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.

Well we will see in the WC - and we still have to see how the NH teams look in the warmups.

Forget the teans at least the 1st round given Ireland and Wales today it ll be about individuals looking to make an impression. In fairness I can never see such sub par NZ performances for too long but we can but hope.

TJ wrote:What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them.  Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure.    Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH.  Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

...plus Apple Juice. Never forget the Apple Juice.

TJ wrote:What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them.  Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure.    Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH.  Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

Argentina too?

Get this, SA finish last in the RC but will still top their world cup group. That's SH dominance.

Argentina as well -that performance was very good indeed especially at the breakdown. SA did not look that good it must be said - no plan B and plan a so predictable

Argentina occasionally put in a world class performance. I think they're inconsistent due to most of their players playing in Europe, along with the fact they regularly have to play the best teams in the world who have traditionally been nigh on unbeatable. They should improve having a franchise in super rugby next year. I'm really pleased for them. Their inclusion into the RC has previously been criticised, especially in the wake of that record stuffing from SA. They can be very proud of what they have achieved and hopefully continue to move forward.

Well this is the worst run of form South Africa has had since, well some time.

I am sure everyone will be hoping it continues

From a purely selfish perspective, yes I think we will...

Sorry Biltong but as you are the "biggest" team in Scotlands group I have to hope so as well - although coming second in that group might be best?

TJ wrote:

profitius wrote:

TJ wrote:What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them.  Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure.    Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH.  Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

I was watching a different game. The main difference between the tradition big 3 Sh sides and the NH sides has been their attacking play. Today the attacking play was dire. NZ have not played that badly in years.

Aus defence smothered them - and Carter had a bad day.  It wasn't so much NZ p-layed badly but that Aus denied them the ball and space to score freely.  I really think the pace of that game was so far above anything we play in the NH that it was a different class.  Rucks were cleared and ball away in a couple of seconds - no 9 stood around waving forwards into position for 20+ seconds before delivering a telegraphed pass.  Support runners were there all the time and both sides played mainly a rush defence and played it really well.  sure there were a bunch of mistakes but they were a product of the speed and intensity of the game.  

Most of the NZ team underperformed. Many of the Australians underperformed. Many of the tries were fairly soft and wouldn't normally be scored and the game was littered with uncharacteristic mistakes. There has been many great matches from the tri/quad nations down the years but this certainly wasn't one of them.


Both SA and NZ looked to have one eye on the world cup IMO and were complacent. Its good for the world cup because it'll sow a few seeds of doubt in their minds.

Biltong wrote:Well this is the worst run of form South Africa has had since, well some time.

I am sure everyone will be hoping it continues

Just the opposite, mate. I enjoy South African Rugby.

You didn't look good yesterday, to be fair. Uncommon holes in the defensive schemes. I would expect them to be fixed.

Doc, I did a little reasearch, under Nick Mallett, then Jake White, then PDV and now aheyneke Meyer, all their records decline in the last year of their tenure.

Coincidence, or inability to learn, observe and adapt playing styles?

Interesting. You think it's possibly that some coaches can struggle to adapt to changes in the personnel who helped them be successful in the first place? This isn't uncommon in sport.

I think our coaches are one trick ponies and don't want to learn. Teams find ways to negate their tactics and they don't have the ability to adapt.

The same has happened to our Super Rugby coaches, Naka Drotske,mAllistair Coetzee, Frans Ludeke,

Talking of dominance, i haven't seen a SH side be dominated quite so comprehensively as i did SA by the Argies this weekend, extraordinary really that a team like Argentina can go from being whipping boys to comprehensively taking apart the supposed World no 2. But, still it is a SH side dominating another SH side. Must be something in the beef. And it supports my theory that SA are in serious trouble.

Supports my theory that familiarity (number of meetings) lends itself to learning quicker, adapting more positively and beginning to rise in confidence the more games come round.  Some here actually rubbish such a logical conclusion.  They say that the SH three are simply better period - individually and collectively.  They reject the link between the number of opportunities they get to play each other every year and the continuation of 'SH quality'.
But you can't escape the truth of it - success in the SH has been a self perpetuating inevitability with the All Blacks as the regional powerhouse and engine stoker.  Playing against Australia and New Zealand over the last few seasons has set up Argentina to be more prepared and alive to SA - as indeed playing SA and Australia also allows them to become more familiar with the efforts required to meet the All Black challenge. And if you struggle to find methods of trying to beat those guys on a yearly basis then you're probably on the right path to being ready for the challenge of all others.

If Argentina take another one or two scalps next season or indeed at the coming WC... they'll be jumping up the charts too!  Now, that development was never going to happen without the valuable yearly exposure to the quality they face, most especially those multiple All Black meetings.

Gwlad wrote:Talking of dominance, i haven't seen a SH side be dominated quite so comprehensively as i did SA by the Argies this weekend, extraordinary really that a team like Argentina can go from being whipping boys to comprehensively taking apart the supposed World no 2. But, still it is a SH side dominating another SH side. Must be something in the beef. And it supports my theory that SA are in serious trouble.

It would seem we are, and you are seriously loving it, eh?

Gwlad wrote:Talking of dominance, i haven't seen a SH side be dominated quite so comprehensively as i did SA by the Argies this weekend, extraordinary really that a team like Argentina can go from being whipping boys to comprehensively taking apart the supposed World no 2. But, still it is a SH side dominating another SH side. Must be something in the beef. And it supports my theory that SA are in serious trouble.

"Your theory"

Mate, they've been in trouble for quite some time, losing 4 in a row for the first time if their history, losing to Scotland in their tour of Europe recently, losing for the first time to Argentina, finishing bottom of the rugby championship/tri nations for the first time since the 90s. Doesn't exactly take a rugby genius to figure out they are struggling going back to 2014, hardly 'your theory'.

Biltong - beat Scotland and Samoa and you top the group, I still think SA are in contention, but no doubt the rugby championship has dealt you a blow. Still, its knockout rugby if you beat Scotland and Samoa, I wouldn't be hitting the self destruct button just yet.

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Talking of dominance, i haven't seen a SH side be dominated quite so comprehensively as i did SA by the Argies this weekend, extraordinary really that a team like Argentina can go from being whipping boys to comprehensively taking apart the supposed World no 2. But, still it is a SH side dominating another SH side. Must be something in the beef. And it supports my theory that SA are in serious trouble.

It would seem we are, and you are seriously loving it, eh?

You're going soft Biltong, a bit like the SA pack and De Villiers jaw..

Look, fact is you lost to Wales last autumn. Now that must be the lowest of the low. Until now that is, you lose to Argentina just before a RWC. Argentina?!!!

And not just a loss. You got spanked.

So, do i think you are on a downward trend? Certainly. Am I 'seriously loving' it? Couldn't care less tbh but nice to see one of the bigger sides getting taught a lesson. SA better sit up and smell the coffee and quick.

It just supports my theory that Samoa will edge you in a huge upset by beating SA up front. Sadly with JDV also likely out, a standout player IMO, SA are up to their necks in the brown and smelly.

SecretFly wrote:Supports my theory that familiarity (number of meetings) lends itself to learning quicker, adapting more positively and beginning to rise in confidence the more games come round.  Some here actually rubbish such a logical conclusion.  They say that the SH three are simply better period - individually and collectively.  They reject the link between the number of opportunities they get to play each other every year and the continuation of 'SH quality'.
But you can't escape the truth of it - success in the SH has been a self perpetuating inevitability with the All Blacks as the regional powerhouse and engine stoker.  Playing against Australia and New Zealand over the last few seasons has set up Argentina to be more prepared and alive to SA - as indeed playing SA and Australia also allows them to become more familiar with the efforts required to meet the All Black challenge.  And if you struggle to find methods of trying to beat those guys on a yearly basis then you're probably on the right path to being ready for the challenge of all others.

If Argentina take another one or two scalps next season or indeed at the coming WC... they'll be jumping up the charts too!  Now, that development was never going to happen without the valuable yearly exposure to the quality they face, most especially those multiple All Black meetings.

Good point, and I certainly agree that the more one plays the best, the faster one improves. No doubts.

To build on your point, the Argie players may have one additional advantage. Most play in club Rugby in Europe and are now exposed to all aspects of playing styles and skills. Then they come home and play the Boks, Wallabies, and ABs. Given they now seem to have a good organisational structure at home, they might be on a wicked learning curve and could be real advantage as things move on.

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Talking of dominance, i haven't seen a SH side be dominated quite so comprehensively as i did SA by the Argies this weekend, extraordinary really that a team like Argentina can go from being whipping boys to comprehensively taking apart the supposed World no 2. But, still it is a SH side dominating another SH side. Must be something in the beef. And it supports my theory that SA are in serious trouble.

It would seem we are, and you are seriously loving it, eh?

You're going soft Biltong, a bit like the SA pack and De Villiers jaw..

Look, fact is you lost to Wales last autumn. Now that must be the lowest of the low. Until now that is, you lose to Argentina just before a RWC. Argentina?!!!

And not just a loss. You got spanked.

So, do i think you are on a downward trend? Certainly. Am I 'seriously loving' it? Couldn't care less tbh but nice to see one of the bigger sides getting taught a lesson. SA better sit up and smell the coffee and quick.

It just supports my theory that Samoa will edge you in a huge upset by beating SA up front. Sadly with JDV also likely out, a standout player IMO, SA are up to their necks in the brown and smelly.

Wait for the RWC mate, Heyneke Meyer is a slow learner, but even a turtle manages to cross the road eventually

SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

The thing about SA is coming bottom of the rugby championship doesn't matter as they will still be heavy favourites to top their pool.

Still saying that if SA are complacent against Scotland and Samoa they might get embarrassed.

Argentina's win over SA sadly changes nothing for them either as they will be expected to come 2nd in their pool anyway.

As for Australia - a morale boosting win but doesn't tell us much about games against Wales and England because those two teams are very different to NZ.

Gwlad you keep saying you think that Australia will beat England - unfortunately you've given no reasons so why should any of us take what you say seriously?

Beshocked after losing 7-11 what do you think is the likelyhood of SA being complacent against anyone?

ebop wrote:SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

Well SA will need to up their game significantly. They have just lost 7 of their last 11 games. That is really poor. I think they were a better team under DeVilliers.

Biltong wrote:Beshocked after losing 7-11 what do you think is the likelyhood of SA being complacent against anyone?

You would think it would be low but SA are nearly always complacent when they play Ireland so you never know.

Biltong you will still expect to cruise past Scotland and Samoa even if you have had some losses.

Plus I thought that SA were "dominant".

We had a word for 'Complacency' once.

No, we had actually two. One of them was 'Inconsistency' and the other earlier version was that we were just simply 'Crap'.

Yes, I suppose complacency can hit you from time to time genuinely. But if it keeps making an appearance then it's probably one of the other two.

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

Well SA will need to up their game significantly. They have just lost 7 of their last 11 games. That is really poor. I think they were a better team under DeVilliers.

That will inevtably happen guns, the Springboks are too proud to take this laying down, don't worry.

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Talking of dominance, i haven't seen a SH side be dominated quite so comprehensively as i did SA by the Argies this weekend, extraordinary really that a team like Argentina can go from being whipping boys to comprehensively taking apart the supposed World no 2. But, still it is a SH side dominating another SH side. Must be something in the beef. And it supports my theory that SA are in serious trouble.

It would seem we are, and you are seriously loving it, eh?

You're going soft Biltong, a bit like the SA pack and De Villiers jaw..

Look, fact is you lost to Wales last autumn. Now that must be the lowest of the low. Until now that is, you lose to Argentina just before a RWC. Argentina?!!!

And not just a loss. You got spanked.

So, do i think you are on a downward trend? Certainly. Am I 'seriously loving' it? Couldn't care less tbh but nice to see one of the bigger sides getting taught a lesson. SA better sit up and smell the coffee and quick.

It just supports my theory that Samoa will edge you in a huge upset by beating SA up front. Sadly with JDV also likely out, a standout player IMO, SA are up to their necks in the brown and smelly.

You're entitled to your view but your comments aren't very sporting Gwlad. That De Villiers comment is particularly distasteful. I would suggest you rethink your comments and posting style, so you and others can have a more pleasant experience on V2 .

TJ wrote:It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

I agree. Scotland and Samoa should fight it out for second place. Interestingly Samoa beat Scotland the last time the teams played, but I expect Scotland to be more competitive in the world cup group.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

Well SA will need to up their game significantly. They have just lost 7 of their last 11 games. That is really poor. I think they were a better team under DeVilliers.

That will inevtably happen guns, the Springboks are too proud to take this laying down, don't worry.

I agree but they had a bad November series. I would have thought the back lash would have occured in this years rugby championship. It didnt though, they came last. Thats dreadful no?

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

Well SA will need to up their game significantly. They have just lost 7 of their last 11 games. That is really poor. I think they were a better team under DeVilliers.

That will inevtably happen guns, the Springboks are too proud to take this laying down, don't worry.

I agree but they had a bad November series. I would have thought the back lash would have occured in this years rugby championship. It didnt though, they came last. Thats dreadful no?

Guns, I just did the stats of South African coaches in the professional era.

Regardless of the trends which shows an alarming similarity for Nick Mallet, Jake White, Pieter de Viiliers and now Heyneke Meyer where the average win rate for these coaches are year 1-78%, year 2-80%, year 3-50% and year 4-30% , we have an 83% win rate at world cups.

There are obvious issues which should be questioned by SARU.

Why do these coaches drop off so badly in the final two years?

But regardless of those stats, we are always competitive during the world cup.

Whether these coaches hang onto players too long, start experimenting too late, find the job too stressfull, or whatver else it may be, the stats do not affect our results at world cups.

These stats exclude World cup matches.

mikey_dragon wrote:

TJ wrote:It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

I agree. Scotland and Samoa should fight it out for second place. Interestingly Samoa beat Scotland the last time the teams played, but I expect Scotland to be more competitive in the world cup group.

Scotland have a good record against SA recently tho. SA for 3rd place?

Thats interesting Billtong thanks for that. I do remember that SA were quite poor in the lead up to the '07 WC and went on to win it. In particular SA got beaten badly by Ireland in Dublin.

However, the difference this time is that I cant see SA getting as easy a run to the final as they did in '07. They will probably have to play NZ in the semis and either Aus, Eng or Wales in the quarters. Thats as tough a draw as you can get IMO.

Funny how a weekend can change perceptions. The time leading up to world cups can be described as silly season in rugby. You'll always find some extreme results as teams have one eye on the WC. Its a risky business though. Lose these games and the pressure starts building. Confidence takes a hit and thats a big deal for rugby teams.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

Well SA will need to up their game significantly. They have just lost 7 of their last 11 games. That is really poor. I think they were a better team under DeVilliers.

That will inevtably happen guns, the Springboks are too proud to take this laying down, don't worry.

I agree but they had a bad November series. I would have thought the back lash would have occured in this years rugby championship. It didnt though, they came last. Thats dreadful no?

Guns, I just did the stats of South African coaches in the professional era.

Regardless of the trends which shows an alarming similarity for Nick Mallet, Jake White, Pieter de Viiliers and now Heyneke Meyer where the average win rate for these coaches are year 1-78%, year 2-80%, year 3-50% and year 4-30% , we have an 83% win rate at world cups.

There are obvious issues which should be questioned by SARU.

Why do these coaches drop off so badly in the final two years?

But regardless of those stats, we are always competitive during the world cup.

Whether these coaches hang onto players too long, start experimenting too late, find the job too stressfull, or whatver else it may be, the stats do not affect our results at world cups.

These stats exclude World cup matches.

Biltong, I think you are missing something obvious in that analysis - nearly every single international coach starts well, and then goes into gradual (or sudden) decline, not just South African coaches. Ireland, Italy, France, England, all have shown similar patterns. NZ are the only real exception to this rule (as they are to most rules)

TJ wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TJ wrote:It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

I agree. Scotland and Samoa should fight it out for second place. Interestingly Samoa beat Scotland the last time the teams played, but I expect Scotland to be more competitive in the world cup group.

Scotland have a good record against SA recently tho.  SA for 3rd place?

Bit of a stretch of the imagination to suggest Scotland have a good record against SA recently....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_Scotland_and_South_Africa

Last 4 out of 5 won by SA - last 4 in a row.

2 wins to 11 wins in the last 13 matches isn't great.....

wolfball wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:SA will not lose to Samoa in the RWC. This is delusional wishful thinking. If SA get past NZ they will win it and handed the Webb Ellis Cup for good to store in their cabinet for eternity. That will be some bragging right.

Well SA will need to up their game significantly. They have just lost 7 of their last 11 games. That is really poor. I think they were a better team under DeVilliers.

That will inevtably happen guns, the Springboks are too proud to take this laying down, don't worry.

I agree but they had a bad November series. I would have thought the back lash would have occured in this years rugby championship. It didnt though, they came last. Thats dreadful no?

Guns, I just did the stats of South African coaches in the professional era.

Regardless of the trends which shows an alarming similarity for Nick Mallet, Jake White, Pieter de Viiliers and now Heyneke Meyer where the average win rate for these coaches are year 1-78%, year 2-80%, year 3-50% and year 4-30% , we have an 83% win rate at world cups.

There are obvious issues which should be questioned by SARU.

Why do these coaches drop off so badly in the final two years?

But regardless of those stats, we are always competitive during the world cup.

Whether these coaches hang onto players too long, start experimenting too late, find the job too stressfull, or whatver else it may be, the stats do not affect our results at world cups.

These stats exclude World cup matches.

Biltong, I think you are missing something obvious in that analysis - nearly every single international coach starts well, and then goes into gradual (or sudden) decline, not just South African coaches. Ireland, Italy, France, England, all have shown similar patterns. NZ are the only real exception to this rule (as they are to most rules)

Wolfball,
I haven't checked the other nations, so will take your word for it.

It does however beg the wuestion whether coaches should only be contracted for two years and then a new coach with new ideas are appointed

With SA I think coaches are under a lot of pressure to evolve the team when SA always seem to be most sucessful when they stick to their strengths. At world cups they do seem to revert to playing to their traditional strengths. Maybe I wrong.

TJ wrote:It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

Until yesterday it was no doubt very unlikely Argentina would thrash SA

Until last autumn it was unlikely Wales would arm wrestle a win against SA

RWCs have a habit of throwing curve balls and I think this is the opportunity Samoa will want to capitalize on

Gwlad wrote:

TJ wrote:It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

Until yesterday it was no doubt very unlikely Argentina would thrash SA

Until last autumn it was unlikely Wales would arm wrestle a win against SA

RWCs have a habit of throwing curve balls and I think this is the opportunity Samoa will want to capitalize on

RWC matches are a different kettle of fish alltogether.

Teams pitch up for rugby world cup, but continue hoping, maybe one day your wish will come true.

Actually Argentina have come close to beating SA in other RC games, have been on a steep improvement curve and it was only a matter of time till they beat them. Agrgentina are turning into a top team with the experience of playing in the RC.

SA have a very good RWC record.

If SA are to lose in the RWC I would say that the teams most likely to beat them are NZ,AUS,England,Wales in that order.

Might raise your eyebrows at England but England are traditionally strong in world cups, of course home advantage too.

Discounting Ireland and France because I don't think they would face SA.

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

TJ wrote:It is very unlikely Samoa will beat SA ( or Scotland beat SA for that matter)

Until yesterday it was no doubt very unlikely Argentina would thrash SA

Until last autumn it was unlikely Wales would arm wrestle a win against SA

RWCs have a habit of throwing curve balls and I think this is the opportunity Samoa will want to capitalize on

RWC matches are a different kettle of fish alltogether.

Teams pitch up for rugby world cup, but continue hoping, maybe one day your wish will come true.

Its not a wish, its a prediction. Got it now?

beshocked wrote:SA have a very good RWC record.

If SA are to lose in the RWC I would say that the teams most likely to beat them are NZ,AUS,England,Wales in that order.

Might raise your eyebrows at England but England are traditionally strong in world cups, of course home advantage too.

Discounting Ireland and France because I don't think they would face SA.

Despite the loss, I would be shocked if SA weren't in the semi's at a minimum, and no shame in potentially going out to NZ at that stage. Player for player, i think they are still #2 in the world, despite our (ireland) recent promotion to that lofty height.

TJ wrote:Actually Argentina have come close to beating SA in other RC games, have been on a steep improvement curve and it was only a matter of time till they beat them.  Agrgentina are turning into a top team with the experience of playing in the RC.

3rd in the 07 WC they were already a top team.

beshocked wrote:SA have a very good RWC record.

If SA are to lose in the RWC I would say that the teams most likely to beat them are NZ,AUS,England,Wales in that order.

Might raise your eyebrows at England but England are traditionally strong in world cups, of course home advantage too.

Discounting Ireland and France because I don't think they would face SA.

It is inevitable that England turn their fortunes around against the Springboks, even Wales gets to do that evry dozen or so matches. South Africa and Australia have been on a 50/50 odds for some time now, they win 90% of their home tests and we win 90% of our home matches.

New Zealand has it over Heyneke Meyer even though every match between them has been highly competitive and within a score most of the time.

Ireland in Europe has become a bogey team for us over the last decade, even France is highly competitive against us.

Teams most likely to turn us over is firstly New Zealand, then Australia then England and Ireland and then France.

Wales has had their turn and it happens rarely, even Scotland beats us more in Europe than Wales does.

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:SA have a very good RWC record.

If SA are to lose in the RWC I would say that the teams most likely to beat them are NZ,AUS,England,Wales in that order.

Might raise your eyebrows at England but England are traditionally strong in world cups, of course home advantage too.

Discounting Ireland and France because I don't think they would face SA.

It is inevitable that England turn their fortunes around against the Springboks, even Wales gets to do that evry dozen or so matches. South Africa and Australia have been on a 50/50 odds for some time now, they win 90% of their home tests and we win 90% of our home matches.

New Zealand has it over Heyneke Meyer even though every match between them has been highly competitive and within a score most of the time.

Ireland in Europe has become a bogey team for us over the last decade, even France is highly competitive against us.

Teams most likely to turn us over is firstly New Zealand, then Australia then England and Ireland and then France.

Wales has had their turn and it happens rarely, even Scotland beats us more in Europe than Wales does.

Classic MOD WUM. 1/10 for orignality. Yawn. Even an Argentine would have done better. Like i said Biltong, you're like an old wildebeest roaming the veldt with his hide getting thicke, his body getting softer and his teeth falling out….the lions are circling and the hyenas sniff blood.