Why the southern hemisphere are better than the northern hemisphere?

[cyRil]

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

They're skin-tight in fact! Speedy would tell you; I look ridiculously good.

 

[Muzzy]

maybe its also how long the europe club seasons are, they play about 3 different competitions all at the same time and get little time for any rest for the year, so when the internationals come they're worn out. whereas NZ actually rest most of our all blacks during most of the ANZ Cup or ITM Cup

 

[King_D'Arcy]

It's because of Gordon D'Arcy's recent drop in form

 

[Phlegm & Poise]

The short answer is simple, New Zealand.

Ignoring World Cup wins, they are the number 1 side in the world and have been since more or less ever. I'm not saying South Africa and Australia aren't major players or anything, but realistically they've not produced the consistency of class of the All Blacks. For all that South Africa are strong now, we've seen some pretty shambolic Bok teams tour our shores over the years, and Australia the same. At the moment we're in a period where SA are a pretty hefty unit, but no more so than England have been in the past, and I'd certainly class the French as being on a similar level throughout history. The only stand-out nation are the ABs, aside from that we are all subject to peaks and troughs. Whilst it might look as if SH rugger is indestructable right now, just wait a few years for the Bok side to fade and for England to re-emerge from this grim slumber. Of course, even if that occurs the North can only really claim parity, due to the fact that you can guarantee that the other world class side will be the pesky New Zealanders. At least we'll stop moaning about the Guinness Premiership though.

 

[Boggle]

Haha, good job ignoring the first 70 years or so of Rugby.
I'll give New Zealand the Professional era sure, but we dominated the amateur decades.

 

[admartian]

Genetics/DNA/whatever, has little to do with it. Just look at our League teams. Sure we're WC champs, but 9 times out of 10 NZ gets smacked around by the Kangaroos.

No, it's to do with the way players are developed. Not only that, I think the 'conservative' style that NH teams are so used to playing, are dated and not truly effective in modern day rugby. Yes, you can still get success out of it, but it's not a viable or sustainable option moving forward.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

What's with all these South African posters suddenly feeling the need to come on here and just whirl their cocks about?

 

[William18]

Genetics/DNA/whatever, has little to do with it. Just look at our League teams. Sure we're WC champs, but 9 times out of 10 NZ gets smacked around by the Kangaroos.

No, it's to do with the way players are developed. Not only that, I think the 'conservative' style that NH teams are so used to playing, are dated and not truly effective in modern day rugby. Yes, you can still get success out of it, but it's not a viable or sustainable option moving forward.

The difference between our performances in league and rugby is quite simply the interest the game gets. People don't have the opportunity to play league in New Zealand like they do in Australia.

Haha, good job ignoring the first 70 years or so of Rugby.
I'll give New Zealand the Professional era sure, but we dominated the amateur decades.

I don't the Springboks are quite the same as the All Blacks. I think everyone realizes how good the Springboks have been throughout history. I mean, it took us until 1996 to win a tour against you in South Africa. I just don't think the Springboks have the same aura about them. However, South Africa are very good right now and I think they will continue to be very good in the future. Phlegm & Poise saying that the southern hemisphere only looks good because of the All Blacks is incorrect because New Zealand, South Africa and Australia have all won more than half of their games against northern hemisphere opponents.

 

[admartian]

The difference between our performances in league and rugby is quite simply the interest the game gets. People don't have the opportunity to play league in New Zealand like they do in Australia.

You're probably right.

I still maintain that it's not simply due to the fact that we're "bigger". I've seen so many games where packs are much bigger than ours (20+).

No, it's definitely in development (grass roots level) and coaching.

 

[Boggle]

It just infuriates me that people seem to ignore everything that's happened prior to the pro era.

That'd be like saying Wales are one of the crappy sides in world rugby seeing as the only win they had over
the springboks have been in the pro era.

But wait, what's this, they didn't do too bad against this supposed godlike NZ team during the 70s ?
surely you jest !

My point was more to do with that you cannot simply ignore everything pre pro-era.

I'd probably agree with the whole Genetics/DNA bit, and lets face it Australians are a bunch of convicts who had to build a nation on probably the most dangerous continent in the world nature wise.
NZ are a lot like South Africans, farmers.
Considering as well the hell on earth it was for the voortrekkers dealing with everything from zulus trying to snuff them out, malaria and the bloody English waging war on them all whilst they're tying to travel
straight across South Africa for the first time with nothing but their ox wagons and some biltong it's not hard to imagine that mostly only the superior specimens survived i.e. the strongest and fittest human beings.

But there has to be something said for a culture of winning.
Simply because it is expected of us, I really do believe that we win more often than not because of it.
We absolutely -know- we can beat ABs, even on their home soil, and we believe every time we play any of the northern Hemisphere teams we can solidly beat them, not out of arrogance,
but out of the fact that we've been doing it for a good 100 years now, we've got a positive winning record against every nation on earth except the ABs (and even with them we're on a not too bad 40 %).
Same thing for the ABs and AUS.

Mentally I think that strengthens a team a lot.

Also, obviously development of players.

We've got some brilliant Rugby schools in this country as well as academy systems at the major rugby Unions (WP and the Bulls).

 

[Phlegm & Poise]

Haha, good job ignoring the first 70 years or so of Rugby.
I'll give New Zealand the Professional era sure, but we dominated the amateur decades.

That's a bit like saying England dominated the amateur decades of association football so we're as good as Brazil. It's not really relevant.

I'll give the Boks their dues, they tend to be beefy units and would lie second overall historically (in the pro era). But in x years time you'll go through a transitional period and England and France will hit some form and consistency, and everyone would be talking about how good the North is, only for the fact that New Zealand will still be there.

I'm not convinced genetics are much to do with it. We provide enough chaps with the beef, they just currently seem to lack a polished rugger brain. James Haskell, for example, is a fridge but also can be a very stupid player.

 

[Jockstap]

It just infuriates me that people seem to ignore everything that's happened prior to the pro era.

That'd be like saying Wales are one of the crappy sides in world rugby seeing as the only win they had over
the springboks have been in the pro era.

But wait, what's this, they didn't do too bad against this supposed godlike NZ team during the 70s ?
surely you jest !

My point was more to do with that you cannot simply ignore everything pre pro-era.

I'd probably agree with the whole Genetics/DNA bit, and lets face it Australians are a bunch of convicts who had to build a nation on probably the most dangerous continent in the world nature wise.
NZ are a lot like South Africans, farmers.
Considering as well the hell on earth it was for the voortrekkers dealing with everything from zulus trying to snuff them out, malaria and the bloody English waging war on them all whilst they're tying to travel
straight across South Africa for the first time with nothing but their ox wagons and some biltong it's not hard to imagine that mostly only the superior specimens survived i.e. the strongest and fittest human beings.

But there has to be something said for a culture of winning.
Simply because it is expected of us, I really do believe that we win more often than not because of it.
We absolutely -know- we can beat ABs, even on their home soil, and we believe every time we play any of the northern Hemisphere teams we can solidly beat them, not out of arrogance,
but out of the fact that we've been doing it for a good 100 years now, we've got a positive winning record against every nation on earth except the ABs (and even with them we're on a not too bad 40 %).
Same thing for the ABs and AUS.

Mentally I think that strengthens a team a lot.

Also, obviously development of players.

We've got some brilliant Rugby schools in this country as well as academy systems at the major rugby Unions (WP and the Bulls).

Plus aren't Afrikaaners descended from the Dutch, who are the tallest people in Europe(and the world I think), makes sense why they all seem so frickin massive.

 

[admartian]

It just infuriates me that people seem to ignore everything that's happened prior to the pro era.

That'd be like saying Wales are one of the crappy sides in world rugby seeing as the only win they had over
the springboks have been in the pro era.

But wait, what's this, they didn't do too bad against this supposed godlike NZ team during the 70s ?
surely you jest !

My point was more to do with that you cannot simply ignore everything pre pro-era.

I'd probably agree with the whole Genetics/DNA bit, and lets face it Australians are a bunch of convicts who had to build a nation on probably the most dangerous continent in the world nature wise.
NZ are a lot like South Africans, farmers.
Considering as well the hell on earth it was for the voortrekkers dealing with everything from zulus trying to snuff them out, malaria and the bloody English waging war on them all whilst they're tying to travel
straight across South Africa for the first time with nothing but their ox wagons and some biltong it's not hard to imagine that mostly only the superior specimens survived i.e. the strongest and fittest human beings.

But there has to be something said for a culture of winning.
Simply because it is expected of us, I really do believe that we win more often than not because of it.
We absolutely -know- we can beat ABs, even on their home soil, and we believe every time we play any of the northern Hemisphere teams we can solidly beat them, not out of arrogance,
but out of the fact that we've been doing it for a good 100 years now, we've got a positive winning record against every nation on earth except the ABs (and even with them we're on a not too bad 40 %).
Same thing for the ABs and AUS.

Mentally I think that strengthens a team a lot.

Also, obviously development of players.

We've got some brilliant Rugby schools in this country as well as academy systems at the major rugby Unions (WP and the Bulls).

The whole genetics and DNA theory is wrong. Throughout sport, or rather professional sport, the issue of simply fielding the biggest and baddest men to win will not suffice. It is evident in the NFL, rugby, rugby league, basketball etc etc.

But what you say on the 'culture of winning' or rather this mentality of success is on-track, for a better explanation.

Firstly, behaviour, past experiences etc, do not translate into our genetics (phenotype or genotype), so that rules out dealing with zulus or maori as an explanation for success. But, in the whole Gramscian way of the infinity and history of traces, these experiences do contribute. They are not the definitive factors, however, but are certainly more appropriate in terms of culture (of winning).

Certainly doesn't influence genetics, not in any biocultural way that is.

 

[Jockstap]

Plus aren't Afrikaaners descended from the Dutch, who are the tallest people in Europe(and the world I think), makes sense why they all seem so frickin massive.

Anyway the reason SA and NZ are the best isn't because of Genetics or any of that bull, it's simply because rugby is their National Sport and has been for the last 100 years. Virtually EVERBODY has played rugby at some point while growing up making it easier to find kids with more natural talent for the game. They also start playing rugby a LOT younger than some of the other nations. The structures at grassroots is another big reason. I have no doubt if Ireland treated Rugby(or any other nation) in the same vein they would be just as good. This is why no other nation will ever be as good as them(except for England whose player base is so large their bound to throw out some decent teams every now and then).

 

[Boggle]

Just to be clear, I wasn't using genetics as the primary factor for the SH being brilliant at Rugby.

As obviously the North can produce some monsters, but it was a contributing factor surely.
plain old fashion skill and rugby smarts are obviously going to be the main reason (as I think a culture of winning is also a contributing factor more than anything really).

For instance, I believe the Australians are probably the smartest rugby players on earth, they seem to be able to analyze a situation on the fly, react and adapt to it instantly, this being why they are such brilliant runners and breakers of the line, also tactics wise they always seem to be brilliant at creating strategies for dealing with certain opponents.

based on pure class of players though because of the magnificent Academy and school systems we've got I believe SA and NZ are ahead of the rest, and along the other contributing factors that I was talking about, we then produce the worlds 2 best rugby teams.

 

[ranger]

Haha, good job ignoring the first 70 years or so of Rugby.
I'll give New Zealand the Professional era sure, but we dominated the amateur decades.

Not too sure about that there..

 

[Haysie]

Not too sure about that there..

- Distance from everyone (19/28 tests up till 92 between Aus and RSA were played in the Republic).
- Lack of professionalism/recovery time/"old school"
- Stigma
- Not even that many matches played - There weren't any tests played of Aus vs. RSA between 71 and 92 for goodness' sake.

There are certainly reasons why South Africa may have dominated the amateur era against Australia, I'm not sure about Nz...

 

[ranger]

- Distance from everyone (19/28 tests up till 92 between Aus and RSA were played in the Republic).
- Lack of professionalism/recovery time/"old school"
- Stigma
- Not even that many matches played - There weren't any tests played of Aus vs. RSA between 71 and 92 for goodness' sake.

There are certainly reasons why South Africa may have dominated the amateur era against Australia, I'm not sure about Nz...

To say they "dominated" the amature era is a bit of a stretch. The steadfast refusal to appoint neutral referees and the fact the NZ were not allowed to take any darkies (George Nepia) goes someway to showing that the amature era Springboks weren't all they were cracked up to be..

 

[Haysie]

That's partly what I was trying to say too, there are reasons why they "dominated" the amateur era against Aus.
The use of terribly biased referees is of course another one! I think it's remarkable how even teams really were during the amateur era, it really came down to the variables such as those listed above.

 

[Seaton]

In terms of the genetics, there are a few interesting things.
I think that the genetics (when I say this I include past down activities and habits) plays more of a role in developing a larger pool of bigger players, and those with the better talents get selected, as opposed to the biggest players (as in England) being selected.

I don't know if this applies in other countries, but in SA you see a lot of the top players have fathers or grandfathers who were Springboks, I don't know if this had an inspirational affect, or a coaching advantage, but it seems that greater the heritage, the better the player (the Hoggs in Scotland spring to my mind)