Southern hemisphere dominates world rugby
Roar Pro 
3,253 reads
All Blacks player Aaron Smith gets past the tackle of Brian O'Driscoll. AFP PHOTO / Michael Bradley
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
Since reading many articles of late regarding the old North vs. South issue in rugby union, I felt the need to add my five cents. First, let’s have a look at all the stats from a North vs South perspective.
Between 20 June 2007 and 20 June 2010 (3 Years)
(Wins-Losses-Draws(if any)-Win%)
New Zealand vs.
Eng 4-0-100
Fra 2-2-50
Ire 3-0-100
Sco 2-0-100
Wal 3-0-100
A win ratio of 87% for NZ.
South Africa vs.
Eng 3-0-100
Fra 1-1-50
Ire 0-1-0
Sco 2-0-100
Wal 5-0-100
A win ratio of 84% for South Africa.
Australia versus
Eng 3-2-60
Fra 4-0-100
Ire 1-0-1-50
Sco 0-1-0
Wal 2-1-66
A win ratio of 66% for Australia.
In the two years that followed, 20 June 2010 to 20 June 2012.
New Zealand vs.
Eng 1-0-100
Fra 2-0-100
Ire 3-0-100
Sco 1-0-100
Wal 2-0-100
A win ratio of 100% for New Zealand
South Africa vs.
Eng 3-0-100
Fra 0-0-0
Ire 1-0-100
Sco 0-1-0
Wal 2-0-100
A win ratio of 85% for South Africa
Australia vs.
Eng 0-1-0
Fra 1-0-100
Ire 1-1-50
Sco 0-1-0
Wal 5-0-100
A win ratio of 70% for Australia.
Over the last five years, dating from 20 June 2007 to 20 June 2012.
New Zealand vs.
Eng 5-0-100
Fra 4-2-66
Ire 6-0-100
Sco 3-0-100
Wal 5-0-100
A win ratio of 92% for New Zealand.
South Africa vs.
Eng 6-0-100
Fra 1-1-50
Ire 1-1-50
Sco 2-1-66
Wal 7-0-100
A win ratio of 85% for South Africa.
Australia vs.
Eng 3-3-50
Fra 5-0-100
Ire 2-1-1-50
Sco 0-2-0
Wal 7-1-87
A win ratio of 68% for Australia.
From this we can conclude the following; if we take the periods 2007-2010 and 2010 to present:
SANZAR vs. Five Nations
New Zealand’s win ratio went from 87% to 100% at an average of 92%
South Africa’s win ratio went from 84% to 85% at an average of 85%
Australia’s win ratio went from 66% to 70% at an average of 68%
Five Nations vs. SANZAR –
Englands win ratio went from 16% to 20%.
Frances win ratio went from 30% to 0%
Irelands win ratio went from 16% to 16%
Scotlands win ratio went from 20% to 66%
Wales win ratio went from 9% to 0%
Against Five Nations opposition, New Zealand are far superior, followed by South Africa, with Australia trailing behind.
Against SANZAR opposition between 2007 and 2010, France were the best followed by Scotland, then England, Ireland with Wales trailing behind.
The order has since changed and has Scotland leading by far, followed by England, then Ireland, with Wales and France trailing behind.
The statistics clearly put an end to the North versus South debate; one can conclude that the Southern Hemisphere has been and is still dominant over the Northern Hemisphere.
Between 2007-2010, the southern hemisphere had won 35 of 44 tests at an average of 79%,
2010 – 2012 the southern hemisphere had won 22 of 26 tests at an average of 84%
2007-2012 the southern hemisphere had won 59 of 72 tests at an average of 81%
Scotland seem to be the best performing northern hemisphere team, with Six Nations champions Wales the worst performer of both periods.
If anything, the only argument that the North can make is that the scorelines have become somewhat closer to the old wallops the northern hemisphere constantly received at the hands of the SANZAR nations. But results are what matter in world rankings, and there cannot be any doubt as to New Zealand’s spot at number one
Thereafter, there may be some debate as to which of South Africa or Australia should occupy second place.
With South Africa having a better record against both Five Nations, and New Zealand than Australia, the conclusion is that the only reason Australia are in second spot, is that they have had the better of South Africa in recent years.
That New Zealand, South Africa and Australia are the top three sides cannot be denied.
What happens therafter is rather interesting and one can only conclude that Wales success against their Northern hemisphere rivals may be the only reason they are ahead of Scotland and England. Based only on North versus South results it would be Scotland leading the way followed by England.
The stats would also suggest that in terms of bogey teams, England find it easiest against Australia, France have had their most success against New Zealand, Scotland have had the best of Australia, and Wales haven’t done anything other than win the Six Nations to suggest they are the fourth best team in the world.
- Explore:
- International Rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies
June 21st 2012 @ 1:42am
The Werewolf said | June 21st 2012 @ 1:42am | Report comment
Cheers for all that.
Listen I don’t think anyone needs to be converted to the religion that is the Souther Hemisphere Tri nations sides win more games against the 5 nations.
But really all that matters is that at the RWC there is no gap between the top 5 sides. And you can’t tell me that Wales, Ireland and to a lesser extent Argentina and Scotland don’t have a chance at making the 2015 final and therefore a shot at winning it.
The 87% victories the AB’s have or whatever it is against these teams means nothing when they get bundled out by france in most world cups. Indeed they were the 2nd best team in last years final and on their home soil.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:14am
Riccardo said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:14am | Report comment
I think you place too much store in the RWC to be honest. It is a quaddrennial showpiece event designed to promote the game and fill coffers. It’s knock-out format promotes a more defensive, tight and territorial based game which significantly evens up the playing field for all nations.
I disagree that this is all that matters as there is a large amount of rugby in between. I would argue that these Test matches are just as important and figure in the reckoning. The fact that the rugby is usually more enterprising is also a reality.
That said, your assertion that the Tricolors have bundled the All Blacks out of most World Cups is untrue. We have won 2 of them, BOTH against France. I concede we have also lost to them twice at the same tournament, but 2 out of 7 tournaments where we have also beaten them the same amount of times to lift Bill hardly constitutes “most”.
You would do better to address the other losses the All Blacks have suffered at the hands of the French over some time, also at home. Here’s a few that hurt: 2 losses in 1994 including the “try from the end of the world”, a draw in 2002, 2009 at Carisbrook.
This continuing malaise some posters have that the All Blacks “were the 2nd best team in last years final and on their home soil.” is ignorant and emotive. The French were outstanding, no doubt, but the All Blacks won. Get over it.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:26pm
Rob from Brumby Country said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
“This continuing malaise some posters have that the All Blacks “were the 2nd best team in last years final and on their home soil.” is ignorant and emotive. The French were outstanding, no doubt, but the All Blacks won. Get over it.”
Easily the most mature and considered response to Kiwi-baiting that I have heard since the tournament. Undeniably the All Blacks were the better side on the day. But you have to admit that they looked rattled; there were some very uncharacteristic errors committed by a number of the more seasoned players (especially in the second half), and I can’t help but feel that they could not have afforded those lapses if they were playing a team like the Boks or the Wallabies. They certainly didn’t slip up against the Wallabies the week before.
But as you pointed out, that’s all irrelevent. The All Blacks could only play the teams put in front of them, and they won all of their matches. End of story.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:29pm
the breakdown said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
Honestly do we really need to step on egg shells around new zealanders or what!
You won no one can take that away so don’t be so sensitive. But the french were the better team just like in 91 the english played the better even though the wallabies won and the same in 07 the boks won.
In all these cases though the result was justified because the tournaments best won the final. So who cares if the opposition were better on the night.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t speak the truth just so we don’t offennd our sensitive cousins across the tasman!
June 21st 2012 @ 11:51pm
stillmatic1 said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
how is someone pointing out something that is incorrect, being sensitive? you may need to rewatch all 3 of your examples and then come back and tell us who really were the better team. i didnt watch the 91 game, watched the 07 final in new york and south africa were clearly the stronger team but for some inopportune blushes, which was the case again in 2011 with the abs being superior apart from some secong half blushes aswell. fact is, the Abs had more than enough opportunity in the first half to put the french away, but didnt, and this kept the french in the game.
so please spare us your “truth” when it can be clearly shown that it is anything but. i would have thought that the whole purpose of having an opinion, was either having it debated and confirmed, or having the idea rubbished due to lack of evidence. nothing to do with sensitivity at all, just correcting people that seem to be mis-informed on the matter.
the french played well in the 2nd half, but hardly created anything of note, apart from weepu’s kind kick pass, to warrant the suggestion of playing better over the whole game.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:35pm
The Werewolf said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
I apologise if I caused offence. Not my intention I was going for a small smirk of humour. I know it has been twice that the french have knocked out the AB”s and twice that the aussies have and once the SA’s.
My advice is not to take such talk on rugby so seriously and also to remember that everyone around the world was supporting the AB’s to win that match. If france had won it would’ve been a travesty of justice as they had been so poor to make the final and of course we all knew how much it meant to the citizens with such tragedy bestowed on them earlier in the year.
That doesn’t change the fact that the french did play better on the night though.
The RWC is so much ore important than anything else in test rugby. This is because the AB’s are usually so good between them that the RWC format is a great chance for others to shine against them in a knock out match. On the odd occasion it has been the Aussies, the boks and the english in that category but it is usually the AB’s and yet they haven’t always won when they were favourite. This is a good thing for world rugby so yes the RWC is what is most important.
June 22nd 2012 @ 12:02am
biltongbek said | June 22nd 2012 @ 12:02am | Report comment
“I know it has been twice that the french have knocked out the AB”s and twice that the aussies have and once the SA’s”
We have only been eliminated by OZ, NZ and Bryce.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:22am
Sam Taulelei said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
To be precise France bundled us out of 2 world cups the same as Australia so it’s a common fallacy to think otherwise. If anything England has the best claim of being a bogey team having beaten the Wallabies in three world cups.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:29am
Nick said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
No gap?
NH have won 1 RWC
SH have won 6 RWCs
How is there no gap?
Also, France were not the better side in the 2011 final. That’s a myth that is promulgated by people who have seen the game once. Watch it again. France had a good patch in the second half but for vast majority of the game they were definitely second best.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:46am
KiwiDave said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Agree. In all honesty the All Blacks should have been up by 15 at half time in the final.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:55pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
I think the Boks with a proper ref, could have challenged the Blacks in a final – considering how they pummelled Aus in their QF.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:29pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Sore point that Ivan, but seeing that this is an Australian site, it would be best not to debate that point much further.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:37pm
Mike said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Well you certainly did pummel us.
You will shortly get the chance to even any scores with us and with the kiwis!
June 21st 2012 @ 8:02pm
soapit said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
would have never happened…..they would have met in the semi.
June 23rd 2012 @ 7:39pm
IvanN said | June 23rd 2012 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Not if the Boks had lost to Wales in their opener, as they should have.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:00am
Viscount Crouchback said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:00am | Report comment
Australia’s statistics are rather flattered by all those games (two of them effectively friendlies) against the wobbily Welsh. Take out the results against Wales and France and suddenly Australia’s win ratio doesn’t look too clever.: 5/12 (42%) against England, Scotland and Ireland!
June 21st 2012 @ 11:25am
Mike said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
You could drop the stats of others in the same way.
Here is a room full of statistics – go in and play!
June 21st 2012 @ 3:02am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:02am | Report comment
A number of points in response to this article.
1. This isn’t a comparison between North and South. It’s a comparison between a selection of Tier One countries from North and South. If you just want to compare the success of the top 3 from the SH, then say so. In which case, compare them to 3 from the NH – say France, Ireland and Scotland for example – three of the lower ranked NH teams currently.
2. You may have noticed that there’s a fourth team joining the Tri-Nations this season. And you can only ignore the performances of your poorer neighboring nations for so long. Add Argentina, Fiji, and Samoa to the list at least. And Italy to the NH list.
3. A fairer comparison in assessing the performances of Southern Hemisphere teams against Northern Hemisphere ones would be to compile the stats on the 6 Southern Nations vs the 6 Nations? All of them are designated Tier One countries.
4. Given the infrequency of matches of Individual nations against SANZAR teams (as opposed to a specific squad), I would suggest a longer period of 10 years as a better comparison. Let’s face it, SA have played 3 matches against Scotland and have won one more than Scotland is not a great comparator. Equally, two matches each against France and Ireland over the last five years is not a great assessment of either side’s performance.
5. I don’t know the stats, but it would be interesting to see the breakout of games into home, away and neutral, since I’m assuming the numbers above include world cups.
5. If Ireland and Australia have played four times in the last five years, and only won once, then how can they have a win ratio of 50%?
6. No one is arguing to the contrary that the top 3 sides are the top 3 sides. However, over the last decade, the only true consistent performer – home and away – is New Zealand.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:08am
Rowdy said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:08am | Report comment
That’s appallingly sensible stuff, Pot Hale. It has no place here.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:06am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:06am | Report comment
I agree with your post, however I disagree to bring Samoa, Fiji or any of the tier two countries into the comaprison purely because you are now lookingat nations with but a few hundred thousand population and no financial system to sustain professional rugby.
Take those countries who has a sustainable professional system yes, as we all know the majority of earths population and money is in the northern hemisphere.
Excluding Italy
SA has a 73% win rate against the other Six Nation teams for the past 10 years.
NZ has a 91% win rate for the past 10 years
OZ has a 69% win rate over the past 10 years.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:41am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:41am | Report comment
And you still leave out Argentina, the majority of whose players ply their trade in the NH. As do a fair amount of the PI teams players as well.
Nevertheless, NZ at 91% is the only truly consistent SH performing team.
The North v South comparison is always flawed in its analysis when It’s the individual performance of teams against one collective blob of 5 or 6 teams.
But hey ho, if that’s what keeps people happy.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:59pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
I have compared 5N top teams versus SANZAR teams. – Not North South persay.
10 years is not a better comparison, I have used 5 years as a more recent yardstick.
Since 07, I put a marker at 2010, we could measure progress from 07-10, and 10-12.
It seems that although the 5N teams have improved somewhat, they are still not getting the results.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:19am
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:19am | Report comment
Btw, at the end of 2007 Wales were ranked 10th in the world. There hasn’t been a constant NH top 3 as there has been with the SH.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:38am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:38am | Report comment
Indeed. Which is why I selected France, Ireland and Scotland – off the top of my head.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:48am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Just for the heck of it
Last 5 years – win ratio of Aus and SA ranked 2nd and 3rd against Irl and Sco, ranked 8th and 10th currently.
SA – Played 5, won 3 – 60%
Ire 1-1-50
Sco 2-1-66
Aus- played 6, won 2 – 33%%
Ire 2-1-1-50
Sco 0-2-0
June 21st 2012 @ 8:23am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
All away games you should add for SA. We haven’t seen Ireland to our shores in nigh on a decade and Scotland hasn’t been here for quite some time.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:40am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Nah.
No one has taken that into consideration so far. Why bother introducing it now?
Besides, your country is much bigger, more populous, and you’ve got more gold and diamonds than us.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:30pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Lest us forget SA has a 100% record against England and Wales during that time.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:39am
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:39am | Report comment
Fair comment, I took the last 5 years because its a fairer assessment, if any, of the current status. Conclusions can be drawn from results. As Ben points out Wales were ranked 10th, and now 4th. Yet have the worst success rate against the top3, where the most irb points are up for grabs. A flaw in the system ? And aus have a 50 percent vs. Ireland, because there was a draw which I have not counted as a win. Therefore 2 wins, 1 loss and 1 draw is 2 wins from 4 games. I have referred to sanzar where possiblr for excluding certain countries. This is not a north south assessment, but rather a top nh teams, vs top sh teams. If I had to exclude scotland too, for being lowest ranked in the 5 used, the stats would favour the sanzar sides even more. As pointed out, and correctly so, it means little in a wc except where you are drawn. But in a one off, scotlans, wales, ireland,france and england are all capable of a win against sanzar teams. However, I think its time to go in search of a global league including 2 divisions – a top 10 and a 11 – 20. 11th plays off against 10th for a spot in the top tier. What competitions could we remove though? As few would deny these 3 test tours have been fantastic, and somewhat more entrtaining than say super rugby, for me.
June 21st 2012 @ 12:17pm
Happy Hooker said | June 21st 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Talk about giving yourself a rap Ivan. Five cents worth? I’d give it two ….
June 21st 2012 @ 5:58am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:58am | Report comment
“I have referred to sanzar where possiblr for excluding certain countries. This is not a north south assessment, but rather a top nh teams, vs top sh teams.”
Eh – sorry I don’t think you can backtrack on that point:
Your headline – borrowed from your own text – reads: Southern Hemisphere dominates world rugby”
your opening paragraph reads: “Since reading many articles of late regarding the old North vs. South issue in rugby union, I felt the need to add my five cents. First, let’s have a look at all the stats from a North vs South perspective.”
Your summary paragraph reads: “The statistics clearly put an end to the North versus South debate; one can conclude that the Southern Hemisphere has been and is still dominant over the Northern Hemisphere.”
And if this is a top nh teams vs top sh teams, why wouldn’t you include the 4th team participating in the SH’s new championship – Argentina? They are ranked 6th in the world after all – are they the ugly child of the southern family?
June 21st 2012 @ 5:02pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Yes – I refer to 5N teams as North, and SANZAR as South – Not a geographic divide, but a Rugby circle divide.
My mistake.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:14am
Skills & Techniques said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:14am | Report comment
The stats are a reminder for us of the massive playing stock and funding that comes from NH. It explains why they don’t like being told what to do by the southern upstarts. It also reminds us, especially Australia, that we are punching well above our weight and should be extremely proud of our rugby achievements over the years.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:21am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:21am | Report comment
I think the NH unions will have to send a delegation in advance next year to erect a permanent monument, personally signed by every union, in Pretoria, Sydney, and Wellington saying:
“Yes we know you’re the top 3 nations in the whole world. We get it. Understood. Accepted. No dispute. ”
Would this be sufficient?
June 21st 2012 @ 6:28am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Would you ask them the statue in Pretoria must be of Os du Randt please. Apart from being one of the greatest Springboks of all time, it would really grind the gears of the Bulls supporters.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:25am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:25am | Report comment
No problems, Bilt. Consider it done. Friends of mine live within an ass’s roar of Loftus, I’ll ask them to organize it.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:24am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Much appreciated, just remember to tell them not to exaggerate his size, he is a big enough lad as it is.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:03pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
My school was a stone throw from Loftus – yet i always supported WP (stormers)
June 21st 2012 @ 2:56pm
Rusty said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
that would be one of the best things ever
June 22nd 2012 @ 5:29am
Loftus said | June 22nd 2012 @ 5:29am | Report comment
What make these statistics even more compelling is the fact that most of those games were played in the Northern Hemisphere.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:18am
NickHall said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Statistics can be used any way you like – for example they show that England are the best performing world cup team this centuary (think about it before you start howling with laughter:) but you’d not know it the way they’ve been playing!!
N&H and SH rugby are just different and loved by their fans – whats the point in constantly debating it?
Viva la’ differance.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:26am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Don’t worry mate we cop a fair amount of criticism for the way we “don’t play” rugby.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:43am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Yeah – at least in South Africa you don’t play kick the ball all the time in endless kick-chase, and look to play everything through the scrum instead of running rugby in the backlines, winning long range penalties to win games……..
It’s only France who do that.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:06pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
If anything, Is South Africas style not closer to that of the 5N, than that of Australia and NZ ?
June 21st 2012 @ 5:27pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Contrary to the perception out there South Africa’s franchises all play a different style. Cheetahs closest to wallabies, Sharks and Lions closest to All Blacks, Bulls game is unique (although many would suggest england), Stormers play a conservative aggressive offencive style of defence.
Under Jake White we played very structured rugby with THE best chasing game and attack based on counter opportunities, and that leaked through to the PDV era.
From what I have seen Meyer looks to play territorial, structures, punching the middle and then going wide, based on high intensity, pace and power.
Contrary to what many believe we actually didn’t kick the most of all the teams during this June test series, so the kick and chase (which I beleive we still execute better than any other team, we had as many kick return runs and gone wide nearly as often as the Wallabies and All Blacks.
The difference is we play direct rugby, the shortest point from A to B is a straight line, the only difference is the Wallabies have more skilled backs than us and hence have a “better feel” for angled runners etc.
I don’t think we play any other countries’ style to be honest, sure it is based on a forward pack’s dominance, but then which team isn’t?
June 21st 2012 @ 6:40pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Aus has not been able to afford the luxury of dominating a pack for a few seasons, yet have still been reasonably successful
June 21st 2012 @ 11:28am
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:28am | Report comment
What is the significance of the years 1996 and 1997?
They’re the last time the Wallabies and Springboks won all four matches on their end of year tour. Now they don’t always play four matches as it’s technically a three match test window, but until either side can do a Grand Slam or go undefeated on an end of year tour, I don’t see what there is to crow about. Both sides are quick to write off any and every loss to NH opposition and yet we get this bravado from posters. The last time South Africa went on an end of year tour it was a Grand Slam opportunity and they failed to do it. Australia failed the year before. That’s a clear and obvious chink in the armour, wouldn’t you say?
June 21st 2012 @ 11:52am
Rusty said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
’97 wasnt even a grand slam for us as we played France twice instead of Ireland and Wales. Pity England upset the apple cart in ’98 but damn that was a fine run. We also won all our games in ’07 and ’08 …admittedly we only played one in ’07 and 3 in ’08. Although you could argue as it was in ’07 we won 8 games in Europe. When was the last time Oz and NZ did that? Seems to be a clear and obvious chink in the armour, wouldn’t you say?
June 21st 2012 @ 12:27pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
if you read carefully I made concessions for all that, Rusty.
Technically, New Zealand have won 24 straight matches on their end of year tours.
June 21st 2012 @ 2:55pm
Rusty said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I know ol chap, I was cheekily making reference to our European RWC “tour”. Naturally to make the argument suit all games have to be played without returning home..so guess Boks are sitting on 7 straight for ’07..Regardless of humour it is unbelievable that the ABs have that level of sucess on the road
June 21st 2012 @ 5:08pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
NZ lost to a South African strong Barbarians mate, albeit not a test – its a loss at Twickers
June 21st 2012 @ 5:46pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Well considering that since 2000 we only had two opportunities to do it, 2004 and 2010.
We lost to Scotland in 2010.
Not sure what your point is though, why must we go undefeated?
What will that prove?
Since the professional era our away win records against
Wales: 8 wins from 9 – 89%
Scotland: 6 wins from 8 – 75%
France 4 wins from 4 – 50%
Ireland 3 wins from 6 – 50%
England 4 wins from 10 – 40%
Our record in our back yard.
Wales: 6 wins from 6 – 100%
Scotland 4 wins from 4 – 100%
Ireland 4 wins from 4 – 100%
England 6 wins from 7 – 86%
Ireland 3 wins and 1 draw from 6 – 58%
Away record 68%
Home record 87%
June 21st 2012 @ 5:50pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Sorry can’t edit above comment France away is 4 wins from 8.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:46pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
If South Africa and Australia can’t go undefeated on their end of year tours and fail to claim Grand Slams then they can’t be quite as dominant as they profess. You never NH sides claiming to be dominant over the SH sides and the All Blacks don’t make a big deal over their record so where is all this talk coming from?
June 21st 2012 @ 9:26pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
From the guy who wrote the article?
June 21st 2012 @ 10:23pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Do you hear the Boks talking of their wins against the 6N sides or even against NZ ?
Its the fans who do all the talking. You wouldnt hear any side going on about their wins.
SA have not been as powerful as they shouldve, and dropping a game here and there to the 5N teams,
is expected. I do however think the Boks could be the strongest we have seen them in many years – this year.
NZ Sky – Re: Union rugby show, the Kiwis spent 15 minutes discussing the Boks, also saying that they (NZ) will need to watch out for the Boks this year.
I think its fair to say that SA has gotten the attention of NZ already.
While these 3 test tours have been great entertainment, As a Springbok supporter – there is still no better feeling than watching SA play NZ. Beating NZ rates up there with winning a world cup.
Very tough to go undefeated at the EOYT on the end of a long season. Equally we could say, neither Wales, France, Ireland or Scotland have any claim to anything, since they havent won a world cup ?
Silly isnt it.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:32pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:32pm | Report comment
New Zealand have been undefeated on tour since 2004. The Boks should go undefeated on tour more of then than they do. You could go so far to argue that they never recovered from that awful 2009 EOYT when they dropped the No.1 ranking to NZ despite clean sweeping them that year.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:19am
Mike said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Good point Ivan. The Boks and Wallabies don’t “profess to be dominant”. They just play the game as do all the other teams. If anything, the teams tend to talk their opponents up before a match.
But fans and commentators (of all teams) – that’s a different matter….!
June 21st 2012 @ 11:32am
Mike said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
“With South Africa having a better record against both Five Nations, and New Zealand than Australia, the conclusion is that the only reason Australia are in second spot, is that they have had the better of South Africa in recent years.”
True, although we have started to lift our game against NZ a little also: After losing ten games on the trot to NZ during 2008-2010, we now have 2 wins from the last 4 games. Whether we can continue that performance is the question.
Obviously sooner or later SA is going to start winning games against us – our recent streak agtainst them is an anomaly – but if we can get our ratio against NZ back to what its been historically, we may still be able to keep the No 2 spot.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:01pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Regardless of the rankings even if we were to move a spot above Australia that wouldn’t mean much to me anyway, our record has been poor and the only way I will rank ourselves better than OZ is when we get the upper hand again.
Rankings is just a number calculated by a bunch of guys with thick glasses and an affininity for lab rats.
It is the results that count.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:44pm
IvanN said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
Aus still have a lethal backline to pick from, but besides Pocock, their forwards have done little to impress.
It seems to me that SA and NZ have both improved, and that Aus could find it tough against such fierce packs this year,
no backline in the world can operate with static backfoot ball.
I might be proven wrong, but I am certainly proud of the direction that the Boks are heading, and NZ will always be NZ.