Why is the south so much better than the north?

Scotland may differ with this, they will not easily forgive a certain southern hems. Ref. I think more technology is required, like a gps place in the ball, that can show if the ball went through the posts, went out, went forward bla bla bla, choose where you draw the line..or will it kill the game.

What about Lomu and SBW, their about as Kiwi as possums are.

No it is not just about New Zealand, you are looking at a couple of individual games not very scientific..What are the win loss records of the four home countries against Australia, New Zealand and South Africa over the history of test Rugby? Answer equals not very good, in fact quite pathetic , Southern hemisphere Rugby is better, has always been better, and probably always will be better, because the game is taken more seriously down here.Stereotypes, only come into being because there are kernels of truth in them Bakkies,Twickenham vs Eden Park, DIFFERENT PLANET.

How is the Nrl doing for the Kangeroos World Cup holders yes four nations holders er no.That said England and France are dominated by their clubs. Should the English club owners decide who the England coach is. Any stats re Argentina may seem unfavourable as the team which played in the Championship wasn't the team who lost home series to England Scotland and Ireland.

No the only muppet is you. I didn't say anything about the general crowds, which have been excellent. The TV shots of Australians in the Crowd however completely match the stereotype of Australian fans compared to the other nations which seem to have a lot more fun at the rugby.

The Georgians love their Rugby. I reckon a rugby tour that included a week in each of Romania and Georgia would be excellent. I was in Georgia last year and there was a Rugby bar in the old town in Tiblisi with all sorts of jerseys and photos of players - the lovely Georgian bar lassie beckoned me in to show a photo taken in the bar with Tana Umaga and some locals. The food and wine there is great (a Georgian table is something to experience)- a tour would be a wonderful time. And the Romanian players were absolutely rapt to play the All Blacks in Toulouse in 2007 - they were impressive physical specimens and enjoyed the socialisation after.

You weren't. NZ rugby became intensely forward orientated after getting dealt to by the Bok in 1949 and although there were occasional variances it didn't properly start getting back to it's own roots till getting dealt to by the Lions in 1971. But that 20 years is an anomoly in NZ rugby history - although it would be fair to say that it probably took another 10 years before things were more fluent. From the Native side through the 1905 and 1924 sides to Britain and the 1921, 1928 and 1937 Bok tests there was always an emphasis on 15 man rugby. The predominant ethos of NZ rugby has been 15 man rugby - and not just from counter attack. Many of the great All Blacks from before the war and the NZ Forces side that toured Britain just after the war were backs. For what it's worth the Bok had tremendous backs (that they actually used !!) even into the 60s but really their rugby started to stagnate from post Danie Craven's time as coach and ossify during the sanctions period. On the 1971 Lions tour. The Northern Hemisphere were known for their back play at that time and each country had some beautiful running players - including England. What they couldn't usually cope with was the intense physicality of teams with hard athletic forwards who would run their lungs out, clatter into them and belt them defensively. The 1971 Lions team got enough ball from their forwards to make their backs count. The net result of the 1971 and 1974 (to SA) Lions tours was that back play up north declined and an enduring fixation with forward only play started.

GI you love your stereotypes don't you. 'One word culture.You go to Twickenham and it is a social event, a chance to catch up with old school chums,have a few drinks etc, the game itself is not that important, if England win great, but if they lose who really cares? it is a social event.Indeed taking it all too seriously is kind of vulgar, the kind of thing you expect from soccer plebs.' It's a social event in Australia too but in England there is a far better atmosphere.

'like the French top 14 relies too much on foreign players and often no salary cap.' There is a salary cap but it's very high. Teams need bigger squads to cope with the Top 14, European games and the season doesn't stop much when the internationals are on so you need a diverse squad. The clubs also develop players as schools Rugby isn't massive in France like it is in other countries. There is a obvious problem with coaching and selections. The test side doesn't know what style it wants to play which will see the right players picked. The test team not be able to go through phases without a plan, turning quick ball in to slow ball and static runners isn't the clubs fault it's the national coaching staff's responsibility. The test team hasn't played like that before this woeful period and there was just as much club Rugby played with teams staffed by foreign players. The Under 20s are just as bad and they haven't played as much Top 14 so the coaching problems go further down the chain. Too many recently retired players without requisite coaching experience are getting high profile jobs. Jobs for the boys is never a good sign. In the amateur era France were able to shred teams but as soon as teams learnt how to tackle, build defence systems and got fitter they haven't evolved their playing style to be able to break down teams and get professionally consistent.

I didnt say that SA werent as strong, in fact they were stronger head to head, narrowly but they were stronger. The issues there are far different such as not being allowed to play Maoris until 1970, the economic situation, the length of time between tours etc, not that we want to get into that now. But the All Black teams that went to Britain and SA etc were very strong sides, usually a lot better than anything the Northern hemispere or Oz had and they did not comprise have Pacific Islanders. The inference that it is largely because of the influx of PI's has 'made' the ABs what they are today is ludicrous. And John Kirwan was every bit the winger in his time that Savea is today. And I'm pretty sure I would rather have Retalick and Whitelock at lock, McCaw or Cane at 7, Read at No. 8 etc. Sure its a factor, but its by no means the only one.

Scotland are not the least powerful of the Six Nations sides size wise man for man. Ireland are. Devon Toner aside none of the locks are 2 metres tall. It's more evident at under age where England and Wales field massive packs and the Scots aren't small either. Ireland are dwarfed in comparison and get belted at set piece particularly in the scrums. The offloading game as I mentioned only has developed through Glasgow recently which has seen more rounded skillful players come through. Previously the national side in recent times have been route one up the guts, struggling to score tries and seeking contact. To me this improvement is due to Townsend not Cotter. Cotter has only just started and has better prepared players to work with. Matt Williams still talks about the poor end products he had when he was Scotland coach. Townsend probably doesn't think much of him as he ended his test career at the age of 30 and he wasn't a kicking 10 either.

Glenn Im sure plenty of players in NZ and South Africa got paid during the amateur era...even if meant getting a "job" that required working 1-2 hours per week. It was called "boot money". The Bulls used to draw a lot of support from the Afrikaaner police force.

taylorman I would argue that South Africa was probably just as strong as NZ before they were suspended from international competition. So I don't think NZ dominated, it was a lot more equally shared. Consider that it took until 1996 for the All Blacks to win a test series in SA, whereas the Boks won their first (and only) test series in NZ in 1937 - the so-called best ever team to leave NZ shores. In 1949, the Boks whitewashed the All Blacks 4-0, and the return series (won by NZ) in 1956 has been described to me as a "war footing". I don't think its a coincidence that NZ's dominance has taken place since large scale Polynesian immigration (mainly Samoan, as it was a colony of NZ) which largely started in the 1980s. You could argue that Australia's improvement has certainly be assisted by this as well (think Willie O, Toutai Kefu, Lote Tuqiri), as many NRL players have Tongan and Samoan heritage. I understand that Maoris are also Polynesian, but Samoans tend to be bigger than most Maoris...in any event, most Maoris have a fair amount European heritage as well these days. After all, if you were a winger, who would you rather face, Stu Wilson or Julian Savea??

Developed mainly by Gregor Townsend. Glasgow play a wide offloading game and it was evident by the Scottish performance on Sunday afternoon. Glasgow dominate the Scotland squad and it showed that the players were more comfortable with moving the ball up the pitch with reduced errors. From some of the Pro 12 games played during the RWC Glasgow have got more coming through.

Tag is played in school here but I prefer touch. Tag is too league oriented play the balls with five uses of the ball and then turnover.

France were their only real opposition at the time in the Six Nations. Italy were new, Scotland declined rapidly, Ireland underachieved but on the rise with fresh blood and Wales recovering from the dark days of the 90s. Ireland and Wales have caught up, France's regression has only been in the last few years which have been dominated by Ireland and Wales in terms of tournament wins. Even when Lievermont was coach they won slams and tournaments. In this time England have only won one title.

Argentina's development as a Rugby nation was linked to SA, England, Wales and France where forwards are vital to the game. They're have also put focus on the 7s game to develop their back play and running. More competitive tests to put it to the test. It hasn't come off though to get this performance and Hourcade has sacrificed results to develop his team.

Bakkies England did have a player called David Duckham during that time who was apparently a good winger but didn't play as many games for England as he perhaps should have.

The Lions probably were comprised mostly of the strong Welsh sides at the time who played a running game. There is still a running focus in Wales.

From hearing what Kiwi coaches who work here have been saying there's a focus on constant development through games in NZ so players who that game sense ingrained in them by the time they are teens. In other countries you get unqualified coaches who spend a lot of their time in sessions doing useless drills and have little game sense themselves which feeds through to the players who then go on to play a rigid sloppy game.