Ex-Scotland coach Telfer compares Eddie Jones to Trump

Both are international coaches now after coaching over ten years each in the NH, so yes they are both every bit as much products of the NH now too.

Well it's your money, do what feels right. ;)

A lot of Northern Hemisphere players say they wouldn't mind having a crack at Super Rugby but it's largely impractical for their career. As far as top English players go, it means dropping out of contention for the national side, and anyone considering that route usually wants a financial trade-off to go with the change of scenery. You'd think maybe players further down the pecking order might consider giving the Southern Hemisphere a go, to try and improve in a different environment, and perhaps catch the eye back home if they can impress. That did happen to Matt Symons, but he was playing outside the Premiership for Esher when he left. Even mediocre Premiership players these days command good salaries, so it's quite a financial sacrifice to try and make it down south.

Yes they were products of NZ and took that north. Maybe they were hired as coaches in the NH so they could be taught to coach, or maybe they already knew how to. Is it usual practice in the NH to hire coaches that dont yet know how to coach? Products of NZ. Doesnt mean they dont learn every day.

Im sorry but the WC was created so that, like all other major international sports, rugby has a world cup. Its understandable that you prefer the 6 nations but it isnt understandable that you make such comments. Its great that you like the 6 nats but it aint great to try and undermine other comps and hemisphere.

In 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 07, 08, 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15 Aus either drew with or beat NZ. So its pretty normal for Aus to have competed well with NZ over the last 40 years and its unusual for Aus not to either beat or draw with NZ during a year and NZ have won less than 2 from every 3. So I think that its a pretty good bet that Aus will do well with the team they have now.

When SA won the World Cup in 2007 Eddie Jones was roped in as an assistant coach. He was approached by Jake White to help out . Why?? Because White wanted to surround himself with the best available. He had been given Alistair Coetzee by SARFU and I don't have to say it but obviously he wanted a bit more quality around him. Jake White made it absolutely clear in his autobiography that Jones' influence was crucial . Eddie Jones commands massive respect amongst the SA Rugby public and when Japan beat the Boks at the last World Cup it only enhanced his reputation here . No bad feelings towards the guy at all . White desperately wanted the job as England job and said so . He was in the running but it went to his good mate instead. Too bad .. I will always remember Jones' words to White when approached to help coach the Boks .."Mate , can we turn silver into gold" ..Priceless

Not making anything up, its an opinion not just based on win ratios. In '13 Australia were all over the place. McKensie had just taken over from Deans and Australia were in transition. There was in fighting and lots of incidents with players getting suspended for off field shenanigans that spilled into '04. These issues have been ironed out under Cheika and I feel they have a more settled side and better half backs now albeit they still have work to do and not enough depth in some positions. in '13 Australia played James O'Connor at 10 for all three Lions tests. For me Bernard Foley is a better player. Yes '13 was a Lions year but I think that a 3 match series against the '13 Lions isnt as tough as 4 matches against the current England side. That Lions side were badly coached in my opinion. For me this England side is much more organised. In 2016 Australia came 2nd in a very poor rugby championship whereas in 2013 they came third.

You can probably see from Telfer's comments why English people have a tendency to roll their eyes when the Celts (particularly the Scots and English) bang on about 'English arrogance and disdain'. If an Englishman had made these comments about the Scots or Welsh, the internet would be in meltdown.

I wouldn't bet on that if I was you.

Oh well now you're just throwing everything into the washing machine and making stuff up. Aus weren't worse in 2013, they won 9 and lost 8 for over 50% in a Lions year. Last year was 6 wins 9 lost, so it's worse, regardless of what you might think. Rugby's been around a lot longer...yes, but they've been playing it a lot worse. Just about every stat proves that. And money isn't the only reason players don't come here. If they got the same only the hardened would have a go, those that genuinely want to play better rugby. obviously there's not many of them around.

Id say Australia were a worse side in 2013. No one from the NH wants to play in the SH any more because since the game became professional all the money is in the NH. You used to get the odd Irish player going to the SH but this never happens anymore because its not worth their while. SH players are just following the money. There have been a few good SH players playing for Irish provincial sides over the years but the Irish sides have always been made up of predominantly Irish players with their own history and identity. As such the SH influence is fairly minimal overall. NH rugby has been around longer than SH rugby so if anything its the other way round. The first AB captain was an Irishman and one of the first New Zealand rugby world cup medal winners John Gallagher also played for Ireland A having been born to Irish parents.

Rankings aren't an exact science, yet hístory, crowd numbers are definitive proof that the competition is 'best'? And oz now? Their worst year in years. The NH have a lot more rugby players and coaches as well, yet need to buy in more to prop up both their club and test rugby, from, you guessed it, the SH. You mentioned Cotter and Gatland are just as much a product of NH rugby as SH. That theory can be applied to NH rugby as well...being just as much a product of SH rugby such is the influence of SH rugby on the NH professional scene. Oh, and by the way, we also keep our own shops running as well.

The world cup was created so the southern hemisphere sides could get a slice of the pie. NZ were the biggest driver behind it if I remember correctly. I prefer the 6 nations.

Rankings aren't an exact science. Australia are ranked 3rd in the world at the moment but Id say that Ireland are a better side than them. They also beat them recently with half a team. Not sure about the lower skill argument either as many of the most skillful players on the planet have come through the six nations despite the tournament being played in harsher conditions than in the south.

The other view is throughout its history it rarely has the best teams competing, and for most of the pro era rarely the top three, and an assumption must also be made that the quality of the actual rugby played is lower than either the Rugby Championship or World Cup, regardless of whether a million people watch it or ten thousand. Lower skill levels, lower accuracy and execution, generally lower quality. Best is not just about numbers on seats, or longetiviety, or passion, sometimes it's actually about what you are watching, as weird as that may seem.

Hi Ken. Are you insinuating that I am prejudiced? Interesting that you haven't backed that claim and yet "A conclusion without a premise is not an argument". The 6 nations is the oldest rugby tournament in the world and attracts the biggest viewership and sponsorship. It is generally very evenly contested and as a result more exciting that watching New Zealand win every year. The proximity and unique history of the sides competing in the tournament also adds a lot to the tournament. The Rugby championship by contrast features 4 sides that could barely be further removed from each other geographically at least. I don't think it helps either that rugby union isnt that popular in Australia. It is certainly the most popular and sustainable annual rugby show on earth so that's enough for me. Not sure I'm obliged to convince you anyway.

Schmidt and Cotter arent just products of NZ. Yes they both coached in NZ but they have both coached a lot more in the NH and from grass roots up. Also Schmidt started at Wilson's Hospital school in Mullingar Ireland and then on to Mullingar RFC in the 1990's before he had the big jobs in NZ in the Bay of plenty or the Blues. His ties to Ireland go way back. Both Schmidt and Cotter have played rugby in the NH and they have also coached more in the NH than in the SH right from grass roots up. They are both as much products of NH rugby as they are SH rugby.

You want the opposition stadium to be intimidating don't you.. What? So how much better the win if it is. Surely its a great way for the opposition to get Fired Up. Concentration on the set piece will win them games. If it continues and more copy, then it will kill the game further. Why though don't England play in the North Of the country or even the west..

He coached Scotland to the 5 Nations title after that Lions Series