any team can get a boost to his range.

Anyway, the idea of SA and their natural altitude benefits would I'm sure always be more valuable as a constant training tool rather than as a direct weapon to use in its own right - as in getting teams up to high stadiums.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote: historically speaking the boks have a better record at sea level than at altitude and at altitude the stadium at the highest elevation has a below average win rate.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned because I didn't read all subsequent posts.... but I think the idea of altitiude, and what it might do for you, actually works best when you come back down to play at sea level.  
I think the idea is you take your benefits with you down hill rather than hoping to ambush a side by dragging them uphill.
Also, the scant air at high level can theoretically advance the cause of both sides as the ball travels longer, whether you're acclimatised to altitude or not.  So a good kicker on any team can get a boost to his range.

Anyway, the idea of SA and their natural altitude benefits would I'm sure always be more valuable as a constant training tool rather than as a direct weapon to use in its own right - as in getting teams up to high stadiums.

That depends on which players are highveldt based and which players are sea level based... and your game plan for such players.

WP and Durban are sea level based. Bulls, Lions & FS are highveldt. The 3 highlighted teams are those which form the majority of the players currently and historically. Soon we will through PE into the sea level based too and they will get a SR franchise from 2016.

In terms of the last match there was 7 starters who are highveldt based and 8 starters who are sea level based.

Is 'base' all there is in Club team training throughout a season? All players training at Base all year? Maybe so.
Plus how often do SA International train at high altitude in a year? What percentage of their yearly camp time is high or low?

Base is one part of a player's season.

There is a definite physiological disadvantages to moving up to play at altitude. The local sports Illustrated had a story on it a few years back. Essentially, there is a lack of oxygen at Altitude, so people who've lived at altitude for an extended period of time have a greater amount of erythrocytes to carry oxygen (I for example have EPO levels about 10% above the normal range). Now while the thin air has its advantages in anaerobic, short sports, like Sprinting, it is a completely different story in more aerobic activities (rugby is essentially anaerobic, but the length of the game means that invariably, your aerobic system takes over). Sea based players' systems will work harder to compensate for the lack of oxygen. This means they tend to gas, and gas badly. Hence the Crusaders questionable record at altitude, or the manner in which the Bulls used to pull away after 60-odd minutes at home 2009-10 when they were playing a more expansive game.

Like I said though, With deeper benches, and a Bok team that is actually more coastal than anything else... I think the advantages are more negligible than say, 30 years ago.

SecretFly wrote:Is 'base' all there is in Club team training throughout a season?  All players training at Base all year?  Maybe so.  
Plus how often do SA International train at high altitude in a year?  What percentage of their yearly camp time is high or low?

Base is one part of a player's season.

I believe it moves around a lot depending on where their games are set. I don't think its like England where they have 1 set location.

If you go by the lastest news this year, most short training camps were held at sea level.

Doesn't work that way, Emack. The body doesn't "remember" previous visits at altitude. So even if you have a three week tour of the highveldt at SR level, and your RBC's have become little powerhouses, by the time you come back to Joburg for a RC Test, your body's reverted to type.You could repeat this a thousand times and you'd never "remember" how to acclimatise. If you could, so increasing EPO wouldn't have been such a big hit in cycling.

As for sports conditioning, blood doping, or manipulation is the last uncharted territory in sport. Outside of Cvac (and even then, it's questionable), it's nigh on impossible to legally get your body right for an event at altitude.

I think Taylor got it about right, Tbh. Since the ABs are better conditioned, and the majority of our team is based at sea - it stands to reason that they fade less than us. Hence them pulling away last year, and roaring back this.

Appreciate the thinner air assisting kicking more but the benefits of playing a high oxygen debt game at altitude must have its advantages when coming down to sea level.

Often our long distance runners train at altitude in Africa to get those exact advantages- more efficient use of oxygen at sea level where most major games are held.

AB conditioning isnt better because of either altitude or because theyre some how different human beings, its because they absolutely push the envelope on the wider game for 80 minutes. They expect all 23 to be ball carriers and contribute to the open play game, set piece 'almost' a secondary consideration.

Players like Dane Coles who can run, handle and kick like a back, Retallick- who isnt thought of as one of the best because he can jump. Having all 15 players that can ALL do their part in open play and be fit enough to do it for 80 must have an advantage over one that has 3 or 4 players specialising on the set piece aspects of their role.

Which is kind of my original point. SA have the environment to support a superior 15 man approach but choose to do otherwise- like kick the ball 100 meters.

As a rule of thumb during touring period most Bok sides played the same way setpiece,
defence,kicking game,goalkicker.Exceptions briefly 1950`s.

In the days of 15 men no subs etc. the grind them down theory was good pro era
of course less so.Having half the team based in Europe can`t help either.

It would be interesting to see how teams like Bafana Bafana do in similar circumstances. It wouldn't change the win ratio but a 0-5 loss could be improved to 0-3 at altitude??? Every little helps

The truth is as long as South Africa does not embrace a fifteen man game the "old" debates will continue.

SA is limited, the status quo will remain, the All Blacks will run them ragged.

It is all correct, using the rule of thumb when we don't embrace positive fifteen man rugby.

BUT

Heyneke Meyer as the opportunity to change all that, if he does, then SA becomes a complete team, we do have the stock, we will always have the forwards, and that should be a scary and ominous sign for any other team the day SA decides to embrace fifteen man rugby.

I have been advocating it for as long as I care to remember.

THe signs are there, if Meyer continues on this path we will find the balance, and it will become second nature to us.

I was looking at the stats of the CUrrie CUp the other day.

We saw 6.6 tries per match. The Loins and Stormers averaged 4 tries per match, the other 2.8 tries per match.

Even the lowest performing team the Kings averaged 2.4 tries per match.

We do play running rugby, we just need all our Super Rugby coaches to do it, as well as our national team.

Well... they did beat (an admittedly out of sorts) France in the Free State. They've beaten a full strength Spain in Johannesburg. No clue how it works for Banana bafana, but I'd assume that unless playing a team from Africa - its an advantage, as the majority of the squad is based in JHB.

Hi,Biltong but no one doubts you have great backs too.Just if you use them IF you play
that game and start losing revert to type.

That has been the pattern in the past Pollard is a great find,BUT expect him to be a
marked man now.

Hi Alan, it is about that perception that we will revert to type where Meyer's biggest weapon is.

Teams will expect us to revert to type, and in that lies the biggest surprise weapon.

Of course Pollard is going to be marked, but again, that leaves space on either side of him as he will be occupying the minds of defenders.

Truth is if the Boks manage to create doubt in the minds of their opposition then the y are starting to achieve and change that perception.