RugbyRebels

Is this the beginning of the end for Southern Hemisphere hegemony?

Both the Springboks and Wallabies were beaten at home by Ireland and England respectively. The English 2nd stringers also got home against their Saffer counterparts. Of the SH Big 3, only NZ recorded a win but did so in their worst ever home performance against Wales.

The last June tours in 2014 were a clean sweep for the Big 3 each winning 3-0. RWC2015 QFs were also a clean sweep to SH teams over NH.

The future isn't much brighter, with NZ U20 going down to Ireland and Aussie being humbled by the Kilted Kiddies. South Africa did win, but only against Japan (whose seniors are of course a different story).

Even outside of the top tier, European teams are doing well, Georgia holding their own to draw in Apia. The Pumas did peg one back for the South against Italy.

Is this a flash in the pan or a long term shift in the power base of the game?

n = 1 weekend. Need a larger number of observations.

Strictly speaking n is the number of matches, not weekends, but I take your point.

Which 2nd tests do you see going a different way to their 1st.

Lizard wrote:Strictly speaking n is the number of matches, not weekends, but I take your point.

Which 2nd tests do you see going a different way to their 1st.

I suspect the All Blacks will be given a chance to prove themselves, and for them to respond angrily. A pasting at this time of year is basically tantamount to a defeat, right?

The Springboks-Ireland test will be hard to call, and I think what we're seeing is the outcome of years of neglecting to significantly develop the next generation of players when their stars inevitably have to be put out to pasture.

The Wallabies will likely be out to prove that they're worth a damn, but I think the English will end up taking this series. There's definitely going to be a change at 8, with Pocock out for the series at least, so it'll be interesting to see what the likely introduction of Ben McCalman to the team at 8 will make.

The Bokke have had issues for a while. England used their forward based power game against the Aussies and it worked, like it tends to quite frequently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:Strictly speaking n is the number of matches, not weekends, but I take your point.

Which 2nd tests do you see going a different way to their 1st.

All of them. I expect the ABs to thump Wales and defend a lot better now they realise Wales might pass more than 2 out - a shock to us all.

South Africa have knocked some rust off and will undoubtedly be better cquainted with the new coach and his methods. Also Ireland are going to have to cope with altitude - and their hangovers from this weekend. The only question will be whether having 15 men on the pitch balances with all of that.

Australia will sure not give away quite so many penalties this time round. that alone would turn that fixture. However England will surely not be quite so passive in defence.

Any of the games could have a different result. Apart the ABs game. that's just a question of the level of carnage.

Sure, the All Blacks are down and out and ready for the count, while Scotland and Ireland are about to take international rugby by the scruff of the neck

Every time a 6 Nations team beats a SANZAR team in the Autumn or Spring tours we get the same old nonsense: 'The gap is closing! The tables are turning!' Meanwhile, in reality, the SANZAR trio have won 7 of the 8 World Cups and all 4 semi-finalists at the last installment were from the Southern Hemisphere.

That's precisely why I'm not such a big fan of the Autumn and Spring tours. They distort perceptions and ultimately don't mean very much at all.

i would suggest that the SH teams are far more focused on the 4 year RWC cycle than in the north, where the 6N provides a competition which many genuinely see as being just as significant. Thus a SH team will be more comfortable with this year after a RWC being a development year, with the aim being to win the RWC. In the north, each 6N campaign is important so I think the SH teams are a bit more vulnerable this season compared to the tours that occur just before the RWC when they are more settled.

Sandydragon wrote:i would suggest that the SH teams are far more focused on the 4 year RWC cycle than in the north, where the 6N provides a competition which many genuinely see as being just as significant. Thus a SH team will be more comfortable with this year after a RWC being a development year, with the aim being to win the RWC. In the north, each 6N campaign is important so I think the SH teams are a bit more vulnerable this season compared to the tours that occur just before the RWC when they are more settled.

Find me a kiwi who doesn't think that every test is massively important. Just one. Find me a Springbok fan who isn't enormousl proud of their home record. Find me an Aussie who doesn't want to beat the English.

They've lost a few players and had less time together than us. That's about the height of it. Reading more is unnecessary and likely to be wrong.

I expect Wales to take a relative pasting and the other two could go either way. If Eng and Ire can win their series, maybe with at least one whitewash, then maybe we can talk about the balance of power maybe, possibly moving. If come the end of Nov there is still a 2:1 winning ratio in favour of the NH then we can possibly talk about a shift of power.
Italy did really well to get so close away to Arg - new coach and no Parisse against what looks like a virtually full strength Pumas team. When you consider Catt is on the coaching panel, well, you could describe it as a psychological win.

I can't even bring myself to watch the All Blacks play Celtic teams any more. It's almost always exactly the same thing, again and again and over again.

Mellsblue wrote:I expect Wales to take a relative pasting and the other two could go either way. If Eng and Ire can win their series, maybe with at least one whitewash, then maybe we can talk about the balance of power maybe, possibly moving. If come the end of Nov there is still a 2:1 winning ratio in favour of the NH then we can possibly talk about a shift of power.
Italy did really well to get so close away to Arg - new coach and no Parisse against what looks like a virtually full strength Pumas team. When you consider Catt is on the coaching panel, well, you could describe it as a psychological win.

I'm not sure anyone other than the ABs has ever won a series in the Republic - Lizard? - so a series win there would be big and a whitewash truly massive. If England were to whitewash the Wallabies, that too would be big. I think those results would certainly indicate that we'd dug ourselves out of the huge hole we were in.

The only teams to have won a test series (of at least three matches) in South Africa are New Zealand (1996), the British & Irish Lions (1974, 1997) and "Great Britain" (1891, 1896). Of those series, only the 1891 GB series was a whitewash.

It was France (surprisingly, as they were still not considered one of the major powers), which ended the Springboks' amazing unbeaten run in a series at home throughout the first half of the 20th century when they secured a win and a draw in the republic in 1958. That's if 2-test series' count. The Lions have also won theere on various occasions, of course.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I expect Wales to take a relative pasting and the other two could go either way. If Eng and Ire can win their series, maybe with at least one whitewash, then maybe we can talk about the balance of power maybe, possibly moving. If come the end of Nov there is still a 2:1 winning ratio in favour of the NH then we can possibly talk about a shift of power.
Italy did really well to get so close away to Arg - new coach and no Parisse against what looks like a virtually full strength Pumas team. When you consider Catt is on the coaching panel, well, you could describe it as a psychological win.

I'm not sure anyone other than the ABs has ever won a series in the Republic - Lizard? - so a series win there would be big and a whitewash truly massive. If England were to whitewash the Wallabies, that too would be big. I think those results would certainly indicate that we'd dug ourselves out of the huge hole we were in.

I don't know. An Ire whitewash would be massive but you have to set it against a new coaching regime, the inexperience in key positions and the current political back ground. Having said that, Ireland are severely weakened too. As for an Eng whitewash, that too would be pretty big but Oz don't hold the mental advantage over us like NZ and SA do - since 2010 we've won 5/8 matches. For me, I'd take a series win in SA, and a win and two tight losses in NZ as a bigger achievement. Most importantly, it's highly unlikely to happen. Even if it did it wouldn't indicate a long term trend - does anybody think that The Lions beating Oz last time out will lead to positive win ratio over the next 20 years.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I expect Wales to take a relative pasting and the other two could go either way. If Eng and Ire can win their series, maybe with at least one whitewash, then maybe we can talk about the balance of power maybe, possibly moving. If come the end of Nov there is still a 2:1 winning ratio in favour of the NH then we can possibly talk about a shift of power.
Italy did really well to get so close away to Arg - new coach and no Parisse against what looks like a virtually full strength Pumas team. When you consider Catt is on the coaching panel, well, you could describe it as a psychological win.

I'm not sure anyone other than the ABs has ever won a series in the Republic - Lizard? - so a series win there would be big and a whitewash truly massive. If England were to whitewash the Wallabies, that too would be big. I think those results would certainly indicate that we'd dug ourselves out of the huge hole we were in.

I don't know. An Ire whitewash would be massive but you have to set it against a new coaching regime, the inexperience in key positions and the current political back ground. Having said that, Ireland are severely weakened too. As for an Eng whitewash, that too would be pretty big but Oz don't hold the mental advantage over us like NZ and SA do - since 2010 we've won 5/8 matches. For me, I'd take a series win in SA, and a win and two tight losses in NZ as a bigger achievement. Most importantly, it's highly unlikely to happen. Even if it did it wouldn't indicate a long term trend - does anybody think that The Lions beating Oz last time out will lead to positive win ratio over the next 20 years.

I agree with all of that. Except.

As regards Ireland the South Africans always have political interference and get through coaches at a rate of knots. I am pretty sure they don't have anywhere near the number of players missing that we do so I've no sympathy on that score.

I think you underestimate the achievement if England get a whitewash in Oz. Those are pretty rare as well - though I can't think that it's been attempted often. Sure they aren't the ABs but I'd put that right up there in rugby achievement.

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I'm not sure anyone other than the ABs has ever won a series in the Republic - Lizard? - so a series win there would be big and a whitewash truly massive. If England were to whitewash the Wallabies, that too would be big. I think those results would certainly indicate that we'd dug ourselves out of the huge hole we were in.

I don't know. An Ire whitewash would be massive but you have to set it against a new coaching regime, the inexperience in key positions and the current political back ground. Having said that, Ireland are severely weakened too. As for an Eng whitewash, that too would be pretty big but Oz don't hold the mental advantage over us like NZ and SA do - since 2010 we've won 5/8 matches. For me, I'd take a series win in SA, and a win and two tight losses in NZ as a bigger achievement. Most importantly, it's highly unlikely to happen. Even if it did it wouldn't indicate a long term trend - does anybody think that The Lions beating Oz last time out will lead to positive win ratio over the next 20 years.

I agree with all of that. Except.

As regards Ireland the South Africans always have political interference and get through coaches at a rate of knots. I am pretty sure they don't have anywhere near the number of players missing that we do so I've no sympathy on that score.

I think you underestimate the achievement if England get a whitewash in Oz. Those are pretty rare as well - though I can't think that it's been attempted often. Sure they aren't the ABs but I'd put that right up there in rugby achievement.

It may be, but if we're being truly honest, this is a pretty poor Aus team, no? I mean, Foley is decent, Hooper and Lealiifanu are good, Pocock and Folau are world class. And that's about it. Sure, that's 2 more world class players than us, but still...

I still think 2-1 is more likely, but it would be a real message if we managed 3-0. We have a consistent pathway nowadays, just look at the ages of the team. While Burt was a poor head coach and tactician, he did have to wade through that difficult period when the likes of Farrell, Ford, Mako and Billy, Marler, Joseph, Tuilagi, Watson, Yarde, Nowell, Itoje, Launch, etc., were all starting to come through.

Now we have a very young team, in all honesty, and it's starting to get the right amount of experience.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:i would suggest that the SH teams are far more focused on the 4 year RWC cycle than in the north, where the 6N provides a competition which many genuinely see as being just as significant. Thus a SH team will be more comfortable with this year after a RWC being a development year, with the aim being to win the RWC. In the north, each 6N campaign is important so I think the SH teams are a bit more vulnerable this season compared to the tours that occur just before the RWC when they are more settled.

Find me a kiwi who doesn't think that every test is massively important. Just one. Find me a Springbok fan who isn't enormousl proud of their home record. Find me an Aussie who doesn't want to beat the English.

They've lost a few players and had less time together than us. That's about the height of it. Reading more is unnecessary and likely to be wrong.

Exactly. It was England who in the mid-naughties started perpetuating the argument that the WC was all that mattered, while us AB fans tried to push our 80%+ winning record and were told it was meaningless.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I don't know. An Ire whitewash would be massive but you have to set it against a new coaching regime, the inexperience in key positions and the current political back ground. Having said that, Ireland are severely weakened too. As for an Eng whitewash, that too would be pretty big but Oz don't hold the mental advantage over us like NZ and SA do - since 2010 we've won 5/8 matches. For me, I'd take a series win in SA, and a win and two tight losses in NZ as a bigger achievement. Most importantly, it's highly unlikely to happen. Even if it did it wouldn't indicate a long term trend - does anybody think that The Lions beating Oz last time out will lead to positive win ratio over the next 20 years.

I agree with all of that. Except.

As regards Ireland the South Africans always have political interference and get through coaches at a rate of knots. I am pretty sure they don't have anywhere near the number of players missing that we do so I've no sympathy on that score.

I think you underestimate the achievement if England get a whitewash in Oz. Those are pretty rare as well - though I can't think that it's been attempted often. Sure they aren't the ABs but I'd put that right up there in rugby achievement.

It may be, but if we're being truly honest, this is a pretty poor Aus team, no? I mean, Foley is decent, Hooper and Lealiifanu are good, Pocock and Folau are world class. And that's about it. Sure, that's 2 more world class players than us, but still...

I still think 2-1 is more likely, but it would be a real message if we managed 3-0. We have a consistent pathway nowadays, just look at the ages of the team. While Burt was a poor head coach and tactician, he did have to wade through that difficult period when the likes of Farrell, Ford, Mako and Billy, Marler, Joseph, Tuilagi, Watson, Yarde, Nowell, Itoje, Launch, etc., were all starting to come through.

Now we have a very young team, in all honesty, and it's starting to get the right amount of experience.

It's an Aussie team who were 2nd in the world. Not the best Aussie team we've seen but definitely a top 4 best team in the world at the moment and a whitewash of any of those is a serious achievement particularly when they are at home.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:i would suggest that the SH teams are far more focused on the 4 year RWC cycle than in the north, where the 6N provides a competition which many genuinely see as being just as significant. Thus a SH team will be more comfortable with this year after a RWC being a development year, with the aim being to win the RWC. In the north, each 6N campaign is important so I think the SH teams are a bit more vulnerable this season compared to the tours that occur just before the RWC when they are more settled.

Find me a kiwi who doesn't think that every test is massively important. Just one. Find me a Springbok fan who isn't enormousl proud of their home record. Find me an Aussie who doesn't want to beat the English.

They've lost a few players and had less time together than us. That's about the height of it. Reading more is unnecessary and likely to be wrong.

The SH teams focus on the RWC and acknowledge the 4 year cycle more than we do, hence why so many players from the ABs are now missing. Im not suggesting that they take tests less seriously, just that the RWC is clearly elevated for them compared to in the North where the 6N is often seen as more important by fans.

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:i would suggest that the SH teams are far more focused on the 4 year RWC cycle than in the north, where the 6N provides a competition which many genuinely see as being just as significant. Thus a SH team will be more comfortable with this year after a RWC being a development year, with the aim being to win the RWC. In the north, each 6N campaign is important so I think the SH teams are a bit more vulnerable this season compared to the tours that occur just before the RWC when they are more settled.

Find me a kiwi who doesn't think that every test is massively important. Just one. Find me a Springbok fan who isn't enormousl proud of their home record. Find me an Aussie who doesn't want to beat the English.

They've lost a few players and had less time together than us. That's about the height of it. Reading more is unnecessary and likely to be wrong.

Exactly. It was England who in the mid-naughties started perpetuating the argument that the WC was all that mattered, while us AB fans tried to push our 80%+ winning record and were told it was meaningless.

Only because you kept choking. All major nations now focus on the RWC on a 4 year cycle - would Richie McCaw have carried on for as long as he did with some cotton wool treatment along the way if not for that? In the north, a coach who sacrifices the opportunity to win a 6N game by playing younger players instead of proven experience is likely to get slammed. The 6N remains the competition that many fans want to win.

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Find me a kiwi who doesn't think that every test is massively important. Just one. Find me a Springbok fan who isn't enormousl proud of their home record. Find me an Aussie who doesn't want to beat the English.

They've lost a few players and had less time together than us. That's about the height of it. Reading more is unnecessary and likely to be wrong.

Exactly. It was England who in the mid-naughties started perpetuating the argument that the WC was all that mattered, while us AB fans tried to push our 80%+ winning record and were told it was meaningless.

Only because you kept choking. All major nations now focus on the RWC on a 4 year cycle - would Richie McCaw have carried on for as long as he did with some cotton wool treatment along the way if not for that? In the north, a coach who sacrifices the opportunity to win a 6N game by playing younger players instead of proven experience is likely to get slammed. The 6N remains the competition that many fans want to win.

So Sandy, you would rather have won the 6N last year than the RWC, is that what you're saying? I call bullshit.

J Dory wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Exactly. It was England who in the mid-naughties started perpetuating the argument that the WC was all that mattered, while us AB fans tried to push our 80%+ winning record and were told it was meaningless.

Only because you kept choking. All major nations now focus on the RWC on a 4 year cycle - would Richie McCaw have carried on for as long as he did with some cotton wool treatment along the way if not for that? In the north, a coach who sacrifices the opportunity to win a 6N game by playing younger players instead of proven experience is likely to get slammed. The 6N remains the competition that many fans want to win.

So Sandy, you would rather have won the 6N last year than the RWC, is that what you're saying? I call bullshit.

Me too. Swap in Paul O'Connell for McCaw and you could make the same point about struggling on for a suitable ending. The only difference in terms of treatments of the cycle are that a few potential ABs sign abroad for a couple of years with the intention of going back. I can only think of Piutau from the current crop though.

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

What a bucket of piss and plops. Classic.