Southern hemisphere dominance

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.

and the English clubs are going to join the French in picking the best players from super rugby.

As long as theres a limit as I don't want our league drowning in foreigners like the French league is.

That just stunts all the hard work we have done bringing the kids through and creating the academies.

When considering NH and SH as regions to compare noone really considers the fact that you compare only the best 3 teams to the top 6 from north.

If you wanted to consider NH v SH It's probably more accurate to include the 3 PI teams also.

So realistically we're talking NZ dominance

GeordieFalcon wrote:

and the English clubs are going to join the French in picking the best players from super rugby.

As long as theres a limit as I don't want our league drowning in foreigners like the French league is.

That just stunts all the hard work we have done bringing the kids through and creating the academies.

I don't think they'll have as many as the French but they will be signing higher quality than they are now. So SH internationals will be targeted.

Fanster wrote:When considering NH and SH as regions to compare noone really considers the fact that you compare only the best 3 teams to the top 6 from north.

If you wanted to consider NH v SH It's probably more accurate to include the 3 PI teams also.

So realistically we're talking NZ dominance

It'd be even more accurate to include Argentina!

Of all the players who have gone... have any left which have made their respected nations test side weaker?

Of the masses probably 1 or 2 per side. That's about it. The only ones who go tend to be fringe players, past their peak, disgarded and out of contract etc. Few turn their backs on national honours for a few bucks.

Frans Steyn, Luke McAllister are probably the only ones from memory.

What it does do is keeping a process of blooding youngsters. In Europe journeymen can remain far from the test scene after a brief cameo for years, in the 3Ns not a chance, they're retired off and finish their trade in the PRL, Japan, Top14 etc. Better for the 3N's as it keeps a domestic youngster from getting experience and game time.

The boks had a 76% & 67% win rate vs. NH sides in the 90s & 00s respectively. This decade its 85%. For NZ it was 81% & 90% respectively. Since 2010 onwards its been 97%.

Gap doesn't look like closing to me.

I see one major reason for this.  Sporting Preference by nation.

In SA & NZ rugby is king. Its the primary sport (well for non africans at least in SA). Kids play as young as European kids start picking up footballs. Sport has a lot to do with natural physical talent. Other sports in Europe simply get first tabs at the tree with many in Europe only picking up the sport in their early teens. Come the UK those who get first tabs at prop are often those who were never known for their deft dribbling skills on the soccer pitch.

Kids in NZ and SA are streets ahead skill wise of European counterparts.

The only way to improve this is to build the game so that more kids are playing the sport regularly and from a younger age... and not just the plummy sons of barristers & doctors play, getting the sport not simply concentrated out of its middle England comfort zone is key to developing players with prospects to actually competing with SA/NZ. Perhaps open up ticketing to the masses rather than giving 90% to old boy club networks.

In SA you can buy SR tickets for £10 and RC tickets for £20 in tescos. The crowd is very diverse from the elite's of society to township fan groups. In Europe what... £80 for a single test match ticket??? Even a middle class dad of 2 would think twice over a treat day out for him and his sons with a £240 cost to go and watch a test match.

fa0019 wrote:Of all the players who have gone... have any left which have made their respected nations test side weaker?

Of the masses probably 1 or 2 per side. That's about it. The only ones who go tend to be fringe players, past their peak, disgarded and out of contract etc. Few turn their backs on national honours for a few bucks.

Frans Steyn, Luke McAllister are probably the only ones from memory.

What it does do is keeping a process of blooding youngsters. In Europe journeymen can remain far from the test scene after a brief cameo for years, in the 3Ns not a chance, they're retired off and finish their trade in the PRL, Japan, Top14 etc. Better for the 3N's as it keeps a domestic youngster from getting experience and game time.

It has been 1 - 2 internationals from each but thats going to rise up. Look at all the AB's heading north after the world cup. Sure, many are old but thats a lot of experience to replace.


I'd agree that up to this point it has been good for the SH sides to get rid of the middle tier and blood youngsters but I can see the clubs targeting the top tier of players more and more.  

fa0019 wrote:The boks had a 76% & 67% win rate vs. NH sides in the 90s & 00s respectively. This decade its 85%. For NZ it was 81% & 90% respectively. Since 2010 onwards its been 97%.

Gap doesn't look like closing to me.

Average winning margin would be more accurate. For instance the Boks annihilating Wales a decade or so ago by 80 points or more if I remember correctly. According to the stats there should be a bigger gap there now but that isn't the case. Wales have gotten much better.


England usually have been the strongest U20 side in the last 4 years. Ireland have won a few 6 nations, even Italy are competitive. France are the only NH team going backwards or maybe they're standing still while the others move forward.


I don't think Australia can expect to win against NH teams like they used to.

fa0019 wrote:
I see one major reason for this.  Sporting Preference by nation.

In SA & NZ rugby is king. Its the primary sport (well for non africans at least in SA). Kids play as young as European kids start picking up footballs. Sport has a lot to do with natural physical talent. Other sports in Europe simply get first tabs at the tree with many in Europe only picking up the sport in their early teens. Come the UK those who get first tabs at prop are often those who were never known for their deft dribbling skills on the soccer pitch.

Kids in NZ and SA are streets ahead skill wise of European counterparts.

The only way to improve this is to build the game so that more kids are playing the sport regularly and from a younger age... and not just the plummy sons of barristers & doctors play, getting the sport not simply concentrated out of its middle England comfort zone is key to developing players with prospects to actually competing with SA/NZ. Perhaps open up ticketing to the masses rather than giving 90% to old boy club networks.

In SA you can buy SR tickets for £10 and RC tickets for £20 in tescos. The crowd is very diverse from the elite's of society to township fan groups. In Europe what... £80 for a single test match ticket??? Even a middle class dad of 2 would think twice over a treat day out for him and his sons with a £240 cost to go and watch a test match.

A big part of it is the way super rugby is played. Its played at a high pace, skill is rewarded and players are allowed to try things. Rugby attitudes in the NH are very conservative although that is slowly changing. Thats why Australia won a few world cups despite rugby being a minority sport there.

With respect some of the comments made are misleading or completely wrong,since the
first RWC in 1987.
With the notable exception period 2000-3 a SH side has been the best side in the World
on matches won lost.Bernard Laporte is bemoaning the fact Toulon are missing 17 players
on international duty due to RWC that has to be a joke.
Post 2003 NZ lost a whole team to NH/Japan or retirement it took one year 2004 to sort
it.They were best in the World 2005-8 despite not winning RWC 2007,post 2007 they
lost a whole squad.
In early 2009 they couldn't buy a win but were top of the world by the end of it,2010
to date with a brief period 2011 they`ve been best in world.
Post 2011 they lost there best wings,hookers,and most 10`s abroad but have managed to
scrape the odd win.
SA players were past there best?Smit,Botha,Matfield,Juan Smit,Fourie Du Preez,Steenkamp,
Habana,Butch James,DeVilliers,Franz Steyn,all picked whist playing Europe/Japan.
As long as South Africa and now Australian Players can be Oversea based and still be
picked for Test sides it will continue.
NZ is unique the line is drawn cash or the AB`s,you have a situation where young NZ
players with few caps.Calculate go abroad for cash but young enough to force themselves
into contention for 2019.
WRONG only SBW and Kaino have done that and forced themselves back in contention
this year.
NZ will lose a core of some of the best ever to play the game,BUT there are already
players stepping into contention as replacements.

I think it's still there. SA's home record against 6 nations teams at home includes only 3 losses out of 41 games. They've lost 18 out of 58 games away. The majority of those losses occurred between 1999 and 2003 when SA rugby was in free fall. It's still better than any European team.

The top teams in terms of record against 6 nations teams over the last 20 years at home are:
1. NZ, 2. Aus, 3. SA.
Away:
1. NZ, 2= SA, 2= Aus

Last 10 years against 6 nations teams, at home:
1. NZ, 2. SA, 3. Aus
Away:
1. NZ, 2. SA, 3. Aus

Last 5 years against 6 nations teams, home:
1. NZ, 2. SA, 3. Eng (Australia 4).
Away:
1. NZ, 2. SA, 3. Wales (Australia 4).

It seems to me overall the SANZAR countries have maintained their dominance. What tends to happen is that occasionally one side has a huge dip in form (e.g. Australia currently, SA in 1999-2003).

Gap's narrowing but of course SH are still dominant. Only England's 2003 side have really been up there but that is years ago, made to look better than they actually were by a poor NZ.

IMO though SA are on the slide, be interesting to see how they do this RWC. My shock result for this RWC is Samoa beating them with a brutal display up front.

The devil is in the detail when doing SH vs NH comparisons.   SANZAR vs 6N teams is too blunt an assessment.

Undoubtedly, the record of NZ, SA and Aus is still very good.  And changing an overall winning record takes time - a lot of time.

So with 20th anniversary of professionalism coming up this month, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at records of teams in terms of overall, versus 20 years ago, and in the last decade.

Table is above.

bit early to be calling the boks on the slide. Young blood at 10,12, 13 with Habana and Le Roux at 15 makes them as dangerous an attacking back line since 2007.
if Albetz and Vermulen are good to go ( and they find a decent bench tighthead!) then they are serious contenders.
Samoa will probably focus on brutalising  scotland, although i have my fingers crossed we can squeeze a win, to ensure safe passage to the quarters

Gwlad wrote:Gap's narrowing but of course SH are still dominant. Only England's 2003 side have really been up there but that is years ago, made to look better than they actually were by a poor NZ.

IMO though SA are on the slide, be interesting to see how they do this RWC. My shock result for this RWC is Samoa beating them with a brutal display up front.

SA beat the ABs less than 1 year ago. Should have beaten them a few weeks ago. What you say ain't going to happen, it would be a safer bet putting money on Italy winning the world cup. The only thing stopping them getting to the SFs would be an inspired AUS in the QF.

They have England worked out, undefeated in 12 matches. SA play well, they win, SA play average, they win, SA play bad, they win. Wales beat them in the MS end of season match but I think its unlikely in a RWC match that they would be able to repeat the feat with both sides geared towards the same match.

Injuries will change the dynamic, but they always seem to have enough. They have won the last 5 at twickenham, all 80,000 sell outs, I don't think home advantage will see England through anymore than the last 5. If they meet it would be because ENG lost a match vs. AUS or WAL so confidence won't be sky high.

In terms of being on the slide, maybe but not through lack of talent. Lots of guys are going to Europe and especially Japan. Jaque Fourie would have been an all time great in my book, but 750k eur is a big draw for some. The back division looks a little light in 3/4s. To be honest Habana and Pietersen holding down both wing berths for 3 world cups in a row simply isn't healthy. Not really being pushed hard by up and comers. Lots of centre/wings bit no real finishers.

I have no worries about the boks... actually I tip them to go all the way this time.

Gwlad wrote:Gap's narrowing but of course SH are still dominant. Only England's 2003 side have really been up there but that is years ago, made to look better than they actually were by a poor NZ.

IMO though SA are on the slide, be interesting to see how they do this RWC. My shock result for this RWC is Samoa beating them with a brutal display up front.

That's the best one ive seen so far from you Gwlad

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Gap's narrowing but of course SH are still dominant. Only England's 2003 side have really been up there but that is years ago, made to look better than they actually were by a poor NZ.

IMO though SA are on the slide, be interesting to see how they do this RWC. My shock result for this RWC is Samoa beating them with a brutal display up front.

That's the best one ive seen so far from you Gwlad

Yeah a poor NZ, John Mitchell won 2 straight 3N titles, won 84% of their games leading up to that RWC. Light in the pack yes but poor, no. If you want to know how good that ENG side was.... Schalk Burger still says that the 2004 defeat in Twickenham was the biggest beating he has ever taken (and they were a shadow of the 02-03 ENG side).

Henry had 2 great young players who have won 5 IRB player of the year awards subsequently to build his team around in perhaps the 2 key positions. That doesn't happen often even in NZ. It would be like Jonno and Wilkinson starting out at the same age in nearly all cases it rarely overlaps for long. Its not the norm and judging NZ by this last decade alone is a little unrealistic... probably (probably) the greatest AB side of all time (confirmed if they win this RWC).

Fa0019 if SA kids are streets ahead of English kids in terms of skills why have you struggled to beat our lot in the U20s?

SA have a very good record against England in recent memory but I don't think it will be long before England win again - England are improving with more talent coming in each international window.

Profitius you rightly mention England's U20s side. The strength is starting to pay dividends as more and more players come through for England.

Also saying that these players are being blocked. If they are talented enough they will make it if not straight away.

Talking about SH dominance?

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

England have beaten Australia in the last 4 out of 5 games.


SH "dominance" looks more impressive when you add wins against Scotland and Italy.

You don't think that England has dominated Scotland and Italy too?

beshocked wrote:Fa0019 if SA kids are streets ahead of English kids in terms of skills why have you struggled to beat our lot in the U20s?

SA have a very good record against England in recent memory but I don't think it will be long before England win again - England are improving with more talent coming in each international window.

Profitius you rightly mention England's U20s side. The strength is starting to pay dividends as more and more players come through for England.

Also saying that these players are being blocked. If they are talented enough they will make it if not straight away.

Talking about SH dominance?

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

England have beaten Australia in the last 4 out of 5 games.


SH "dominance" looks more impressive when you add wins against Scotland and Italy.

You don't think that England has dominated Scotland and Italy too?

Didn't say they are streets ahead... I said that they seem to beat them every time and have them worked out. On paper England should have won a few games vs. SA since 2006... but they haven't, 12 in a row. It sort of gets me thinking that SA simply know how to play England. That whatever happens, they can deal with them. SA had a similar yet less extreme situation with AUS in the last RWC cycle.

Most of those games you highlighted were out of this world cup cycle. Its cherry picking stats to be honest.

Since the last world cup SA have played the 6N sides 15 times. They have won 13 of those, both losses away at the last end of season tour. That's a win rate of 83% where they scored 52 tries to 19 conceded.

For reference here is their RWC cycle record vs. 6N teams

92-95 62%
96-99 83%
00-03 53%
04-07 70%
08-11 81%
11-15 83%

do you notice a pattern there???

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

Since the last world cup SA have played the 6N sides 15 times. They have won 13 of those,

Am I being really thick?

FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

Since the last world cup SA have played the 6N sides 15 times. They have won 13 of those,

Am I being really thick?

SA have played Ireland twice in this RWC cycle. Won 1, lost 1. Beshocked was to be honest cherry picking data as he ended up quoting matches from 2004. Not really relevant to this team.

SA have played France once in this RWC cycle, they won that game. Again, stat was skewed by other RWC cycles quoting matches up to 2005. Again not really relevant to this team.

Aahhhh okey dokey...

As the table I posted above shows in comparing teams recent records against overall records:

NZ have improved on their overall win record against all teams in the last decade.

In the last decade, SA overall win records have improved against Eng (84%)and Scotland (89%), and stayed the same against Wales (91%) since 1 Jan 2005. They have disimproved against Australia (46%), France (43%) and Ireland (40%)

In the same period, Australia's records have improved against France (75%) , Argentina (86%) and Wales (81%) and have disimproved against England, (50%), Ireland (55.5%), and Scotland (50%).

Compared to their overall win records, England have improved against Scotland, and disapproved against Wales and Argentina (both marginal), France (53%), and Ireland (41.6%).

Wales are up against Scotland, and down against France, Ireland and Argentina.

See table above for more details.

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

Since the last world cup SA have played the 6N sides 15 times. They have won 13 of those,

Am I being really thick?

SA have played Ireland twice in this RWC cycle. Won 1, lost 1. Beshocked was to be honest cherry picking data as he ended up quoting matches from 2004. Not really relevant to this team.

SA have played France once in this RWC cycle, they won that game. Again, stat was skewed by other RWC cycles quoting matches up to 2005. Again not really relevant to this team.

But these stats are rather convenient don't you think? If SA has lost 4/6 v Ireland, yet their winning % is higher due to beating Scotland, Wales, England and Italy then surely this highlights IReland as the better team?

I get you don't want to use data thats too old, but then at least use accurate data, include 6 SH teams v 6 NH teams, or only pick 3 NH teams and focus on that?

SA have certainly had the psychological edge over England but have some slices of good fortune too.

SA rode their luck in the 2007 RWC final with the contentious decision over Cueto.

A very flukey try in 2012 - was not SA working England out. SA rode their luck that day. Plus of course Robshaw's contentious decision not to go for the corner helped too.

SA aren't going to have that luck in every game and I expect England will overturn that record soon.

Cherrypicking stats perhaps - but you could look at France vs SA further back and still SA have not dominated France.

As for cherrypicking stats - saying SA vs 6 nations is cherrypicking. Let's be honest Italy and Scotland are nowhere near as strong as England,Ireland and Wales.

England have a 100% record vs Italy. Scotland haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 83 (that's 32 years!)

Using Italy and Scotland to bolster win ratios doesn't seem right IMO.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Well it is because Frances comparitive strength has dropped massively in recent years, and Wales are notorious for struggling against the SH, so neither of those teams represent England do they?

If you want to talk trends you really must look at the average win rate of team A over team B from the dawn of proffessionalism, to now. Then you must look at average points won by team A over team B, from the dawn of professionalism to today.

Then and only then will a trend between the 2 teams be fairly assesed, don't you think?

beshocked wrote:Fa0019 if SA kids are streets ahead of English kids in terms of skills why have you struggled to beat our lot in the U20s?

SA have a very good record against England in recent memory but I don't think it will be long before England win again - England are improving with more talent coming in each international window.

Profitius you rightly mention England's U20s side. The strength is starting to pay dividends as more and more players come through for England.

Also saying that these players are being blocked. If they are talented enough they will make it if not straight away.

Talking about SH dominance?

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

England have beaten Australia in the last 4 out of 5 games.


SH "dominance" looks more impressive when you add wins against Scotland and Italy.

You don't think that England has dominated Scotland and Italy too?

Beshocked,mage group rugby in South Africa is much further developed insofar as auotas are concerned, this means some of our best players don't go to the JWC, yet we seem to be doing damn well for a team that has to adhere to sporting quotas.

What you should ask is how long before we actually benefit from these quotas and the squad is actually our best regardless of quotas.

You are getting a view of South African rugby's future, and it does not look bleak at all, does it?

As for Ireland, they have made the most of their home conditions in the last decade, as they haven't played in SA for 11 years.

France is a bit of a mystery to me, to be honest.

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

Since the last world cup SA have played the 6N sides 15 times. They have won 13 of those,

Am I being really thick?

SA have played Ireland twice in this RWC cycle. Won 1, lost 1. Beshocked was to be honest cherry picking data as he ended up quoting matches from 2004. Not really relevant to this team. No Ireland player is still around from then, only Burger, Matfield and Du Preez are still around the bok side.

SA have played France once in this RWC cycle, they won that game. Again, stat was skewed by other RWC cycles quoting matches up to 2005. Again not really relevant to this team.

But these stats are rather convenient don't you think? If SA has lost 4/6 v Ireland, yet their winning % is higher due to beating Scotland, Wales, England and Italy then surely this highlights IReland as the better team?

I get you don't want to use data thats too old, but then at least use accurate data, include 6 SH teams v 6 NH teams, or only pick 3 NH teams and focus on that?

If you want to talk about the team currently why use stats from games played 11 years ago? It was 2 RWCs away... Half the players in these sides were hardly in high school then.

The argument is stating that SA is on the slide... well in this RWC cycle, the last 3 years they have improved their performance from the last 2 RWC cycles, losing only twice in 12 games vs. the 4 big 6N sides (FRA, WAL, ENG and IRE for now).

For me that's not a slide.

I woyld argue that SA certainly havn't slid anywhere either, infact I would say since the English team of 2003 retired, they have dominated England, very heavily from mid 2000's but less so in recent meetings and have only snatched wins by the odd few points on some occasions.

I would put this down to Englands improved performances under lancaster, wether they can go the next step and start to dominate wins v SA I am not sure.

There are areas of concern though for SA, in recent meetings they have barely pipped Wales, including last minute penalty tries in SA, in which Wales outplayed SA for large periods.

They have also struggled against IReland too, and well the last autumn campaign was arguably one of the worst SA outfits I have seen for a long time!

They are going into a RWC with a number of young inexperienced players at lock, 10, 12, 13 and although they show a lot of potential young players make mistakes.

I wouldn't say SA are in a bad place, but they are in a rebuilding place, where they are beatable on any given day by the top 5/6 teams in the world, and thats whats strange about them right now.

I'm not saying that SA don't stand a chance, you'd be a fool to not give them as decent odds, but if they don't make the semi's I may not be that surprised, and I expect a semi at best from them if they meet NZ.

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Well it is because Frances comparitive strength has dropped massively in recent years, and Wales are notorious for struggling against the SH, so neither of those teams represent England do they?

If you want to talk trends you really must look at the average win rate of team A over team B from the dawn of proffessionalism, to now. Then you must look at average points won by team A over team B, from the dawn of professionalism to today.

Then and only then will a trend between the 2 teams be fairly assesed, don't you think?

ok will if win rate is not good enough lets try ave. points scored and tries scored vs conceded.

SA rate vs. 6N in RWC cycles

00-03
Average points 22-23 (-1).
Tries sco/con 37-31 (boks score 1.19 tries for every try conceded)

04-07
Average points 31-18 (+13).
Tries sco/con 72-39 (boks score 1.85 tries for every try conceded)

08-11
Average points 27-17 (+10).
Tries sco/con 58-28 (boks score 2.07 tries for every try conceded)

12-Present
Average points 26-15 (+11).
Tries sco/con 52-19 (boks score 2.73 tries for every try conceded)

Well the ave. points scored by the boks has dropped a little but the diff remains around the same for the last 3 cycles and the try difference actually has increased significantly suggesting the 6N relies on kicks to stay in the game.

Still not enough?

Your still comparing apples and oranges by lumping in all 6N teams and comparing them to SA, why not pick 5 other SH teams and compare oranges to oranges?

Fanster wrote:Your still comparing apples and oranges by lumping in all 6N teams and comparing them to SA, why not pick 5 other SH teams and compare oranges to oranges?

We're not talking about other SH teams though, whilst the post talked about SH dominance... the post started as a result of someone saying SA is on the slide with NH catching them up.

Well I've just proved that through win rate, tries scored vs. tries conceded and average points diff that that is simply not the case.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Your still comparing apples and oranges by lumping in all 6N teams and comparing them to SA, why not pick 5 other SH teams and compare oranges to oranges?

We're not talking about other SH teams though, whilst the post talked about SH dominance... the post started as a result of someone saying SA is on the slide with NH catching them up.

Well I've just proved that through win rate, tries scored vs. tries conceded and average points diff that that is simply not the case.

So your happy to discount Irelands and Frances superior record over SA to prove that SA is better than NH rugby? The entire northern hemisphere is inferior to 1 country, because you are lumping 6 countries records in to promote 1 countries average win rate!

If you want to compare 6 NH countries to the SH you hve to select 6 SH countries, to be fair i'll let you choose!

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:Fa0019 if SA kids are streets ahead of English kids in terms of skills why have you struggled to beat our lot in the U20s?

SA have a very good record against England in recent memory but I don't think it will be long before England win again - England are improving with more talent coming in each international window.

Profitius you rightly mention England's U20s side. The strength is starting to pay dividends as more and more players come through for England.

Also saying that these players are being blocked. If they are talented enough they will make it if not straight away.

Talking about SH dominance?

Ireland have beaten SA in the last 4 out of 6 games.

France have beaten SA in the last 3 out of 5 games.

England have beaten Australia in the last 4 out of 5 games.


SH "dominance" looks more impressive when you add wins against Scotland and Italy.

You don't think that England has dominated Scotland and Italy too?

Beshocked,mage group rugby in South Africa is much further developed insofar as auotas are concerned, this means some of our best players don't go to the JWC, yet we seem to be doing damn well for a team that has to adhere to sporting quotas.

What you should ask is how long before we actually benefit from these quotas and the squad is actually our best regardless of quotas.

You are getting a view of South African rugby's future, and it does not look bleak at all, does it?

As for Ireland, they have made the most of their home conditions in the last decade, as they haven't played in SA for 11 years.

France is a bit of a mystery to me, to be honest.

Quota means some of your best players don't make it? How significant is the quota? How many of your best miss out?

Oh and another point about England vs SA

England have played SA 7 times - either away or on neutral territory since they last won. 5 times at Twickenham.


Most teams that have played SA bar Ireland have played both home and away almost equally.

Agree Fanster - Italy and Scotland aren't the same as England,Wales and Ireland.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Also, I think only 5 of those matches were in South Africa

In fact when was the last time one of these teams beat SA in SA?

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Also, I think only 5 of those matches were in South Africa

In fact when was the last time one of these teams beat SA in SA?

When was the last time SA beat the German national team in Germany? highlights this element of the argument mute does it not, while we're at it it also renders 'non loss' records useless too, lets not go into that area!!!

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Your still comparing apples and oranges by lumping in all 6N teams and comparing them to SA, why not pick 5 other SH teams and compare oranges to oranges?

We're not talking about other SH teams though, whilst the post talked about SH dominance... the post started as a result of someone saying SA is on the slide with NH catching them up.

Well I've just proved that through win rate, tries scored vs. tries conceded and average points diff that that is simply not the case.

So your happy to discount Irelands and Frances superior record over SA to prove that SA is better than NH rugby? The entire northern hemisphere is inferior to 1 country, because you are lumping 6 countries records in to promote 1 countries average win rate!

If you want to compare 6 NH countries to the SH you hve to select 6 SH countries, to be fair i'll let you choose!

Superior record??? You mean a cherry picked record cut in a period of time with no relevance to current and future performance so that a false point can be made?
Ok so why inc. games from 2004 and 2005? Why not 1990 its all the same?

PS - If you want to go down that route, the boks record historically win rate over IRE is 73%, vs. FRA its 58% (with 15% draws which is surprisingly high). In the middle of the last decade SA lost a few matches to these teams, it was relevant to the era... but that's past, only POC remains from that era, none from France from memory, 3 are still around from SA but are not first team players.

Its the epitome of a cherry picked stat to suit a weak argument.

So do you think you should list the merits of BOD, POC, ROG vs. Smit, James and Montegomery should be used as a basis for arguing the merits of Sexton, O'Brien & Zebo  vs. Vermeulen, Pollard & De Allende???

France in 2006 though they haven't played SA much.

Could argue that SA have been ducking France.

England's last win in SA was 2000 though had a draw in 2012.

Ireland have never beaten SA in SA and seem to be avoiding playing SA in SA.

Wales have never beaten SA in SA but haven't avoided SA in SA.

Fanster wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Also, I think only 5 of those matches were in South Africa

In fact when was the last time one of these teams beat SA in SA?

When was the last time SA beat the German national team in Germany? highlights this element of the argument mute does it not, while we're at it it also renders 'non loss' records useless too, lets not go into that area!!!

Huh?

We are talking rugby, head to head vs the teams mentioned from the Six Nations, home and away, how is your comment relevant to the discussion and mine not?

It's not cherry picked when you consider it rationally...

Ireland hadn't beaten SA since what 65? Meaning SA had dominated Ireland until 2004, they were beaten in 2004 by Ireland for the first time in 40 years...

Since then IReland have regularly beaten SA, meaning the trend has not only moved towards Irelands improved performances against SA, but have been the better team since then too!

When considering dominance you have to highlight points where trends have changed, 2004 was a turning point in Irish rugby history v SA, and they have the upper hand more often than not against them now.

This also lends itself to the RWC coming around the corner a mere stones throw from Ireland, and their last meeting saw Ireland coast to victory for the first time, they couldve shifted more points on SA too!

I get Ireland havn't travelled there for a while, but lets be honest, its always been a bit of a joke tour for the NH teams who rarley took teams to compete until recent years, which is why the points difference gaps have closed radically.

beshocked wrote:SA have certainly had the psychological edge over England but have some slices of good fortune too.

SA rode their luck in the 2007 RWC final with the contentious decision over Cueto.

A very flukey try in 2012 - was not SA working England out. SA rode their luck that day. Plus of course Robshaw's contentious decision not to go for the corner helped too.

SA aren't going to have that luck in every game and I expect England will overturn that record soon.

Cherrypicking stats perhaps - but you could look at France vs SA further back and still SA have not dominated France.

As for cherrypicking stats - saying SA vs 6 nations is cherrypicking. Let's be honest Italy and Scotland are nowhere near as strong as England,Ireland and Wales.

England have a 100% record vs Italy. Scotland haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 83 (that's 32 years!)

Using Italy and Scotland to bolster win ratios doesn't seem right IMO.

Yes, luck has featured in some games, but every team has luck, the 2007 Queto non try is not contentious, the facts are there.

Even if the try was given, the kick would have been from the corner, and the penalty that was kicked would be deducted, England would still have lost.

The flukey try I assume is the one where Alberts crashed over from the scrum? Yep, fortuitous and yet things like that happen in most games, just look at the "luck" we had in the last few weeks.

When my team has lost 11 out of 12 I think luck goes out the window.

South African rugby is not without isuues, that is for sure, poor coaching, no collective mindset, quotas, game plans, weak Rand, losing hundreds of players to all corners of the world etc.

But we are hanging in there, even if we are on the slide

What Fanster is saying is that you can twist the stats to fit your own agenda - we are all guilty of it.

How many wins do you need to dominate?

1 win over France in that period is not dominance IMO.

4-1-0 against England yes.
1-1 vs Ireland - no
3-1 vs Wales - not clear cut as Wales won the last encounter.

Biltong wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Also, I think only 5 of those matches were in South Africa

In fact when was the last time one of these teams beat SA in SA?

When was the last time SA beat the German national team in Germany? highlights this element of the argument mute does it not, while we're at it it also renders 'non loss' records useless too, lets not go into that area!!!

Huh?

We are talking rugby, head to head vs the teams mentioned from the Six Nations, home and away, how is your comment relevant to the discussion and mine not?

Because until recent seasons the NH teams would send down whoever was fit, available and interested, there have been so many nothing teams sent down south, maybe partially due to the international window favouring one set of teams thn the others?

Like I said, if IReland havn't played in SA for over a decade, then their win/non loss ratio is the same as SA's in GErmany in the same time period, as in there have been no games played so whats the difference? Ireland have a better home record v SA than SA has v Ieland in the last 10 years.

Fanster wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:FA

The pattern is you are including Scotland and Italy as fair reflections of England!

If England included wins against Fiji Samoa and Tonga/Argentina their stats would look that good too Im willing to bet!

Ok here are the stats for you excluding SCO and ITA in this current RWC cycle (2012 - present)

FRA - 1W, 0L, 0D
ENG - 4W, 0L, 1D
WAL - 3W, 1L, 0D
IRE - 1W, 1L, 0D

So overall they have played 12 matches, Won 9, lost 2, drawn 1. So thats a win rate of 75% and a non loss rate 83%.

So not a complete skew as you mention.

Also, I think only 5 of those matches were in South Africa

In fact when was the last time one of these teams beat SA in SA?

When was the last time SA beat the German national team in Germany? highlights this element of the argument mute does it not, while we're at it it also renders 'non loss' records useless too, lets not go into that area!!!

Huh?

We are talking rugby, head to head vs the teams mentioned from the Six Nations, home and away, how is your comment relevant to the discussion and mine not?

Because until recent seasons the NH teams would send down whoever was fit, available and interested, there have been so many nothing teams sent down south, maybe partially due to the international window favouring one set of teams thn the others?

Like I said, if IReland havn't played in SA for over a decade, then their win/non loss ratio is the same as SA's in GErmany in the same time period, as in there have been no games played so whats the difference? Ireland have a better home record v SA than SA has v Ieland in the last 10 years.

SA doesn't have a record against Ireland at home for the last decade because Ireland hasn't played there.

So something can't be better than something that does not exist

Although I suspect your reasoning is something is better than nothing.

Much like beggars in the night. They'll take anything when they have nothing, eh?

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:SA have certainly had the psychological edge over England but have some slices of good fortune too.

SA rode their luck in the 2007 RWC final with the contentious decision over Cueto.

A very flukey try in 2012 - was not SA working England out. SA rode their luck that day. Plus of course Robshaw's contentious decision not to go for the corner helped too.

SA aren't going to have that luck in every game and I expect England will overturn that record soon.

Cherrypicking stats perhaps - but you could look at France vs SA further back and still SA have not dominated France.

As for cherrypicking stats - saying SA vs 6 nations is cherrypicking. Let's be honest Italy and Scotland are nowhere near as strong as England,Ireland and Wales.

England have a 100% record vs Italy. Scotland haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 83 (that's 32 years!)

Using Italy and Scotland to bolster win ratios doesn't seem right IMO.

Yes, luck has featured in some games, but every team has luck, the 2007 Queto non try is not contentious, the facts are there.

Even if the try was given, the kick would have been from the corner, and the penalty that was kicked would be deducted, England would still have lost.

The flukey try I assume is the one where Alberts crashed over from the scrum? Yep, fortuitous and yet things like that happen in most games, just look at the "luck" we had in the last few weeks.

When my team has lost 11 out of 12 I think luck goes out the window.

You don't know if England would have lost - a try given or disallowed can affect a team.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20446815

If South Africa were a touch fortunate to lead at the break, there was a significant slice of luck about the try that followed soon after the interval.

A rebound from an attempted kick through gave them territory, and when Juandre Kruger dropped the ball five yards out Youngs' hack clear hit JP Pietersen, eluded Ben Morgan and fell into the grateful grasp of a surprised Alberts a yard out as he flopped over the line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS_E7ebFgwo

One of the flukiest tries I have ever seen.

The reasoning is, until you compare oranges with oranges your constantly going to skew the stats to make yourself feel better!

I don't agree SA are on the slide, I think certain 6N teams have caught SA's performances, and there is very little between them, either in SA or Europe.

However I wouldn't claim Italy are a strongr team than SA based on Italy's, Wales and Ireland's stats over the last 12 months, would I? Despite it being true!

As for Ireland playing SA in SA. We don't know. Ireland have been turned into a well oiled machine by Schmidt.

If SA are confident of victory they should persuade Ireland to tour or refuse to play Ireland till they do.

Ireland have been massaging their stats just like SA have by including Italy and Scotland in their victory over NH sides.

It's obvious some sides are stronger than others. Australia > South Africa > New Zealand.

The thread should really be called SA and NZ dominance though I guess you could argue the Aussies have dominated Wales in recent years.

Fiji,Argentina and Samoa have not been dominating NH sides....

Fanster wrote:It's not cherry picked when you consider it rationally...

Ireland hadn't beaten SA since what 65? Meaning SA had dominated Ireland until 2004, they were beaten in 2004 by Ireland for the first time in 40 years...

Since then IReland have regularly beaten SA, meaning the trend has not only moved towards Irelands improved performances against SA, but have been the better team since then too!

When considering dominance you have to highlight points where trends have changed, 2004 was a turning point in Irish rugby history v SA, and they have the upper hand more often than not against them now.

This also lends itself to the RWC coming around the corner a mere stones throw from Ireland, and their last meeting saw Ireland coast to victory for the first time, they couldve shifted more points on SA too!

I get Ireland havn't travelled there for a while, but lets be honest, its always been a bit of a joke tour for the NH teams who rarley took teams to compete until recent years, which is why the points difference gaps have closed radically.

Those 6 matches quoted have all been in Ireland. All of them. So take Ireland's rate vs. a similar ranked team over the same period say England (beshocked actually cut 2004 in half as SA won 2 in SA in summer tour but hey lets stick to the skewed data). Over this time England played 7 matches, won 2 away to Ireland. SA played 6, won 2. At home England have played 5, won 3 so it would suggest that had SA played more games at home... they would have won most of those.... bad logic???

Ireland have never beaten the boks at home, never in their history. Perhaps they may have done had they had the chance in this era but it would have most likely been the odd game.
So I'd say your dominance that you speak of would probably shade SA overall had their been an even 50/50 split of games home and away.

Thats not dominance. Then you can look at the way SA toured under Jake White. Take their 2006 tour, it was a development tour. Few first team players even travelled.

This was the side that lost to Ireland in 2006 in that tour.

South Africa: B Fortuin; J Pretorious, B Habana, J de Villiers, F Steyn; A Pretorious, R Januarie; L Sephaka, J Smit (capt), CJ van der Linde; J Ackerman, A van den Berg, D Rossouw, J Smith, P Spies.

Want to know how many of them had played in their last 3N match at home (a win vs. AUS), a genuine priority game 1 month prior? The answer is 4. Recognise any of those names? I reckon even Biltong would struggle without wikipedia for half of them.

Then we can talk of the 2009 tour. SA had won 5 out of 6 in the 3Ns, they won the Lions series. They were the best team in the world without question... yet they lost to Ireland. Ireland better? I saw the SA front row get marched around the pitch in a Currie Cup SF by the Free State a few weeks before... why because they were absolutely knackered. Its not an excuse but hand on heart I can tell you had SA gone to Ireland with the same level of preparation and priority as they had given to the Lions series and NZ... they wouldn't have lost. Biltong and I even talked about resting these players ala White as they were bound to fall off a cliff. PDV didn't think so and he ruined the pre season of many of his senior players. For reference they also lost to Saracens, Leicester and France that tour and barely beat Italy... after beating both the Lions and NZ twice for both.

Ireland at home in that era were very strong. Everyone knows that. BOD was at his peak, ROG was still decent when he didn't have a punt on it with the bookies. But they weren't better than the boks. Using development tours, 6 home games only etc and skewed cherry picked data is invalid.... and then to try and apply it to SA's future fortunes again is invalid.