SPIRO: IRB take note: All Blacks 1, Wallabies 2, Boks 3 in rankings
By Spiro Zavos, 14 Jun 2012 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, IRB, Rugby Union, Springboks, wallabies
223 Have your say
All Blacks player Aaron Smith gets past the tackle of Brian O'Driscoll. AFP PHOTO / Michael Bradley
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
After the weekend’s round of Tests, which saw the All Blacks thrash Ireland, the Wallabies trounce Wales, the Springboks smash England and the Pumas demolish Italy, the IRB has published the latest world rankings table.
The short message from the table is that the southern hemisphere teams totally dominate world rugby.
This assertion is obvious when the rankings are listed in order: New Zealand 1, Australia 2, South Africa 3, England 4, Wales 5, France 6, Argentina 7, Ireland 8, Samoa 9, Tonga 10, Scotland 11, Italy 12.
The top three teams in the world are the southern hemisphere powers, the All Blacks, the Wallabies and the Springboks.
The next three teams are the Six Nations powers, England, Wales and France.
The Pumas, who join the SANZAR countries for the new international tournament The Rugby Championship that replaces the former Tri Nations tournament, are above the other three Six Nations, Ireland, Scotland and Italy.
Scotland and Italy, in fact, are ranked below Samoa and Tonga.
What all this suggests is that the Six Nations is becoming a second rate tournament.
It might draw the crowds, but the quality of rugby played in it is well below the level established by the Tri Nations, and no doubt, in the new The Rugby Championship.
This same assertion can be made about the iconic Heineken Cup tournament.
Two Irish provinces played out the final, with Leinster coming out on top. But Ireland’s performance against the All Blacks last Saturday was a bit like a cart-horse racing a thoroughbred.
One of the reasons why the southern hemisphere powers are so dominant is that the Super Rugby tournament is far and away the strongest club/franchise tournament anywhere in the world.
When England was dominant for a couple of years before and during the 2003 RWC tournament, it was commonly argued by UK rugby writers (no names, no pack drill but the leader of this misguided pack had the initial of SJ) that the reason for the dominance was the ‘fluff and bubble’ of Super Rugby compared with the real thing of European rugby, with its obsession with the kicking and the slow-plod grinding forward game.
Sam Warburton, the young and impressive captain of Wales, told journalists that he and his side could not cope with the speed of the Wallabies game last Saturday, especially in the first half.
This was a Wallaby side with players backing up from a Test four days before.
Admittedly, the Wallabies lost that Test to Scotland.
But the result was a total aberration that was dependent on some of the worse conditions a Test match has been played under.
The ARU sold 25,000 tickets for the Test. But only 20,000 people turned out in the driving rain and bitter cold to watch a numbed, frozen Wallaby side fumble its way to a loss.
The Wallabies showed against Wales that under normal conditions they would monster Scotland.
And we have to remember in the light of the strong victory against Wales that Wales are the current Six Nations champions. They went into the Test with what they said was the best squad Wales has sent overseas for 30 years.
But within minutes of play, according to Warburton, Wales was finding it hard to keep pace with the Wallabies.
Ireland had the same experience against the All Blacks.
They couldn’t match it with a side that seems to be liberated from the hoodoo of not winning the RWC tournament for 24 years. It has become normal practice for teams winning the RWC tournament to lose form in the years after their victory.
My feeling is that is not going to happen to the All Blacks. In all probability they could be even more impressive in the next couple of years than they were in the past few years. And this feeling is backed by Jake White who said he was most impressed with the quality of play of the All Blacks under their new coach, Steve Hansen.
The scary thing for Ireland this weekend is that the All Blacks scored five tries against them in the first Test without practising any attack movements. Last week was about getting their set pieces and defence in place, some of the players asserted. This week’s training will add in some new attacking plays. God help the likeable Irish if these plays are put in place and then put into operation with some efficiency.
The feature of the Springboks defeat of England was the way its scrum demolished England’s scrum.
The Springboks won two penalties and three short arm penalties from scrums.
Again, in the past, the normal suspects of the NH rugby hemisphere have continually bagged Super Rugby for the way, they claim, it diminishes the importance of the set pieces.
Well, tell that now to England, a side whose scrum is generally its major ploy to gain points (from penalties).
The punch-line to all of this is that the 100 years of dominance of the IRB by the so-called Home Unions is out-dated and needs to be changed.
There should be more power invested with the southern hemisphere powers in the running of the game and, importantly, how the game should be played.
This refers to the way the laws are written. It is safe to say that virtually every improvement in reforming the laws of rugby has been opposed initially, at least, by the all-powerful Home Unions. And to the way rugby is played.
Apparently, the British commentators were very critical of David Pocock’s terrific poaching at the ruck and mauls against Wales. There was a clear implication in the criticism that he was cheating.
This cheating refrain from northern hemisphere rugby writers is as old as the tour of the UK and France by the 1905 All Blacks. The team’s captain, Dave Gallaher, was the first great loose forward in the history of the game. Throughout the tour he had to continually argue against the claims that his wing-forward game was based on cheating. Some matches involved him being penalised up to 30 times in a match.
This cheating refrain was continued in more modern times by the arch English rugby writer John Reason (‘Unreason’ to New Zealanders) when he covered tours of New Zealand by British teams.
In more recent times the inaccurate bile has been levelled against Richie McCaw. Now it is Pocock’s turn to get the cheating accusation.
Brian Moore, the former hard-head England hooker and now an excellent columnist for the UK Daily Telegraph, suggests that the UK rugby commentariat gets realistic and accept that players like Pocock and McCaw work within the laws of rugby.
The best response from British rugby, he insists, is for the UK loose forwards to study how Pocock and McCaw do their fetching and imitate them, if they can.
With Bernard Lapasset, a stalwart of French rugby, taking over the presidency of the IRB, there has been a series of significant reforms in the governance of rugby and in making the game a more athletic and attractive sport to play and watch.
The blazer brigade of the Home Unions have resisted some of these changes, like the push of Sevens Rugby into the Olympics. But the momentum of power away from the Home Unions is on its way, and this is about time.
One final point to make is that Matt Carroll, an outstanding administrator with the ARU, is on the short-list to become the new CEO of the IRB. If this appointment is made it will be an important step in dragging the recalcitrant Home Unions into the 21st century of the rugby game.
The nations that play rugby better than any other countries, and have done so (especially with the Springboks and All Blacks) for most of the last 100 years of the game) should have the strongest voice in how the rugby game should be played and organised.
Spiro Zavos, a founding writer on The Roar, was long time editorial writer on the Sydney Morning Herald, where he started a rugby column that has run for nearly 30 years. Spiro has written 12 books: fiction, biography, politics and histories of Australian, New Zealand, British and South African rugby. He is regarded as one of the foremost writers on rugby throughout the world.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- All Blacks, IRB, Rugby Union, Springboks, wallabies


June 14th 2012 @ 2:54am
The Werewolf said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:54am | Report comment
I really enjoyed reading this article. Very thought provoking.
To play devil’s advocate, I am of the belief that part of the reason that all of the tri-nations sides historically are no 1, 2 and 3 in the rankings is partly because they deserve a high ranking, yes, but also partly because the tri nations self perpetuates this top 3 ranking. After all we play each other so much. At the moment the AB’s deserve their no 1 ranking no doubt but Australia and SA hardly dominated at the recent RWC or in their respective previous years tour to Europe. Both sides have lost to club sides and to Scotland in recent memory.
Plus let’s not forget we have lost our most recent matches to Scotland, Ireland and England. From the 6 nations currently we only have half of their scalps.
I have no doubt that the pace of super rugby helped the tri nation sides last week. I’d imagine the opposition teams will learn quickly. 4 days it seems is a long time in test rugby let alone a week or two. I think we should hold off on beating our Southern Hemisphere chests at least until the end of June before we pass judgement on what’s what.
There are great things happening in the North and South and I can see June becoming my favourite month of the rugby year at seeing how that is reflected in test rugby.
Also on Pocock, the sky commentators that called the Australia v Wales game only raved about Pocock’s performance.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:21am
Mick said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:21am | Report comment
Yeah, the Sky commentators definitely applauded Pocock’s game. I think Spiro meant the written press, not the TV commentators.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:51am
The Werewolf said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:51am | Report comment
Yes I was just saying that the TV commentators didn’t have a problem so it’s not all of the UK media that had issue with Pocock just some in the written press. What was surprising was the credit Brian Moore gave who is IMHO the ‘Campese of England’ in terms of his reciprocal criticism of Australians.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:41am
Hansie said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I think the point about self perpetuating rankings has some validity. I haven’t studied how the rankings are calculated, but it does puzzle me that a team with a 55% win ratio over the past 4 years can be ranked #2 in the world.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:50am
Kane said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
I agree, that is why the wallabies 3 wins from 15 against the all blacks keep them there, every time they lose because the all blacks were a long way ahead they lose minimal points as the all blacks gain minimal, everytime they win they get close to the maximum and the all black lose close to the maximum
June 14th 2012 @ 12:57pm
PeterK said | June 14th 2012 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
look down below, I think the overall record explains it well enough
June 14th 2012 @ 5:33pm
mace 22 said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
The same commentators that implied mccaw was cheaing for doing the same thing.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:02am
Rob from Brumby Country said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:02am | Report comment
We can go a bit far in overstating southern hemisphere dominance sometimes, Spiro. Results and observation confirm that the three former Tri-Nations teams are outperforming their northern counterparts, yes. But the gap is not large, and it is considerably shortened every time it rains during an inter-hemispherical match.
I do realise that this line of thought misses the point of what was quite a well-reasoned article, however.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:32am
sixo_clock said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more. On predominantly dry tracks where the SH sides hone our skills and select/attract our players accordingly we are very good, but if mother nature decides to have a party only the AB’s are a look in.
However, ridding the game of any boring aspects, like resets, purposeless kicking etc while still giving the lads time for a ‘blow’ would help and the only way to do it is with the laws.
Bambam, cheat,… who, when? How many times do we see him police himself and withdraw from the contest without “No 7, no”, plenty, a media beat-up. Lets hope that the editors/experts/us don’t pursue the notion that they are influential individually but are part of a larger voice.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:18am
Mick said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:18am | Report comment
“After the weekend’s round of Tests, which saw ….. the Wallabies trounce Wales, the Springboks smash England”
Trounce? Smash?….. Exaggerate?
Other than those 2 words, a really well written article.
Watching the game on Sky Sports in the UK, I thought the TV commentators were great – and didn’t bag Pocock – but yeah, the newspapers were all just full of diatribe, gave me a laugh though.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:32am
King of the Gorgonites said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Sky coverage is very fair and balanced.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:18am
Jarmen said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Very much an exaggeration Mick, the Wallabies 8 point winning margin isn’t a trouncing in any rugby language
June 14th 2012 @ 1:23pm
Sage said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Yeah, a bit of an over the top comment I agree.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:22am
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:22am | Report comment
Although admittedly for different reasons Oz and SA have been irratic over the past 4 years, and the gap seemingly not so big, the reality is in the results.
SA at home has not lost one test out of 8 matches against tje Six Nations teams, and has only lost 3 out of 11 during the November tours.
Australia at home has only lost 2 out of 11 tests at home and Australia have obly lost 3 out of 13 during the November tours.
However you look at it, gap, results or whatever there is still a significant difference in quality.
As for perpetuating the rankings, I don’t agree, doesn’t matter how often you play, everytime you win you gain and everytime you lose you forsake rankings points.
The further a team is below you in rankngs the more ranking points they gain for winning and if they are too far down the rankings they lose nothing.
Case in point Ireland, they lose no points if NZ beat them, but will gain a lot if they win
June 14th 2012 @ 12:22pm
Christo the Daddyo said | June 14th 2012 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Irratic?
June 14th 2012 @ 3:48pm
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Yes, losing matches we shouldn’t.
June 14th 2012 @ 1:17pm
B-Rock said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
I think the idea behind the rankings being self perpetuating is based on the number of times the Wallabies and Boks play the ABs vs. NH teams. As a result there are more opportunities to gain points.
NH teams play mid/low ranked teams more often with only the occasional shot at top 3 countries. Admitedly they tend to lose these games as you mention.
One other thought – does the timing of inter-hemisphere tours contribute to this too? i.e. NH sending weakened teams to the south in their spring at the end of a long NH season with plenty of injuries? The SH teams typically send stronger squads north in our spring and due to the less intense seasons i.e. fewer SR games vs. NH clubs resulting in fewer injuries… not sure if this is a particularly important reason but could contribute to it.
Plus the ABs are simply all conquering on their NH trips so the 6N rarely beat the best at home and even less frequently in NZ.
June 14th 2012 @ 1:26pm
PeterK said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Look at the breakdown of wallaby results further down, clearly demonstrates that rankings are fair based on results.
A different issue is if NH teams dont send full strength tems on tours or as claimed are even disadvantage on our northern tours when we play them in NH. Rankings can only be based on results.
Even if the NH teams are ONLY truly well prepared for rwc’s they have only won 1 between all of them.
June 14th 2012 @ 1:38pm
Wallaby Supporter said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
it was annoying last week when scotlands B team team smacked around our A team do they get double points peter?
June 14th 2012 @ 1:38pm
B-Rock said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
I agree with you PeterK – results are king.
If, even as a group, the 6N teams beat NZ with any regularity (home or away) these arguments would hold more sway. Not that the Wallabies and Boks have fantastic records against the ABs but there is the odd win thrown in there.
My thought at the end of the comment was more just trying to look at the mechanics of it. I think the Wallabies are somewhere between 2-4 on the list depending on form/injuries/etc. Hard to argue otherwise IMO
June 14th 2012 @ 3:44am
ivan said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:44am | Report comment
I think after this weekend spiros article will make sense. Boks had a few days to gel, wallabies came off a moral low, blacks were awesome but still not their best – this weekend could see 6n teams readily admitting the status quo. Boks with another week to prepate should outgun england by 20, wallabies and wales will both improve, I’d call 15 to wallabies, blacks should put a 50 on ireland. If this doesn’t suggest domination, what will ? Every year same story. When wales ‘almost’ beat sa we always heard how if there were 5 more minutes, aus throw one to scotland, and england – truth is, the 3n powers only really play their best against eachother because they push eachother harder. I’ve been saying the gap has closed but I’m starting to think its still as wide as ever.
June 14th 2012 @ 4:05am
kingplaymaker said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:05am | Report comment
biltongbek for me South Africa and England are roughly in the same situation. Neither chooses its best attacking players in the backline or has really evolved a modern 15 man game. The selection of Morne Steyn is indicative of this. A superb kicking fly-half, but someone unable to spark a backline. The question is therefore: what kind of game will Meyer (or Lancaster) get his team to play? In the first match of his tenure it’s perfectly reasonable for Meyer to play the same game with similar players to his predecessor but I think that soon he will have to evolve the backline into a more attacking group of players in order to take the team to the next level. The pack are great as usual but there are good backs in South Africa and with a creative as opposed to kicking 10 they could put out a superb team. The question is, what will Meyer do?
Spiro you’re spot on about the need to wrest power from the British Isles teams and I think the way to do this is to add more wealthy nations to the SANZAR block. Argentina is a good move, and probably Super teams are necessary there, maybe one in each of the three conferences, in order to bring their players up to speed with the other countries and to further integrate them for political reasons. Then, it is imperative to add a Super team in L.A. Tokyo AND Vancouver (Canada is 30 million with the 10th largest economy in the world), maybe even Moscow (it’s too cold in the Russian winter for them to join the Six Nations or the Heineken Cup). By bringing these countries into the SANZAR sphere of influence, first through Super rugby and eventually the Rugby Championship, more power within the national game can be brought to SANZAR nations. It’s also important to get these new countries on SANZAR side before the British Isles countries get to them.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:54am
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:54am | Report comment
King what I saw in the second half suggests to me Meyer will expand our play, currently he is working on the basics and re inforcing passion, energy and execution of a basic gameplan, there is no way he was going to change anything in 5 days or even two weeks.
When Goosen is back next year there is no way Meyer can ignore him. I am pretty confident he will get Goosen into the mix, first as impact player and slowly test him on the big stage.
I doubt we will ever play expansive rugby in the way australia does, but need to work on our ability to adapt to match situations better.
Similar to what NZ does, they also play the control and pick and drive when necessary, it happened in their last game vs OZ in the Tri Nations last year, it happened in the RWC final, they play expansive when the game allows them too.
Besides that I am not a subscriber of running just for the sake of running, there is more to it than that.
The point is if we have Goosen standing flatter, Hougaard maturing, Frans steyn at 12 with his powerful runs and offload ability, Jean at 13 making the hard hits, Habana back in form, a solid wing like JP Pietersen and Lambie at 15, there are enough game breakers amongst them.
At the end of the day, with power, pace, execution and these playmakers, our game will evolve, and will give the All Blacks there ultmate challenge, if we could get to 5-6 during PDV tenure, with the prospects ahead, it will always remain a close contest.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:23am
Emric said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:23am | Report comment
No kiwis would expect anything less then a true challenge when playing the boks
June 14th 2012 @ 4:27pm
Kuruki said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
The Boks scare the living heck out of me. PDV was a saving grace for Aus and NZ.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:24am
kingplaymaker said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
biltong Meyer will presumably also see if he can’t get players to perform who didn’t under PDV. So he apparently told Bryan Habana to play more intincitvely and certainly I haven’t seen F.Steyn or De Villiers as incisive for a good while. However, player such as these would go up a gear the moment a creative pivot was putting them into holes etc..
Certainly it makes sense to start the season with what the players are familiar in terms of style, and it will be interesting to see how Meyer moves it forward and also when: in the first two rounds of the ‘Rugby championship’ SA I think are playing Argentina so that might be a better time to advance things than in the tougher NZ/Australia matches later. It’s curious to think that in South Africa there are two teams that play as differently as the Bulls and Cheetahs. The latter prove South Africans can run the ball very well, and if the traditional forward power and athleticism were wedded to expansive attacking the result would be good.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:31am
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:31am | Report comment
King if you think about it all 5 our Franchises essentially have their own style.
Bulls- forwards, kick and chase prsseure.
Stormers- defensive offence, territory, counter attack, set phases.
Cheetahs- unstructured open and expansive.
Lions- John Mitchell and Carlos, instinctive, running rugby with basic structure.
Sharks- balance between physical forwards and some creativity in the back.
Meyer should really not struggle with a gameplan
June 14th 2012 @ 8:15am
kingplaymaker said | June 14th 2012 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Agree biltong and it’s obviously a good idea to stick with the one he knows, though I feel the new strategy he brings in would have to come from the Cheetahs/Lions rather than the big three teams (Aside from the forwards).
June 14th 2012 @ 2:10pm
Suzy Poison said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
The Cheetahs and Lions play “entertaining” rugby, sadly it’s not a “winning” formula. So you can see why Meyer will not base his play on the Cheetahs or Lions, when the Bulls have won three Super titles? Clearly the Bulls boring kicking approach is more successful. Remembering South Africa doesn’t have the same set of parameters that mean they have to entertain, like Australia, in order to compete with League. However it’s not so black and white as you make out either. The stats show, the All Blacks kicked more than any other team in last year’s world cup. The Reds kicked more than any other team, in last years’ Super 15. Then the much maligned Bulls with their “kick and chase” game-plan have scored 8 more tries than the entertaining Cheetahs. And always twice as much as the Lions. Why because, they “earn the right to go wide”, but mixing up kicking for territory with ball-in-hand play. I agree with you about Morne, I wish we had a true playmaker like Quade in South Africa. Sadly a guy like Quade probably would get a start in one of the super teams, as the Saffas love their kicking 10’s. But in defence of old Morne, he is a little more than the pure kicking flyhalf you make him out to be. Apart from being a highly accurate kicker out of hand, old Morne does have a semi decent passing game too. He does sit too deep, and has no running game, whatsoever.
June 14th 2012 @ 2:13pm
kingplaymaker said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
SP but that’s because the players the Cheetahs and Lions have aren’t good (compared to the other franchises), not because the style they play isn’t. If Meyer could use the better players from the stronger franchises to play the style of the Cheetahs and Lions, then he would have something.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:47pm
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
SA will never not use their strenghts, and to be honest I never want them to move away from it, as much as the Wallaby style of rugby is revered around the world they have little choice, they cannot rely on forwards to win them games often enough and perhpas that is one of the reasons additional to the need to entertain that their style is more risky than the Springboks,
To be honest the perception that we must entertain according to many pundits in Australia and New Zealand is in a sense moot, we are competitive against the top teams with our style, it may be more direct and in the past 4 years not as effective, but then you could put that down to coaching and oter factors such as the “old guard” that PDV hung on to for far too long, but when we execute our plan, and as Suzy says, “earn the riight to go wide” we are as dangerous as any other team.
Whether people scron it or not, is neither here nor there, so there has to be a balance, but variation in attack is vital.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:54am
Lats said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Dude, nice break down of your teams. Personally I think a Bokke team based around the Sharks is their best chance to consistently beat the All Blacks…
As Napoleon said, “you must meet strength with strength”.. so Boks should play an expansive game against the men in Black… kicking the ball back to them is suicide, keep the pill in hand, run it back and make them make a few tackles is the way to go methinks
June 14th 2012 @ 1:29pm
dcnz said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
pace, possession and position….
June 14th 2012 @ 2:14pm
Suzy Poison said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Hey Lats, depends on what part of the field, you are playing in. By all means, keep the pill in hand, in your opposition’s half. However it’s probably more suicidal to run the ball from your own half, than to kick it, as the risk of turnover is very high.
June 14th 2012 @ 4:05pm
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Lats, I think this is where a lot of perceptions are wrong, about the Boks and the all Blacks, both teams rely on a strong pack, both need stricture to go wide, both want quick ball at the ruck, when well coached and well executed, both teams are devastating with ball in hand, currently the AB’s are ahead of us as they have skilled backs who have the freedom to not only go wide but express themselves and they are encouraged to express themselves within that gameplan.
The Boks in the past 4 years have not ad that freedom for reasons well known, when Meyer finally gets his squad settled we will see more of a balance between back play and forward play, it won’t be as spectacular as the AB’s, but then it needn’t be, why not use a Willem alberts if he can gain you front foot ball, why not use direct running with your backs, and the direct expansive approach with your backs if it works?
I think and hope that Meyer will prove to us that the glimmer of variation we saw last weekend bares fruit.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:07am
mania said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
biltongbek – hope the boks bring it and bring it all. been too long since AB’s have had a classic epic arm wrestle with their hardest honoured enemies.
i agree that meyer is taking baby steps but what i saw of the boks in the weekend that really impressed me wasnt about physical tangible results it was an entire paradigm shift. no longer the robotic forwards and occasional accidental backs getting the ball. this time it was passion and enthusiasm. i’m guessing but it looked like every boks wanted to be there and contribute as team and they played for each other. totally missing in the last 4 seasons, esp in the backs.
i hope the boks never play like the AB’s or aus and forever play as the boks do. diversity is the key to survival . the more different styles that are out in world rugby the better the level of international competition becomes. new ways to attack and defend need to be encouraged, not copy the AB’s.
how bout Samoa moving up to 9th. awesome
June 14th 2012 @ 4:15am
Colin N said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:15am | Report comment
“The feature of the Springboks defeat of England was the way its scrum demolished England’s scrum.”
Bloody hell, do people actually watch the games?
June 14th 2012 @ 2:28pm
Suzy Poison said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Colin, perhaps the scrum was more even, than folks are making out. fair point. Look, I know you are a passionate English supporter, but c”mon mate, the Boks have now beaten England 8 times in a row, you have to give the Boks some credit, for that achievement? This is a good England team, even if it’s a young one. Anyways the signs point to England completely changing their game plan this weekend. I suspect they may try to run the big Saffa forwards all over the park. I think it could work, it what the Wallabies do, and it seems to always have success against the Boks. Despite what everyone else is saying, I think the game is going to be a lot closer than people think. I suspect it may come down to a penalty kick at the end.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:51pm
Colin N said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
“but c”mon mate, the Boks have now beaten England 8 times in a row, you have to give the Boks some credit, for that achievement?”
I have on other threads, but what I don’t understand is people who write things that are so far wide of the mark that they don’t understand what is going on.
Now, I would assume that Spiro has a good knowledge of the technical intricasies (although what was going on wasn’t that difficult to work out) of the set-piece (if he doesn’t then why bother writing about it?), but it’s pretty clear that that, either he didn’t watch the game and saw the stats or he has been agenda. Well, I think both are perfectly feasible don’t you!!?
I don’t understand journalists who have agendas…….or at least put it across subtlely!
As for the Boks, I was impressed with how they came together so quickly, their structure was very good in the second period. However, they were helped by a disappointing England attack and hopefully that will be rectified on Saturday.
The lineout was good as well and, although there were a few wobbles, considering the preparation time, it was certainly a positive sign for South Africa.
As for the game on Saturday, it will be interesting to see if England have done much training at altitude (I hope they have!). I think it really helped the Lions when they travelled over and set up at altitude. I believe they set up at camp there – correct me if I’m wrong – and only moved down to sea level when they had games there.
And with a few changes in selection they were much better in the second Test. We’ll see if the same will happen at the weekend.
June 14th 2012 @ 4:44am
ANON69 said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:44am | Report comment
Well after wtching SA vs England, Wallabied does not deserve to be 2. probably 5. SA and England will wip Australia. Belive me, I have been a wallaby suport from calif for last 25 years.
June 14th 2012 @ 1:24pm
B-Rock said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
So if Wallabies are #5, you would have NZ, SA, ENG 1,2,3 – who is 4? Wales is next on the official list but surely the WBs performance last weekend would indicate they are still ahead of them
I think SA/AUS is a toss up – SA clearly has the depth, AUS clearly has the stars (when fit) mainly in the back line. England are a rung below IMO but I havent seen enough of them to have a qualified opinion.
June 14th 2012 @ 1:29pm
Wallaby Supporter said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
scotland at 4 they seem to be better than us at the moment. they would probable beat wales by 20pts
June 14th 2012 @ 2:19pm
Suzy Poison said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Agree. Wallabies are still number two until the Boks can beat them, and it’s been a while. Wallabies playmakers, when fit are simply much more dangerous. However with Meyer building a ruthless pack of piggies, let’s see how it all unfolds this year.
June 14th 2012 @ 4:31pm
B-Rock said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Wallabies will not beat SA or NZ unless at least two of QC/KB/JOC/Drew Mitchell come back and are in form by the RC – Cant either in the forwards so need the back line players to carve them up
June 14th 2012 @ 4:56am
Pot Hale said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:56am | Report comment
Completely different tune from Spiro this time.
Last year, he was saying that SANZAR were 1, 2 & 3 and that the Home unions were running/ruining the IRB.
The year before, he said that the SH teams had the top 3 spots, and that England and the other British home unions were ruining the game with their kick chase rugby.
I’m going to take a wild guess here and bet that the 2013 version will say the SH teams are in the top 4, and that the home unions are dragging their feet as evidenced by the Lions being whitewashed by Australia. It’s just a hunch, mind you.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:31am
moaman said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Makes writing the articles a whole lot easier.Just cut and paste the dates…add a current point or two and voila! Pot….your prediction of a 3-0 result in the NZ-Ireland series may be on the button!
June 14th 2012 @ 8:34am
ohtani's jacket said | June 14th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
I guess this is another of Spiro’s Maria Sharapova articles. I love the way Spiro pinches stuff from Rugby Heaven or Roar posters to write these columns.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:21am
Kane said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:21am | Report comment
Your argument about the IRB rankings is flawed.
Take Ireland for example, in 2009 they won 9 of their 10 games and their only blemish was a draw, so they had an undefeated 2009. They could not however manage to rise higher than fourth mainly because they were playing teams that had less points than the Tri-Nations teams. You have to remember that one of those wins was over South Africa and the draw was with Australia.
During this time Australia played 14 times for 6 wins 7 losses and 1 draw.
Those 7 losses consisted of 4 to the All Blacks 2 to South Africa one to Scotland and a draw with Ireland.
Yet they managed to sit above Ireland who were unbeaten.
Does this not seem a little it flawed? That Australia can take repeated beatings from the All Blacks and not lose point because they are o far ahead?
June 14th 2012 @ 6:03am
biltongbek said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:03am | Report comment
Yes, it is not perfect, but then I hold little value to the rankings in the first place. The only way the rankings will show a fair reflection is if all teams play every other team the same number of times per year. Problem with the rankings further is that it doesn’t take match conditions into the equation.
Example, Australia plays Scotland in the rain and Scotland manages to win and gains 2 full ranking points, as was the case last week, Wales plays a stronger Australian team but in better conditins and manages to stay close but not win, they lose points.
Dry tracks suit OZ better, and depending on the opponent, it could make all the difference.
Does the rankings really matter anyhow?
If you had to rank the teams according to your opinion without a rankings system or mathematical equation, how would you rank them?
All Blacks ontop, OZ has had the better of SA for the last 4 years, so they will be above SA, SA has had the better of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, etc.
So it is not that difficult to work out who is better than who.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:09am
Kane said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Why should the match conditions be taken into account? They both have the same conditions. Who is to say that its only fair if the games played on a hard ground in dry conditions? We are forgetting that it was invented as a winter sport and thus one has to play to the conditions. If Scotland manage to beat Australia on a rainy day all that tells me is that Scotland were the better team. If the Wallabies beat Wales on a hard ground in dry conditions that tells me on the day Australia were the better team. If Wales beats Scotland during a blizzard then Wales were the better team on the day.
That is why I disagree with roofs being put on stadiums, unless they retract. Rugby is a winter sport and in the winter we have to deal with some unfavorable conditions.
I remember last year someone wrote an article about cheating and mentioned how Wales refused to close the roof of the Millennium stadium whilst it was raining prior to their match against Australia. I was in hysterics when I heard that.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:03am
Pot Hale said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Are you sure you weren’t born somewhere just north of the equator, Kane?
That’s rebel talk.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:07am
Kane said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Haha no i live in Dunedin, home of New Zealand’s only roofed stadium. I just grew up playing on heavy frosts and gale force winds and i still do. I turn up every saturday rain hail or shine and play to the conditions. Is that a little to hard to ask for profession rugby players to play in the same conditions I have to?
June 14th 2012 @ 10:06am
allblackfan said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
kane, apparently, these sheltered playing conditions are for the benefit of spectators.
If you’re running around on the playing field, you’re bound to keep warm. For those sitting in the grandstand, it’s another story.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:09am
Kane said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
I’m just going to point out how the wallabies got treated for hypothermia after the Scottish game to throw a spanner in the works haha. Yeah I understand its for the spectators I’m just a firm believer that rugby is an outdoor sport not an indoor sport and should be played in the conditions that mother nature gives us on the day