Northern & Southern hemisphere rugby union: the discussion

[jomjom]

Ok, so as opposed to just how different domestic competition would improve NH rugby I want to talk about this divide as a general topic and why there is such a glaring gap between the two hemispheres. After the weekend Im asking lots of questions and I just dont understand it. We love rugby the same as amount as the south, the money, resources and players are there, so why is the 8th World Cup going to be won by a southern team for the 7th time? Were struggling to get teams out of pool stages and quarter finals.

Is it simply the style of play? Is it how the clubs are set up? Is it the way its taught to children and passed on? I often hear people say its the "culture" but I dont buy into that because there is huge rugby culture up here too.

What can the northern unions to do to fix this mess and put an end to forever being in the shadow of the south!? I personally feel adapting the style of play would do us massive favours... Scotlands results this year may not show up on paper but they seem to have the cop on to realize that were not doing it right and that we need to develop a more fluid, running, attacking game with an emphasis on skill and speed. Though Im finding it a little hard to care about the next 6N I am excited to see how they perform after this. Once they fix their ill discipline and sloppy defence they will be a team to behold

Anyways, Im sure theres more to it than just the style of play so Id like to know what does everyone else think.

 

[Amiga500]

Is it simply the style of play? Is it how the clubs are set up? Is it the way its taught to children and passed on? I often hear people say its the "culture" but I dont buy into that because there is huge rugby culture up here too.

Its the culture.

Instead of being told and getting drillled and drilled into running at space, taking tackles at angles, running at inside shoulders etc, our kids are given dumbbells.

Its the easy option for the coaching staff as any clown can do it. Its also the fact that it even requires coaching staff to do the coaching and its not handed down from parent to child.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Oh It's easy:

1. Don't appoint foreign coaches - they might be a good coach and all that, but they don't know the nation's rugby culture and doesn't come with that same passion as a coach that is local. It was something very obvious I saw this past weekend. Gatland and Schmidt just standing in the box while the Anthem's were sung as if they were waiting for the anthem's to get over and done with. But look at Heyneke Meyer, Hourcade, Cheika and Hansen, they sing with pride and passion, and with that it also comes with their coaching of the team too, it's not just a job for them, it's a calling.

2. Limit the amount of foreign players in local clubs - Apart from Michalak and Juan Martin Hernandez, not many foreign based players have played Super Rugby for a South African franchise, and now with more teams coming in the Argentine based players will join the Argentine team, keeping it local and improving your core group of players locally is the best way of getting top class players. There are too many foreign players in key positions playing in the NH, and when a player is called up to the national team, and looks around at his competition in that position, he'll maybe come to the conclusion that the competition isn't so bad, so he doesn't have to perform so well as expected.

3. Don't let money be the only motivating factor.

That's basically it from my point of view...

 

[Wimero]

Seems to me that the SH sides have much better ball handling skills all round.Particularly in the forwards.Props selling dummies!Sidestepping!Grubber kicks! You rarely see it in NH but it's fairly normal in SH.They look to create space better than NH and capitalise on it more effectively,rather than the bish,bash,bosh style of play we play.
I think the Ireland game was a classic example of the difference between SH and NH.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't know it's a style thing as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa don't all okay the same way....

But what they do is play to their strengths.

I think basic skills are vastly underrated up here but more importantly the breakdown is completely different.

All in all, I've no idea why a country like New Zealand are actually good at rugby. If England for instance, trained liked them, played like them would we actually be as good as them or would we still have a lack of skills???

 

[Josht36]

I think summer rugby would be a huge help. I know in England the majority of the season its wet and cold which leads to big forward packs and limiting the creativity of the backs due to difficult handling conditions. Its just not practical to play free flowing rugby on a rainy freezing day in February on the tiny pitch at Welford Road for example.

So when players get exposed to southern hemisphere rugby they have the fitness and the forward packs but I dont think the same level of handling is there to play the speed the South seem to play. When there is an overlap there is nowhere near the cutting edge.

 

[ZeroTwo]

I think there's a lot to be said for the foreign players coming in as @TRF_heineken said.

When we compare it to football, everything looks rosy but compared to SH leagues? The teams from each nation down there play with a number of similarities (despite obviously having differences) which were bred by the style of coaching in schools and clubs for kids. I coached u12s all the way through to university teams in Scotland and was given zero direction to do anything asides the occasional forwards coach coming from Edinburgh.

When you compound this with bringing in foreign players who have very contrasting styles of play then you loose a certain common ground between clubs.

This has all made me sound like a far right nationalist for some reason....I'm all for immigration and that! Just think it may have an impact on rugby. Would say it makes it more exciting to watch when you have teams like Toulon though!

 

[Tony Manx]

I think summer rugby would be a huge help. I know in England the majority of the season its wet and cold which leads to big forward packs and limiting the creativity of the backs due to difficult handling conditions. Its just not practical to play free flowing rugby on a rainy freezing day in February on the tiny pitch at Welford Road for example.

So when players get exposed to southern hemisphere rugby they have the fitness and the forward packs but I dont think the same level of handling is there to play the speed the South seem to play. When there is an overlap there is nowhere near the cutting edge.

You have never been to Duneden then?!

Skills training as the primary job of a coach should be the norm from tots rugby through all the grades. The emphasis on weights is more a macho thing than a precursor to an international player......they have their place but ball skills are paramount. This was true in football and it is true in rugby!

The way the NZ play is geared to professional international rugby as the pinnacle and this cannot be the way for the vast numbers of NH players who are employed/controlled by clubs rather than Unions!

Unless the RFU and the FFR pay the money to take control of the clubs, then nothing will change however much people on here hypothesize!!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Having had a night's sleep on it I've completely changed my mind and don't think there is a requirement for too much change. If we take a look at the NH sides RWC's, ignoring France because they're a shambles, Italy and Wales probably did what was expected of them and there's an argument that Wales overachieved, England failed miserably but that was in the works a long time and Ireland underachieved. However the RWC is a terrible barometer of where we're at because if Ireland and Wales weren't destroyed by injuries it's very conceivable that two NH sides could be in the semi's, I think New Zealand are the only side who could reach this stage with these injuries with the draws Irelabd and Wales had. Our problem is, as I've said in another thread, we relied on the England '03 model of hoping for a great generation of players and leaders matched with a coach who can get them to play to their strengths and hope we get lucky, it doesn't cut it anymore.

Results between NH and SH (excluding Argentina because they're an unknown entity in test match rugby with their players playing the NH club season and SH international one) the SH have an advantage they beat us when they're at home and can beat us away, although the EOYT is easier on them than the summer test series are on is imo. So my first change would ideally be season structure, I think playoffs in the league have to be ditched so we can be competetive in our summer tours, surely the best club side is decided over 22 games anyway. This will mean we can compete, win and avoid drubbings for the most part, in our summer tours. Beating them in their own back yard is vitally important as it will give us the self belief and knowledge that we are as good as them, home victories always leave a lingering doubt. Getting rid of the Lions tour would be ideal but that's too commercial at this stage.

We also don't need to copy their style of play but we do need at least 12 good footballers on the pitch, the times of forwards not needing to be able to pass a ball is over, honing a style of play that suits our players and that will win games is vital and will work effectively with a team that can play when everything gets a bit loose as well. Developing footballers has to start at U12's rugby at the latest.

We are behind but not to the point that we require wholescale change that will keep us behind for ~10 years, our problems can be vastly reduced in the four year cycle and eradicated in 8. We need to lose the belief that they are superior and and that beating them in a one off game is a huge achievement and start getting streaks of victories over them like they do to us and then we need to develop ball players so we have a better calibre of player than them, there's no reason we shouldn't because we have the numbers, and suddenly the only thing we rely on is preparing right and performing on the day and not doing that is very much an Irish problem.

Copying them will make us a slightly worse version of them, we need to take what we have along with some of the finer details of what they do better than us so we can beat them. Rugby in the NH has never been innovative, we need to be now or we'll only fall further behind.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Having had a night's sleep on it I've completely changed my mind and don't think there is a requirement for too much change. If we take a look at the NH sides RWC's, ignoring France because they're a shambles, Italy and Wales probably did what was expected of them and there's an argument that Wales overachieved, England failed miserably but that was in the works a long time and Ireland underachieved. However the RWC is a terrible barometer of where we're at because if Ireland and Wales weren't destroyed by injuries it's very conceivable that two NH sides could be in the semi's, I think New Zealand are the only side who could reach this stage with these injuries with the draws Irelabd and Wales had. Our problem is, as I've said in another thread, we relied on the England '03 model of hoping for a great generation of players and leaders matched with a coach who can get them to play to their strengths and hope we get lucky, it doesn't cut it anymore.

Results between NH and SH (excluding Argentina because they're an unknown entity in test match rugby with their players playing the NH club season and SH international one) the SH have an advantage they beat us when they're at home and can beat us away, although the EOYT is easier on them than the summer test series are on is imo. So my first change would ideally be season structure, I think playoffs in the league have to be ditched so we can be competetive in our summer tours, surely the best club side is decided over 22 games anyway. This will mean we can compete, win and avoid drubbings for the most part, in our summer tours. Beating them in their own back yard is vitally important as it will give us the self belief and knowledge that we are as good as them, home victories always leave a lingering doubt. Getting rid of the Lions tour would be ideal but that's too commercial at this stage.

We also don't need to copy their style of play but we do need at least 12 good footballers on the pitch, the times of forwards not needing to be able to pass a ball is over, honing a style of play that suits our players and that will win games is vital and will work effectively with a team that can play when everything gets a bit loose as well. Developing footballers has to start at U12's rugby at the latest.

We are behind but not to the point that we require wholescale change that will keep us behind for ~10 years, our problems can be vastly reduced in the four year cycle and eradicated in 8. We need to lose the belief that they are superior and and that beating them in a one off game is a huge achievement and start getting streaks of victories over them like they do to us and then we need to develop ball players so we have a better calibre of player than them, there's no reason we shouldn't because we have the numbers, and suddenly the only thing we rely on is preparing right and performing on the day and not doing that is very much an Irish problem.

Copying them will make us a slightly worse version of them, we need to take what we have along with some of the finer details of what they do better than us so we can beat them. Rugby in the NH has never been innovative, we need to be now or we'll only fall further behind.

To use the injuries as a point is not a good idea IMHO. The SH teams all decided to play just 1 or 2 World Cup Warm up match prior to the World Cup, and they all had 6 weeks to prepare after that warm-up game. That gave most of their players enough time to heal, and the core 31-man group a lot of time to train together. The NH sides all played their Warm-up games 2-3 weeks prior to the World Cup, got guys injured and then had to bring in new guys, some not even part of the original squad to begin with. The NH sides put that extra pressure on themselves.

Oh and by the way, all 8 of the KO teams had injured players, not just the NH teams...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

To use the injuries as a point is not a good idea IMHO. The SH teams all decided to play just 1 or 2 World Cup Warm up match prior to the World Cup, and they all had 6 weeks to prepare after that warm-up game. That gave most of their players enough time to heal, and the core 31-man group a lot of time to train together. The NH sides all played their Warm-up games 2-3 weeks prior to the World Cup, got guys injured and then had to bring in new guys, some not even part of the original squad to begin with. The NH sides put that extra pressure on themselves.

Oh and by the way, all 8 of the KO teams had injured players, not just the NH teams...

The point being that the RWC isn't the best barometer of where we're at is completely fair and the injuries played a big role. The NH also had to play more warm ups because you lot had the RC, if the thing was played in April and March it would have been the other way around. All 8 sides had injuries and citations but to put it into perspective what Wales were dealing with was like SA trying to play Wales minus Jamie Roberts/Jonathon Davies without Fourie Du Preez, Jesse Kriel, Jean De Villiers, Jan Serfontein, Willie Le Roux, Zane Kirchener (or a better FB), JP Pietersen and Lwazi Mvovo. Or Argentina playing Ireland minus Payne, Moore and Toner without Creevy (See as captain), Herrera, Fernandez Lobbe, Matera, Sanchez and Payne, losing all but one within two weeks. I'm not making excuses, just stating that the performances of the past 4 years reveal more than the last two weeks.

 

[ncurd]

Lets have a look at the 6 nations teams

Italy - Been making up the numbers for years but they are improving....at a snails pace.
Scotland - Can't seam to get a win in the 6 nations but they're a vastly improved outfit. Almost and should of beaten the current holders rugby championship.
France - Omnishambles for years they'll sack their coach and fix things.
England - Made a huge cock up of everything when they had the potential to at least make it to the semi's at least. Huge questions over the management but the core of a good side and they have a lot of youth potential coming in over the next 4-8 years if age grade is anything to go by.
Wales - Hit above their weight considering their injuries, just beat England, almost beat Aus (I didn't watch the game only seen the score) and almost beat SA. Probably would of gone at least one step further had they had everyone at their disposal.
Ireland - An injury list that would make most Tier 1 one sides cry going into the KO rounds. Went into the game apparently massively undercooked and lost it in the first 20mins.

Overall I think it's very easy to overreact to what's happened this RWC but I don't think we are miles behind. Tinkering with stuff hear and there would help, I think moving us to spring/summer sport would help a great deal and make the most difference. The thing is it takes time for changes at the bottom to work their way up.

Look at England we are 12 years since 2003 that means an 11 year old who may have been inspired and actually helped by that win is only 23. You look at England's 23 years old and younger and things actually look good. Success is important but it takes time for that success to actually amount to anything consistent.

Similar example where GB has built upon is cycling after Chris Boardman's exploits it took years before our 'dominance' actually kicked in. Similar thing in our exploits of rowing. Everything is relative and trying to change everything at once doesn't breed instant success so many want. We keep changing the Cricket format every 2-3 years and it's doing nothing to help.

 

[nickdnz]

Oh It's easy:

1. Don't appoint foreign coaches - they might be a good coach and all that, but they don't know the nation's rugby culture and doesn't come with that same passion as a coach that is local. It was something very obvious I saw this past weekend. Gatland and Schmidt just standing in the box while the Anthem's were sung as if they were waiting for the anthem's to get over and done with. But look at Heyneke Meyer, Hourcade, Cheika and Hansen, they sing with pride and passion, and with that it also comes with their coaching of the team too, it's not just a job for them, it's a calling.

2. Limit the amount of foreign players in local clubs - Apart from Michalak and Juan Martin Hernandez, not many foreign based players have played Super Rugby for a South African franchise, and now with more teams coming in the Argentine based players will join the Argentine team, keeping it local and improving your core group of players locally is the best way of getting top class players. There are too many foreign players in key positions playing in the NH, and when a player is called up to the national team, and looks around at his competition in that position, he'll maybe come to the conclusion that the competition isn't so bad, so he doesn't have to perform so well as expected.

3. Don't let money be the only motivating factor.

That's basically it from my point of view...

Couldn't disagree more. I actually think that is a ridiculous view.

Schmidt, Cotter and Gatland may not have sung the national anthem well - but Warren Gatland won a Heineken Cup, a European Challenge Cup and 3 English Premierships with London Wasps. He was the most qualified man for the job. Since then he has presided over one of the most successful era's in Welsh Rugby and won a Lions tour. Schmidt also won 2 Heineken Cups and a Pro 12. Cotter took Scotland within a few points of a semi-final. I wonder if Japan would have done better with a local coach. Ironically - England and France both appointed under-qualified local coaches to their national team - how did that work out? We don't have to even look at this World Cup - 4 of the last 5 - 6 Nations have been won by a foreign coach.

South Africa have always appointed a local coach - and haven't won a Tri Nations since 2009. I actually like HM: but what I like most about his appointment was that he was a clear candidate for head coach - he had the credentials with numerous SR ***les. However if he was to go (and Jake White didn't jump in) - I think South Africa would be extremely foolish not to look outside of South Africa for a head coach: seeing as no local coaches have shown they can build a team to win a Super Rugby competition, never mind at international level. That is exactly England's problem. They are looking at a lot of mediocre candidates because they are English.

And for the record I take exception to the libelous claim that Steve Hansen did something passionately. I have seen people hum the 'Tony's Tire Service' radio jingle - while being put on old by Inland Revenue - with more passion than Steve Hansen singing the national anthem. Hansen's wife could agree to a three way with Scarlett Johansson - and he'd probably mumble something about "plugging away for the full 80 minutes, and it is pleasing to come away with a good result".

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd be interested to see some SH vs NH club matchups.

 

[ncurd]

I'd be interested to see some SH vs NH club matchups.

I think a club winner cup (with more fanfare than the football one) could be a goof thing. Semi-finalists of European Champions Cup V Super-Rugby would have a lot of merit.

Won't make a jot of difference to how well we play internationally I bet though.

 

[Maverick1987]

Northern & Southern hemisphere rugby union: the discussion

I think there isn't much difference between anyone other than NZ tbh . We(the NH) have been poor in the last few weeks but before this Aus lost to England and Ireland, SA lost to Wales and Ireland . Things haven't just gone awol over the last year it's simply that we didn't play as well when it mattered ......

The only thing is change is getting the seasons in line . That is the one thing that could have a huge impact on the gap imo

 

[j'nuh]

The NH has closed a gap to be fair. Back in 2008, the NH would routinely lose handsomely, by 30 points a time. That's now the exception. So I think we've seen improvements over the last 7-8 years. But there is still that final hurdle of getting to be on a par with the SH teams.

I think summer rugby would be a huge help. I know in England the majority of the season its wet and cold which leads to big forward packs and limiting the creativity of the backs due to difficult handling conditions. Its just not practical to play free flowing rugby on a rainy freezing day in February on the tiny pitch at Welford Road for example.

So when players get exposed to southern hemisphere rugby they have the fitness and the forward packs but I dont think the same level of handling is there to play the speed the South seem to play. When there is an overlap there is nowhere near the cutting edge.

x2

The Premiership is a completely different environment in April compared to December. We spend too much time coaching wet weather rugby.

Kids should also be taught sevens as well as 15s.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Couldn't disagree more. I actually think that is a ridiculous view.

Schmidt, Cotter and Gatland may not have sung the national anthem well - but Warren Gatland won a Heineken Cup, a European Challenge Cup and 3 English Premierships with London Wasps. He was the most qualified man for the job. Since then he has presided over one of the most successful era's in Welsh Rugby and won a Lions tour. Schmidt also won 2 Heineken Cups and a Pro 12. Cotter took Scotland within a few points of a semi-final. I wonder if Japan would have done better with a local coach. Ironically - England and France both appointed under-qualified local coaches to their national team - how did that work out? We don't have to even look at this World Cup - 4 of the last 5 - 6 Nations have been won by a foreign coach.

South Africa have always appointed a local coach - and haven't won a Tri Nations since 2009. I actually like HM: but what I like most about his appointment was that he was a clear candidate for head coach - he had the credentials with numerous SR ***les. However if he was to go (and Jake White didn't jump in) - I think South Africa would be extremely foolish not to look outside of South Africa for a head coach: seeing as no local coaches have shown they can build a team to win a Super Rugby competition, never mind at international level. That is exactly England's problem. They are looking at a lot of mediocre candidates because they are English.

And for the record I take exception to the libelous claim that Steve Hansen did something passionately. I have seen people hum the 'Tony's Tire Service' radio jingle - while being put on old by Inland Revenue - with more passion than Steve Hansen singing the national anthem. Hansen's wife could agree to a three way with Scarlett Johansson - and he'd probably mumble something about "plugging away for the full 80 minutes, and it is pleasing to come away with a good result".

Fair enough Nick. I was saying all of that with a bit of tongue in cheek...

But let's take South Africa as an example. Since the Jake White era, South Africa have had a head coach from South Africa, and then his assistants were both local and foreign coaches. Jake White had Eddie Jones, Heyneke Meyer has 3 foreign coaches on his staff, even though one of them is actually a Saffa. He has Richie Gray, Pieter De Villiers and John Mcfarland in his management team.

I think the Coaches of national teams should always go with the mindset that they don't know everything about rugby, and shouldn't walk around with a chip on their shoulder. Having a management team of guys that bring something different to the table is part of getting better.

But there was something that caught my eye in this RWC that I thought was a bit dumb from the NH teams, and in particular Ireland and Wales. Last year during the EOYT, both these teams did a lot of clever things, and one of them was to not commit players to a driving maul, resulting in a penalty in their favour, yet I haven't seen any team for that matter doing it at all in this World Cup... And the driving maul was one of the things that has caused a lot of tries being scored in this year's world cup...

 

[AzaMatt]

i think its just how many kids take up the sport. correct me if im wrong but in SA, Aus and NZ arnt all the main sports all involving hands? Aussie rules, rugby league etc. so even if kids start off in another of those sports they do get some skills that could be helpful in rugby. where as here the obvious main sport is football, which has no bearing on rugby skills what so ever. i know many friends and family who played both sports when they were younger, potentially limiting to them to what they could acheive. would you all agree that this might be a contributing factor? because i cannot think of any big footballing nation that is also as good at rugby (although im not a footie fan so if someone has an example please say haha)

 

[TRF_heineken]

i think its just how many kids take up the sport. correct me if im wrong but in SA, Aus and NZ arnt all the main sports all involving hands? Aussie rules, rugby league etc. so even if kids start off in another of those sports they do get some skills that could be helpful in rugby. where as here the obvious main sport is football, which has no bearing on rugby skills what so ever. i know many friends and family who played both sports when they were younger, potentially limiting to them to what they could acheive. would you all agree that this might be a contributing factor? because i cannot think of any big footballing nation that is also as good at rugby (although im not a footie fan so if someone has an example please say haha)

Actually, in South Africa the main sport is football (soccer). It's by far the most popular and also has the most teams, players and therefore also gets the most cash from government.

Rugby and Cricket is a close 2nd, with Swimming and Athletics behind them...