There are many different reasons why northern hemisphere rugby pales in comparison to the fast-paced and thrilling rugby on show south of the equator. And a wide range of excuses as well.
The Six Nations is halfway through this year’s competition, and yet the quality of rugby has been overshadowed by the opening weekend of Super Rugby.
Why is this so? Surely the northern hemisphere, the inventors of the sport and the surrounding nations, have some quality within them? If so, why were they all unceremoniously knocked out of the World Cup so early, some in devastating fashion (England and France, I’m looking at you)?
Let’s take a look at some of the reasons which may indicate why such a gap in quality and entertainment exists between the two hemispheres.
Weather
This may seem like a poor excuse, but in reality this plays a huge aspect on whether the game will be fast-paced, full of running rugby, or a forward-orientated game jam-packed with sloppy handling and aerial ping-pong.
In the northern hemisphere, the winter is significantly wetter, windier and more miserable, and this often forces, as was seen in the opening two weeks of the Six Nations, teams to grind out ugly wins. A lot of attacking opportunities are squandered through handling errors.
When the weather is good, sunny and clear, the northern hemisphere often do get games that flow as they do down south. France versus England in the 2015 Six Nations proved that, with a final score line of 55-35. It was arguably the match of the year – and a year which included the World Cup!
Cultural differences
In New Zealand and South Africa especially, rugby is much more part and parcel of growing up, and is often taught from an extremely young age, as well as being the main sport of the country.
Rugby is not the most played sport in any of the northern hemisphere countries and certainly isn’t as popular as it is down here. After the most recent World Cup, rugby in England and other northern hemisphere countries is arguably making a comeback and is starting to be played in more schools and from a younger age.
Sadly, the vast majority, almost three-quarters of schools in England, play football (soccer) as their winter sport, and a staggering amount don’t offer rugby at all.
Contrast that to the southern hemisphere countries, where rugby is part of growing up, is played at school and at clubs, and is watched every weekend. This certainly gives a broader knowledge of the sport and a way of approaching it that is rarely seen up north.
Basic skills
This brings us neatly to the main and most obvious point. Watching southern hemisphere teams play, the level of basic skills – offloads, passing, kicking, spotting gaps – are all much more developed. Playing, watching and discussing rugby from such a young age will put you in better stead to play reactionary rugby, and how best to attack and defend.
The speed at which the southern hemisphere play is a combination of all these factors – better rugby brains, more exposure to the sport from a younger age, more practise from youth upwards. This instils more confidence in your play and more confidence in your teammates, which gives you freedom to attack more and not be held back by your fear of failure.
Press and support
This brings me to my final point, and something I have noticed after the last 12 months. The fear of failure in the northern hemisphere, particularly from England, forces negative rugby, and a defensive structure that creates the dull, monotonous, league-like games that are deemed to be ‘boring’. (Watch Wales versus France this last weekend to see what I mean).
The media in the northern hemisphere, in France and England especially, is full of negative and overly opinionated articles from overzealous and over analytical journalists who are just waiting for failure so their next piece can be as scathing as possible.
And while the press in the southern hemisphere expects more success from their teams, and the weight of expectation can indeed weigh heavily, they praise and encourage more often and regularly describe their players as deities.
This positivity from the press leaks into the supporters, and by far the southern hemisphere supporters are more confident, more reasonable and more supportive of their teams. The northern hemisphere supporters tend to be aggressive keyboard warriors who myopically discuss their own team’s potential while crushing others.
Such differences make tiny variances, even if some are reactionary to other aspects, but I fear that the gap will continue until grassroots rugby begins to expand in the northern hemisphere.
Even then you still have a pessimistic press, poor weather and a lack of basic skills to contend with. Some can be fixed, others are just constants. Can the gap ever be closed?
Rory
Guest
Thanks for doing the maths there Rhino
ClarkeG
Guest
Tickets available on Ticketek? :-) Seriously though puff you will have access to hard-arse statistics to prove your point? We then might follow that up with a debate about what constitutes a sporting activity.
taylorman
Guest
yeah but thats one of those funny comparison things. What constitutes the numbers? Someone who has ever held a fishing line over the water even once in their life, or the number out over a certain number of hours a week, competing for some prize? Surely Pool (or 8 ball) must be up there if its the former. Who hasnt played a game of 8 ball ever recreationally. To diverge...Its like the common flying is safer than driving in a car. Well that depends how you measure it. Number of deaths per year? For sure, flying is safer. But given a take off and landing is one flight. So too is going from A to B in a car one car trip, each having at least one possibility of a fatality.Dividing the number of flights by the number of deaths will surely be higher than the number of instances of a car ride. How many car rides has one taken in one year compared to the number of flights? Forgive me...Friday diversion, Cmon the Blues!
puff
Guest
Lroy, for the record, agree rugby has a big following in NZ but recreational fishing is the biggest sports activity by far.
Birdy
Guest
Lroy, You have a nicer way of saying it than me . I got rucked out of the back of the mall for my comment. Lol
Derm
Roar Guru
You're right about rugby not being number one sport in most countries. Soccer would be number one in a lot of countries with some exceptions such as Australia, Ireland, NZ.
Derm
Roar Guru
The article opens with a line comparing Super Rugby to the Six Nations. I'm glad you got the point same as the NZ fans did. The two aren't comparable. As for attendances at test matches, I'm sure someone can do the research on these and see how they compare. The equivalent to Super Rugby is not the English Premiership; the equivalent would be the European Cup.
Lroy
Guest
Thats not a like for like comparison, you have to compare tests against tests.... how is the Ellis park crowd when the All Blacks are playing, or Sydney stadium?? You should be comparing the English club scene to super level since it is the next level down. how where are you packed houses??
Lroy
Guest
I think that you will find that soccer is the number one sport in South Africa, AFL and the NRL dominate things in Australia. I suspect Rugby isnt the number one sport in any country its played in (with maybe Wales or NZ being the exceptions), France, Ireland, Scotland, Italy... rugby isnt number one. Which is why rugby cannot afford to be complacent, the game needs to be a spectacle. Look at how T20 is dominating cricket... you have to provide entertaining product. .
Birdy
Guest
Or maybe the whites own all the media outlets
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
yeah and probably WOULDA if not for that infamous decision.
SAVAGE
Guest
It maybe an issue, but it's not our problem, it's their problem. The moment they decided to handover the club reigns to private owners pretty much sounded the death knell for any kind of control in terms of player development, and player succession.
NaBUru38
Guest
Not to mention that Europeans very seldomly take wins visiting the Southern Hemisphere, whereas Southern teams often win in Europe.
NaBUru38
Guest
New Zealand and eastern Argentina are rainy, so that's not the reason. Also in Argentina, rugby isn't a popular youth sport. Football is dominant as in most of South America and South Europe.
Derm
Roar Guru
By sheer coincidence, before reading this article I read an article on the NZ website stuff entitled "Super Rugby sizzles whilst Six Nations fizzles". The co-authors proceeded to pour forth with how much more exciting and try-filled the opening weeks of Super Rugby were compared with the first 9 games of the 6 Nations. To quote them: "But there comes a point where you have to face up to facts, and those facts show Super Rugby is as exciting as Piha Beach in full surf rage, whereas the Six Nations is akin to mangrove-riddled mudflats with the tide out and a 2km wade to reach salt water above the ankles." Now leaving aside the fact that I don't have a clue what the references mean, I got the general impression that they preferred one over the other. Every statistic was pulled forth to show how more exciting, skilful, fast, exciting, and generally brilliant the Super Rugby was compared to the dull and boring Six Nations. They even provided video clips with appropriate sound effects of "exciting" Super Rugby and "boring" Six Nations - just in case we hadn't got the message. As I looked more closely at the videos, I noticed that some of the "exciting" Super Rugby was being played in front of half-empty stands whilst the "boring" Six Nations rugby was being played in front of packed houses. How could this be? Why wasn't every New Zealander, Australian and South African queuing in their thousands outsides these stadiums to watch this far more "exciting" Super Rugby compared to the "boring" Six Nations? Then I read the comments from New Zealand rugby fans to this piece of stunning journalism. To a man, they all said the same thing. You can't compare Super Rugby to Six Nations test matches. And most welcomed that there was diversity in rugby and rugby playing styles. And, the Six Nations played to packed houses, with brilliant atmospheres. The tendency by some SH commentators and fans to lump all the NH nations together and then to comment on them as if they were all the same in terms of styles, structures, funding, club setups, foreign player imports, etc, etc is the equivalent of saying all the SH nations are like Australia, or are all like South Africa, when clearly they aren't. None of the 4N countries have the same playing style at test rugby level. Neither do the Six Nations. Whilst I know it's easy (and lazy) to lump them all together, it would be nice once in while to do actual country v country comparisons instead of the same old "boring" SH v NH comparisons, so beloved of this Australian parish.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
You should thank the editors for saving you from embarrassment since you clearly completely misunderstood what that post was saying. In a nutshell, yobs are yobs all over the world. There is very little cultural difference between certain nations, Australia and England being two of them. I hold both passports. You should try to get out more and open your mind.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Jake, I really don't know if you are a 'bogan' or not but you certainly seem to qualify under much of Nicks definition in as much you consistently demonstrate in your posts on various threads little or no real understanding of what goes on beyond Australia's shores, either culturally, historically or from a global sporting perspective.
Ken
Guest
You just got your @$$ handed to you Neil. You`ll get it one day,.but i`m sure you love playing the victim ..
Ken
Guest
Yes 2013 wallabies were hopeless.. When you have out of form guys like Douglas, Mowen, Tomane, Beale, Phipps, Horne in the team... What do you expect....
Timbo
Guest
'...........its a cherry picked period.' Maybe. But a new century, particularly when they coincide with major changes in the game like the advent of full professionalism (in all the senses of that term) seems a reasonable time period to choose.