Is there still a gap between NH & SH rugby?

[PaarlBok]

After the EYT this one have me thinking a lot. Normally we send our best teams up north but we dont get the same value down south. Not only playing wise but also money wise. I think its a bad cycle we have here. The Stadiums are packed when we visit there. The BaaBaas vs All Blacks confirm it once again pulling a crowd of 60,000 plus and this all to see SH players playing each other. The flip side of the coin is that yearly when its our turn we find teams like France or England sending teams while their own local competitions is still on. This mean the same thing as a Bok team without the Bulls and Sharks. Really a down grade team and we get a down graded game of rugby. Our supporters aint that blind and they notice this and it happen in 2009 with the BIL tour in SA. Sure a merit team but all questions and worries ask why the locals rather watch the S14 final. Its not all about ticket price but lately we struggle to pack our stadiums when they visit. Now with the SWC on at the same time next year as the June test we shift it to country places like Potch & Witbank. Totally unthinkable a few years back.

Playerwise I think there any gap left between the tewo hemispheres. We have just saw the Hane & Iere down our Bokke and Skotland beating the Wallabies. The All Blacks the only team that return with respect for the SH.

Anyway here is Nick Mallet take on the players strengths.

Italy coach Nick Mallett has questioned the quality of the Northern Hemisphere sides following the Autumn internationals where he believes a gap between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres was exposed.

Mallett pointed to a disappointing November series for the home nations with Ireland, France and Scotland the only teams to register wins over Tri-Nations opposition.

Mallett - the former Springbok coach - highlighted the fact that France's win over New Zealand in June was the first win by Northern Hemisphere opposition in the Southern Hemisphere in six years..

"I think the gap between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere remains pretty wide." Mallet told the RBS6Nations website.

"The day Northern Hemisphere teams stop going down South and losing every Test by at least 20-30 points and start winning on their own soil, is the day I will revise my opinion."

The Italy coach pointed to a much tougher brand of rugby as one of the reasons for the wide gap between the sides.

"If you look at the Tri Nations, the physicality is on a level that is way above the Northern Hemisphere."

With thanks to RBS6Nations.com

Nick it wont happen Boet?

Your thoughts.

 

[Jethro Tah]

Is there a gap? Sure is! Almost as big as the one between Quade Cooper's ears.

On a player skill level and team success, SH is historically way ahead yet on game attendance and general public interest, as you have pointed out PB, the NH is ahead. Coming from the SH yet living in the NH, this is obvious to me and it's not just international games but also at a provincial level. I would prefer a Tahs game any day of the week but for atmosphere a Top 14 game in the top half of the ladder is better attended by players and fans than a NH side visiting the south.

A lot to do with it is the ratio of sports on offer down south compared to population. In France, you basically have just 2 winter sports to play or follow for a population of about 60m compared to in Oz where you have 4 games for about 20m people, which also means funding is spread around more thus player salaries are lower. Which leads me to another thought, maybe the SH players prefer to go north for their EOYTs to sell themselves on the more lucrative europe market whereas the northerners see little value in heading south, apart from a bit of sunshine.

Yet why are SH players and teams generally better than those up north despite a much smaller population base? Dunno!

 

[Thomond78]

Nick Mallett is, for once, talking through his arse here. For one thing, he could do with taking a look at Ireland's record in NZ, where we've been - achingly - close over the last seven years or so. 20-30 points losses, my plums. And if Catrogiovanni and Parisse's national coach thinks that Italy are lacking physicality, there's a lot of SH props and back-rows would like to differ, after this autumn.

As it happens, the gap has closed. NH teams now win more than we used to, across a wider range of teams, than at any time since the start of the pro game (where the SH had a massive lead on us). The England team that won the 2003 RWC was a freak, and queered those stats. Take them out, and the NH teams are now, on average, winning more games. Take Italy; ten years ago, even against an AB B side, the chances of them being legitimately aggrieved over not getting a game-tying penalty try against the ABs would have been laughable.

The real question is why NH crowds will come out to support their teams, regardless, even when it's a weakened SH team (NZ rotation teams, SA in 2006), but SH crowds won't even come out for 3N deciders (Dunedin in 2005, for example). And on that one, I don't know. The NPC finals attendance was, simply, disgraceful, and not a good indicator for SH rugby in general if people won't turn out after so good an NPC. BTW, PT, it's not just about the number of different sports; hell, Irish crowds come out, in increasing numbers, up against the draw soccer, hurling and football.

 

[PaarlBok]

Yep Thomo you touch on some true points there. Myself think we get a overdose of rugby down south regarding the crowds.

SA have the biggest player registrations probably world wide, thats player & support base giving us that.

 

[Thomond78]

The nightmare for world rugby, Oom, has, for a long time, been the whole of SA society getting into playing rugby. With more Beeste, Habanas, Roses, to pick from, even Province and the Stormers would be hard-put not to win.

Mind you, given the proud recent track record of Province and the Stormers, I have every faith in their ability to rise to that challenge, but you take my point...

 

[PaarlBok]

The nightmare for world rugby, Oom, has, for a long time, been the whole of SA society getting into playing rugby. With more Beeste, Habanas, Roses, to pick from, even Province and the Stormers would be hard-put not to win.

Mind you, given the proud recent track record of Province and the Stormers, I have every faith in their ability to rise to that challenge, but you take my point...

Yep they coming through now, Ashley Johnson is the first real Gimmie of colour. Still a long road to go but we'll get there.

Still think the differense between NH & SH is the make up of the game. North you have your clubs/provinces playing much more games compare to the SH provinces/franchises. Thats your strong part and the supporter supporting Munster through a whole season. Here we get a franchise like the Stormers, no Boland players, then CC and you get back to supporting Boland or WP. In Aus its even more difficult with their franchises only playing S14 rugby. The base dont have the same impact to what you have up north. Myself obvious love the dirt tracker games, playing those clubs give a total different meaning.

 

[Spook]

Nick Mallett is, for once, talking through his arse here. For one thing, he could do with taking a look at Ireland's record in NZ, where we've been - achingly - close over the last seven years or so. 20-30 points losses, my plums.

Pity about your record against NZ in Ireland. 30 or 40 point whippings the last few times by B Teams isn't it?

 

[Pfitzy]

but SH crowds won't even come out for 3N deciders (Dunedin in 2005, for example). And on that one, I don't know. The NPC finals attendance was, simply, disgraceful, and not a good indicator for SH rugby in general if people won't turn out after so good an NPC.

Pay TV penetration is a factor. If you're a low-middle income earner with two kids and you pay $60 a month for your Sky/Fox, why the hell would you go pay that again for your ticket + a ticket for each child at least to go see the game when perfectly good TV coverage is available? These days in Australia you MUST pay for S14 coverage unless you're net-savvy, in which case you're either paying for the games already or getting them for free.

Population and transport is also a big deal. If you were a Pom and your team drew a home game against Italy, then you're looking at a few hours to get to any other game. If I'm a Wallaby fan I'm looking at a few hours just to get to a game in my own country. South Africa? Forget it.

Throw in our lower population centres and rugby demographics (especially here in Oz) and you've got fairly compelling reasons why our provincial and Test teams don't always sell out grounds. Well that and our grounds are often poorly allocated e.g. the ARU has a contract that any Sydney Test MUST be played in the 82,500 seat Olympic Park stadium. Why take a game against Samoa there when you know you're only getting 30K tops?

 

[Scotty]

The real question is why NH crowds will come out to support their teams, regardless, even when it's a weakened SH team (NZ rotation teams, SA in 2006), but SH crowds won't even come out for 3N deciders (Dunedin in 2005, for example). And on that one, I don't know. The NPC finals attendance was, simply, disgraceful, and not a good indicator for SH rugby in general if people won't turn out after so good an NPC. BTW, PT, it's not just about the number of different sports; hell, Irish crowds come out, in increasing numbers, up against the draw soccer, hurling and football.

The answer to the real question - because SH b teams can still beat the NH teams, hence it is always going to be competitive in the November tours. This contrasts to recent NH b-c teams being sent to the SH and often getting smashed.

The notable exception is Ireland, who tend to send their strongest sides.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Rugby as a spectacle is booming in the Northern Part of the world as there is something about a tight, defensively orientated, penalty orientated dour match which appeals to the Northern fans.

Rugby as a spectacle is stagnant in NZ as there is something about a tight, defnesively orientated, penalty orientated dour match, which reminds the locals there are better things to do with your time.

As far as I'm concerned, the gap is still there and as big as it has been historically. Oh sure, the Jocks beat the Wob's, but even the most hardened Jock fan will tell you there as only one team trying to play decent rugby out there. And the Irish have been having a great run of late, but it's hardly to been to the watchability of the rugby being played. It's simply due to playing the game which suits them, which for the most part, bores the shit out of me. Sorry if that sounds arrogant or whatever, but I just simply don't like defensive tussles sorted out by penalties.

Not really sure what my point is - there is no doubt in my mind that probably the quality of players in the NH & SH is starting to even up, with recent player such as Byrne, Kearney, Phlips, Gibson & the not so recent players such as D'Arcy, Greenwood, BOD & Henson. But until the game plans start to make it something worth watching, the SH is where it's at.

 

[Scotty]

Wow, can't wait for Thommo to get his back up about that one.

 

[Pfitzy]

even the most hardened Jock fan will tell you there as only one team trying to play decent rugby out there.

Really? :nta:

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

even the most hardened Jock fan will tell you there as only one team trying to play decent rugby out there.

Really? :nta:

Let me rephrase - play a brand of rugby which is entertaining to watch, and really looking to get across the line.

 

[Pfitzy]

Ah - I'll add "but doing a piss-poor job of it"

 

[Lee Grant]

Rugby as a spectacle is booming in the Northern Part of the world as there is something about a tight, defensively orientated, penalty orientated dour match which appeals to the Northern fans.

Rugby as a spectacle is stagnant in NZ as there is something about a tight, defnesively orientated, penalty orientated dour match, which reminds the locals there are better things to do with your time.

Not really sure what my point is - there is no doubt in my mind that probably the quality of players in the NH & SH is starting to even up, with recent player such as Byrne, Kearney, Phlips, Gibson & the not so recent players such as D'Arcy, Greenwood, BOD & Henson. But until the game plans start to make it something worth watching, the SH is where it's at.

The first two sentences were clever stuff but one can't deny that the northerners like a tight game that we would call boring - such as most of the Waratahs games in 2009. But they also like a good open game.

We forget here, if we ever knew, that many NH rugby games are played in adverse conditions both of weather and surface. Those conditions become worst about this time of the year and last for about 3 months. It is no wonder that their rugby has taken a different evolutionary branch on the tree of rugby from that of Oz rugby, played on our hard sandy soil pitches and in benign winters. We applaud the movement of the ball amongst the backs, to a fault, they the technical aspects of tight play.

Our view of what is worthy in rugby is as valid as theirs, and vice versa. We should not criticise the way they play the game when we don't know what we don't know about their rugby upbringing. Nor should they, ours.

I don't include France historically in that categorisation; after all, the hotbed of the sport there is not far away from the Mediterranean or their southern Atlantic coast, and the sand - though the pitch at Biarritz could do with a bit more of it.

And currently in Ireland they have a group of young galacticos: Kearney, Earls and Fitzgerald whose forbears should have been transported to Botany Bay as were those of Tim Horan; for our game, and conditions, were made for them.


As for which team was playing decent rugby at Murrayfield: it was Scotland. They were playing for the conditions and to their strengths: defence and slowing the game down to their pace. I was disappointed when Giteau missed the final kick but I gave a little mental clap to the Scots. They have a lower player base than even we do and with THP Murray out the only player they had who would walk into our team was Nathan Hines. Yeah he was, by coincidence, from Wagga, but we, as a group of Oz rugby forum posters, have not paid the proper respect that the Scotland team deserved.



Major

I don't mind your mentioning Will Greenwood as being recent, but which Gibson were you talking about? Surely not Mike?

 

[Pfitzy]

Weather and pitch conditions didn't stop the ABs playing a near-perfect 40 minutes of rugby against us in Wellington back in 96.

 

[Thomond78]

Nick Mallett is, for once, talking through his arse here. For one thing, he could do with taking a look at Ireland's record in NZ, where we've been - achingly - close over the last seven years or so. 20-30 points losses, my plums.

Pity about your record against NZ in Ireland. 30 or 40 point whippings the last few times by B Teams isn't it?

I firmly hope you're not an accountant, Spook. Biggest margin the ABs have had in NZ over Ireland in NZ in the last five years has been 10 points. Which, so far as I can see, isn't 30 or 40 points.

Or, to put it another way; epic fail.

Wow, can't wait for Thommo to get his back up about that one.

I left it to LG. I'm still wondering what the hell "to been to" means. :nta:

 

[cyclopath]

Nick Mallett is, for once, talking through his arse here. For one thing, he could do with taking a look at Ireland's record in NZ, where we've been - achingly - close over the last seven years or so. 20-30 points losses, my plums.

Pity about your record against NZ in Ireland. 30 or 40 point whippings the last few times by B Teams isn't it?

I firmly hope you're not an accountant, Spook. Biggest margin the ABs have had in NZ over Ireland in NZ in the last five years has been 10 points. Which, so far as I can see, isn't 30 or 40 points.

Or, to put it another way; epic fail.

Wow, can't wait for Thommo to get his back up about that one.

I left it to LG. I'm still wondering what the hell "to been to" means. :nta:

Spook was talking about the ABs in Ireland; you are talking about the ABs in NZ. I think. What is the biggest margin in AB v Ireland in Ireland? I wouldn't have a clue, so a genuine question for you.

 

[Lindommer]

...the Scots...have a lower player base than even we do and with THP Murray out the only player they had who would walk into our team was Nathan Hines. Yeah he was, by coincidence, from Wagga...

I would think a likely lad from the sporting capital of the western world, Wagga Wagga, could walk into most sporting teams.

Major, I don't mind your mentioning Will Greenwood as being recent, but which Gibson were you talking about? Surely not Mike?

Possibly the second Mike Gibson who played, what, ten years ago. Not CMH Gibson of the 60s and 70s.

 

[Lee Grant]

Weather and pitch conditions didn't stop the ABs playing a near-perfect 40 minutes of rugby against us in Wellington back in 96.

Yes Nicko - but they played a wet weather game for the ages. IIRR it was the 1st 3N game ever. I started out cursing our luck but that morphed into appreciating the best display of wet weather rugby I had ever seen. Nor have I seen one since.

Mention that display only in reference to what is possible, not what is likely, except every decade - or so.