I'll put it in simple sentences for you, as reading paragraphs seem a bit of a stretch.
How many pro- rugby games are played in the south west side of the south island of New Zealand? Nil so it's not relevant.
The comparison with New Zealand is valid because it is a place which has a high annual rainfall, which goes against the idea that wet heavy grounds and rain prevent high skill, high speed rugby and necessitate attritional play for the penalty forward play. [blah blah blah and here's where I'm wrong and just being contentious.]
You're starting to try people's patience with this, and if you don't want to risk getting your feelings hurt again, best put an end to it. But look -- I'll try help you, but I fear it's a losing proposition. But I'm also done playing with you here.
(Proviso: If you are not Quick Hands or interested in this stupid argument, just scroll past this.)
YOU'RE WRONG, AND HERE IS WHY:
Go back to the original argument, and the point was that the Premiership, Pro 12 and Top 14 generally play in worse weather conditions than Super Rugby. I said "generally," and I made the comparison to all of Super Rugby, not just New Zealand. I said to make a fair comparison, you'd want to play all of Super Rugby in Invercargill between June and August, because the winter weather in Invercargill is more similar to the winter weather in the UK and Ireland. That's undeniably true. Why all of Super Rugby? Because there are 15 teams in that competition, and there are far more teams than that in the UK and Ireland and parts of France that play in crap weather conditions -- more teams in the NH competitions play in crap weather conditions than Super Rugby teams do in the SH.
But in that same post and follow-up discussion, it was also stated that some professional clubs
do manage to effect a running/passing/offloading game -- Leinster, Glasgow, Harlequins to name three. So weather isn't much of an excuse, and we're not accepting it.
One point of concession, which was done pages ago: The south of France does have better weather, but the Top 14 just has other issues for why French rugby is crap right now. But those reasons are a different discussion. The north and northwest coast of France have conditions more similar to the UK, and go back to see the post on the shite condition of Stade de France, where Test matches have been called off because of weather.
Now, you said my point isn't true, because it rains in the North Island of New Zealand. My question: So what? What does that have to do with the winter weather in the UK, Ireland and northern France? What does that have to do with the point itself? Because unless all of Super Rugby was played in the North Island, your point is pointless. In my original point I said all of Super Rugby, and you want to just exclude 2/3 of it (Australia and South Africa) to make your point, and that also ignores all the games New Zealand teams play outside of New Zealand or under the roof in Dunedin. You don't get to make up your own criteria when you're taking on someone else's argument. If you want to argue the north island of New Zealand has the worst weather in rugby, go ahead, but that's a different discussion and beside the point,
because it was already stated the weather isn't an excuse.
The same goes for the population comment; so what? What does the North Island having more people than the South Island have to do with winter weather conditions in the UK or Ireland? It has fuck all to do with it. There are about as many people in Wales as the North Island, and that makes no difference to the weather, because population doesn't affect weather. And if you're trying to argue that kids grow up catching and passing in bad weather, again, what the fuck is your point? We already said some teams manage to do that in the shit weather in the UK and Ireland, so it can be done and it isn't an excuse. So we're saying weather isn't an excuse, and you're saying "UH-UH, YOU'RE WRONG, WEATHER ISN'T AN EXCUSE!" That's what children do.
You can't just pick and choose new criteria to make a different point and declare "I win," that's not how arguments work. Here's the model of your argument: Someone says they don't like mushrooms on their pizza; you say they're wrong because peppers are good and you enjoy action movies.
It could literally monsoon in the North Island 360 days a year, and it wouldn't change the point that in the UK and Ireland, over winter, they play in snow and sleet and muddy, heavy pitches, and for years now that's been used as an excuse to play a collision-and-territory-based style of rugby, only opening up their game when the sun shines or when they play on a hybrid or artificial pitch. And it wouldn't change the fact that the Australian and South African teams play in much better weather conditions, and teams who play in better weather conditions tend to run and pass and offload more, because the ball isn't a greasy bar of soap.
And elsewhere in this discussion thread many of us have already talked about ways to improve attacking skills, so we're not just saying it's all down to weather (which was already denied as an excuse). So if you want to clarify your point, do it in a private message instead of derailing this thread with more off-topic BS, because right now it seems you only want to take one element of what's being said -- an element that was stated wasn't an excuse -- and blow that up to us whinging that weather being the reason NH rugby isn't in the semifinals. That isn't useful or helpful, and you wouldn't want to leave people thinking someone who does such a thing is just a gloating ass-hat who enjoys being a dick. That's how feelings end up getting hurt.
So yeah, you really need to continue this, do it in a PM. But if you try to say weather isn't an excuse, I'm ignoring that because that point was made by me and others from the outset.