North hemisphere vs South hemisphere?

[Ragey Erasmus]

I don't think it's really NH vs SH at the moment, it's more NZ vs NH vs SH. NZ are just in a league of their own at the moment and I think SA are a notch above all but Ireland and Aus are one notch lower, same as England. I think the gap has closed but also the difference in quality between the SH sides has grown. I think in forwards play there is parity or even superiority for the NH but from 9-15 I think SH have the clear advantage.

 

[j'nuh]

The gap is between the All Blacks and the rest, not the NH and the SH, imo.

 

[Peat]

uhm dude I don't give a shiit about the Eng vs SA matchup here read my comment again I'm just talking generally about how good SA are and how ENG aren't as good and imposing despite having a somewhat similar style.

Yeah, like Rory Kock...oh, hmm...

Ahh, well, apologies for the misunderstanding but they didn't run over Ireland either. They love to try it but with Alberts out and Etzebeth feeling his way back, and with de Villiers a little lost for form and Serfontein not the biggest, simple truth is this Saffa team isn't that physical and I reckon most NH sides can stop them on the gainline enough of the time.

And the comment about England's pack not being that powerful stands as well. You're falling foul of stereotyping. I missed SA's middle game this series, but they lost one game because their half-backs were worse than the opponent's and won one because theirs were better.

I don't think there's an appreciable difference between us and them as athletes. A little maybe, in some places, but then Ireland are currently a poor enough side in terms of raw athleticism and they're prodding buttock and taking names. The big issue is technical skills and decision making - something that is very prominent in the half-back position, which is why I often see it as a big difference between us and them. There's no surprise that our top dogs against the SH are Ireland, the side that's done the most work on the technical side thanks to Schmidt at Leinster and have two smart as hell half-backs.

 

[Big Ewis]

yeah it's true actually, England's pack has really dropped in dominance. I was just talking generally about how S.A. and England have that big pack. Remember how intense and clinical England were in 2013 vs the AB - in comparison with the last Twickenham game vs the AB this year. Big difference.
And in Rome (the game you're saying you missed), South Africa were very powerful up front although Italy resisted well, but they were making meters on each impact almost.

But it's true that this year (throughout 2014) South Africa has suffered from not being able to impose their power on the game. It's happened repeatedly and in different contexts and periods of the year: at home against Wales in Test 2 in June, in TRC against the Pumas (twice) and in Europe again against the Irish this November. But I think it says more about those 3 teams' packs (esp. the last 2) than it does SA. The Pumas have an absolutely fearless pack that is also technically good (France now knows that first hand...<_< ) and Ireland have turned into a breakdown monster. You could just simply say they have breakdown syndrome in fact.
Wales have always had that ability to eat you up for a given 80min, whoever you are. It's that celtic Welsh pride, they do it when they're vexed from a previous bad game or when a ***le's on the line as we both know well (2008 against France or 2013 against England).

But South Africa's game plan hasn't changed, they're still all about power, power, power.

 

[theVersatile]

Both hemisphere's have their best (Ireland, England, Springboks, Wallabies, AB ) and worst (USA, Spain, Pacific Isles) teams. Players wise, you can't really judge them individually. Overall, Southern Teams still have the edge, especially AB as mentioned.

I'd have to agree with those who say it's simply AB v Northern Hemisphere. South Africa & Australia are good, but as mentioned New Zealand have the fire-power to break any team. At their best, they're almost unstoppable. Not only do they have a very strong pack, their back line is just FLASH-FLASH-FLASH-STRIKE-STRIKE-STEP-SCORE. They also have a good mix of young and old players, so they will be the upper team in RU for the foreseeable future.

 

[ENZED-88]

I have a question about RU/RL in Tasmania. Does Tasmania have enough quality players to compete teams like Samoa and Tonga? What sports are popular in Tasmania?

Pretty sure cricket

 

[Pampas]

Ireland, France, England and Wales got victories against SA and Australia.

Against the All Blacks England lost only by 3, Wales was winning the game until minute 69 (and I have to mention that Barret was lucky to get that ball for his try, and Read's try came after a kick block), and Scotland put a very solid performance.

Its true that the AB are on a league of their own, but NH have closed the gap with SA and Australia. That being said, SH nations still have a plus with the individual skills of their players.

And with the WC being held in England, NH teams (specially British) will have an advantage, so I wouldnt be surprised to see a good performance of NH teams in the WC.

 

[Big Ewis]

I always always keep in mind a very important notion in pro sports or any form of direct competition: the one that a lesser team can upset another one or even upset two better ones in a row, but that doesn't make the lesser team bigger (or better) de facto. It's just one (or two) really good games but they could just easily get stuffed had there been a Test a week later.
Just putting this out there.

 

[Kapa O Pango]

Southern Hemisphere - More attacking flair.
Northern Hemisphere - Great defensive units.

That's how I see it in the simplest way.