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.

Ok thats a long post, so am going to adress the first point initially..

Of course you have to select the first Irish win in 2004, because that was a turning point! Why select either of the 2 games before that?

The turning point of a 40 year gap has to be the initial startpoint, especially considering that Ireland went 3 in a row without loss to SA! Ireland have been dominated by SA for 98 years, with only the odd win and a draw for their efforts, however, Ireland have played SA more in the last decade than the 40 years previous to it, it is obvious that now Ireland have gotten to grips with SA they have proven they as good as SA, on Irish soil over the last 6 games.

This includes the last outing where Ireland were comfortably in second gear dispatching of SA!

Does this mean Ireland are the better team, maybe, I am not saying that, what it does show is a clear trend that Ireland have been the inferior team for ages, until within the last decade proving them SA's equals, that is a fact that cannot be argued with!

Wether this was merely a strong era for IReland who will resume as an inferior team as SA is yet to be seen, the trend beyond the one we have is yet to be set, but this is a clear trend that Ireland have overcome SA, on Irish soil.

Ireland are touring SA next summer (3 games) so that'l balance things out a bit.


This thread highlights how facts can be twisted many ways. Fact of the matter is from general observation the NH is catching up with the SH. Nobody said SA are going backwards, its the NH catching up.


You can point to records etc but the SH sides have some big advantages like a shorter season, more time together, the season is in blocks instead of fragmented like the NH season etc.

Also you cannot hypothesise who would have won on SA soil, thats not the real world, otherwise Germany could claim to be a better rugby team than SA based on what would happen on German soil, see how silly that is?!

Plus a development tour is still a tour, you can't claim 1 devalued tour when NH teams have sent decades of weakened teams down south just to get a humping.

profitius wrote:Ireland are touring SA next summer (3 games) so that'l balance things out a bit.


This thread highlights how facts can be twisted many ways. Fact of the matter is from general observation the NH is catching up with the SH. Nobody said SA are going backwards, its the NH catching up.


You can point to records etc but the SH sides have some big advantages like a shorter season, more time together, the season is in blocks instead of fragmented like the NH season etc.

I've been trying so hard not to get into the international season aspect of this, but it is a key point!

Well I say let them catch up, odd stats here and there might suggest we are being caught but winning 9 of 12 in Europe over the past 3 seasons suggest otherwise

Biltong wrote:Well I say let them catch up, odd stats here and there might suggest we are being caught but winning 9 of 12 in Europe over the past 3 seasons suggest otherwise

Of course it does Thats exactly the point!

England fans were in the same type of denial in 2005/6/7/8/9/10/11/12...

Nah mate, denial is for sick people, I am very aware of the weaknesses in SA rugby

OK so lets apply the same logic elsewhere...

SA's record in europe over the past 3 seasons is 9/12, which is pretty good, meaning over the past 3 seasons SA has been succesfull in europe, yes?

Last season they played 4 won 2 lost 2 with a total points difference of -1, meaning last season SA have been conqured by europe, yes? Within this europe they did not play Scotland or France, so not only did they get beat by europe they were beaten by 2/3rds of europe?

Or my preference...

Ireland played SA and Australia last season beating both, meaning for Ireland the tables have turned and they are now better than the SH, as theyre record last season v SH teams were superior?

Or over the last 2 seasons Ireland have played SH teams on 7 occasions losing just 2 (Aus and NZ), meaning Ireland are dominant over SH?

Yep, Ireland shows much promise, let's hope they do not disappoint.

Fanster wrote:OK so lets apply the same logic elsewhere...

SA's record in europe over the past 3 seasons is 9/12, which is pretty good, meaning over the past 3 seasons SA has been succesfull in europe, yes?

Last season they played 4 won 2 lost 2 with a total points difference of -1, meaning last season SA have been conqured by europe, yes? Within this europe they did not play Scotland or France, so not only did they get beat by europe they were beaten by 2/3rds of europe?

Or my preference...

Ireland played SA and Australia last season beating both, meaning for Ireland the tables have turned and they are now better than the SH, as theyre record last season v SH teams were superior?

Or over the last 2 seasons Ireland have played SH teams on 7 occasions losing just 2 (Aus and NZ), meaning Ireland are dominant over SH?

One swallow doesn't make a summer. One off games or even months is no way to make decisions, well at least rational decisions IMO. The boks were off colour at the end of season tour, everyone could see that. You don't go from beating NZ well to losing 6-12 to Wales just because of off days. End of season tours are always difficult if not managed correctly and the boks were heavily fatigued after a long season. Same for NH teams in the summer tours.

If you believe your statement fine. You say all SH teams well why not theories Ireland vs. Namibia, Ireland vs. Zimbabwe?

The reality is.... when people say SH dominance they mean 3N. They don't even mean Argentina. They are the yardstick... not whether or not you put 5 tries past Samoa.

Maybe Ireland with home wins over AUS and SA in last years end of season tour they may be turning the tables although IRE had similar wins in 2006 only to crash out of the RWC in the pool stages 1 year later.

True turning of tables are away wins and away series wins. Until that happens the SH (and by here I mean the 3N for the pedantic) are dominant and stats DO show that collectively, the 6N sides and also the 4 current top sides amongst them are slipping further away..... collectively.

Are Australia the yardstick?

Currently ranked 5th - below England and Ireland with Wales snapping on their heels?

4th,5th,6th,10th and 19th - all in Pool A....

2nd,9th,11th,14th,16th - Pool B

1st,8th,12th,13th and 21st - Pool C

3rd,7th,15th,17th and 18th - Pool D


Poor Fiji. Might fancy a chance of best runners up in any other pool.

beshocked wrote:Are Australia the yardstick?

Currently ranked 5th - below England and Ireland with Wales snapping on their heels?

4th,5th,6th,10th and 19th - all in Pool A....

2nd,9th,11th,14th,16th - Pool B

1st,8th,12th,13th and 21st - Pool C

3rd,7th,15th,17th and 18th - Pool D


Poor Fiji. Might fancy a chance of best runners up in any other pool.

Yeah they are one of the yardsticks.

20 matches vs. the 6N sides since 2012. 14 wins, 6 losses. A 70% win rate... that ain't bad.

That inc.

6 wins, 0 losses vs. Wales.
3 wins, 2 losses vs. France
1 win, 1 loss vs. Ireland
1 win, 2 losses vs. England

So against the top 4 sides in the 6Ns their record is 11 wins, 5 losses. A 69% win rate.

Let's use that same logic for England vs the other sides including Australia since 2012.

3 wins, 1 loss vs Ireland
2 wins,2 losses vs Wales
2 wins, 1 loss vs Australia
3 wins, 1 loss vs France

10 wins, 5 losses - 66% win rate.

If you add Scotland and Italy this goes up to 18 wins, 5 losses -78% win rate.

What is the point in all of this?

There is forever statements that the NH is catching the SH, ignore NZ.

SA and OZ are still ahead of the bunch, regardless of whether there is some catching up to do.

But still a moot point, what matters is head to head, you know who you need to take more seriously

Biltong Australia are not ahead of England and Ireland.

Look at the world rankings.

Even Ireland would be confident if they faced SA in Dublin again.

Look at the head to head - Ireland have beaten SA last 4 out of 6 times.

England have beaten Australia last 4 out of 5 times.

Oh and of course there's the U20s where England have a winning % against SA and Australia.

England need to close the gap on SA and NZ agreed but Australia are basically on the same level as England and Ireland (though England and Ireland are ranked higher) with Wales slightly further behind because of their woeful record vs Australia.

England will expect to beat Australia at Twickenham in the RWC - also England have knocked out Australia in the 2003 and 2007 RWC so there is history.

No way will England beat Australia in RWC.

beshocked wrote:Let's use that same logic for England vs the other sides including Australia since 2012.

3 wins, 1 loss vs Ireland
2 wins,2 losses vs Wales
2 wins, 1 loss vs Australia
3 wins, 1 loss vs France

10 wins, 5 losses - 66% win rate.

If you add Scotland and Italy this goes up to 18 wins, 5 losses -78% win rate.

Yet only 1 is in the SH so really it doesn't have much to do with questioning SH dominance in the sport.

The rest are their 6N counterparts.

Against Ireland, Wales and France they have 8 wins and 4 losses. Sort of makes sense since they are the highest ranked of the four teams, in 4th place. England have beaten AUS and NZ during this cycle so maybe why they are slightly higher in the rankings... in any way the diff is quite small.

2012-2015 6N

Wales 32 points
England 32 points
Ireland 24 points
France 18 points

Beshocked, rankings, smankings, they mean diddly squat if you consider the manner inwhich the points are compiled, I don't need points to tell me whi is better than the Springboks

And even then the circumstances a team find themselves at any given point in time changes from week to week.

Somtimes anomolies occur, but they never last.

Gwlad wrote:No way will England beat Australia in RWC.

Interesting you say that. Is that because of our appalling record vs Australia at home and in world cups? Do you expect Australia to top the group?

beshocked wrote:Biltong Australia are not ahead of England and Ireland.

Look at the world rankings.

Even Ireland would be confident if they faced SA in Dublin again.

Look at the head to head - Ireland have beaten SA last 4 out of 6 times.

England have beaten Australia last 4 out of 5 times.

Oh and of course there's the U20s where England have a winning % against SA and Australia.

England need to close the gap on SA and NZ agreed but Australia are basically on the same level as England and Ireland (though England and Ireland are ranked higher) with Wales slightly further behind because of their woeful record vs Australia.

England will expect to beat Australia at Twickenham in the RWC - also England have knocked out Australia in the 2003 and 2007 RWC so there is history.

Beshocked... you still playing this "look Ireland are better because they beat SA in 2004"??? Funny you cut 2004 in half and forgot the 2 tests in SA during this time. What was in those 5 months, 11 years ago which made you cut those games off your statement??? Nothing to do with it being cherry picked to make an invalid point right???

All those games have been in Ireland. Ireland have never beaten SA away. For 2 of those games, SA sent development squads.

You can count the players still in both squads who actually played in those games on one hand (probably out of 45 players). They have no reference to the current players, no more so than saying

"Bill Beaumonts England side won the grand slam in 1980, I think England will win the grand slam next year"

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:No way will England beat Australia in RWC.

Interesting you say that. Is that because of our appalling record vs Australia at home and in world cups? Do you expect Australia to top the group?

Will the 1991 match have any bearing on this game?

Look at the winning margins (links below) of SA vs Wales, Ireland and England. Look how close it has gotten from about 10 years ago. Theres not many big winning margins anymore while they used to be regular.

A bookmakers handicap odds would be the most accurate measurement.


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

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

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

Ok, let's agree everyone is catching South Africa, we will continue this discussion once they have actually caught up.

Even when chasing something there are times when you think you are catching someone only to fall back again.

England is a prime example of that.

Gwlad what's that logic based on?

My reasons why I think England will beat Australia.

1.Home advantage
2. Psychological edge because of superior head to head - won 4 out of last 5
3. Have the players to overpower Australia
4. More strength in depth meaning injuries are easier to absorb in a tough group.
5. A mix of players that mean England can change their tactics if need be.

Biltong so which part of the rankings do you disagree with?

fa0019 when you talk about SH dominance - you really mean just two - SA and NZ because as I have pointed out - Australia have not dominated.

As for the other SH sides like Argentina,Fiji,Samoa - of course they haven't dominated.


Wales have never beaten NZ and haven't beaten Australia in years.

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:No way will England beat Australia in RWC.

Interesting you say that. Is that because of our appalling record vs Australia at home and in world cups? Do you expect Australia to top the group?

Pathetic retort characteristic of you lost, clearly my post is about England and Aus and has nothing to do with Wales so stop trying to deflect from the obvious. I think Aus will beat England. Don't care if you agree or not.

Beshocked I don't agree or disagree with the rankings.

My point has always been regardless of rankings, when we meet an opponent I look at our recent results against them only, as world rankings have no bearing on that particular match.

As Fanster above mentioned, Ireland at home has been a tough nut for us to crack, so that is a challenge for us.

When we play Wales even though they have come close and eventually beat us after 16 years, I know they aren't as tough as Ireland

The rankings mean squat

Gwlad you do realise Lostinwales is English right? Also he's being sarcastic.....

As for saying you think Aus will beat England - good for you. Still haven't explained why you think that.

I think Australia will beat Wales - don't care if you agree or not.

Fa0019 you have to go from the games that have been played. If SA are so upset about Ireland beating them in Ireland get them to go to SA.

Perhaps Biltong but England will beat SA eventually and when they do the pendulum might well swing.

As for not believing in the rankings - England have shown to be the only NH side capable of beating NZ in the last 5 years.

profitius wrote:Look at the winning margins (links below) of SA vs Wales, Ireland and England. Look how close it has gotten from about 10 years ago. Theres not many big winning margins anymore while they used to be regular.

A bookmakers handicap odds would be the most accurate measurement.


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

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

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

The only marked improvement in reducing the points and tries scored mark is England in this latest cycle. Ireland have remained the same in wins, points and tries albeit with the best record vs. SA of the 3. Wales have got worse in stats but did get a sole victory. The 7 tries to 1 cycle vs. England in 08-11 is simply testament to how bad England were in those years vs. SA. Games have been close sure but SA is still scoring a lot more tries than the 3 teams..... they're staying close via kicks, another reason to suggest whilst close, they're still quite far apart.

boks vs. Wales

2012-2015 3 wins, 1 Loss (75% win rate). Ave. score 25:18 (+7). 3.00 tries per 1 conceded.
2008-2011 6 wins, 0 Loss (100% win rate). Ave. score 30:21 (+9). 1.55 tries per 1 conceded.
2004-2008 4 wins, 0 Loss (100% win rate). Ave. score 40:20 (+20). 2.50 tries per 1 conceded.

boks vs. England

2012-2015 4 wins, 0 Loss, 1 draw (80% win rate). Ave. score 24:20 (+4). 1.38 tries per 1 conceded.
2008-2011 2 wins, 0 Loss (100% win rate). Ave. score 32:08 (+24). 7.00 tries per 1 conceded.
2004-2008 5 wins, 2 Losses (71% win rate). Ave. score 32:15 (+17). 3.14 tries per 1 conceded.

boks vs. Ireland

2012-2015 1 win, 1 Loss (50% win rate). Ave. score 16:20 (-4). 1.50 tries per 1 conceded.
2008-2011 1 wins, 1 Loss (50% win rate). Ave. score 16:18 (-2). 1.50 tries per 1 conceded.
2004-2008 2 wins, 2 Losses (50% win rate). Ave. score 21:21 (0). 1.00 tries per 1 conceded.

What this tells you? Well it doesn't show me a shift as some are trying to suggest.

fa0019 wrote:

profitius wrote:Look at the winning margins (links below) of SA vs Wales, Ireland and England. Look how close it has gotten from about 10 years ago. Theres not many big winning margins anymore while they used to be regular.

A bookmakers handicap odds would be the most accurate measurement.


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

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

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

The only marked improvement in reducing the points and tries scored mark is England in this latest cycle. Ireland have remained the same in wins, points and tries albeit with the best record vs. SA of the 3. Wales have got worse in stats but did get a sole victory. The 7 tries to 1 cycle vs. England in 08-11 is simply testament to how bad England were in those years vs. SA. Games have been close sure but SA is still scoring a lot more tries than the 3 teams..... they're staying close via kicks, another reason to suggest whilst close, they're still quite far apart.

boks vs. Wales

2012-2015 3 wins, 1 Loss (75% win rate). Ave. score 25:18 (+7). 3.00 tries per 1 conceded.
2008-2011 6 wins, 0 Loss (100% win rate). Ave. score 30:21 (+9). 1.55 tries per 1 conceded.
2004-2008 4 wins, 0 Loss (100% win rate). Ave. score 40:20 (+20). 2.50 tries per 1 conceded.

boks vs. England

2012-2015 4 wins, 0 Loss, 1 draw (80% win rate). Ave. score 24:20 (+4). 1.38 tries per 1 conceded.
2008-2011 2 wins, 0 Loss (100% win rate). Ave. score 32:08 (+24). 7.00 tries per 1 conceded.
2004-2008 5 wins, 2 Losses (71% win rate). Ave. score 32:15 (+17). 3.14 tries per 1 conceded.

boks vs. Ireland

2012-2015 1 win, 1 Loss (50% win rate). Ave. score 16:20 (-4). 1.50 tries per 1 conceded.
2008-2011 1 wins, 1 Loss (50% win rate). Ave. score 16:18 (-2). 1.50 tries per 1 conceded.
2004-2008 2 wins, 2 Losses (50% win rate). Ave. score 21:21 (0). 1.00 tries per 1 conceded.

What this tells you? Well it doesn't show me a shift as some are trying to suggest.

Look at the average scores which I highlighted. Thats a more accurate measurement than winning percentage and clearly shows the gap narrowing.


Winning is also psychological and when you're up against history, it can be a big hurdle to overcome. eg Wales vs Australia, Irelands last match vs NZ.

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.

Not sure the facts back up your Wales theory.

Last comment, read what I said about Ireland, I see them as tough matches, as for having a superior record to SA, firstly skewed because all played in Ireland and secondly over which period?

As for delusions, hey, aren't we all suffering from them?

Quite a lot of delusions all round.

In the last 10 years (1 Jan 2005) of tests played, the trend for Ireland winning against South Africa (60%) and Australia (45%) has improved against their overall record for both teams.  Nonetheless, South Africa still hold a 75% win record over Ireland, and Australia have a 67% record.  As Biltong likes to regularly point out, tests since Nov 2004 were all played in Lansdowne Road.    (In fact, Ireland have only played in SA 7 times - a single match in the sixties, and then once in eighties, nineties and noughties on 2-match tours.)  And as others have pointed out, sure the recent matches in Ireland were only Bok development tours, Experimental Bok sides, and tired Bok teams, etc, etc.    So that

The three-test series in SA next June will no doubt set that record back to its proper place - as far as Bok fans are concerned.   (Some SA fans think that Ireland have deliberately not toured SA over the last decade or more.  Rumour has it there was a major falling out between the two unions over IRFU support for the RWC 2011 going to NZ - but hey that's only rumour).  Revenge will no doubt be exacted in 10 months time.

In the professional era, (20th anniversary this month), Australia's record against Ireland is better (72%) than their overall record, nonetheless, the last decade trend has seen an improvement for Ireland against them - at home and away in RWC 2011.

NZ has superior win records (50%+) against all-comers.  SA are next (excepting NZ), and then Australia with six positive records.  England have 5, Wales have 4, France has 3, and Ireland, Argentina and Scotland, have just one each against each other.

The closest record rivalries are
England v Wales - (50.79%)
Wales v France - (52.15%)
Scotland v Ireland (52.69%)

With the exception of a world cup year, these teams only play each other once a year, so the time it would take to shift the superiority to the other team would be at least 4-5 years winning on the bounce.  

With the decision of the SANZAR nations to seek three-test tours in June, the opportunities for NH teams to play the top SH teams becomes even more limited.

beshocked wrote:fa0019 when you talk about SH dominance - you really mean just two - SA and NZ because as I have pointed out - Australia have not dominated.
.

I think you're slightly off the mark here. The Wallabies have a positive winning record against all NH sides. The only NH side that is close to parity with Australia is England - from memory it is almost 50/50 win/loss - I think the Wallabies are slightly ahead. The others aren't close. Aside from England and Scotland, no other NH side has won against Australia, in Australia for years, whereas the Wallabies have won at every home ground of the 6N in the past 5 years. Against Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy at their home grounds, the Wallabies have won double (and more) the amount of matches the home side has won. Only France and England have won more matches at home against Australia than they have lost. If that is not considered dominant, then when does dominance start?  The only 2 sides Australia has a negative record against is NZ and SA.  And 6 World Cups for the SH to 1 for the NH indicates dominance, to me at least.

SH sides are clearly dominant however you try and dissect the stats.

As has been mentioned, rugby in SA and NZ is king. The aussies just don't know how to lose against the NH sides (England apart) and each nation has an innate self confidence when it comes to sport/rugby that is really only mirrored by English rugby.

I also like the confidence each nation puts faith in its youth development system. They lose 10 players overseas? It doesn't matter as they back the 10 kids who are coming through the system.

Contrast that with Welsh fans and media who have a hissy fit when players choose to move between 50 and 100 miles up the road to England. The player drain in any country only serves to strengthen that countries player base. This is particularly needed by a country like wales where our player pool is so small in comparison to other teams.

Look at Wales' line up on Saturday - would Nicky Smith be anywhere near the squad if Paul James had not gone to bath? - likewise Scott Baldwin with Hibbard and players like James King when Ryan Jones and Ian Evans left the ospreys.

Someone above made the point about the English U20's being dominant or some time - and they are! But funny how that dominance seems to not be translating into the test arena isn't it?

And one final note. I think the only area in which the gap is closing between SH and NH sides is fitness. In terms of game management, in game tactical nous and basic skills the SH sides are still light years ahead

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.



Gavindragon the reason why the England U20s have not translated onto the test arena yet is because the transition to international level is not as quick as a country like Wales for example. Also it's harder to identify which players should be nurtured and favoured over others.

Wales has a lack of depth so it's easier for players to get into the Welsh side.

Smaller player pool means less competition = more gametime for those in the player pool.

North coming into the Welsh squad at 18 would never happen in England.

It's why Francis picked Wales, he knows it's easier to get into the Welsh side than the England one.

Everyone knows that what players need more than anything is gametime.

Wales do more of that. They have a very settled and experienced squad.

England in comparison are going into the world cup with a team short on caps because England never really know who is best because there are so many players to pick from. Unfortunately it's tough to identify which players should be given precious gametime.


As it is in the next few years I expect England to close the gap on SA and NZ as more players come through from the U20s every year.

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.

As painful as it is, I agree with this point. I would also like to point out that Scotland's record against Australia isn't actually as bad as our recent record against the likes of England and France.

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.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

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.

As painful as it is, I agree with this point. I would also like to point out that Scotland's record against Australia isn't actually as bad as our recent record against the likes of England and France.

It is and it isn't. The problem for Scotland is that whilst the wins vs. SA and AUS have been very welcome over the last 10 years, they haven't been near full strength sides. Take the ambush in Newcastle. The team that went out that day was a joke, the conditions were completely alien to AUS players and suited Scotland no end.

In some ways I'd rather prefer they sent full strength sides so that the players could really test themselves.

Anyhow, nobody cares how dominant England are over Tonga etc. SH means NZ, AUS and SA in rugby speak.

fa0019 and yet you care how dominant you are over Italy and Scotland for some bizarre reason...yet at the same time don't take them seriously by sending weakened sides.

Also Australia deserved to be beaten by Scotland because they didn't adapt to Scottish conditions!

Everyone knows that Scotland are a more dangerous side with rain.

If you don't take a side seriously enough you have the potential to be embarrassed.

FES the danger for SA might be a lack of respect for Scotland in the RWC. Could work in your favour.

SA won't send a weakened side vs. Scotland in the RWC because that's the one of their tune up games for the major battles ahead.

SA slipped up in 2010 I think it was. Disrespected them and paid the price... took it out on England the week later if I recall when they put 40 points on them for less than 10 in reply.

fa0019 major battles ahead? The impression I get from you is you think SA will walk over everyone. Who would be a major battle?

fa0019 wrote:SA won't send a weakened side vs. Scotland in the RWC because that's the one of their tune up games for the major battles ahead.

SA slipped up in 2010 I think it was. Disrespected them and paid the price... took it out on England the week later if I recall when they put 40 points on them for less than 10 in reply.

You dont recall correctly it was about a 10 point win. So do you actually support SA?

Well I expect them to qualify their group comfortably in first place. Scotland came last in the 6N, they seem to have a decent team but can't seem to bring it when it counts. Samoa will throw their bodies on the line but shouldn't worry them too much from a points view. The butchers bill in that match will be more crucial.

I would see them as more likely than not to qualify from their QF (either ENG, AUS or WAL) and I see them playing NZ in the SF with a 45:55 chance of victory. Thereafter if they qualify whoever they play in the final will be a big challenge but they'll probably be favourites regardless (NZ or SA in a final will in this instance always be favourites).

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:SA won't send a weakened side vs. Scotland in the RWC because that's the one of their tune up games for the major battles ahead.

SA slipped up in 2010 I think it was. Disrespected them and paid the price... took it out on England the week later if I recall when they put 40 points on them for less than 10 in reply.

You dont recall correctly it was about a 10 point win. So do you actually support SA?

Sorry 7 I was thinking of the game before in 2009. Would it matter if I did? I support them when it comes to 3N rugby, I support Scotland and usually favour UK teams over the boks mind although find it difficult to support the Welsh, I mean who can.

Live in a specific country and if you can't support them in sport mildly there is something wrong with you.

Matter? Probably not just like to know where people are comimg from.

Wait for the world cup to start.

Home records away records are a seperate issue to world cups as that is the only time everyone bring their best group of players together.

You want to whistle Dixie?

Look at your win ratio's during world cups, I think that is more accurate, often these Autumn or Summer tours are played with development squads or tired players at the end of a season.

Biltong

You happy with the team as it is?

I'd like to bring back flip and maybe even play Malherbe from the off. Leadership is the problem.. who is going to take the armband? Matfield would be ridiculous, Burger is not necessarily first choice and neither is JDV. Bissie has authority problems.

Its a tough one.

beshocked wrote:fa0019 and yet you care how dominant you are over Italy and Scotland for some bizarre reason...yet at the same time don't take them seriously by sending weakened sides.

Also Australia deserved to be beaten by Scotland because they didn't adapt to Scottish conditions!

Everyone knows that Scotland are a more dangerous side with rain.

If you don't take a side seriously enough you have the potential to be embarrassed.

FES the danger for SA might be a lack of respect for Scotland in the RWC. Could work in your favour.

Quite right. If you choose to rotate against any side and get beaten, you only have yourselves to blame. It certainly doesn't lessen the achievement of the team that did turn up on the day and win the international rugby match. We haven't beaten England in England for 30 or so years.

Re: SA in the World Cup, I think there's little chance of SA taking us lightly. Quite the opposition, I think they'll look to our game as an opportunity to sharpen up. The bigger danger is that Cotter makes the same mistake as his predecessor two World Cups ago (against NZ), and rests our own first choice players for that game in order to keep things fresh for Samoa. The idea that Scotland would effectively throw a World Cup game against one of the major SH sides in order to be "clever" gives me the shivers. The big games in our group are South Africa and Samoa, and we should throw the kitchen sink at both.

fa0019 wrote:Biltong

You happy with the team as it is?

I'd like to bring back flip and maybe even play Malherbe from the off. Leadership is the problem.. who is going to take the armband? Matfield would be ridiculous, Burger is not necessarily first choice and neither is JDV. Bissie has authority problems.

Its a tough one.

FA too soon to tell, will wait until the RWC squad is announced