Southern hemisphere dominance

First topic message reminder :

Read an interesting article today
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2536815-why-super-rugbys-exodus-wont-stunt-the-southern-hemispheres-dominance


Its half right. While the SH has traditionally dominated since professionalism, the gap has closed, big time. Take NZ out of it and there isn't a whole lot between a number of sides.


I think the gap will continue to close. The South Africans have to deal with quotas and a crumbling economy, the NRL have just signed a $1.7 billion TV contract in Australia and are increasing their salary cap by nearly 50% and the English clubs are going to join the French in picking the best players from super rugby.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:I find this delusion amazing, theres absolutely no offence meant toward SA fans but if you don't see certain NH teams as very difficult games then your totally blinkered.

If you want to talk head to heads IReland are superior to SA, if you want to talk rankings SA are slightly better then Ireland.

If you want to talk NH v SH you have to compare oranges with oranges, you cant only consider the top 3 teams from south against the top 3 teams from north, but include the next 3 teams too because it makes you feel good!

I personally would consider the tri nations and the PI teams as SH, and the 6N teams as NH, how does that comparison look?

Someone mentioned that 1 swallow does not a summer make, however 10 years of results gives a pretty decent indication that SA now struggle to bet the likes of Wales and Ireland on a regular basis, despite being a rugby superpower and both being relative minnows in comparison.

There may be a number of reaons for this, but facts don't lie, unless your forcably manipulate them.

No one ever said they're easy matches. ENG have pushed SA many times, Wales have pushed AUS many times to <5 points per game home and away. However whilst they have seemed 50/50 matches they rarely end up with the 3N sides losing. At the moment the SH sides seem to have enough to pull through when it counts.

We've seen this before. In 01-04 we saw the NH narrow the gap, 06-08 we saw them narrow the gap but even with the improved professionalism, fitness and 3N player drain in terms of results, we're not seeing the handover many have predicted and I don't think we will either, at least not without any significant shifts.

It will be interesting to see how Ireland can build on their recent form. They should make the SF of the RWC at least without facing a 3N side but the 2016 series will be the real acid test for them. Series win is too far for me. NZ in 96, Lions in 97, Lions in 74, France in 93. That's it and those sides were some of the best of all time inc. the French who the year later went on to beat NZ 2-0 at home. I don't think this Ireland team is good enough to make that statement, I think they're good enough to win a game mind.

But the point we were discussing was dominance and trends, SA have been dominant ove Ireland forever, with Ireland managing the odd isolated win, until 2004 of which you could say Ireland worked SA out, and have actually beaten them more than they have been beaten, their win rate since that first win in 40 years has been 75% over SA, to me this highlights not the trend of SA dominance becoming lesser, but has been blown out of the water and reversed.

Lets be clear, when there are periods of domination, such as SA's over England now, Aus over Wales, and NZ over jst about everyone then there is cause to admit it, however these periods do not prove SH rugby is dominant over NH rugby, because IReland are beating SA regularly now, Wales have just beaten them after running them as close as it gets recently, and on SA soil, which they used to lose by 40/50/90 points!

Are you saying if Ireland win the RWC, which IMO they have a shout at, they have a semi final booked in without a major shock or 2 results from others, and are more thn capable of beating Australia and SA as they've proven on numerous occasions, then a final is a free for all with the team who deals best with nerves etc taking (Unless Joubert is there to pick a winner).

Irelands acid test will not be SA next year, as they have now come to the end of an era, with world class players either just retired or retiring after the RWC, so the SA tour will be a first step building block toward 2019, in which SA should be a step or 2 further down the line in their process.

I see Ireland having a great RWC, I have a few quid on them winning it also, but I see them struggling for a season or 2 after it also.

what you say though is not true.

You are forgetting 2 test in 2004 in SA conveniently.

From 2004 SA and Ireland have played 8 times. 4 wins each but crucially 6 of those games have been in Ireland.

Cut them off to make your point if you wish... but it just goes to show you're cherry picking data.

Ireland are a good side, however If Ireland win the world cup it would probably be the biggest shock in the history of the game. They can beat AUS in a RWC as shown in 2011 but I'd say they're probably 5th favourites for the title and no one has come from that far to win. SA in 95 was the closest but they were at home. Its a huge ask, too far for me.

To win they will have to play France, Argentina, probably England/Australia and then probably NZ. Dreams sometimes do come true I guess.

fa0019 wrote:what you say though is not true.

You are forgetting 2 test in 2004 in SA conveniently.

From 2004 SA and Ireland have played 8 times. 4 wins each but crucially 6 of those games have been in Ireland.

Cut them off to make your point if you wish... but it just goes to show you're cherry picking data.

Ireland are a good side, however If Ireland win the world cup it would probably be the biggest shock in the history of the game. They can beat AUS in a RWC as shown in 2011 but I'd say they're probably 5th favourites for the title and no one has come from that far to win. SA in 95 was the closest but they were at home. Its a huge ask, too far for me.

To win they will have to play France, Argentina, probably England/Australia and then probably NZ. Dreams sometimes do come true I guess.

I don't think you understand my point, selecting Irelands first win over SA in 40 years isn't cherry picking, if they had gone on to lose the year after then that win would have been the same as the others as in an isolated incident, but the fact they won the next, then the one after (3 in a row) was no isolated win, it was a clear indication of IRelands performance increasin to a point where they were usperior to SA for a number of years, had they not also beat SA last season it could be argued that SA then responded and went 3 in a row, but they didn't and Ireland since their first win in 40 years, first ever back to back victory, and first ever 3 in a row have dispatched of SA in the easiest victory i've ever seen IReland beat SA!

That is the very definition of a trend, one that begins with a key indicator of trend start!

I don't disagree Ireland winning the RWC would be a shock, well to most anyway, however there are a lot of very knowledgable people recognising IRelands route to the final is extremley possible, and we all know what finals are, theyre almost a lottery if the ref is half decent!

Ireland are the best team in the world... happy?

Ireland beat SA at home, SA 2 months prior beat NZ at home. A>B, B>C then A>C.

My own prediction of their fortunes is this. They should get to the SFs (although France do seem to get their RWC preparations right), but I think AUS or ENG will be too much for them for differing reasons. When they go to SA in 2016 I think they'll lose 3 on the bounce. Its not that they aren't good enough to win, its just few do and it takes a long time to get used to the conditions especially after a long RWC season. Injuries will be high, SA will be much more fresh and in mid season. Close but no cigar.

Good side, yes. Great side.... probably not (maybe a little bit of bias there I don't know).

In terms of finals being a lottery.... anyone won a world cup final without being heavily favoured? 95 maybe... but that was people with bigger eyes than their stomachs. Lomu made that side paper over a lot of cracks.

Why be so immature to claim I think IReland are the best side in the world, just better than SA given their recent, and last head to head. They always struggle v NZ, lost to Wales last time up, and have an average record over Aus.

Ireland are a good side, and with their draw more than capable of rolling England France and Aus to reach a final, from there unless they play NZ it's very much anyones on the day.

Of course the odds on them winning a tour in SA is low, the international window will be against them as usual, and they will be rebuilding.

Now i'm not a huge IReland fan, I have no reason to push their agenda on anyone, however I am honest enough to recognise stats that are simply accurate, and tell a picture.

What does happen on these boards is that noone reads opposing comments to understand, they merely read them to reply, maybe thats where we are all going wrong?

based on the last match Ireland is better than SA at home, based on their last two matches Ireland is equal to SA at home, etc, etc, etc.

You can use stats for just about any argument, depending what suits your argument.

Fanster wrote:Why be so immature to claim I think IReland are the best side in the world, just better than SA given their recent, and last head to head. They always struggle v NZ, lost to Wales last time up, and have an average record over Aus.

Ireland are a good side, and with their draw more than capable of rolling England France and Aus to reach a final, from there unless they play NZ it's very much anyones on the day.

Of course the odds on them winning a tour in SA is low, the international window will be against them as usual, and they will be rebuilding.

Now i'm not a huge IReland fan, I have no reason to push their agenda on anyone, however I am honest enough to recognise stats that are simply accurate, and tell a picture.

What does happen on these boards is that noone reads opposing comments to understand, they merely read them to reply, maybe thats where we are all going wrong?

better record, ok sure I'll let you live in la la land for now. Ireland have the best record if you count up to 2004 (but only take 1 of the 3 games SA and IRE played that year).

This is the last match they played in the 6N in 2015

Ireland: 15-Rob Kearney, 14-Tommy Bowe, 13-Jared Payne, 12-Robbie Henshaw, 11-Luke Fitzgerald, 10-Jonathan Sexton, 9-Conor Murray; 1-Cian Healy, 2-Rory Best, 3-Mike Ross, 4-Devin Toner, 5-Paul O'Connell (captain), 6-Peter O'Mahony, 7-Sean O'Brien, 8-Jamie Heaslip

The 2004 match is important to this team because as you can see so many of those players are in the current set up so its easy to relate.

Ireland: G Dempsey; G Murphy, B O'Driscoll (capt), S Horgan, D Hickie; R O'Gara, P Stringer; R Corrigan, S Byrne, J Hayes, M O'Kelly, P O'Connell, S Easterby, J O'Connor, A Foley.

Why not take late 2004 as the bench mark for all teams Ireland face

France... oh dear, played 14, lost 9, won 3. (not looking good!)
Australia... oh dear, played, 9 lost 6, won 3 (not looking good!)
NZ... oh dear, played 11, lost 11, won 0 (not looking good!)
Wales... better, played 12, lost 6, won 6 (phew!)
England... looking good, played 12, lost 5, won 7 (hand me the world cup I hear you say).

So I agree, autumn 2004 is a valid point for this Ireland team. With the above and the fact that a single player still active from that era there is a strong correlation between those points and their future success in 2015-2016.

Biltong wrote:based on the last match Ireland is better than SA at home, based on their last two matches Ireland is equal to SA at home, etc, etc, etc.

You can use stats for just about any argument, depending what suits your argument.

But that is exactly my point, there are 2 sides to this argument, 1 from SA fans skewing facts and the other from me who has no agenda except wanting to highlight the SA fans what that stats actually say!

I don't want Ireland to win the RWC, I don't care if they beat SA 100 times in a row or lose 100 times in a row, but I will point out the trends of Ireland v SA have very much changed in recent years, and the game in 2004 was a huge step for Irish rugby against tri nations opposition.

A trend begins when a trendline is broken, and a retest proves it wasn't a one off, that is the definition of a trend!! Therefore the 2004 match was the start of a new trendline, and the previous 40 years can be layed to rest as SA dominance.

I like SA, and count them as very serious contenders for the RWC, even with their lock problems, and youth at key positions, they were unlucky not to win both RC games, and will probably beat Ireland next summer, none of this is new to you guys as this is my opinion i've given over and over, however are SA dominant over NH teams? England yes, Ireland not by a long shot, Wales we will see next year if they can get back to winning ways.

You dont think SA have dominance over Wales?

yeah you got us fanster... we're skewing the stats. I can't recall missing out any data myself or cutting out games.

Yeah that 2004 game was a real change of direction... after that game Ireland lost 5 on the bounce vs. 3N opposition and going into the next world cup they got dumped out in the pool stages by France and Argentina. Nevertheless, without that extra belief they got from that SA game they might not have between Georgia and would have had to qualify for the 2011 tournament. It all counts.

Lock problems.

Eben Etzebeth 23
Lood De Jager 22
Pieter-steph Du Toit 22

I shudder if you say SA have lock problems.

See Dad's army below

Hendre Pollard 21
Pat Lambie (the veteran) 24
Jesse Kriel (yep that guy who ran through Nonu and 3 other ABs) 21
Damien De Allende 23
Jan Serfontein 21
Willie Le Roux 25

fa0019 wrote:yeah you got us fanster... we're skewing the stats. I can't recall missing out any data myself or cutting out games.

Yeah that 2004 game was a real change of direction... after that game Ireland lost 5 on the bounce vs. 3N opposition and going into the next world cup they got dumped out in the pool stages by France and Argentina. Nevertheless, without that extra belief they got from that SA game they might not have between Georgia and would have had to qualify for the 2011 tournament. It all counts.

Stop wriggling, everyone elses results against Ireland have absolutely no bearing on IReland and SA's head to heads!

You are skewing stats because you want to believe SA are dominant over Ireland based on NZ and Aus's win records combined with your own, if you take SA and Irelands head to heads you know the stats don't lie!

I'm not sure if you read my explenation of what a trend is, maybe reread my post! the current trend of results between SA and Ireland begin in 2004, when they turned 40 years of domination, this is highlighted by the game after (the retest) in which Ireland lamented their performance against SA. So based on those facts, not opinions, not cherry picked stats, but flat out facts the current trend of Ireland v SA is very much in Irelands favour.

Why are you so blinded that you can't accept that someone who likes SA rugby, has given them every credit they deserve, and has no affiliation to Irish rugby has no agenda other than highlighting to you what is there?

fa0019 wrote:Lock problems.

Eben Etzebeth 23
Lood De Jager 22
Pieter-steph Du Toit 22

I shudder if you say SA have lock problems.

See Dad's army below

Hendre Pollard 21
Pat Lambie (the veteran) 24
Jesse Kriel (yep that guy who ran through Nonu and 3 other ABs) 21
Damien De Allende 23
Jan Serfontein 21
Willie Le Roux 25

Leave it out, I watched the RC games and Etzebeth is the only proven, experienced lock in the squad, had Van Der Merwe not prefered French money over SA caps he'd start with him, although De Jager played well, and has shown a lot of promise. But ye, bringing MAtfield out of retirement at his age and performance level highlighted a big problem!

Not sure why your calling the young players old, I specifically called them youth at important positions, Pollard has looked good then ropy, Kriel was the try scorer who went in untouched, De Allende was the damage machine in midfield! Kriel infact has looked defencively unsound in an SA shirt IMO

Fanster wrote:
Ireland are a good side, and with their draw more than capable of rolling England France and Aus to reach a final, from there unless they play NZ it's very much anyones on the day.

Ireland haven't won at Twickenham for 5 years and England have won 4 out of the last 5 games. When taking into account dominance you really need to look at where the game is played too.

Ireland will probably go out to NZ in the quarter-finals in any case. I think France will take them in the pool. Call it a gut feeling (and French World Cup pedigree) 

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:
Ireland are a good side, and with their draw more than capable of rolling England France and Aus to reach a final, from there unless they play NZ it's very much anyones on the day.

Ireland haven't won at Twickenham for 5 years and England have won 4 out of the last 5 games. When taking into account dominance you really need to look at where the game is played too.

Ireland will probably go out to NZ in the quarter-finals in any case. I think France will take them in the pool. Call it a gut feeling (and French World Cup pedigree) 

You may well be right about France and England, both are capable of turning Ireland over, allbeit the French far less likely given the state of their play in the last 18-24 months.

I didn't say Ireland would easily beat England, just that they are more than capable, as England are more than capable of beating Ireland.

My point was Ireland in the RWC final wouldn't be a surprise to me in the slightest, they have been the best 6N team over the last 2 years pretty comfortbly despite the Wales and England defeats, and Schmidt has them playing a very effective way.

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:
Ireland are a good side, and with their draw more than capable of rolling England France and Aus to reach a final, from there unless they play NZ it's very much anyones on the day.

Ireland haven't won at Twickenham for 5 years and England have won 4 out of the last 5 games. When taking into account dominance you really need to look at where the game is played too.

Ireland will probably go out to NZ in the quarter-finals in any case. I think France will take them in the pool. Call it a gut feeling (and French World Cup pedigree) 

You may well be right about France and England, both are capable of turning Ireland over, allbeit the French far less likely given the state of their play in the last 18-24 months.

I didn't say Ireland would easily beat England, just that they are more than capable, as England are more than capable of beating Ireland.

My point was Ireland in the RWC final wouldn't be a surprise to me in the slightest, they have been the best 6N team over the last 2 years pretty comfortbly despite the Wales and England defeats, and Schmidt has them playing a very effective way.

It would be a huge, huge surprise for me. They've been the best side in the 6 Nations for the last two seasons but only by very small margins and lost the away games to England (2014) and Wales (2015). Home advantage is very important and Ireland won't have any of it during the World Cup.

I think you (and some Irish fans) are getting a little carried away

Ireland might indeed doi well, but certainly do not have much of a RWC pedigree.  England is presumed to do better, especially at home.  Wales could do very well, or not make it out of the pools.  Only Gatland knows for sure.  
And France, I was about to say God only knows, but he doesn't.
I was discussing this with god the other day and the conversation went like this:
Doc:  Hiya mate, wha-cha doin?
God:  Filling out my Fantasy RWC brackets
Doc:  How do you think the Home Nations will do?
God:  Can't tell ya, Proprietary info.
Doc:  How about Framce?
God:  Don't know.  This is impossible.  Even I can't predict what them Basterauds will do next.
Doc:  How about New Zealand?
God:  Don't really care.  I am an England supporter.............

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:
Ireland are a good side, and with their draw more than capable of rolling England France and Aus to reach a final, from there unless they play NZ it's very much anyones on the day.

Ireland haven't won at Twickenham for 5 years and England have won 4 out of the last 5 games. When taking into account dominance you really need to look at where the game is played too.

Ireland will probably go out to NZ in the quarter-finals in any case. I think France will take them in the pool. Call it a gut feeling (and French World Cup pedigree) 

You may well be right about France and England, both are capable of turning Ireland over, allbeit the French far less likely given the state of their play in the last 18-24 months.

I didn't say Ireland would easily beat England, just that they are more than capable, as England are more than capable of beating Ireland.

My point was Ireland in the RWC final wouldn't be a surprise to me in the slightest, they have been the best 6N team over the last 2 years pretty comfortbly despite the Wales and England defeats, and Schmidt has them playing a very effective way.

It would be a huge, huge surprise for me. They've been the best side in the 6 Nations for the last two seasons but only by very small margins and lost the away games to England (2014) and Wales (2015). Home advantage is very important and Ireland won't have any of it during the World Cup.

I think you (and some Irish fans) are getting a little carried away

Really? They have possibly the easiest route to the semi's I've ever seen, France on English soil shouldn't be too much of a hassle, and I see Ireland cruising past them.

A lot of talk about home advantage is too early for me, with 3 teams who could beat each other in Englands group the pressure to get out of the group is massive, and is unparralleled in it's unsurity for the first time in RWC history!

I think with this group, Englands home advantage could be nullified by the pressure on them not to fail to qualify from the group...

Ireland's recent record at RWC isn't too hot though. Tonked by France in 2003, knocked out of group 2007, lost to Wales in 1/4s of 2011.

Gwlad wrote:Ireland's recent record at RWC isn't too hot though. Tonked by France in 2003, knocked out of group 2007, lost to Wales in 1/4s of 2011.

France and Wales in thse 2 RWC's were probably realistically the better teams though, whereas today I'd argue Ireland are stronger than both.

I think it would take a mammoth effort from France, or a shock result in another group to stop Ireland cruising to the semi's

Ireland top pretty comfortably twice in a row really? SA not dominant over Wales?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ireland top pretty comfortably twice in a row really? SA not dominant over Wales?

Yes, 2 6N titles and beating SA and Aus this autumn means they have been the best in the NH for the last 2 seasons have they not? They cruised past SA last time out and it was as bad as I've seen from SA!

Wales also beat SA last time out, have you ever heard the phrase 'You're only as good as your last game'?. I also said it remains to be seen if Wales can back that victory up, but hey, don't worry about what was actually said right?

Fanster wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Ireland's recent record at RWC isn't too hot though. Tonked by France in 2003, knocked out of group 2007, lost to Wales in 1/4s of 2011.

France and Wales in thse 2 RWC's were probably realistically the better teams though, whereas today I'd argue Ireland are stronger than both.

I think it would take a mammoth effort from France, or a shock result in another group to stop Ireland cruising to the semi's

Logically they should beat france and then Argentina; but France will have the same perspective and IMO France have significantly better RWC performance. Argentina won't be a cake walk either and they have beaten Ireland before to upset a RWC in 1999. France are a big game side and they raise their game; lets not forget what they have done to NZ before at RWC 99, and were finalists in 2011.

Much as i think Ireland have a real crack at it with Schmidt especially and have long thought Ireland would get to the semis, as the RWC approaches my thoughts are changing.

Fanster wrote:

I think it would take a mammoth effort from France, or a shock result in another group to stop Ireland cruising to the semi's

Why would it take a 'mammoth effort from France' to turn around a seven point deficit (the difference in the game played in Ireland in the last 6Ns) for their meeting on neutral soil in the WC pool?

Gwlad wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Ireland's recent record at RWC isn't too hot though. Tonked by France in 2003, knocked out of group 2007, lost to Wales in 1/4s of 2011.

France and Wales in thse 2 RWC's were probably realistically the better teams though, whereas today I'd argue Ireland are stronger than both.

I think it would take a mammoth effort from France, or a shock result in another group to stop Ireland cruising to the semi's

Logically they should beat france and then Argentina; but France will have the same perspective and IMO France have significantly better RWC performance. Argentina won't be a cake walk either and they have beaten Ireland before to upset a RWC in 1999. France are a big game side and they raise their game; lets not forget what they have done to NZ before at RWC 99, and were finalists in 2011.

Much as i think Ireland have a real crack at it with Schmidt especially and have long thought Ireland would get to the semis, as the RWC approaches my thoughts are changing.

I don't really buy the 'they have RWC pedigree' argument, take Wales for example, have finished 3rd and 4th yet have been dumped out at the group stage also. France have regularly been the 4th top seed if my memory serves me correctly, and enjoyed a lot of groups without the big 3 from south, the last RWC they shouldve gone out at the group stage, beat an England team who were in self destruct mode, and then managed to hold out a 14 man Wales, Ironically although not deserving to be there they shouldve lifted the trophy!

Anyway my point is although once again France have managed to avoid the big 3, Ireland are the better team, I look at the french squad and it's as week as I've ever seen a French team. It wouldn't be extremely surprising to see Italy manage to beat France, although maybe thats going a bit far!

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:

I think it would take a mammoth effort from France, or a shock result in another group to stop Ireland cruising to the semi's

Why would it take a 'mammoth effort from France' to turn around a seven point deficit (the difference in the game played in Ireland in the last 6Ns) for their meeting on neutral soil in the WC pool?

Because the French team looks to be getting visibly weaker every season right now, they are really struggling, and have very few World class players in this squad, don't you think?

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Fanster wrote:

I think it would take a mammoth effort from France, or a shock result in another group to stop Ireland cruising to the semi's

Why would it take a 'mammoth effort from France' to turn around a seven point deficit (the difference in the game played in Ireland in the last 6Ns) for their meeting on neutral soil in the WC pool?

Because the French team looks to be getting visibly weaker every season right now, they are really struggling, and have very few World class players in this squad, don't you think?

To be honest, there aren't that many World Class players in the NH full-stop.

The recent poor form of the French has not been because they didn't have enough top players. That's an odd comment from you. Poor coaching and attitude, yes, but the problem isn't with ability.

I still don't see where this mountain to climb has appeared from that means they are going to be so much further behind from February to October. If anything, France have more capacity to improve and only need to close a small gap (and also be on neutral soil and not the 'away' side).

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ireland top pretty comfortably twice in a row really? SA not dominant over Wales?

Yes, 2 6N titles and beating SA and Aus this autumn means they have been the best in the NH for the last 2 seasons have they not? They cruised past SA last time out and it was as bad as I've seen from SA!

Wales also beat SA last time out, have you ever heard the phrase 'You're only as good as your last game'?. I also said it remains to be seen if Wales can back that victory up, but hey, don't worry about what was actually said right?

No points difference in the last 2 years for me wouldnt say comfortable. So how long does awinning streak take to become dominant and I take it 1 win breaks it?

Cyril wrote:
I think you (and some Irish fans) are getting a little carried away

Why? They've a relatively easy path to the semi finals, have won the last two 6 nations and are playing consistently good under Schmidt. Certainly France can beat them (going to be a tough match) or anyone else on their day and Argentina will be targeting the 1/4 final but why should Irish fans be confident?

Having said that, I've seen very little talk about it so far. After previous world cups I don't think too many Irish will get too confident of doin well.

profitius wrote:

Cyril wrote:
I think you (and some Irish fans) are getting a little carried away

Why? They've a relatively easy path to the semi finals, have won the last two 6 nations and are playing consistently good under Schmidt. Certainly France can beat them (going to be a tough match) or anyone else on their day and Argentina will be targeting the 1/4 final but why should Irish fans be confident?

Having said that, I've seen very little talk about it so far. After previous world cups I don't think too many Irish will get too confident of doin well.

I did say it was only 'some' Irish who are expecting to cruise to the semis. There are some with slightly longer memories.

Fanster obviously expects it to happen (but I'm not sure where he's supposed to be from at the moment!)

The pro 12 final showed how far Munster have fallen from their heights. does that matter ( i hear you say as so few of their players are key for Ireland?) also two of them were injured for that game (Peter OMahoney and Connor Murray)
The one who did start, Paul OConnell, really struggled to impose any kind of shape on the game ( also Glasgow were immense!). POC is normally such a great big match player and yes munster had key injuries (back row and 9) BUT i think he is slightly past his best and  Schmidt's attempts to replace BOD havent convinced me that against the top teams the backline can function fully in attack.
The kick chase game works superbly when the pack can dominate the opposition but apart from tearing a dispirited and depleted Scottish team a new one in the 6 N's i havent seen a lot of evidence of fluid back play. Was this a Schmidt ploy to keep his powder dry? Time will tell.
Throw in the injury concerns over Cian Healey and i think Ireland may be in for a tougher tornament than some think.

profitius wrote:

Cyril wrote:
I think you (and some Irish fans) are getting a little carried away

Why? They've a relatively easy path to the semi finals, have won the last two 6 nations and are playing consistently good under Schmidt. Certainly France can beat them (going to be a tough match) or anyone else on their day and Argentina will be targeting the 1/4 final but why should Irish fans be confident?

Having said that, I've seen very little talk about it so far. After previous world cups I don't think too many Irish will get too confident of doin well.

The only thing in their way is their RWC record and France who are still the mercurial side who can turn it on when they want, even if it is less convincing now. I think France might manage a win as they will know it is the crucial game and almost guarantees the winner the semi final.

I'm not so sure non-RWC results are entirely predictable in the RWC.  In fact, one could argue, prior success is almost a recipe for losing in the RWC.  

In the 2003 Bledisloe Cup the ABs put 50 points on the Wallabies.  50!  In Sydney.  Then the Wallabies beat the ABs in the RWC semis by 12 points.  And then came within extra time of winning the whole thing (thanks Saint Jonny!).  

In 2007, Ireland came in a strong second to France in the 6 Nations on points differential (only -4).  But in the RWC couldn't even get out of their own pool, including barely beating Georgia on a disputed non-try call which went against Georgia near the death (i was there and in shock).  Also the Boks came in last in the Tri-Nations that year (1 up, 3 down) but won the RWC.

In 2011, despite my vain attempts to put this out of mind, England won the 6 nations outright, then sucked the big potato in the RWC.  Further, France came in second and Wales 4th (4th!) in the 6 Nations, but either could/should have won the damn RWC.  To further my point in that RWC, Australia won the Tri-Nations with the ABs only winning 2 and losing 2.  Yet the ABs won the RWC.  Though I have to say in that final, in my opinion, the referee treated France the same as a sheep by a redneck farmer.    

Point being, there appears limited info one can take from results amongst the major teams in the year before the RWC.  This is not a reflection on anyone's chances.  Just that one never knows, and winning records prior to the RWC mean next to nada when the Big Kahuna comes around.  

Lordy mama, even England have a shot to win the RWC this year.  Maybe even better than in the past since they have managed to avoid winning the 6 Nations (snatching 2nd place from the jaws of victory in recent 6 Nations).  Clearly a criteria for success?  
(OK, maybe not, but that's a thread for another day)

doctor_grey wrote:I'm not so sure non-RWC results are entirely predictable in the RWC.  In fact, one could argue, prior success is almost a recipe for losing in the RWC.  

In the 2003 Bledisloe Cup the ABs put 50 points on the Wallabies.  50!  In Sydney.  Then the Wallabies beat the ABs in the RWC semis by 12 points.  And then came within extra time of winning the whole thing (thanks Saint Jonny!).  

In 2007, Ireland came in a strong second to France in the 6 Nations on points differential (only -4).  But in the RWC couldn't even get out of their own pool, including barely beating Georgia on a disputed non-try call which went against Georgia near the death (i was there and in shock).  Also the Boks came in last in the Tri-Nations that year (1 up, 3 down) but won the RWC.

In 2011, despite my vain attempts to put this out of mind, England won the 6 nations outright, then sucked the big potato in the RWC.  Further, France came in second and Wales 4th (4th!) in the 6 Nations, but either could/should have won the damn RWC.  To further my point in that RWC, Australia won the Tri-Nations with the ABs only winning 2 and losing 2.  Yet the ABs won the RWC.  Though I have to say in that final, in my opinion, the referee treated France the same as a sheep by a redneck farmer.    

Point being, there appears limited info one can take from results amongst the major teams in the year before the RWC.  This is not a reflection on anyone's chances.  Just that one never knows, and winning records prior to the RWC mean next to nada when the Big Kahuna comes around.  

Lordy mama, even England have a shot to win the RWC this year.  Maybe even better than in the past since they have managed to avoid winning the 6 Nations (snatching 2nd place from the jaws of victory in recent 6 Nations).  Clearly a criteria for success?  
(OK, maybe not, but that's a thread for another day)

Have to agree. The RWC is a knock out tournament. You can prepare and select well, but if you don't turn up on the day and your opposition does you could be out.

beshocked wrote:Icu I would say that Australia have dominated Wales in the last few years just as SA have done to England.

Australia can't really call themselves dominant over ALL NH sides when their recent record against England has not been great.

If you mention Scotland and Italy it's only right that Argentina,Fiji,Samoa and Tonga are mentioned as SH opposition..

Fair enough. If it makes it more palatable, include Arg, Fiji etc.

Regardless, imo Australia can call themselves dominant over all NH sides as they have a winning head-to-head against all of them, even at their home grounds (excepting France and England). Even then, of the 24 matches played at Twickenham the Wallabies have won 10 with one draw. Conversely, England have won 3 games from 17 in Australia. The last 10 games between England and Australia are 5 wins apiece with only 2 of those games played in Australia. I had thought that England were closer to Australia in terms of wins but at present it stands at 24 wins for Aust, 18 for England and 1 draw with the majority of those games played in England. Factoring in 2 world cups wins on UK soil against (traditionally) the 2 strongest NH sides then i am comfortable with my assertion that Australia has been dominant over all NH sides.

Well no obviously Australia are not dominant over England because they've lost the 4 out of 5 games.

In the last two times England faced Australia in a RWC, England won. Oh and England won their RWC in Australia against Australia in the final - does that show Aussie dominance? No - quite clearly not.

The difference between England and Australia is not that big. Certainly not enough to say that Australia are dominant.

It would be like saying England have dominated Ireland and France. England have the superior head to head but I wouldn't call it dominance.

England's recent record against Scotland and Italy is dominance - far greater than Australia's record against England.

By your logic England are dominant over all over NH sides too because England have a winning head to head against all....


Profitius it's good that you mention France. France are the side who throw the form book out of the window.

Going on form France will struggle in the world cup - but it's France - a side that has made 3 RWC finals, the only NH side that has beaten NZ in a rugby world cup and has always made the quarter finals at least.

Yeah agree with Beshocked, dominance is probably not the right terminology to use unless you have been clobbering the daylights out of a team for some time.

The fact is many of these teams are so closely matched that whether the odds are 40/60 or 50/50 the results are never a done deal.

This thread has gone from one topic to totally another people quoting stats to improve there
case.[WITHOUT qualifying them]
It is inevitable that the more games you play against a side you play the better your
chances of winning especially at home.
Since there return from exile in 1992 for whatever reason SA have diminished from there
pre 1980 status.BUT still had plus score over EVERY side until 1995 AND still have against
every one but NZ.
Australia have risen from being a stop off for visiting tours up to the 1970`s[SH tours excepted]to being the Number 2 side off and on in the pro era and have a plus score
versus all but SA and NZ.
NZ with a few blips have been the best side in the World since 1996 to date,The last 3 6Ns titles have been decided by points difference it is fair to say in each a 3 way tie.
In the 4 N its home and away in the 6Ns the draw can have huge influence on results,I
would back all but Italy or Scotland to win there home games.
If you use the IRB ratings a somewhat crude guide the gap between 2 and 6 is not more than
1.5 points.
RWC results and Rugby Championship wins in the same year 2007/11 results were sacrificed
to win the tinpot.
In 2003 NZ put 50 points on BOTH Aus and SA AWAY two weeks apart but both home games
were close run affairs.The need to field a goal kicker meant a utility back playing 13 against
one of the worlds best Larkham.
In 2009 PDV set a shameful precedent on the Lions tour hiding his Boks from Lions outside
the tests.A injury weakened Lions side was beaten 2-1 and it could easily have been 1-2.
Won the 3 NS 5-1 with 3 wins v and injury riddled AB side were IRB number 1 side. BUT
by the end of the year NZ were back to 1.Donnelly fixed the lineout had NZ v SA met
then who knows.2010 roles were reversed an injury riddled SA side beaten 3-0.
Results outside RWC mean nothing injuries,the REF,surprised by the unknown side
etc.
Looking at the groups only Group A SHOULD be unpredictable Ireland,France,NZ,SA
progressing.
Group A is anyones guess,theres always the x factor like 9 drop goals in 1999 for England.
BUT if RWC is the guide the 6 out of 7 SH wins and probably 7 out of 8 then has it
been eroded NO!!!!!

Depends on how you judge it. If you go by W/L (the only way history will judge it) then I don’t think you can claim the gap is closing. If you look a little deeper and judge the competitiveness of each game – then I think it is closing. Small comfort though.

In addition, you can only make this dominance claim for NZ & SA. Sorry Aus, but like in the cricket, your dominant days are over (apart from over Wales obviously ). Whenever Eng meet Aus I now always expect Eng to win, home or away.

In fact Aus are fast becoming the new France. Too good to lose, but often do. Living off past glories and the odd outstanding performance. I expect Eng and Wal to top our group. There, I’ve said it now.

Barney, I think with professionalism the margins were bound to get smaller.

I often look at Afrikaners and the advantage they had all those years ago as we are naturally big and strong, it is in our genes.

However with professional sport everyone now have the best instructors and training programs so the natural advantage has now been eroded.

Smarts and creativity is now key, and I often lament the fact that the Springboks still believe they will always win the physical battle and often negate smarts.

Just look at what happened against Ireland last november, they beat us by being smarter, more cunning and had a plan.

South zafrica on the other hand kept trying thr same mauls even after being snubbed by Ireland's tactic not to engage, and were generally just plain dumb and inflexible in their game play

emack2 true but England have been in 3 RWC finals and France in 3 RWC finals. Let's be honest it's been only two NH sides flying the flag for the NH whilst the SH has had three.

6 World Cups out of 7 have had a NH representative in the final. 1 in 6 finals is a poor return but at least they've been there.

Probably NH hopes will rest on England and France again simply because they've got the best RWC records.

The draw on one side will most likely have all the contenders from the NH, so whoever performs best then will most likely play NZ in the final.

That is how I see it anyway.

blackcanelion wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I'm not so sure non-RWC results are entirely predictable in the RWC.  In fact, one could argue, prior success is almost a recipe for losing in the RWC.  

In the 2003 Bledisloe Cup the ABs put 50 points on the Wallabies.  50!  In Sydney.  Then the Wallabies beat the ABs in the RWC semis by 12 points.  And then came within extra time of winning the whole thing (thanks Saint Jonny!).  

In 2007, Ireland came in a strong second to France in the 6 Nations on points differential (only -4).  But in the RWC couldn't even get out of their own pool, including barely beating Georgia on a disputed non-try call which went against Georgia near the death (i was there and in shock).  Also the Boks came in last in the Tri-Nations that year (1 up, 3 down) but won the RWC.

In 2011, despite my vain attempts to put this out of mind, England won the 6 nations outright, then sucked the big potato in the RWC.  Further, France came in second and Wales 4th (4th!) in the 6 Nations, but either could/should have won the damn RWC.  To further my point in that RWC, Australia won the Tri-Nations with the ABs only winning 2 and losing 2.  Yet the ABs won the RWC.  Though I have to say in that final, in my opinion, the referee treated France the same as a sheep by a redneck farmer.    

Point being, there appears limited info one can take from results amongst the major teams in the year before the RWC.  This is not a reflection on anyone's chances.  Just that one never knows, and winning records prior to the RWC mean next to nada when the Big Kahuna comes around.  

Lordy mama, even England have a shot to win the RWC this year.  Maybe even better than in the past since they have managed to avoid winning the 6 Nations (snatching 2nd place from the jaws of victory in recent 6 Nations).  Clearly a criteria for success?  
(OK, maybe not, but that's a thread for another day)

Have to agree. The RWC is a knock out tournament. You can prepare and select well, but if you don't turn up on the day and your opposition does you could be out.

That being true... when have a team who won the tournament not been the best team in the world at the time/deserved it by beating all the other best teams in the world?

probably 2007 only, and then they were easily the 2nd best team in the world and thereafter stamped their authority as legitimate RWC winners.

One off games yes, luck of how the draw turns out yes but in truth the best teams always end up winning.

fa0019 wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I'm not so sure non-RWC results are entirely predictable in the RWC.  In fact, one could argue, prior success is almost a recipe for losing in the RWC.  

In the 2003 Bledisloe Cup the ABs put 50 points on the Wallabies.  50!  In Sydney.  Then the Wallabies beat the ABs in the RWC semis by 12 points.  And then came within extra time of winning the whole thing (thanks Saint Jonny!).  

In 2007, Ireland came in a strong second to France in the 6 Nations on points differential (only -4).  But in the RWC couldn't even get out of their own pool, including barely beating Georgia on a disputed non-try call which went against Georgia near the death (i was there and in shock).  Also the Boks came in last in the Tri-Nations that year (1 up, 3 down) but won the RWC.

In 2011, despite my vain attempts to put this out of mind, England won the 6 nations outright, then sucked the big potato in the RWC.  Further, France came in second and Wales 4th (4th!) in the 6 Nations, but either could/should have won the damn RWC.  To further my point in that RWC, Australia won the Tri-Nations with the ABs only winning 2 and losing 2.  Yet the ABs won the RWC.  Though I have to say in that final, in my opinion, the referee treated France the same as a sheep by a redneck farmer.    

Point being, there appears limited info one can take from results amongst the major teams in the year before the RWC.  This is not a reflection on anyone's chances.  Just that one never knows, and winning records prior to the RWC mean next to nada when the Big Kahuna comes around.  

Lordy mama, even England have a shot to win the RWC this year.  Maybe even better than in the past since they have managed to avoid winning the 6 Nations (snatching 2nd place from the jaws of victory in recent 6 Nations).  Clearly a criteria for success?  
(OK, maybe not, but that's a thread for another day)

Have to agree. The RWC is a knock out tournament. You can prepare and select well, but if you don't turn up on the day and your opposition does you could be out.

That being true... when have a team who won the tournament not been the best team in the world at the time/deserved it by beating all the other best teams in the world?

probably 2007 only, and then they were easily the 2nd best team in the world and thereafter stamped their authority as legitimate RWC winners.

One off games yes, luck of how the draw turns out yes but in truth the best teams always end up winning.

1987 Australia no 1 going in. NZ won, but didn't play Australia. SA couldn't compete. NZ dominated afterwards.
1991 Australia won. Didn't play France. SA didn't play. Australia probably No1 afterwards.
1995 SA won. Didn't play England. NZ dominant afterwards.
1999 Australia won. Didn't Play NZ or England. England dominant afterwards.
2003 England won. Didn't play NZ. NZ dominant afterwards.
2007 SA won. Didn't play NZ, Australia or France. NZ dominant afterwards
2011 NZ won. Didn't play SA, England, Wales or Ireland. NZ dominant afterwards

Point being it's knock out.

I think 1995 is the only RWC where the eventual winner beat the other two SH giants

Also NZ dominated 1996 , in 1997/1998 SA had their run of 17 wins in succession

In 86 AUS beat NZ in NZ true but that was due to the rebel tour. They played AUS a few weeks later and put them to the sword.

91 - France were hardly the best team in Europe. England were the GS champions, England beat them in Paris. Australia beat NZ and England.

In terms of the above and SA... SA would never in probability have won in NZ. They may have had a chance in England 91 as they like NH conditions but AUS were very strong and their pack were the dominant pack in world rugby at the time... the bullied England.

95 - They beat AUS, FRA and NZ (two of which at sea level)... thats all you can ask really in a KO tournament. Probably the toughest route anyone has ever faced and come away with title (albeit at home).

03 - NZ wouldn't have beaten ENG in all probability. Too weak upfront, AUS bossed them, no Umaga showed weakness in midfield. Spencer was erratic.

Overall I can't see a complaint on any of the winners. Maybe 07, maybe but it would have been very close say 45:55 NZ so with odds that close say one didn't deserve is really marginal.

Biltong wrote:The draw on one side will most likely have all the contenders from the NH, so whoever performs best then will most likely play NZ in the final.

That is how I see it anyway.

Will depend on how Australia perform. If they can top Pool A they could make it to the final without facing SA or NZ - on the other hand if they are runners up they would face in all likelihood SA which would put the cat among the pigeons.

Would be funny and great if it's

England vs Scotland
Australia vs South Africa
Ireland vs Argentina
France vs New Zealand

That's my prediction.

Biltong wrote:I think 1995 is the only RWC where the eventual winner beat the other two SH giants

Also NZ dominated 1996 , in 1997/1998 SA had their run of 17 wins in succession

England beat SA and AUS in 03

Biltong wrote:I think 1995 is the only RWC where the eventual winner beat the other two SH giants

Also NZ dominated 1996 , in 1997/1998 SA had their run of 17 wins in succession

True about '95.

I'd say NZ dominated overall between the 95 and 99 cups. NZ lost a game in 96, no games in 97, the 98 tri nations was rubbish, but lost one game in 99 going into the 99 world cup.