In the wake of Spiro Zavos‘ latest article asking the question of whether the gap between the northern or southern hemisphere rugby is closing — and some questioning in the comments section whether there ever really was one — I have decided to take a deep statistical look at the history between the Six Nations teams and the original three SANZAR powerhouses.
I believe that it will clarify a few misconceptions, but also add a little logical thinking regarding the here and now.
The first thing that must need clarification is that both South Africa and Australia have, historically, never needed New Zealand to claim dominance over their northern foes.
As I read the comments of Spiro’s article, I came across many a Roarer suggesting that if you take New Zealand out of the equation, both South Africa and Australia’s overall dominance over their Six Nations counterparts would not be substantial.
This, unfortunately, is simply not the truth.
While it is true that New Zealand make the numbers far more pretty than it would have been without them, Australia and South Africa have done fine on their own – both of them carry a 70 or higher percentage in the head-to-head rates against northern opposition.
In fact, the readings against Six Nations opposition goes like this.
Australia: 70 per cent
South Africa: 77 per cent
New Zealand: 89 per cent
The combined standing between these three nations comes up at a 76 per cent win ratio against Six Nations opposition. Without New Zealand, South Africa and Australia command a 74 per cent win ratio between them against Six Nations opposition. So, from a statistical point of view, it is inaccurate to claim that South Africa and Australia need New Zealand to claim historical dominance over the north.
But this does not mean that everything is rosy for the men in gold and green and green and gold. In fact, both of these rugby nations have had some degree of trouble with certain teams in their history.
The most interesting statistic is that France and England seem to be the top achievers against South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
France have a 21 per cent win ratio against New Zealand. No other northern hemisphere rugby nation including England (20%) can boast this feat against the All Blacks. They also hold a 39 per cent win ratio against Australia and a 28 per cent against South Africa, but England succeed them with 45 per cent against Australia and 32 per cent against South Africa.
England, often considered the superpower of the northern hemisphere, holds a 20 per cent win ratio against the men in black while they hold a 32 per cent win ratio against South Africa.
The northern dark horse of recent times, Ireland, have picked up their performances against the big three of the southern hemisphere, and yet their total winning percentage against New Zealand stands at 0 per cent while they hold a 31 per cent against Australia and a 24 per cent against South Africa.
Wales may present the most disappointing displays against southern hemisphere opposition considering their proud rugby culture. Their 26 per cent against Australia stands their best in over a century. They have only beaten New Zealand three times in the last hundred years (9%) and only two wins against South Africa (6%) in 32 attempts.
Another country that has seen some degree of success against the big three from down south, Scotland, have never been able to beat New Zealand while they hold 31 per cent against Australia and 19 per cent against South Africa.
Italy have never beaten any of those teams.
In more recent times, two rugby nations stand out against South Africa and Australia: Ireland against South Africa and England against Australia. Another interesting thing is that if you reverse these two teams, their record don’t make for good reading.
By virtue of their recent series win against Australia, England head the last ten games between the two nations by seven wins to three while Ireland and South Africa are at a five win equal split in the last ten games.
The reversal of these two match-ups sees Australia leading Ireland with seven wins to three in the last ten games and South Africa dominate England by winning nine games and drawing once. South Africa have not lost against England since 2006.
These statistics shows us that the southern hemisphere giants – New Zealand or no New Zealand – do have polished records against Six Nations opposition, but here is where we must also think logically.
The northerners have just completed one of the most dominant visits down south in their entire history and have been threatening to do so for some time now, regardless of the in-house struggles that may be facing Saru and the ARU. The bottom line remains that the northern hemisphere has indeed upped the ante in recent years.
The question of whether the gap truly is closing can only be answered in a year or two from now. One exceptional June Tour does not make for parity, but should the northern teams keep this kind of effectiveness against southern teams in the next year or two, then we can consider reevaluating the current balance of power.
What also needs to be made clear is that teams like England, Ireland and France are perfectly capable of beating either South Africa or Australia on their day. Gone are the days when them beating either of those two teams can be seen as a shock.
It is of my view that Ireland deserved to win the recent series while no one can point the finger at England saying that they did not deserve their day in the golden sun.
It would be wise for the Springboks and the Wallabies and their supporters to take the north seriously. While it may take decades for the north to obtain historical parity with these two nations, nothing stops them from working their way up from here. They have the platform to do so and England are already getting dangerously close to surpassing Australia in the historical head-to-head encounters.
New Zealand seem to be the only ones who are safe at the moment. With 76 per cent against France being their worst record to anyone up north and the rest sitting at 80 per cent and beyond, it’s hard to see them being knocked off the pedestal anytime soon.
It is a shame that we will not see England taking on New Zealand this year, though I am fairly confident that New Zealand would have come out on top. This year’s English team thoroughly deserve to be viewed as the second best team in the world, but they did not show enough for me to view them as realistic challengers for the New Zealand.
The one thing that we can all agree on is that it is damn exciting to see the battle for second spot in the world rankings as being exciting. We have now had four teams gracing the second spot in the last three years.
As for the north versus south debate – let’s see how it goes in the next two years.
Coconut
Guest
Big Foot, or Big Feet? What are a group of these things called?
Coconut
Guest
A.O.T.R, Just because you say there is no SH v. NH 'thing' doesn't make it so. In fact, there has been plenty written on both sides of the equator on this very topic. I for one was certainly hoping our SH cousins would get the job done against their northern counterparts in the June series - and I suspect I was not alone here. I certainly didn't want to see a whitewash in Australia either! Of course Armand could have just focussed on the 'big four' of the NH to do his comparisons, but anyway, its interesting stuff to read how the records stack up head to head. The way the two hemisphere's have traditionally approached the game is another point of difference, and of course those of us here in the Southern Hemisphere like to think we have a better approach - hence the focus on the win-loss records. The way the game is now being played is becoming more homogenous, with SH coaches appointed to most of the NH sides and to 'spread the gospel', so this difference in approach will continue to diminish over time. Again, it was the so called 'Home-Unions' who were always resistant to changes to the game to make it faster and perhaps less forward oriented - another point of difference between the focus of each hemisphere - with the exception of France which has always been more unpredictable in its approach. So sum up - there is always interest in these kinds of analyses, for a variety of reasons, including the ones I have articulated above. No need for the personal stuff either.
Derm
Roar Guru
Tights??
Johnno
Guest
A bit arrogant this article and a bit SH bias. The SH needs to learn how to play rugby from the NH not the other way round. It's NZ vs the rest of the world. The SH should be calling on the expertise of the NH coaches to coach there teams. but they shun them. When will we see a frenchman coaching the QLD reds, or the Tahs, or a Italian or Welshman coaching the western force. They reject NH coaches most of the time, and think SH coaches, they are wrong. Give me a French coach or a boring NH English coach over Richard Graham or Micheal Foley. The SH need to be taught about successful rugby plans and models from the NH rugby structures on what it takes to be successful. The SH have no idea what there missing out on, by not recruiting NH coaches, and being tough with foreign import quotas from the NH. It's the SH who have no idea on successful rugby union in the modern game(exception being NZ).
taylorman
Roar Guru
Sheer...
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes the NH SH argument has historically been limited to the SH 3 because that's where the history lies. NZ, SA and oz have been touring the NH for over one hundred years, in case you weren't aware of that. Likewise, the NH sides, including the Lions, have been touring the SH 3 sides for just as long. So the NH/ SH comparisons have always been discussed at those levels, those countries. In that respect there has been little discussion re sides outside that select group...Italy, Georgia, Argentina, Tonga etc are largely irrelevant in terms of historical success over that group, regardless of hemisphere. Argentina are lately having some success but have largely been ignored in the discussion. Just the way it's been. But the gap discussion has always surfaced over at least the last three or four decades, this year no different. Whether you subscribe to having the discussion is your choice, but it does exist, like it or not, the supposed 'gap' closing a regular NH discussion point. Just googling the key words throws up a large number of items like this- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11940761/Rugby-World-Cup-How-can-the-northern-hemisphere-close-the-gap-on-the-south.html The NH are obsesse!d with it looking at the shear number of times the gap is either closing or widening it seems.
Derm
Roar Guru
"Come on pot that mutual back slapping goes on just as much in the NH as ‘gap closing’ so you don’t represent them all." Eh no it doesn't. The point about the 9-0 was as I said "as if there were only 3 teams involved" Argentina is regularly excluded - I'm questioning why this is so, since everyone was happy to include their achievement in reaching the RWC semis. I'm calling it as double standards. Jones has already stated clearly number of times, as has the RFU, that he will not be coaching the Lions next year. He has no interest. I define it as self-congratulatory because no one claimed that South Africa, NZ or Aus didn't have superior records. I've no idea what you're referring to when you say we saw "plenty of it when you and yours here when England and Ireland won their matches." Is there anything specific that you're referring to? "Talk about Georgia, Tonga, etc just serves to water down the argument" This effectively sums up my point. Although I'd change your sentence slightly. Including the other teams just serves to water down your argument.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Counts for half of something. What that something is, who can say..
Ralph
Roar Guru
I agree completely. I am really looking forward to the next SH vs NH matchup!
Ralph
Roar Guru
Do you have any links, I am an avid follower of Big Foot and am curious about this alleged link up with Aliens?
taylorman
Roar Guru
Come on pot that mutual back slapping goes on just as much in the NH as 'gap closing' so you don't represent them all. Most SHers here didnt select 9-0 as the most common outcome for the Eng Oz tests was typically a 2-1 result. Next year the Lions will be coming here and you can bet we'll have the gap thing all over again, especially if Jones is coach and the sides that tour north later this year don't go well, NZ especially. Self congratulatory? Maybe. I call it winning. And we saw plenty of it from you and yours here when England and Ireland won their matches. Talk about Georgia, Tonga etc just serves to water down the argument. We know it's just about the top three SH versus whoever is the latest best of the 6N sides bar Italy, plus the Lions. Always has been, always will be.
Armand, kites can't fly that high ;)
Armand van Zyl
Roar Guru
This guy is as high as a kite.
Derm
Roar Guru
I think the point being made is that fans from SA, Aus or maybe New Zealand see this through a simplistic filter of the "SH" is better than the "NH" and liken it to an ongoing collective battle. I don't see it the same way. It's the head to head against individual teams that matter from my point of view. Ireland didn't play SANZAR this June, they played South Africa. In 2018, they'll play Australia. From my point of view, I don't care about how England or Wales or France did on behalf of the "northern hemisphere". At the beginning of June, there were plenty of people predicting 9-0 to the SH teams as if there were only three countries involved. Maybe what commentators such as myself, or others in this topic, are doing is holding up a mirror to the question being posed. Is it valid or relevant? Is the comparison disingenuous since it deliberately ignores other SH teams? Time and gain, Argentina are left out of the equation despite them being part of the Four Nations Championship, and playing in the Super Rugby competition. Their own fans point our their absence from these analyses. But it's not hard to see why - they don't fit the picture of SH dominance. It's okay to praise them when they reach the semi-finals of the RWC, but keep them out of the way the rest of the time. Let's face it, no one disputes that New Zealand has a far superior record over every other team than anyone. No one disputes that South Africa and Australia have overall winning records against 6 Nations teams. There is no debate or discussion on these - the facts speak for themselves. So why have a debate at all unless it is about whether change is happening or some trends are being set? As I, and others, have pointed out in this topic and in other recent ones, there is a undeniable change in the fortunes of teams linked to the move to professionalism, and possibly linked to other factors in the increasing commercialism of the game at club level, the increasing movement of players, coaches, and the current regulations regarding residency and qualification. The regular back-slapping amongst the fans of big three of the SH teams about their mutual successful record over the 'Northern Hemisphere" and the accompanying cliches that surround it is a bit tedious at this stage. How much comment was given to Argentina and its games against Italy and France? How much comment or similar recognition is given to the performance of the SH poor relations such as Fiji, Tonga and Samoa? Or a NH team like Georgia touring the islands and their success? Or Scotland touring Japan? A true "debate" about SH v NH, should look maybe at the contrasting performances of those 14/15 nations against each other. If people want to continue penning these kind of self-congratulatory articles, then that's their choice, and the editor's decision to publish them. Equally part of the debate should be to question their validity and accuracy in the context of whether it is a true assessment of the wider game and how its progressing whether that is in the south, north, east or west.
SP
Guest
Think he got a smack on the nose
ebop
Guest
"I understand people like to make one up but my question is why?" Because it's just a bit of fun mate :)
soapit
Roar Guru
you should check these out http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/home.php http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugbychampionship/
taylorman
Roar Guru
Well theres a bit more to it than that. There are tours. Northern teams tour the southern 3 regularly and vice versa. You dont see England touting ireland or Wales playing a three test series. They come south and do that. South slso go north, although they typical play 3 or 4 one offs mainly because theyre close. So theres definitely a divide between north and south and a commonality between north and north and south and south. Youre right AO tear about it not existing in other sports but that doesnt mean it aint in rugby. So if you dont like the concept the butt out of the converstion. But dont try and convince people it doesnt exist when it does. Youre just wasting your time.
Kuruki
Roar Guru
do you puff the dragon also?
Kuruki
Roar Guru
Instead of a bunch of articles about big foot, how about just one simple comment that stays relatively on track and has some substance. If you understand why people like to debate it, why do you need to ask the question?