I have read a lot of articles over the past month in relation to the opinions of coaches and players, and the scandals they had found themselves caught up in. But, the one common theme that keeps surfacing is just how different Test rugby is to Super Rugby.
In all reality, I just can’t get my head around it.
The differences that I can see at Test level is that Southern Hemisphere teams sometimes play Northern Hemisphere teams. Yes, I agree that this is different.
Referees from the Northern Hemisphere will ref a match between two Southern Hemisphere teams, or one with a Northern Hemisphere team versus a Southern Hemisphere side. Yes, I agree that this is different too.
The venues are also different, which makes the fan base – and the atmosphere – different for the players. If these are the differences, then I get it, and writing it down has made it plainly obvious.
But this is not the sentiment expressed by punters and journos when describing the intensity of Test level rugby, versus that of Super Rugby matches. This is what I don’t get, and this is why.
If you analyse coaches such as Jake White, Robbie Deans, Ewen McKenzie and Michael Cheika, they have all coached very successfully at Super Rugby level and have also posted periods of coaching at a national level with mixed results.
More intriguingly, the players that they coach at national level are more often than not bred out of the Super Rugby gene pool. In years gone by, a few elite players were plucked from obscurity and put straight into the national team, but this is a very rare event.
So, every year when the Rugby Championship is held, the same teams play each other over and over again.
They play at familiar Super Rugby grounds and in front of similar crowds. What is different is the colours they are wearing and maybe this is the very essence of why Test level is claimed to be a higher level than Super Rugby.
But, I still don’t get it.
At the end of the day, the game is still played for 80 mins. The ball has not changed. The ground is not bigger. The same amount of players and coaching staff are present. The referee is familiar.
So why is the game claimed to be played at a higher intensity level?
Wearing the national colours should come with an intense amount of pride and for some players, and it certainly does.
But a lot of players are simply over paid and too young to appreciate the unique position they find themselves in.
This is why we get the problems with the young professional player in the modern era. So, sadly the ‘pride’ angle of intensity needs to be ruled out.
And so I can’t see a difference between the intensity of Test rugby compared with that of the Super Rugby competition.
I see the intensity of training, travel, planning and coaching to be the same and money certainly rules the heart, in most cases.
It seems that punters and journos alike tend to describe the intensity level as being higher when they are frustrated by a loss.
Rugby is only a game with the same amount of players and professionalism whether it is played at Test level, or Super level.
The real issue is very simple. Bad coaching decisions and errors made by players is what causes a team to lose, and nothing else.
For what it’s worth, I predict that Ireland will win against the Wallabies this weekend. They have a very good side and the atmosphere in Dublin will get them over the line.
Of course I want the Wallabies to win and I will get up early with eagerness to watch, but the Wallabies should go into this game against the six nation champs as underdogs.
And with underdogs, there is only one way to go… up!
Bakkies
Guest
Most Australian towns and cities pre date Federation. Canberra was built due to the Sydney and Melbourne debate. They were like six different nations inside one country and it's still the case to some extent with State Parliaments being different jurisdictions, varying laws and scrapping each other for every bit of gloss/coin rather than for the common good. Germany is probably the best European comparison with their states.
firstxv
Guest
with or without beale? big call?
WoobliesFan
Guest
Ask Cheika if there's a difference. Ask Cheika how his SR tactics of using Hooper as a soft forward is working out for him.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
In simple terms Test match rugby is played at a higher level because of a number of factors: 1 - the players in each position are considered to be the best from each nation. 2 - because these are the elite players their skill level both in attack & defence is greater as a group & there are less weaknesses to take advantage of. 3 - mistakes are punished to greater degree. You might get away with an error at S15 level but at test level it will be pounced upon. 4 - players tend to play every test match like it's their last, it's never just another game. 5 - the opposition is often at a higher level than s15 as well. That brings out the best in the best players. 6 - the pressure of not letting down your family, nation, new team mates you have probably idolised, coaches & your country also ramps up everything else. Having spoken to plenty of players who have stepped up to international level I can say that to a man they have said the speed of everything was a leap ahead of anything they had played before.
Squirrel
Guest
Bring back AL . He had great points
Justin3
Guest
Yeah all 15 Jake Whites played so well that night...
firstxv
Guest
That's right. Then imagine a side that consisted mainly of he Lions, Rebels bench players. Therein lies the difference. Player quality.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Agree give me test rugby any day. Love it, the passion between Ireland and Aus will be amazing. The threatened wallabies hanging on for dear life for legitimacy and as a world power andIreland who are going from strength to strength and want to cement a place and be a respected powerhouse member, not just the lovable try hard Irish team.
Nathan Sanders
Guest
The Brumbies only beat the Lions because Jake White is a great coach.
Brian USA
Guest
Australia best (Healthy) 15: 1. Slipper 2. Faingaa 3. Kepu 4. Horwill/Carter 5. Simmons 6. Hodgeson 7. Hooper 8. McCalman 9. Genia 10. Cooper 11. AAC 12. Toomua 13. Kuridrani 14. Speight 15. Folau Not even the worst 15, but the next 15 1. Robinson 2. Hanson 3. Alexander 4. Carter/Horwill 5. Skelton 6. Jones 7. McMahon 8. Schatz 9. Phipps 10. Foley 11. Tomane 12. CLL 13. CFS?/Taps?/Godwin? 14. Betham/English 15. Beale? While the game between the two would still be very competitive, there is a drop-off between the first 15 and the second. These are still the best of the best from the Super teams, now imagine diluting that further...
Bobbo7
Guest
Spot on biltongbek. Big step up to Test rugby and that is why many Super 15 players are not up to it. Same with State and a Test cricket
Moreton Bait
Guest
I coach at colts level and, like 1000s of coaches every week, have to structure teams for different divisions, just as others have to select 1st XVs and 2nd XVs etc. etc. It's not unusual for our champion & unbeaten 2nd division team to be incapable of defeating our poorly performing 1st division team. It's always "just" 15 players on the pitch, to state the bleedin' obvious, not all sets of 15 players are equal to or competitive with each other. Even though individual players may move between the teams based upon performance and form. A range of other factors determine general levels at which teams perform competitively. Based upon this logic the British Lions should be the best team in the world, being a concentration of the best players from 4 national level teams. They really should be the "best of the best"! Mind you the Brumbies beat the British Lions 2nd XV (and Reds almost did).Just imagine what the Waratahs of 2014 would have done to the British Lions of 2013!!
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
good explanation Garth
Yellow
Guest
My local club won our premiership this year. There really isn't much difference between us and Super Rugby. Just pick our team for the World Cup! It will be in the bag!
Cheesehead
Guest
Completely agree!! If the Bledisloe was played between the All Blacks and the Waratahs the trophy would never have left Australia!
White
Roar Rookie
You are right!! There is no difference! Lets just pick the entire Waratahs team for the Wallabies!! Guaranteed to win the World Cup then!
Garth
Guest
It could be as simple as history. How many towns & villages in Europe pre-date the nations they are now part of? Australian State parochialism exists because of a pre-Confederation rivalry between the colonies. A similar view point exists in New Zealand between the islands and towards both Auckland & Christchurch. There is a reason Wellington is our capital, other than it's harbour, and not either of those two cities. The difference is that our towns & villages AREN'T older than our nations, We Kiwis tend to see ourselves as a nationality first, with Island, provincial & town following. .
armchair sportsfan
Guest
the tahs would beat a world XV, if they didnt already have XV players in the world XV. The tahs will also cure cancer and bring about world peace
Kuruki
Roar Guru
Have you ever seen tears in the eyes of a player before a super match?. That passion is what lifts the intensity. Playing for your country, your people, if that doesn't lift your passion and intensity then your probably not going to last long at that level.
Fog
Guest
Well there are arguments in both directions on that. The Crusaders, the Bulls and the Brumbies have neither razzled nor dazzled. The Blues,the Chiefs and the Reds have done both.The Waratahs were sort of in between.