Rugby - Pre Binding Edition

[The Marquis de Leech]

The long term World Rugby rankings - at least for the top teams, generally probably look like this:

1. New Zealand

2. South Africa

3. Australia

4. England

5. France

6. Wales

7. Ireland

Then you get the likes of Scotland and Argentina, and then another step down the likes of Italy, Samoa, Fiji etc.

It's a bit more complicated than that if you go long term.

Scotland (yes, that Scotland) had the best record in nineteenth century matches (the All Blacks didn't exist yet). South Africa had the best percentage for games between 1930 and 1960, and had a winning record against the All Blacks until the late 1990s. Wales was the most successful Northern Hemisphere team of the twentieth century, and had the best percentage record of any major country (North or South) in 1970s matches (they also won three of their first four matches against the All Blacks). Australia's rise only dates from the late 1970s - and to this day, they still have a lower total win percentage than France, England, Wales, or Argentina (interestingly, Australia not only lost more twentieth century games than it won, but even Australia's twenty-first century win percentage is below Ireland's).

Despite Welsh rugby going off the cliff in the 1980s and 1990s, they and England are still tied in matches against each other, with 56 wins apiece.

[The BlackBear]

Well that was expected really: South Africa 28 - 0 Scotland

Clumsy passing, awful kicking, and no imagination. Two of the trys were from purely sloppy play, the second try was from a pass that bounced off a players head, and they intercepted and just went right through (a shame as we were right on their tryline) then after that (less than a minute I'm sure) we just drifted in defence and they ran straight through.

Performance was shocking but I enjoyed the atmosphere. Actually remembered all the words to Flower of Scotland (I feel kind of guilty as it is basically a song about beating Edward II (the useless one) I didn't join in the 'BASTARDS!' but I find them very funny, no other nation inserts swear words into their anthem.)

[The WaterDancer Knight]

The long term World Rugby rankings - at least for the top teams, generally probably look like this:

1. New Zealand

2. South Africa

3. Australia

4. England

5. France

6. Wales

7. Ireland

Then you get the likes of Scotland and Argentina, and then another step down the likes of Italy, Samoa, Fiji etc.

For France the first international game was in 1905 against NZ. And then in 1910 when the IRB invited France for what became the 5 nations tournament. The first win was in 1914 against Ireland I think, but I'm not sure. After WW1 we won against Wales and Scotland too, but up to 1930 France lost more games than the oposite. From 1930 to 1939 the IRB stopped relationship with France so there was no more 5N until 1946. That year was the first win agaisnt England. ANd 1958 was the firsttime France won the 5N alone. That was the first win against South Africa in South in South Africa. It's only after that France started to win more than to lost most of the time. Even if there was years, like this one with only 2 in 10 games played, when France played very badly.

SO I'm surprised to see my country on the 5th rank if you take all the international games that were played. I think we are behind Wales and probably Ireland and Scotland.

[Free Northman]

For France the first international game was in 1905 against NZ. And then in 1910 when the IRB invited France for what became the 5 nations tournament. The first win was in 1914 against Ireland I think, but I'm not sure. After WW1 we won against Wales and Scotland too, but up to 1930 France lost more games than the oposite. From 1930 to 1939 the IRB stopped relationship with France so there was no more 5N until 1946. That year was the first win agaisnt England. ANd 1958 was the firsttime France won the 5N alone. That was the first win against South Africa in South in South Africa. It's only after that France started to win more than to lost most of the time. Even if there was years, like this one with only 2 in 10 games played, when France played very badly.

SO I'm surprised to see my country on the 5th rank if you take all the international games that were played. I think we are behind Wales and probably Ireland and Scotland.

I felt I was being generous to England putting them above France, actually.

Since I started watching - around the mid 80's - France has been very strong and probably pushed strongly for the 4th position or maybe even the 3rd position.

I don't think Wales, Scotland or Ireland have the player depth to consistently push for a place in the top 3 any more, but of the Northern Hemisphere teams France and England do have that depth.

Consistently one can expect the 3 Southern Hemisphere teams plus France and England from the North to largely dominate the top 5 positions in future.

With Australia slipping from time to time only because rugby union is under real threat from sports like Rugby League, Aussie Rules and Cricket in their country.

Wales and Ireland will be lucky to make it into position 5 from time to time, and then only for brief periods if they do achieve that.

[The Anti-Targ]

What will make a 100% win year for the All Blacks all the more special is that the AB's will have played the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ranked teams to do it. Ireland (6th) is all that stands in the way. And while anything is possible you'd have to give Ireland only a very small chance of stopping the ABs from having the perfect year. Noting that Ireland have NEVER beaten the All Blacks; though they did manage a draw in 1973.

[Antonius Pius]

Well that was expected really: South Africa 28 - 0 Scotland

I watched this game too. To my layman's perspective it never really felt like SA were in trouble. They scored early and took it from there. The Scots' drive to score in the last quarter of the game kept it exciting. I really wanted them to at least get some points on the board, but it wasn't to be.

I didn't catch which SA player was carried off the field. Do we have a report on whether he's OK or what injury he has? He gave a thumbs up while being carried off, but it seemed a bit feeble. :(

Also I'll have to hide from all radio, and this thread until I can watch the England Highlights later. Bloody Sky stealing my BBC coverage, first F1 now England Rugby. Grrrrr!

Just to clarify: the England international matches are NOT live on the BBC anymore? The other British teams still are? Or is that dependent on Sky's whims? BBC is pretty much the only option I have for watching live rugby here, except for perhaps the WC.

[Which Tyler]

Fran Louw was carried off; possible concussion.

BBC haven't had England matches for over a decade; only the 6N is kept on terrestrial TV.

The nations all negotiate their own TV deals, with the others preferring viewer figures and interest to cash.

RFU attempted to negotiate their own 6N TV deal as well way back when; and were very nearly thrown out of the 6N for doing so - wonder what gave the clubs the idea to negotiate their own TV deal?

RWC matches are protected and have to be on terrestrial TV (or the final at least, and IRB don't negotiate part-deals for the RWC) so they go to ITV, who get roundly criticised as the worst broadcaster every RWC, before being given a new contract for next time.

[Which Tyler]

Kyle Eastmond looks to have had a bit of a breakdown.

Initial reports suggest that he threw a hissy fit at half time, stormed into the Bath dressing room at Sale last week, grabbed his kit and buggered off.

Further reports from fans in the crowd suggest that he was seen in tears whilst on the pitch during the first half and again leaving the pitch at half time.

Bath's initial statement suggested that he had been disciplined, and that he's dealing with some serious personal problems at the moment. Any mention of discipline was removed almost immediately, but had already been quoted in the press.

[The BlackBear]

I watched this game too. To my layman's perspective it never really felt like SA were in trouble. They scored early and took it from there. The Scots' drive to score in the last quarter of the game kept it exciting. I really wanted them to at least get some points on the board, but it wasn't to be.

I didn't catch which SA player was carried off the field. Do we have a report on whether he's OK or what injury he has? He gave a thumbs up while being carried off, but it seemed a bit feeble. :(

Just to clarify: the England international matches are NOT live on the BBC anymore? The other British teams still are? Or is that dependent on Sky's whims? BBC is pretty much the only option I have for watching live rugby here, except for perhaps the WC.

They weren't, the only time Scotland made ground was by running straight at them and edging forward. They lost the kicking game badly, and every time they passed it out wide they'd fumble it (it was raing so it's slightly understandable, but SA didn't have that problem.) We were dying for a Scotland score even if it was just a penalty.

It was F Louwe (sp?) as Tyler said, he got caught on the chin and his head snapped back, he was down for a very long time so even that (fairly weak) thumbs up was good.

I don't know how the teams worked out their deals, but to me it seems England are the big team that draws the viewers so Sky have outbid BBC, which is a shame as I despise Sky.

[ljkeane]

They weren't, the only time Scotland made ground was by running straight at them and edging forward. They lost the kicking game badly, and every time they passed it out wide they'd fumble it (it was raing so it's slightly understandable, but SA didn't have that problem.) We were dying for a Scotland score even if it was just a penalty.

Scotland weren't very good in general but it was the lineout issues that absolutely killed them. They were never going play their way 80 or 90 metres up with pitch with ball in hand, especially without Hogg and Scott, so they needed to be able to play for territory effectively. That's exactly the kind of weakness that the likes of Du Preez are going to play on all day long.

Kyle Eastmond looks to have had a bit of a breakdown.

Initial reports suggest that he threw a hissy fit at half time, stormed into the Bath dressing room at Sale last week, grabbed his kit and buggered off.

Further reports from fans in the crowd suggest that he was seen in tears whilst on the pitch during the first half and again leaving the pitch at half time.

Bath's initial statement suggested that he had been disciplined, and that he's dealing with some serious personal problems at the moment. Any mention of discipline was removed almost immediately, but had already been quoted in the press.

Apparently he didn't get passed ball once before being taken off at half time, presumably playing at 12, so I can see why he might have been somewhat frustrated.

Hopefully it's sorted out as given Tomkins' performance over the last three weeks and with Tuilagi likely to be still injured there should be one open spot in the centres for the Six Nation and I wouldn't mind Eastmond being given a go.

[Antonius Pius]

Thanks Blackbear and Tyler. Byzantine situation vis-a-vis tv-rights I gather. I see commercial vulturism is as strong as always.

Interesting to see your more knowledgable analyses.

[Apathete]

They weren't, the only time Scotland made ground was by running straight at them and edging forward. They lost the kicking game badly, and every time they passed it out wide they'd fumble it (it was raing so it's slightly understandable, but SA didn't have that problem.) We were dying for a Scotland score even if it was just a penalty.

It was F Louwe (sp?) as Tyler said, he got caught on the chin and his head snapped back, he was down for a very long time so even that (fairly weak) thumbs up was good.

I don't know how the teams worked out their deals, but to me it seems England are the big team that draws the viewers so Sky have outbid BBC, which is a shame as I despise Sky.

Louw seems 50-50 for the next test, so it wasn't too bad. The bigger problem is Maherbe who is probably out, which means SA are down to their third choice tight-head, which is an issue given that tight-head is by far our weakest position.

Interestingly, there was not a single comment in the British press about the shot that injured Louw, despite Bakkies being banned for essentially the same thing a couple of years ago.

[williamjm]

Just to clarify: the England international matches are NOT live on the BBC anymore? The other British teams still are? Or is that dependent on Sky's whims? BBC is pretty much the only option I have for watching live rugby here, except for perhaps the WC.

The other British (and Irish) teams tend to have their home matches on the BBC, the away matches seem to vary - Scotland's tour to South Africa this summer was on Sky but I remember their tour to Argentina a couple of years ago was on the BBC website.

[Padraig]

SO I'm surprised to see my country on the 5th rank if you take all the international games that were played. I think we are behind Wales and probably Ireland and Scotland.

I doubt it. I don't think Ireland ever had a great period. A year (maybe 2) here and there but that's about it. Ireland's record against France is dreadful also, which doesn't help. We have to be the 4th ranked (at best) 6 Nations Team.

A rather embarrasing display on Saturday against Australia. I thought we were a bit fortunate against Somoa but I fully expected us to improve on that. Nope. Same old problems, never mind the new coach. Another disastrous loss next Sunday to look forward to also. I think the players seem decent to me individually but put them together and they very rarely perform for Ireland.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I don't think Wales, Scotland or Ireland have the player depth to consistently push for a place in the top 3 any more, but of the Northern Hemisphere teams France and England do have that depth.

Depends. England have six times the number of adult club players that New Zealand does, and far greater financial resources to work with. On paper alone New Zealand shouldn't be competitive, yet not only are the All Blacks competitive, we're dominant. If you're writing off the likes of Wales (for whom rugby is also the national game) for lacking a decent population base, you have to realise that raw numbers aren't everything.

[lessthanluke]

Depends. England have six times the number of adult club players that New Zealand does, and far greater financial resources to work with. On paper alone New Zealand shouldn't be competitive, yet not only are the All Blacks competitive, we're dominant. If you're writing off the likes of Wales (for whom rugby is also the national game) for lacking a decent population base, you have to realise that raw numbers aren't everything.

Even though it is called our national sport and internationally it is deinitely the most popular to watch. Participation wise far more people play football the rugby in Wales.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Participation wise far more people play football the rugby in Wales.

If you include junior level, the same is true here (nor is it simply afterglow of the All Whites in 2010. Rugby has been facing competition since the 1980s).

[Free Northman]

This topic will get me into another of my infamous pet theories, which is the genetic advantage that some nations have over others in a sport like rugby. Let's just say that Jonah Lomu, Joeli Vindiri or Sitiveni Sivivatu are unlikely to pop up from the native Japanese population. Basically, Polynesians have the perfect build for rugby - particularly for backline players.

So there is a physiological advantage that I firmly believe in, which gives NZ the edge despite their small population numbers. Same with South Africa and powerful forwards - particularly locks and loose forwards.

[ljkeane]

I'm not convinced. Yeah, some of Pacific Island groups do tend to produce a disproportionate number of big guys and New Zealand do have some notably physically impressive guys in their side but what really separates them from other sides is consistently sound basic skills and decision making. Their stand out players of the last decade are Carter, McCaw, Read and Conrad Smith, none of whom are really on a completely different level in terms of physical attributes to other international players in their positions, it's their skill levels and reading of the game which makes them great players.

[Which Tyler]

Depends. England have six times the number of adult club players that New Zealand does, and far greater financial resources to work with. On paper alone New Zealand shouldn't be competitive, yet not only are the All Blacks competitive, we're dominant. If you're writing off the likes of Wales (for whom rugby is also the national game) for lacking a decent population base, you have to realise that raw numbers aren't everything.

It's an absolutely horrible argument; and I appreciate, not one you're making here, though it does get pedalled out all the bloody time.

But the vast vast majority of that vast vast number of players are social players who have no interest in becoming professionals, and even if they were "good enough" (ie had potential) would probably not be pursuing that path anyway - having other careers. The size of the registered amateur population in the days of pro rugby is really a red herring.

Basically, I think rugby in England can be played to a much lower level than most other countries. Christ, even I could get a game if I wanted to. Having lived briefly in NZ, there was no way I could do anything more than a social throw about in the park, here I'd be a registered player at a club, playing "competitive" matches.

I'd also tend to think that we probably have more economic immigrants playing rugby here than most of the other rugby playing nations; I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any team (that's team, not club) at any level without 3-4 players who'd never, ever consider themselves to be English were they ever good enough to get a trial.

Either way, a strong base to the pyramid of talent never has equated to the ultimate height of the pyramid, to a degree, it counts against it, as you rarely get consistency of selection at the top - where there are 5-6 players of approximately equal talent available for each position, each will get 1/5 of the caps available, as opposed to a nation with 1-2 options. What it could mean, is that England would have the best 10th xv in the world, and that's probably not too far from the truth (though the kiwis, saffers and frogs would all have something to say about that)

Years back, when the captain of our club's 4ths, was phoning around like a maniac trying to ensure everyone was available and the 1sts kept nicking his players. He used to say "it's because we've got strength in depth ... the firsts are nearly as crap as us".