Which Six Nations teams have been competitive against the Tri Nations the past 3 years.

I thought it would be interesting to look at the Six Nations teams vs the Tri Nations teams and what percentage of their games have ended within a score. Which teams played in those matches and what was the half time scores.
Perhaps we can assess from this who wins the close games and how the first half leads impacted the end results.

Since 1 January 2008
New Zealand
Played 21 tests of which 3 were within 7 points.(14%)
Won 2, lost 1
NZ won by 7 vs Wales 7 nov 2009 away, halftime score 6-6
NZ won by 4 vs France 20 June 2009 at home, halftime NZ led 8-0
NZ lost by 4 vs France 13 June 2009 at home, halftime France led 17-11


Australia
Played 21 tests of which 7 were within 7 points. (33%)
Won 3, drew 1, lost 3
OZ won by 7 vs Ireland 26 June 2010 at home, halftime OZ led 16-15
OZ won by 6 vs Ireland 14 June 2008 at home, halftime OZ led 15-7
Oz won by 5 vs France 22 November 2008 away, halftime OZ led 10-7
OZ drew vs Ireland 15 November 2009 away, halftime OZ led 10-6
Oz lost by 1 vs Scotland 21 November 2009 away, halftime 3-3
Oz lost by 1 vs England 19 June 2010 at home, halftime England led 15-13
OZ lost by 3 vs Wales 29 November 2008 away, halftime Wales led 15-10

South Africa
Played 17 tests of which 8 were within 7 points. (47%)
Won 5, lost 3
SA won by 5 vs Wales 8 November 2008 away, halftime SA led 13-3
SA won by 4 vs Scotland 15 November 2008 away, halftime Scotland led 10-0
SA won by 4 vs Wales 13 November 2010 away, halftime Wales led 17-9
SA won by 3 vs Wales 5 June 2010 away, halftime Wales led 16-14
SA won by 2 vs Ireland 6 November 2010 away, halftime SA led 13-6
SA lost by 4 vs Scotland 20 November 2010 away, halftime Scotland led 12-9
SA lost by 5 vs Ireland 28 November 2009 away, halftime SA led 10-6
SA lost by 7 vs France 13 November 2009 away, halftime SA led 13-11

France have played 8 tests of which 4 of them were within a score where France won 2 and lost 2. They have won 2 of the 8 tests, both close affairs beating NZ and SA once each.

England has played 12 tests of which only 1 has been within a score and England won that match. They have only won 2 of those 12 tests and both were against Australia, losing 10.

Ireland has played 9 tests of which 5 tests were within a score, they have beaten SA once and drew to Australia, losing 7.

Wales have played 13 tests of which 5 have been within a score, they have beaten Australia once, losing 12.

Scotland have played only 5 tests of which 3 have been within a score, beating SA and OZ once each, losing 3.

From these figures it shows that 50% or more of the games involving France, Ireland and Scotland are close affairs, with Scotland having the best win ratio (40%), France (25%), Ireland (17%), England (17%) and Wales (8%) comparing this to the percentage of games that was close, Scotland (60%), Ireland (56%), France (50%), Wales (38%), England (17%).

Unfortunately Italy has had no good performances.

From what I see here, Scotland, Ireland and France have been most competitive.

Whats the point of this ? You've asked a question and answered it yourself...

munkian wrote:Whats the point of this ? You've asked a question and answered it yourself...

Well, I suppose you could provide your opinion, perhaps you read something into this that I don't.

But then again I suppose you have given your expert opinion.

I don't know what the point is but I love the conclusion. Scotland are the most successful team against SH opposition. Who'd have thought?

Mckay the point is that from this we can "predict" with a certain amount of confidence which pool games could be competitive and which teams would fancy their chances against SH opposition to win their knock out matches.

For example.

Ireland vs Australia pool game, if they win that match, they miss SA and NZ all the way to the final.

England would not want to come second in their pool, otherwise they meet NZ.

Good article Biltongbek,

I hate this air of invincibility the Southern Hemisphere teams generate. The main thrust of this article I think demonstrates that these teams are not invincible and in Knockout rugby anything is possible.

Just look at NZ who have struggled immensly in the knockout stages of the world cup.

On paper it's Scotland as they have beaten Australia and South Africa at home. Ireland have improved their record against SH oppostion up till last autumn I believe we had beaten South Africa 2-3 times in a row.

No mention of home advantage. I think that plays a factor. One of England's win was away in Australia which is much harder to do.

Scotland picked both of their scalps at home. No doubt the weather was a potent weapon in the Scottish armoury.

Also in one match didn't Wales lose to a 3rd/4th string South Africa side?

Motivation also plays a key factor.

WAles had a win over Australia back in 2008. But since then although a few games have been close we haven't had a result. We have also had a few injuries to key players, and other have taken leaves of absence etc so i am positive that we can do better come the RWC.

Just a small point

biltongbek wrote:
OZ lost by 3 vs Wales 29 November 2008 away, halftime Wales led 15-10...............
... Wales have played 13 tests of which 5 have been within a score, they have not won any of those matches, losing 13.

Are those statements not contradictory ?
it's just we get so little success against the SH, I don't want those that we do get denied

Misleading analysis.

It ignores Scotland only having played home games, compared to Frances 6 away fixtures ( I think 4 each for Ireland Wales England?)
It ignores Englands big win against Australia.
It ignores that the 2009 Springbok tour team was a complete second string affair ( the year they lost to two club sides and didnt play England).

Fact is none of the 5 nations are comeptitive with the Tri nations over the last few years.

Very interesting stats Biltongbek, cheers for putting them up! Can I ask you a question though? Why have South Africa not played a home summer test since 2008? Just something I always wondered about.

On the stats themselves. It's nice to see that we have some sort of semi-decent statistics against Australia and South Africa, our likely SH opponents until the quarter final at least. Neither we, nor them, have won a match by more than 7 points since 2008. So it will be close elation or heartbreak by the looks of things.

And congratulations to Scotland leading the way. If only they could translate their six nations mediocrity to their autumn form!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Misleading analysis.

It ignores Scotland only having played home games, compared to Frances 6 away fixtures ( I think 4 each for Ireland Wales England?)
It ignores Englands big win against Australia.
It ignores that the 2009 Springbok tour team was a complete second string affair ( the year they lost to two club sides and didnt play England).

Fact is none of the 5 nations are comeptitive with the Tri nations over the last few years.

I dont think it is misleading, it is conclusive that as you say "none of the 5 nations are comeptitive with the Tri nations over the last few years".

beshocked wrote:Scotland picked both of their scalps at home. No doubt the weather was a potent weapon in the Scottish armoury.

This sort of comment is a double edged sword for me. Yes the weather can be bad up here, but it's not like it doesn't rain anywhere else in the world does it?

Scotland won these games because of a ferocious defence against Australia and a desire to win against South Africa who lacked passion and pride. Scotland took thse scalps by playing to the conditions and making life difficult for the visitors. If the weather helped us great, but to be honest it was not as big a factor as some people make out.

PenfroPete wrote:Just a small point

biltongbek wrote:
OZ lost by 3 vs Wales 29 November 2008 away, halftime Wales led 15-10...............
... Wales have played 13 tests of which 5 have been within a score, they have not won any of those matches, losing 13.

Are those statements not contradictory ?
it's just we get so little success against the SH, I don't want those that we do get denied

My apologies, my eyes were getting criss crossed with all the info, I'll edit it right away.

beshocked wrote:No mention of home advantage. I think that plays a factor. One of England's win was away in Australia which is much harder to do.

Scotland picked both of their scalps at home. No doubt the weather was a potent weapon in the Scottish armoury.

Also in one match didn't Wales lose to a 3rd/4th string South Africa side?

Motivation also plays a key factor.

Beshocked, just after the match dates are whether the matches were at home or away.

Em, Well, of the last four games Ireland have played against SA, they have won 3. Hardly totally uncompetetive. Maybe I wrong though.

And in fairness, the games being scrutinised were the close matches. Which are likely to be what happens at an RWC when both temas are in peak condition (theoretically at least) and are unlikel;y to be engaged in shadow boxing. One or more teams could be spanked of course, but if asked players off the record for an honset opinion, they would probably expect one score victories either way.

I think France's win in NZ shows them to be the most competitive - no other NH has really come close to achieving that. Their record otherwise is sullied really by Marc Lievremont, who should have been sacked after the Australia debacle last year.

England in managing to beat Australia both home and away deserve credit for that, as do Scotland of course for those two wins (and some other close results, particularly the 4 pointer against SA, that often go unspoken of).

Wales and Ireland are both in the same bucket for me. Both very capable of running the SH teams close (and indeed capable in my view of winning), but neither have quite come up with that decisive result to move them up a notch. I personally think it's coming, but then again I been saying that for a while.

mrsuperclear wrote:Very interesting stats Biltongbek, cheers for putting them up! Can I ask you a question though? Why have South Africa not played a home summer test since 2008? Just something I always wondered about.

On the stats themselves. It's nice to see that we have some sort of semi-decent statistics against Australia and South Africa, our likely SH opponents until the quarter final at least. Neither we, nor them, have won a match by more than 7 points since 2008. So it will be close elation or heartbreak by the looks of things.

And congratulations to Scotland leading the way. If only they could translate their six nations mediocrity to their autumn form!

Remember the Lions were here in 2009, and in 2008 and 10 we did play at home during your summer, but they were not close games, we won them all fairly easily.

Cheers Biltong

biltongbek wrote:

From what I see here, Scotland, Ireland and France have been most competitive.

scotland??? i am sorry but they have managed to grind down a win against the SH every so often but that is ussually down to weather conditions stopping the backlines from moving.

also when you look wales have played the most games against the SH teams and more often it is NZ that they play

debaters1 wrote:Em, Well, of the last four games Ireland have played against SA, they have won 3. Hardly totally uncompetetive. Maybe I wrong though.

And in fairness, the games being scrutinised were the close matches. Which are likely to be what happens at an RWC when both temas are in peak condition (theoretically at least) and are unlikel;y to be engaged in shadow boxing. One or more teams could be spanked of course, but if asked players off the record for an honset opinion, they would probably expect one score victories either way.

Really? I didnt see Englands pool game against SA last WC being close.
But they are still the only 5 NH side not to have an embaressing WC record against tri nations sides, OK maybe France too.


All these statistics show is that you can prove anything with statistics.

Honestly would anyone rate Scotland as in with a 50% chance of beating NZ in the world cup? Chances are they wont even get the chance to be spanbked, they have a struggle to get out of the pool.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Misleading analysis.

It ignores Scotland only having played home games, compared to Frances 6 away fixtures ( I think 4 each for Ireland Wales England?)
It ignores Englands big win against Australia.
It ignores that the 2009 Springbok tour team was a complete second string affair ( the year they lost to two club sides and didnt play England).

Fact is none of the 5 nations are comeptitive with the Tri nations over the last few years.

Peter, perhaps all info is not pert of the analysis, such as team selections and conditions, but I wouldn't call it that misleading.

I did add englands win against australia last autumn to their win stats, it wasn't a close match, therefor I didn't provide the details, as I am looking at the scores within 7.

The matches do show home or away.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

England in managing to beat Australia both home and away deserve credit for that, as do Scotland of course for those two wins (and some other close results, particularly the 4 pointer against SA, that often go unspoken of)

The win by England away against Australia was courtesy of Giteau missing a penalty goal in front of the posts approximately 18 metres away. My grandmother could have kicked it.

Rob B that reminds me of another Matt Giteau kick against Scotland.

Biltonbeck

IF we beat Australia, we miss miss NZ and SA all the way to the final.

Hmm, we have Italy in our group who we scraped by in this years 6N.

Even if we win our group we may well play Wales, who did beat us this year.

Aint gonna be easy.

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Misleading analysis.

It ignores Scotland only having played home games, compared to Frances 6 away fixtures ( I think 4 each for Ireland Wales England?)
It ignores Englands big win against Australia.
It ignores that the 2009 Springbok tour team was a complete second string affair ( the year they lost to two club sides and didnt play England).

Fact is none of the 5 nations are comeptitive with the Tri nations over the last few years.

Peter, perhaps all info is not pert of the analysis, such as team selections and conditions, but I wouldn't call it that misleading.

I did add englands win against australia last autumn to their win stats, it wasn't a close match, therefor I didn't provide the details, as I am looking at the scores within 7.

The matches do show home or away.

Yes bit the percenatges bit, which is what you used to determine the "most comeptitive" doesnt account for home/away. And by only looking at close games youre missing the fact that England won a big one, and ignoring some of the spankings that have been handed out...why? Thats misleading.

As someone else pointed out t also doesnta ccopunt for number of games against New Zealand, who have largely been the strongest of the 3 in recent years. Its a flawed analysis from which you drew a misleading conclussion.

Add in the other factors such as quality of teams actually fielded and it becomes almost meaningless.

Question: "Which Six Nations teams have been competitive against the Tri Nations the past 3 years."

Answer: "None."

I would say 2 wins out of 5 (that England have this year) would count as competitive (although I'd want more than just being competitive). But over a 3 year period no Northern Hemisphere team has been consistently competative against Tri-Nations teams.

Peter, the analysis clearly shows what percentage of these encounters are close matches. The runaway victories are those that are not close matches.

The analysis shows there were 21 matches against NZ of which 3 were close (14%)

There are some conclusions the reader must take from the info above himself. Unfortunately if I had to do conclusions on every possible aspect, the article could be 10 pages and no one would read it due to information overload.

As far as team selections go, it is almost impossible to take the time and analyse 70 matches to see who did not play their first choice squad.

robbo277 wrote:Question: "Which Six Nations teams have been competitive against the Tri Nations the past 3 years."

Answer: "None."

I would say 2 wins out of 5 (that England have this year) would count as competitive (although I'd want more than just being competitive). But over a 3 year period no Northern Hemisphere team has been consistently competative against Tri-Nations teams.

Well Robbo, I am not so sure. Winning at home is the start of instilling belief in a team that they can win. Although the NH teams have not been successful down south, the RWC will be seen by players as neutral venues, and could give a mental boost to some nations.

biltongbek wrote:Peter, the analysis clearly shows what percentage of these encounters are close matches. The runaway victories are those that are not close matches.

The analysis shows there were 21 matches against NZ of which 3 were close (14%)

Which is not suitable to detrmine who has been competiitve aganst them and who hasnt. Just looking at close matches is meaningless.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Yes you cant analyse every permutation but to just blindly use one stat to draw the conlcussion that Scotland are more competitive with Tri Nations sides than England is misleading, which takes me back to my point...which was that its flawed and misleading.

The conclussion you draw from the flawed analysis is misleading. That people are taking that and extrapolating it even further to decide that Scotland are suddenly in with a chance of winning the world cup is Picard worthy.

Teams have picked up the odd win here and there, and France, Ireland and Wales should all be going down to NZ with the sole intention of topping their respective pools. Should Wales or England/Scotland/France meet Australia in the quarters or semis they should go in with a belief they can win on the day, the same if Ireland meet South Africa in the quarters and even if they meet New Zealnd in the semis.

The Tri-Nations teams aren't unbeatable, and I think the collective results of the Northern Hemisphere (France winning in NZ, wins by England, Wales and Scotland over Aus, wins by Scotland and Ireland over South Africa) should provide collective encouragement, but over the 3 year period no one Northern Hemisphere team has been consistently competitive in my opinion.

These stats also provide an interesting glimpse at the standings in the SH. The NH teams are close (within 7 points) of NZ only 14% of the time and have emerged as winners less than 5% of the time; with Aus 33% were close and 14% were lost; with SA 47% were close and 14% were lost. This really adds to the aura of All Black invincibility against the NH teams - they rarely get close and even then a win is unlikely.

Whoever said Scotland have a chance of winning the world cup is correct (although I can't find them). Everyone has a chance, some have a bigger chance than others but thats the beauty of the World Cup, upstes seem to be par for the course.

Scotland have a chance of winning the world cup, it may be a very slim chacne but it's a chance none the less.

Well Peter, I sduppose you can't please all the people, all of the time.

If the stats don't work for you, then ignore them.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Peter, the analysis clearly shows what percentage of these encounters are close matches. The runaway victories are those that are not close matches.

The analysis shows there were 21 matches against NZ of which 3 were close (14%)

Which is not suitable to detrmine who has been competiitve aganst them and who hasnt. Just looking at close matches is meaningless.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Yes you cant analyse every permutation but to just blindly use one stat to draw the conlcussion that Scotland are more competitive with Tri Nations sides than England is misleading, which takes me back to my point...which was that its flawed and misleading.

The conclussion you draw from the flawed analysis is misleading. That people are taking that and extrapolating it even further to decide that Scotland are suddenly in with a chance of winning the world cup is Picard worthy.

Peter, you prevent Bilt from looking at close matches as meaningless, yet you dismiss Ireland's 3 wins out of 4 over SA as meaningless too. Why? What entitles you to dismiss a 75% success rate but not allow Bilt to analyse close matches? And then sub analyse the comparetive competitivness of the NH teams as a result?

Forcing games into tight one score affairs on as regular a basis as possible against the SH teams is what the NH has to do, the next step is winnig, the following step is winning more than you lose and finally, spanking them. Contained within this is the necessity to be able to win away from home too.

You can account for every single Scottish result as being misleading for whatever reasons you come up with be it weather, weaked SH sides, a bad ref, the sun being in the kicker's eyes. Whatever. You can also take the two recent English wins against OZ and build a pattern of consistancy and egalitarianism with the Tri Nations as a whole, especially as you had a handsome victory in Twickenham. You can also ignore 3 successive losses (and 7 out of 8) to Ireland as they are not competing well with the SH, in your opinion.

For me, what I think Bilt is doing by only focusing on the close games is suggesting that whatever happens at an RWC, the matches are more l;ikely to be close games rather than being one sided (on the scoreline at least) I think this is fair enough as taking Ireland versus Oz matches at RWC time, they have historically close affairs.

Thank you debaters1, well put.

I think you'll find that of those 10 games that England lost, 5 "didn't count" and 4 were "moral victories".

So the record stands at 12 played, 5 don't count, 6 won and 1 game that England got on the wrong side of the scoreboard but were clearly the better team, played all the rugby and from which they learnt a lot, since you learn more from a loss than a win. MJ took the positives from this, and was very proud of the guys. It's all looking rosy. Add that to Englands grafting ability to "win games that count" and they look dead certs for the RWC later this year. Can't see them losing given that amazing record of consistently sweeping all before them. Grandslam champions too. 6 Nations champions too.

beshocked wrote:Rob B that reminds me of another Matt Giteau kick against Scotland.

At least he was consistent!

debaters1 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Peter, the analysis clearly shows what percentage of these encounters are close matches. The runaway victories are those that are not close matches.

The analysis shows there were 21 matches against NZ of which 3 were close (14%)

Which is not suitable to detrmine who has been competiitve aganst them and who hasnt. Just looking at close matches is meaningless.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Yes you cant analyse every permutation but to just blindly use one stat to draw the conlcussion that Scotland are more competitive with Tri Nations sides than England is misleading, which takes me back to my point...which was that its flawed and misleading.

The conclussion you draw from the flawed analysis is misleading. That people are taking that and extrapolating it even further to decide that Scotland are suddenly in with a chance of winning the world cup is Picard worthy.

Peter, you prevent Bilt from looking at close matches as meaningless, yet you dismiss Ireland's 3 wins out of 4 over SA as meaningless too. Why? What entitles you to dismiss a 75% success rate but not allow Bilt to analyse close matches? And then sub analyse the comparetive competitivness of the NH teams as a result?

Forcing games into tight one score affairs on as regular a basis as possible against the SH teams is what the NH has to do, the next step is winnig, the following step is winning more than you lose and finally, spanking them. Contained within this is the necessity to be able to win away from home too.

You can account for every single Scottish result as being misleading for whatever reasons you come up with be it weather, weaked SH sides, a bad ref, the sun being in the kicker's eyes. Whatever. You can also take the two recent English wins against OZ and build a pattern of consistancy and egalitarianism with the Tri Nations as a whole, especially as you had a handsome victory in Twickenham. You can also ignore 3 successive losses (and 7 out of 8) to Ireland as they are not competing well with the SH, in your opinion.

For me, what I think Bilt is doing by only focusing on the close games is suggesting that whatever happens at an RWC, the matches are more l;ikely to be close games rather than being one sided (on the scoreline at least) I think this is fair enough as taking Ireland versus Oz matches at RWC time, they have historically close affairs.

When di dI gnore Irelands wins? And since when was the win over 4 years ago a win in the last 3 years anyway?
I dont prevent Bilt from looking a close matches, I point out that looking at this stat in isolation is meangless.
Yes you can account for every win, and every reulst with a variety of factors. Thats why I thing looking at a few isoltaed stats without reference to a wider context is meaningless. Its not just a question of who looks the best under the misleadinding analysis used, but also what conclussion you then extrpolate that too. I dont dismiss Scotlands wins, or pretend that they didnt happen, I just wouldnt use that as my basis for detrmining how good a side they were and how close they were to the Tri Nations sides relative to other 6 nations sides and their chances in the world cup.


OK lets assumje that world cup games are more likely to be close affairs. Thats because they will be against two full strength sides trying against each other. In that case we should focus our analysis on games between full strength sides who were trying, not pretending that Scotland turning over a massively under mtiovated second string South Africa side at home is useful in assessing who would likely win if they met at a world cup game, even if Scotland did manage to keep the score close.
The logical jump that Scotalnd tend to win close games against Tri nations sides more than other 6 nations sides means they are more likely to win in the world cup i, pradon the french, Flip bizzare.


If the question is have Scotland done as well or better than other 6 nations sides against Tri nations opposition post 2007 then using Biltongs stats alone we get a yes. Thats misleading because its being used to suggest they are more likely to beat these sides in a world cup, which any sensible analysis would suggest isnt the case because they arent as good a side as England France or Ireland, arguably Wales too.
The conclussion that they have a better record against the Tri nations sides in recent years is itself misleading. They havent had as difficult a fixture list. When assessing who has been the most comeptitive against the tri nations sides you cant do that without reference to the context of the games played.

ooh autoswear corrected

Peter, yes I don't disagree with you, but that is where the conclusion must be done by each individual, as I said it is impossible to go into that much detail.

Well, i took it that you dismissed Ireland's recent success over SA when you said that the NH is not competetive against the SH. O think such an assessment of your analysis is, well, fair?!

I do not think Scotland have the best chance of the NH sides, but I also do not think their chances sit a country mile behind those of Ireland, Wales or England. Put it this way, I would not be surprised if they won their group. England & Argentina while they will both start a favourites against Scotland, are not light years ahead of them (indeed, it could be argued that Scotland have a better chance of making the quarters than Argentina) and will not hold great foreboding for Scotland.

And what uyou can use from these stats, are how a team react to a close match. What is their killer instinct like and how good are they gripping to a lead. In such an instance, Ireland have recently been poor at over turning such gaps into wins. Teams have been able to hold on. Wales & France this 6N. SA in November etc.

That is where close game analysis is not alone valid, but vital.