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.
IvanN
Guest
Not if the Boks had lost to Wales in their opener, as they should have.
ScotandProud
Guest
England had it coming in '11: all their chickens came home to roost at the same time. France wouldn't have won in '87 or '99 but definitely choked or didn't bother to turn up in those finals. Both times they said 'we played our final last week..' so maybe a special medal ceremony in the French hotel the week before with glitter and paper and rosettes? '95 they were robbed. They choked in '03 and even said 'when we saw the weather conditions we knew we were gonna lose' or words to that effect.. Eh? Choked in '07. Regan said 'It was like turning up at their birthday party and eating all their crisps and drinking all their fizzy pop and then pissing off". Finally didn't choke in '11 but the ABs (and the ref hahaha) did enough. fair play the ABs are the only team I know of in major sport to be poisoned out of a WC final.. That doesn't even happen in women's gymnastics or ice skating where I expect them to do that to each other. Ha ha French are the biggest chokers but then they've not been the World no.1 consistently for 25 years. '87 was a year too late for those Wallabies and I think they underestimated the French. Watching Alan Jones on the sidelines I think he knew they were struggling - even so they hardly choked in the same way the ABs didn't choke in that 99 game just got unexpectedly beaten by the better side altho the 87 SF could have gone either way and the ref did let the French off a couple of decisions. '95 they played badly and in '07 so yeah - choked on those occasions but they weren't the favorites '99 in a sense was the final what with theABs about to go out. Very tight, even game won by an amazing drop goal. '11 RSA choked? they got ambushed by the wallabies and yeh maybe the ref. They had all the ball and couldn't win. that was the 2nd/3rd play off right there. Wouldn't say they choked. It was more of a Scotland-England 1990 game. Strangled is a better metaphor. Thanks for your comments. Love talking rugby.
MosmanBrumby
Roar Rookie
Any rugby nut knows the RWC final was was joke, in the 1st half ref favoured the attacking side, the Abs and rightly so, not sure what happedned in the 2nd half as he seemd to favour the defending team, the Abs, but I suppose atleast he was consistently inconsistent! Trust me no one wanted the french to win but really the AB didnt deserve to win the game, sorry! As far as our machine no. 7 Poey v Sa in the 1/4 final, he got away with what Richie MaCheat gets away with EVERY game :-)
Choked in 1999, no mate, Stepehen Larkham with that freak dropgoal in extra time. 2011 , yeah we choked whilst our dearest friend Bruce Lawrence were strangling us. ;)
Tui
Guest
"2011 choked again! watched that game over and over and I think France were the better side on the day. Referee played a homer all the way through – that last penalty was ridiculous in my view. " Well the AB’s really must be geniuses then if they still won the WC whist choking! I also have watched it a few times I have it on Blu Ray if anyone wants to borrow it? AB's dominated the 1st half and should have been further ahead. Second half they were just made to defend and looked out on their feet for much of it but with defence that was impenetrable with the exception of a try from a fortuitous mistake. France had no way through even though they had a mountain of Possession. Last penalty was ridiculous? Really?
Mike
Guest
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....!
justsaying
Guest
ABs never trailed in the 2011 final S&P, so never "got it back", so to speak. Not sure what you mean by the "last penalty" - as far as I remember that was blatant infringing by the French trying to get the ball back from the AB forwards who were closing the game out. I have a different view on the better side in the final, but France definitely gave it everything and the ABs did look nervous, so it's probably not a point worth labouring. All of the leading teams have had their fair share of chokes at the RWC, it's just that the ABs' chokes have tended to be more spectacular. But I think you could say the Wallabies choked in '87, '95 and '07; SA choked in '99 and '11; and England choked in '11 as well. Probably in reality the biggest chokers are France, who must surely have the best record of any team yet to win a World Cup...
Mike
Guest
Its pretty clear that most AB supporters were going frantic over their teams failure to win that third WC when other teams were ahead of them. Now they have it, so we can all get some peace!
ScotandProud
Guest
It's hysterical that Scotland have the best record out of 6N sides versus the South and that actually says alot about 6N standards vs the SH standards. World Cups are not everything but they are the litmus test. It has been odd that NZ have 'choked' when they have been consistently the best team. I was so glad they got that hoodoo over with. 91 Australia were the better side in the tournament not just the semi-final it was not the best ABs team 95 poisoned ;-) 99 freak result but maybe a bit complacent? 2003 choked but England were still favorites to win it. Would have been an interesting game. 2007 choked 2011 choked again! watched that game over and over and I think France were the better side on the day. Referee played a homer all the way through - that last penalty was ridiculous in my view. ABs looked very nervous throughout which was a shame because they were easily the best side in the tournament. But they took the lead, got it back and finally won so who cares? In my view.. 2007 Boks comfortably the better team in a very conservative game. 1991 Weird one. Wallabies by far the better side on paper and once or twice when they got the chance they showed it, yet for the English the actual try was a pretty soft one to concede and that and Campo's 'intercept' makes it seem like one that got away. Plus the Aussies played so much of the game without the ball as England piled on the pressure but overall lacked the penetration. I've not seen a final like that since. I guess Aussies did what they had to do to win.
Loftus
Guest
What make these statistics even more compelling is the fact that most of those games were played in the Northern Hemisphere.
"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. :)
stillmatic1
Guest
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.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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.
Tui
Guest
I would also. You create a legacy by being consistently strong year in year out not by winning the WC alone.
IvanN
Roar Guru
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.
I would take the All Blacks win record for the next twenty years over any word cup trophy during that period.
From the guy who wrote the article?
Tui
Guest
"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." hahaha except the AB's are 4 - 2 against France at the world cup including two World Cups to none. But dont let the facts get in the way your good story.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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?
soapit
Guest
would have never happened.....they would have met in the semi.