|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 29/10/2007 20:52:24
Posts: 1,
Visits: 2
|
|
| I don't beleive there is - rugby is played differently in both hemisphere's. In the northern the grounds are softer and the forward and backs have to adapt to the weather. If you look at this RWC how many backs from the sourthern hemisphere slipped - they were not used to the surface. The ground in the southern hemiphere is mostly harder and the ball bounces differently. The southern teams play at a lot of different places - e.g when SA play NZ at home 90% of the games are at Loftus as ground harder and it is at altitude. They normally play Oz in Cape Town where the ground is softer unlike any of their gorunds. So playing at different venues does make a difference. Again why did Wales loose to Fiji - very easy, how much video clips are there on Fiji vs Wales. The player skills and weakness can be picked up - again this is the reason NZ have such a shocking record at RWC as they are the 'team' to beat. So everyone knows if they want to win they have to beat them. Again the game plans, skills and weakness of the players gets taken into account. SA did very well and look at how many of those players played in the build up games and 3N etc. England were so worried about Habana that they never look at JP on the other wing so got a 36-0 thumbing in the pool rounds (true they also did not have Johnny and some other players). People tend to forget the hidden staff that make things happen - like who can name any top team doctor or physio but we can all name the head coach. In SA and NZ rugby is their top sport, but in England it's football. The players earn more in rugby than they do in any other sport in those countries. In SA all the big stadiums are for rugby (ok that's going to change after the 2010 football WC) and they get the bums on the seats not like football. It's big money so they make sure they have winning formula's to keep the crowds. Lets also look at Wales 3 years ago under Mike Ruddick they had a grand slam - next year with same players bottom of the 6N under different coach. Explain why they got rid of him as he was worth a lot of money - where he could have taken them. In this RWC a lot of the smaller teams were provided with coaching staff and help by the IRB to lift their game - and it paid off this was by far the best RWC but still think that NZ are still number one team in the world (in case you are wondering I am a SA supporter). I enjoy watching good rugby and some teams always provide that, others have flash in pan games. But to say that Northern hemisphere teams are not on the same level is hard to swallow - we never see the two hemisphere play on same levels as one is starting a season and the other ending. This debate will always be there and the home ground will play an advantage, just like injuries, coach and technical issues. Get those all at the same level and we will just see boring rugby. A little bit like England playing under Sir Clive - one game plan with a few variations now and then. Every game will be like playing a final - each team not wanting to take a chance. I think you get better value watching Super14/Prem/Hieniken cup rugby as teams are trying things. To think the a year ago SA and England were playing to see who kept their coach who would think that they both would play in RWC final?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/01/2009 16:21:53
Posts: 35,
Visits: 59
|
|
| I still think NZ had the best players, by a long way, and SA the second best. NZ definitely suffered from a lack of actual gmaes and, of course, losing Dan Carter. And the team that came closest to beating SA were Fiji. If only they hadn't dropped the ball over the line with fifteen minutes to go. And Australia would have beaten England if they hadn't been over-confident. But what I really want to know is what happened to Ireland? They played very poorly in all their pool matches. Was it the O'Gara gambling thing? Why did O'Sullivan drop Stringer after playing him in pretty much every game in the last 4 years? Why was D'Arcy rubbish? And why did the Irish keep their coach, when the Welsh, who performed much closer to their potential (they were just a consistent goal-kicker short of winning the Fiji game), sacked theirs. Also did you notice that SA won several balls against the head. Even England didn't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/01/2009 16:21:53
Posts: 35,
Visits: 59
|
|
| To the majority of people still feel that the two hemispheres are are just different. I know you can make individual excuses for each of the northern hemisphere sides - France seem to have no coaching direction, England are rebuilding with a young team, etc.. But 5 of the 6 world cups have been won by southern hemisphere sides. Australia are rebuilding, lacked some of their best players through injury and unforced retirement, and still beat England and France. SA lack a bit of direction at the moment (just look at their substandard performances against Wales and Scotland and in the Tri-Nations) yet they came away unbeaten. The core issue seems to me to be player development.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/12/2008 15:27:11
Posts: 176,
Visits: 468
|
|
Iolo, I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Re Australia, let us first recall that this country has only 4 pro rugby union clubs. Prior to Super 12 they had no full time pro clubs. How many full time pro players do they have domestically available for selection - less than 8 per position I would guess. How to they produce such quality from such a tiny base?
It is also worth considering a couple of other things - England's most successful teams have been fairly "mature" in years generally. The same is more or less true with the other home nations. The southern hemisphere teams seem to bring young players into their sides successfully. I am sure we can think of quite a few names that fit this bill, Carter (AB debut aged 21 scored 20 points), Matt Giteau (Aus debut aged 20 - before playing his 1st S12 game), Christian Cullen (AB debut aged 20) to name a few.
My point is that the southern hemisphere seem to bring young players successfully into top grade and international competition at a young age. These young players seem to have good skills and fit in well. On the other hand, young home nations players often arrive with much hype only to disappoint. It seems to take a good many years of pro rugby before they are really up to speed skills wise. The observation that it is older NH teams that do well seems to bear this out (after a painful 3 or 4 years of "rebuilding" - why don't the SH teams go in for long "rebuilding" phases?). It seems therefore that we do not seem to produce 18, 19 and 20 year olds with very high skill levels.
In the papers after the last England defeat there was much thrashing about looking for who to blame, this coach, that coach, the RFU for sacking Ashton etc. For me it's about youth development. Johnson et al just do not get very good product to work with, they do not have skill levels high enough for what he or others want them to do when they arrive at senior rugby and it takes them some years to acquire them. Youth development is the key.Time for the junior game to take a long hard look at itself. It's not like we have a shortage of players in England, many times that in Australia just what we do with them is pretty dismal compared to what they achieve in Aus.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 06/01/2009 10:43:29
Posts: 142,
Visits: 1,125
|
|
| A young player coming into a SH side probably has less "work" to do and is protected by the experienced players around him. Carter had Marshall and Mauger either side of him and Richie McCaw as well...not a bad comfort zone, Giteau, Larkham, Mortlock, Gregan and Smith (and Latham behind him).
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/12/2008 15:27:11
Posts: 176,
Visits: 468
|
|
Excuses, excuses - whilst we keep making them we will keep failing.
The inference from your point is that the rest of the NH teams around the new boys are no good either, even the experienced ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 09:42:37
Posts: 91,
Visits: 1,026
|
|
| Look at other sports, notably British cycling, sailing and rowing, Chinese diving (and sport generally). Look also at Eastern European sports success pre and post communism. Generally from great to terrible. Think about the lack of success in the Olympics of the "super power" football teams and tennis players. Compare this to their success at the significantly higher paying global events, such as European club football and the World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events. France has some of the best youth football academies, gets to soccer World Cup finals and has numerous players playing at the highest level around the world. Yet relatively few people watch the sport in the country. Compare this to French rugby. It's played to a very high standard. There's a great depth of talent (arguably skill levels are as high as anywhere else in the world) and across all levels. Games are well attended and clubs are wealthy, attracting world rugby "superstars". Yet the French team is relatively poor. To me it's clear. Right across of the board you've got to have the single focus to win. This means all stakeholders in the sport - from administrators, to government, to coach, to fan, to club owner, to players, to schools, to parents of the next Dan Carter, to provinces, to broadcasters, et al - have got to want the national team to win. Putting this in terms of rugby: in the north clubs rule, in the south administrators rules.
Toby Curthoys
Publisher, Better Rugby Coaching www.betterrugbycoaching.com
|
|
|
|