RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:Now we focus more on the RWC than the Norf because the 6N is more important.

What a bucket of piss and plops. Classic.

I would take a RWC win over the 6N's though if England were to win the next RWC I would expect them to win at least 2 of the next 6N's before the RWC to be in a position to seriously think they'd win the RWC

Generally speaking, you have to be winning these sorts of tests regularly going into a Rugby World Cup if you want to be a genuine contender. There are some outliers caused by a variety of factors* but the teams that have won the tournament have tended to have those big wins under their belt going into it.


*The Springboks in 2007 weren't exactly a dominant side, and their win was made easier by the two biggest threats to their challenge being knocked out in the quarters - Australia to a team that focused on their Achilles' heel, and an All Blacks team lacking fitness to a team that got a huge helping hand from a ref that was out of his depth. Ireland would have been the Northern Hemisphere's best chance last year, but were severely undone by unfortunate injuries in the pool games (the one against France in particular), and an entirely stupid and avoidable suspension.

There are some outliers caused by a variety of factors* but the teams that have won the tournament have tended to have those big wins under their belt going into it.

New Zealand, you mean? All Blacks are so far ahead of the pack it just doesn't make much sense to talk about the battle of the hemispheres. There's New Zealand first, then lots of daylight, and then a bunch of other teams.

Ireland would have been the Northern Hemisphere's best chance last year, but were severely undone by unfortunate injuries in the pool games (the one against France in particular), and an entirely stupid and avoidable suspension.

Entirely over-rated on the basis of 6 Nations results and the Autumn tours preceding last year's World Cup. Argentina gave them a good spanking and if you can't compete with the Pumas forget about Australia & SA, let alone the All Blacks.

rowan wrote:New Zealand, you mean? All Blacks are so far ahead of the pack it just doesn't make much sense to talk about the battle of the hemispheres. There's New Zealand first, then lots of daylight, and then a bunch of other teams.

The fuck are you yammering on about? The teams that have won world cups have more often-than-not, won the big matches and tournaments prior to the World Cup, achieving internal goals along the way. I didn't realise I was being obscure with my point here.
1991 Wallabies ended the All Blacks' winning streak while the 1999 counterparts took the Bledisloe the year prior, and drew a series with the Springboks that were coming off of a record-setting run (the fall-out from the ending of which, in retrospect, could be seen as a case of panicked self-destruction). The All Blacks, after a poor 2009 Tri-Nations, won their EOYT tests, did a clean-sweep of the 6-test Tri Nations (including a revenge 3-0 series win against the Boks) and a Grand Slam.
England had an extraordinary winning streak against SH opponents, including back-to-back wins over the All Blacks and the Wallabies on the road (and they achieved a Tri Nations grand slam in 2003), with a 6 Nations Grand Slam that had eluded them.
Are you then now trying to suggest that the All Blacks didn't give two shits about the tests they played between 2012 and 2015, up until the World Cup?

rowan wrote:Entirely over-rated on the basis of 6 Nations results and the Autumn tours preceding last year's World Cup. Argentina gave them a good spanking and if you can't compete with the Pumas forget about Australia & SA, let alone the All Blacks.

Argentina still almost lost to an Irish team without O'Connell, O'Brien, Sexton, O'Mahoney and Payne, and if you don't think that losing that quintet for the quarters didn't hurt Ireland's chances of progressing, you're out of your fucking mind.

Lizard wrote:In the pro era, England and Aussie have regularly swapped periods of dominance.

From 1996-1999, Aussie won 5, drew 1.
2000-2003, England won all 5.
2004-June 2010, Aussie 7, England 3.
November 2010- now, England 5, Aussie 2.

Yup. For me it's just a reflection of how England can sometimes out muscle the Aussies........but they still don't have the total game to out muscle the AB's.
.....and this is nothing to do with respective weights and everything to do with how they play as a XV.

Is it over??? http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... h-11469284

kk67 wrote:

Lizard wrote:In the pro era, England and Aussie have regularly swapped periods of dominance.

From 1996-1999, Aussie won 5, drew 1.
2000-2003, England won all 5.
2004-June 2010, Aussie 7, England 3.
November 2010- now, England 5, Aussie 2.

Yup. For me it's just a reflection of how England can sometimes out muscle the Aussies........but they still don't have the total game to out muscle the AB's.
.....and this is nothing to do with respective weights and everything to do with how they play as a XV.

But when it really counts:

Rugby Championship 54 Six Nations 16 at the Rugby World Cup

RC Breakdown (v Eng, Fra, Wal, Sco, Ire, Ita):
New Zealand 22-2 (3-0, 5-2, 3-0, 5-0, 1-0, 5-0)
South Africa 8-1 (3-1, 1-0, 2-0, 2-0, 0-0, 0-0)
Australia 14-6 (3-3, 1-1, 5-1, 2-0, 4-1, 1-0)
Argentina 8-7 (0-2, 2-1, 0-2, 2-0, 3-1, 1-1)

6N Breakdown (v NZ, SA, Aus, Arg)
England 6-10 (0-3, 1-3, 3-3, 2-0)
France 4-9 (2-5, 0-1, 1-1, 1-2)
Wales 3-9 (0-3, 0-2, 1-5, 2-0)
Scotland 0-11 (0-5, 0-2, 0-2, 0-2)
Ireland 2-8 (0-1, 0-0, 1-4, 1-3)
Italy 1-7 (0-5, 0-0, 0-1, 1-1)

Of the 24 head-to-head match-ups, Six Nations teams lead in only 2 cases: England v Argentina (2-0), Wales v Argentina (2-0).

All 6 Nations teams have losing records against Rugby Championship teams.

No Rugby Championship team has a losing record against 6 Nations teams.

I think it was H that always tried to make the point of test level being a huge jump.

zer0 wrote:n = 1 weekend. Need a larger number of observations.

Ok. So how about now?

England are 2-0 up against Aussie and will be ranked no. 2 in the world.

SA were pushed very hard by Ireland and needed a last gasp try to level that series, despite playing at altitude. That was Ireland's best ever result at altitude, and their 3rd closest match ever v SA in the republic.

Wales repeated its feat from last week of setting 2 scoring records against the All Blacks in NZ - achieving their highest ever score and lowest ever margin. They also set a 3rd record by scoring 3 tries, having never scored more than 2 in this fixture previously. (They've only scored 3 or more v NZ three times now - previously in the 1935 13-12 win, and at RWC2003 in Sydney when losing 55-37).

Spain has qualified for Rio 2016 7s ahead of Samoa.

Only 1 of the "Big 3" has made the U20s semi-finals.

Lizard wrote:Ok. So how about now?

No. Given that your central question was "is this the beginning of the end for Southern Hemisphere hegemony?", then I'm going to suggest that you shall require results over a significantly longer period of time.

For mine, you'd need consistent results in favour of the NH over at least two consecutive years to make a plausible case for a balance of power shift within a RWC cycle (2016-2019). This case would also need to involve more than one NH team -- such as England -- doing well. Furthermore, if you're looking for a complete shift in the balance, then you'd be looking at a time scale closer to two RWC cycles (i.e. we could have an answer to your question in about 2021).

Despite all that, I shall humour you. If for no reason than because I've nothing to do until GoT.

Lizard wrote:England are 2-0 up against Aussie and will be ranked no. 2 in the world.

Good for them. If we're going to use the rankings as a measure, then, in terms of hemispheres, the top five reads as such:

1. SH
2. NH
3. SH
4. SH
5. SH

England's position can currently can be described as an outlier, relative to the other European teams.

Lizard wrote:SA were pushed very hard by Ireland and needed a last gasp try to level that series, despite playing at altitude. That was Ireland's best ever result at altitude, and their 3rd closest match ever v SA in the republic.

Ireland still lost.

Lizard wrote:Wales repeated its feat from last week of setting 2 scoring records against the All Blacks in NZ - achieving their highest ever score and lowest ever margin. They also set a 3rd record by scoring 3 tries, having never scored more than 2 in this fixture previously. (They've only scored 3 or more v NZ three times now - previously in the 1935 13-12 win, and at RWC2003 in Sydney when losing 55-37).

Wales still lost.

Lizard wrote:Spain has qualified for Rio 2016 7s ahead of Samoa.

LOL @ Samoa.

Lizard wrote:Only 1 of the "Big 3" has made the U20s semi-finals.

It's age grade rugby. The abilities of cohorts differ from year to year.

When rugby went openly professional, the pundits almost universally claimed that New Zealand could not maintain our historic dominance of the game.

And they were right, we've got better. Our win percentage is higher as a professional side than it ever was as amateurs, and our ownership of the number 1 ranking is becoming epic. Tiger Woods epic. For almost as long as we've been number 1, the largest gap in the rankings has been between number 1 and number 2.

So I don't believe we can draw too many conclusions from an ordinary Australia losing to a rising England, or to a typically hap-hazard South Africa losing to Ireland.

If SH sides spend several years out of the top 5, especially New Zealand, THEN we can say we've lost our mojo.

I can't believe we're having this discussion just 7 months after an ALL-SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE World Cup semi-finals - IN ENGLAND!!

The Europeans not only need to win another World Cup, they need to win a string of them and collectively dominate the tournament before they can start to talk about closing the gap - let alone turning the tables.

rowan wrote:I can't believe we're having this discussion just 7 months after an ALL-SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE World Cup semi-finals - IN ENGLAND!!

The Europeans not only need to win another World Cup, they need to win a string of them and collectively dominate the tournament before they can start to talk about closing the gap - let alone turning the tables.

Pretty muh this. Also, if the European and British economies shit themselves completely our talent will be less likely to go abroad. Then they'll be bummed good and proper.

Len wrote:

rowan wrote:I can't believe we're having this discussion just 7 months after an ALL-SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE World Cup semi-finals - IN ENGLAND!!

The Europeans not only need to win another World Cup, they need to win a string of them and collectively dominate the tournament before they can start to talk about closing the gap - let alone turning the tables.

Pretty muh this. Also, if the European and British economies shit themselves completely our talent will be less likely to go abroad. Then they'll be bummed good and proper.

There will be a lot of people looking at their contracts and recalculating the kiwi dollar value

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Len wrote:

rowan wrote:I can't believe we're having this discussion just 7 months after an ALL-SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE World Cup semi-finals - IN ENGLAND!!

The Europeans not only need to win another World Cup, they need to win a string of them and collectively dominate the tournament before they can start to talk about closing the gap - let alone turning the tables.

Pretty muh this. Also, if the European and British economies shit themselves completely our talent will be less likely to go abroad. Then they'll be bummed good and proper.

There will be a lot of people looking at their contracts and recalculating the kiwi dollar value

I know where I'd rather live. Even if it did mean a slight pay cut.

So now that the dust has settled from the June series, the Rugby Champs v. 6 Nations results are:

RC Series wins:
New Zealand v. Wales (3-0)
South Africa v. Ireland (2-1)

1-off SH test win:
Argentina v. Italy

Drawn series:
Argentina v. France (1-1, 30-46 on aggregate)

6N Series win:
Australia v. England (0-3)

Didn't watch much of the Argentinians, so can't speak for them, but what we are seeing is three teams in something of a rebuild mode.

The All Blacks have made the smoothest transition, having identified talent as early as 2012 to take over for the inevitable departure of their veterans, and have also started developing the back-ups to those players. For example, Sam Cane already had around 30 test caps when he properly inherited the 7 jersey. By comparison, McCaw was on 20-odd caps when he captained the All Blacks for the first time.

South Africa have had a shaky start, starting this new era with a loss, and I think what we are seeing is the effect of the reticence of the previous coaches to fully commit to filtering through new players. Still, they were able to come through with a hard-earned series win, and they'll probably be better for it.

I think the big talking point is Australia. I mean, what happened? Just 8 months ago, they were World Cup runners-up, with Cheika earning the WR Coach of the Year award for 2015 for taking a team of no-hopers and getting them that far into a tournament they had a very real danger of crashing out of at the pool stages. The big thing for them is that they'd gone without Giteau and Ashley-Cooper. Without them, the Aussie backline was shorn of leadership and made some dumb decisions (particularly in the 2nd test, where England taught them the same lesson in game management that the All Blacks had taught the English in 2014), where they tried to play a dry-weather game on a terrible pitch while the English played a defensively, to the percentages. The scoreline of that game speaks for itself. At the end of the day, they were, and have been for some time, a team shorn of depth, and true world-class talent (bar a few exceptions) and perhaps, the run to the World Cup final last year was a blip in an otherwise long, low ebb in Australian rugby built on the back of the handful of world class players they had at their disposal.

cashead wrote:So now that the dust has settled from the June series, the Rugby Champs v. 6 Nations results are:

RC Series wins:
New Zealand v. Wales (3-0)
South Africa v. Ireland (2-1)

1-off SH test win:
Argentina v. Italy

Drawn series:
Argentina v. France (1-1, 30-46 on aggregate)

6N Series win:
Australia v. England (0-3)

Didn't watch much of the Argentinians, so can't speak for them, but what we are seeing is three teams in something of a rebuild mode.

The All Blacks have made the smoothest transition, having identified talent as early as 2012 to take over for the inevitable departure of their veterans, and have also started developing the back-ups to those players. For example, Sam Cane already had around 30 test caps when he properly inherited the 7 jersey. By comparison, McCaw was on 20-odd caps when he captained the All Blacks for the first time.

South Africa have had a shaky start, starting this new era with a loss, and I think what we are seeing is the effect of the reticence of the previous coaches to fully commit to filtering through new players. Still, they were able to come through with a hard-earned series win, and they'll probably be better for it.

I think the big talking point is Australia. I mean, what happened? Just 8 months ago, they were World Cup runners-up, with Cheika earning the WR Coach of the Year award for 2015 for taking a team of no-hopers and getting them that far into a tournament they had a very real danger of crashing out of at the pool stages. The big thing for them is that they'd gone without Giteau and Ashley-Cooper. Without them, the Aussie backline was shorn of leadership and made some dumb decisions (particularly in the 2nd test, where England taught them the same lesson in game management that the All Blacks had taught the English in 2014), where they tried to play a dry-weather game on a terrible pitch while the English played a defensively, to the percentages. The scoreline of that game speaks for itself. At the end of the day, they were, and have been for some time, a team shorn of depth, and true world-class talent (bar a few exceptions) and perhaps, the run to the World Cup final last year was a blip in an otherwise long, low ebb in Australian rugby built on the back of the handful of world class players they had at their disposal.

The ABs are class and their succession planning is brilliant. It helps that they don't ever seem to have a run of fallow years at age grade so they rarely have to drop an newbie straight in unless he's a top, top talent. Wales are Wales. They need a new coaching panel and a new centre combo.

SA really are rebuilding and got better as they series went on. However, they were run close by an out of form and heavily depleted Ireland side. Ireland looked very good and hopefully will showed signs they're moving towards a more open style.

Aus looked lost for ideas both on the pitch and in selection. I think Cheika panicked for no reason with selection after each loss and Giteau's absence shows what a great player he is. England showed that we do have some very good players if the coach knows what they are doing.

No idea on the rest.

The SH are still obviously on top but I think Eng are on the top 3 to stay for the foreseeable. Ireland have the coach and players to improve whilst Wales will continue to tread water under Gatland even though they should use the results in the first two tests as a springboard. Aus and SA will have to improve if the SH want to retain their hegemony.

How many times has Australia gone off the rails between World Cups. But how often do they have a bad World Cup. Really? If there's one country which had demonstrated the ability to peak at the right time it's the Aussies. Up until last year I might have said the same of the French. Not so sure now. But It's certainly not any of the Home Unions.

Christ, Argentina seriously lost the second test? They need shooting - that was a France team missing half their players because the Top 14 is *still* going on and absolutely knackered from the domestic season. How on earth did they lose?

Puja

The SH sides aren't the only ones rebuilding. Hell even Gats had picked some relatively new players. Ireland ran the Boks very close despite missing a lot of seriously good players before the tour started and more as it went on. I haven't seen the Argentina games, but how they contrived to lose to the French on the same weekend as the T14 final is a mystery.

Puja, were Argentina at full strength? I'd imagine they were resting some of their Super rugby players, and were probably fielding mostly a locally-based side. But I didn't see the game. Still, a squared series with France is never anything to sniff at.

Eugene, the only point I was making is that Australia seems to get their timing right and peak at World Cups like no other major playing nation. If you look at it in terms of registered players and national status of the sport, the Wallabies actually punch well above their weight in general, and especially at the biggest tournament of them all.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?