NH vs SH Debate.
First post, so hello. I know that this may sound a bit trite and holier than thou, but my first love is great rugby, and i don't get too myopic about whatever nation. I am an Englishman, living in Zimbabwe for the last 2 years, but have always supported Wales. Let me first of all exclaim without reservation how astonishingly brilliant this RWC has been. I previously thought of Lions tours as the apogee of the sport - no longer. The NH may fall behind the SH on the field: but take a bow RWC England: particularly the support of the fans: every stadium full, even for tier 2 vs tier 2 games. It has added immensely to the enjoyment of the games, you really get the sense of atmosphere, and the sport has served up the most incredible and implausible scripts and drama.
The superiority of Southern Hemisphere rugby though - in terms not only of results, but also style of play is unquestionable - with the AB's the pinnacle of the sport consistently - decade in, decade out. Generally it is the exception that proves the rule here - the AB's losing occasionally and the NH winning occasionally. So i don't really think we can question the verdict here, the only pertinent question is the perennial one of: why?
The NH are undoubtedly talented, they can be as fit, strong and fast, and have no reason to doubt their passion. The gulf isn't massive, but it has nevertheless always seemed undbridgeable (again we are not talking one off results here). We know that at international level it is so often small margins that win games, and with the SH, add up those tiny margins over the course of a game: handling, precision, decision making, cohesion, instinct, support play â€" and it becomes the winning margin. They enjoy no grand canyon of advantage in each area in isolation, but cumulatively it makes the difference.
But what gives them that small margin of superiority? Again I don’t think you can suggest it is gaping and obvious reason â€" it is the manifestation of a number of small considerations.
Competition? Watching every 6 nations game vs every rugby championship game, and most super 15's v premiership: it is not hard to see the emerging picture of faster, flowing more skillful rugby in the SH. So playing on such a level so consistently is bound to have an effect.
Weather? - I think some very small allowance could be made here (I am sure it teems down in NZ, and I am sure it is as dry as a bone in the rugby stronghold of southern France â€" with regularity) â€" but possibly a little bit of slack here that adds to the ‘’pile’’.
The way rugby is set up in each country? I think we have a larger slice of difference here. Who really understands the set up in each country â€" home unions alone let alone SH â€" I certainly don’t, and I am on a voyage of research. It does seem though that the SH are set up in far more of a pyramid structure with everything leading to the national side. SANZAR I believe have the whip hand (possibly full control) in super 15’s and rugby championship, so it all seems to dovetail together, whereas certainly for England and France, never the twain shall meet for the national side vs respective premierships. So we just have consistency in the SH right the way through, which I am sure accumulates a difference.
National Coaches? How much difference can they actually make once they have the squad that have come through all the other levels of coaching? I think in particular if you look at Argentina, Japan and Scotland â€" the answer is â€" or can be â€" a lot. All 3 of those teams have utterly transformed the way they play in very short periods of time, which suggests the right man can possibly overcome the deficiencies of the other aspects above. No small coincidence though that the 3 named are all SH. Similarly look what has happened with France â€" they are the most unflairy side you can imagine and their NH coach has taken them backwards at a rate of knots over the last few seasons.
Philosophy/physcology? Again I think we have another more substantial reason here â€" particularly when combined with National Coach above. Hourcade for Argentina especially has promoted a philosophy of attacking rugby to score tries to win, as opposed to focusing soley on scrums, lineouts and aggressive defence as Argentinian rugby was for years. He has transformed the side in double quick time, and with their ongoing involvement in rugby championship and now super 16’s - it becomes a self -fulfilling prophecy. Italy should take note. With England in particular there just seems to be a physcological problem â€" which is maybe a national pshyce which clearly effects football as well. More afraid of losing than actually winning, a national and almost natural sense of reserve â€" we don’t like to be flashy which I am sure â€" right from early years, stymies what nay have been great natural flair. Of course there are exceptions, but add this in with the other reasons and the case builds. It is particularly frustrating with England: by an astounding margin the most registered players in the world at the most rugby clubs in the world, with the biggest fanbase and most money.
Early Development. Having been involved in coaching up to U13, I think the RFU tries here, unfortunately in too many cases throughout the land, the age group coach gets more fixated on winning than anything else â€" good for short term instant gratification, bad for long term prospects. Best epitomised as follows: the guy that runs through everyone and scores every time is generally put at stand off â€" great for him â€" but no one else benefits. He should be on the wing so that the others at least get used to handling the ball â€" and knowing if they get it to big Johnny (running and passing as they go) he will score. Also from my experience way too much focus on grunting, wrestling and shoving as opposed to developing crucial ball handling skills and running into spaces. No doubt again many exceptions â€" but across the land we were certainly not singing from the same hymn sheet, which I suspect again is one of those little differences that can affect the end result. SH consistency right from the start.
Rugby is a great game and by and large ‘’the product’’ is best played by the SH. It would not be unreasonable to see the USA entering the fray and buying into a Super franchise and competing in the rugby championship â€" I think they would find this far more appealing than anything the NH could offer at the moment. A sleeping giant awakes?
In conclusion (at last) it is tremendous to see the game reaching ever greater levels of skill, thrill and support. I never want to watch a 6 nations, Rugby championship or RWC where the results are too predictable and one nation is a shoe in to beat another â€" I don’t want England and France to dominate the 6 nations as they once did, the emergence of Ireland and re-emergence of Wales has been fantastic for the tournament and I can’t wait to see Scotland competing on equal terms as well (which I am sure they are now) â€" so come on Italy. Similarly the Pumas have transformed my anticipation of the RC. I hope we can see some dramatic developments in NH, as of course I’d love to see the Lions smash the AB’s, perhaps it’s possible, but I think addressing some of the root and branch areas would go a long way over the long term.
Can’t wait for RWC Japan 2019, and will definitely plan to go.
Viva la Rugby.
