Why the southern hemisphere are better than the northern hemisphere?

[[email protected]]

I mean, you look at the world cup, and the southern teams have won it 5 times, and the north once.
The test matches that have been, and are on this weekend, with wales v NZ, and France played SA, and everybody lost. Well except England v the Aussies i think.

Can anyone tell me why there is a massive gap between the 2 hemisphere?

 

[Jer1cho]

Well this is certainly going to be fun. I will start then.

We have better players than the northern hemisphere. Simple really.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

We feel sorry for them and let them win

No idea, superior coaching? Better genetics?

 

[nickdnz]

The original post does not represent the collective views of the Southern Hemisphere, or its forum members. We would like to apologise in advance for any inconvenience this will undoubtedly cause.

 

[Duckdee]

Warmer weather? That would also explain the football...

 

[Jer1cho]

It's also because the SH have bigger penises due to the climate up north causing generations of shriveling.

 

[cyRil]

Mentality, fitness and physique.
There you go.

 

[Haysie]

The original post does not represent the collective views of the Southern Hemisphere, or any of its forum members. We would like to apologise in advance for any inconvenience this will undoubtedly cause.

Haha it certainly reflects my views!

...

- Waits for someone to point out that England beat Australia last week... - :O

 

[dullonien]

Mentality has alot to do with things, but I feel fitness and physique have little to do with it nowerdays. Apart from last Saturday I feel Wales have been competing with the SH physically for the last couple of years in the AI's, we've also finished strongly in those games, showing our fitness is there or therabouts. I think we just have to look at age-grade rugby to get our answers. Here NZ dominate with the skillset of the players way above any other nation. They are followed by SA, Aus and England. This translates directly to senior level, although Engish players fall off after age grade and their team has had a tendancy to underperform since 2003. Not to mention that England rely on power to batter their way through games at juniour level! To me this shows that the SH development systems are far ahead of what we have here. Young players have all the skills necessary to step into the senior national team at 20/21 and thrive from the outset, very few look poor on their debutes.

So I say the biggest difference is the quality of lower leagues at villiage and town level; of grassroot rugby.

Edit: Aus are falling behind the other two SH superpowers I feel, because they are lacking domestic leagues etc. Still some quality players, but nowhere neer the depth they once enjoyed.

 

[lynam1104]

It'd becues we have cyRiL...

 

[dullonien]

Yeah, it's all CyRil's fault

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's those low cut tops he wears in the stands, it puts the players off

 

[veux]

Genetic to some extent - the people who colonized South Africa (Boers and mean Brits) and those already living there (big hard Africans) means that they're going to be pretty tough. One of my old team mates boarded in South Africa and he (6', 15stn) was the smallest person on the team.

 

[Seaton]

There are a number of factors, heres a list which I feel reveals some answers:

1. Diet, the beef/general meat cosnumption in the SH seems to be far greater than up north, due to prices perhaps? Im no biologist, but this would certainly lead to greater physical presence (over all), and stronger bodies.

2. Climate- Im glad I dont play rugby in the north, imagine being tackled in the cold, that would certainly put people off
The warmer climate, on average, should mean less injuries than up north (muscular)
Warmer conditions mean that training is better and easier, due to dry pitches.

3. Population/interest- England and France are the only sizeable countries in the NH, and unsurprisingly, they are the strongest NH on average. Of course NZ is the exception to the rule, however though they love their rugby, and are NZ, nuff said

4. Genetics, as said earlier, SA has 'boers', who inherit genes with generally strong athletic properties, NZ have Moaris and fijians/samoans/tongans

5. Coaching, coaches from the south seem to be more competent than those up north

6. The rugby gods prefer warm weather.

 

[Peat]

Not to mention that England rely on power to batter their way through games at juniour level!

Have you looked at the weights of the teams at this year's JWC? England were not substantially bigger than their opponents and in a lot of cases were smaller.

Home advantage and timing count for a lot. Ireland had a good AI last year and have had a woeful summer tour - the difference between home advantage and away, between halfway through the season and at the end (and of course an injury list the size of enormity). France too did a lot better in the Autumn. The only nation that did substantially better in the Summer are England!

I'm not saying they're not better than us, but lets not judge in isolation. England, Ireland, France and Scotland all showed themselves capable of beating SH teams in the last year. I think the gap could well be narrowing.

 

[SelimNiai]

I'm not going to get involved....only to say I'm not getting involved

 

[xbatousaix]

Better domestic competition. When average SA players go up north for the cash you start hearing how great they are. It seems good players in the Currie Cup and Super 14 are great players up north.

 

[Dizzy]

Better domestic competition. When average SA players go up north for the cash you start hearing how great they are. It seems good players in the Currie Cup and Super 14 are great players up north.

Sure do.

It's hard to say. I mean, we [New Zealand] are pretty much the top team in world rugby but when it comes to League our team is crap and when it comes to football our team is really crap...
So I guess its just the passion we have for Rugby?

 

[DuncTheDoodle]

Rugby player physiques dosn't go with tea-drinking, kilts, love and crossiants, leprechaun-chasing or football. It does, however, work with mining. But most mines are now closed, and so that's why the Welsh side has slipped since the 70s. It does go with the whole 'Survival of the fittest' thing and the sheer (Pun not intended) amount of crops to pull up and sheep to give a haircut to in New Zealand. Ozzies have got bigger in order to withstand the beatings they tend to get from the Kiwis.

And even with the gym culture nowadays, the All Blacks et al believe that they'll smash everyone from when they where bigger.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I think it's just one of those things that happen in sports to be honest. At this stage SH kids grow up thinking they're better than NH players which gives them a huge advantage. The setups are so professional that it can't be coaching and really do think there isn't that much difference in player quality.

I'll give you an my own favourite sport. Kilkenny and Waterford are both proud hurling counties. They have similar numbers of players, clubs etc. and the coaching structures are pretty similar too. Despite this, Kilkenny have won over 30 All Ireland ***les (think Currie cup) while Waterford haven't won one in 50 years. The last time the two teams met in a the championship was in the 2008 final which Kilkenny won by a new record scoring margin. The point is that expectation brings success and the SH teams expect more from their players than the NH.