SH Vs NH

Naos

New to the sport and trying to get as much information as possible, so was hoping ye lads could help me...

This thread is inspired by the thread about LaPorte's statement that "The AB's are still the best team in the world".

Obviously I have seen the size & ability of the AB Team, I'm not that much of a novice, but HOW are they so good?

What makes the SH teams so much better(Questionable now?) than the NH teams?

Erin Go Brath

Mear wrote: »

What makes the SH teams so much better(Questionable now?) than the NH teams?

Nothing, they're not! It's just a bit of snobbery from the Tri-nations teams, and Super 14s looking down on their European counterparts. Their theory has been blown wide apart in this World Cup!

davyjose

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Their theory has been blown wide apart in this World Cup!

I disagree.

SA, long considered the second best SH team SMASHED England in the group stages. New Zealand had beaten France with ease 4 times (I think) in the last year. And Laporte himself admitted had the game been played the day after it probably would have been a different result; it was just a special day by the French. Australia took Wales apart (beaten by England, again quite probably a 1 - off). NZ destroyed the Italians and the Scots. Argentina beat the best team in the NH, and the (so-called) best team in the NH (that's us), and also Scotland. And to top it all off, Fiji beat Wales.
The Upshot was, 5 SH teams qualified for the QF, 4 topping their groups. 3 NH sides qualified - all second in their groups. This in Spite of the fact that WE have a 6 Nations and THEY only have a 3(tri)Nations.

Edit: I'm not including Portugal, Georgia, Samoa, Namibia, etc in all this!

John_C

davyjose wrote: »

Edit: I'm not including Portugal, Georgia, Samoa, Namibia, etc in all this!

A little bit of creative accountancy there, you include the pacific islands that do well but not the ones that do badly.

mikeruurds

John_C wrote: »

A little bit of creative accountancy there, you include the pacific islands that do well but not the ones that do badly.

Are you referring to the PI sides that did badly against the two sides that are playing in the final? You do realise that for them to have done "well" they would've had to beat SA and Eng.

I remember them doing pretty well actually.

ThomasH

New to the sport and trying to get as much information as possible, so was hoping ye lads could help me...

This thread is inspired by the thread about LaPorte's statement that "The AB's are still the best team in the world".

Obviously I have seen the size & ability of the AB Team, I'm not that much of a novice, but HOW are they so good?

What makes the SH teams so much better(Questionable now?) than the NH teams?

The fact that there might be more passion, pride and a hunger for winning when it comes to the South.

Nothing, they're not! It's just a bit of snobbery from the Tri-nations teams, and Super 14s looking down on their European counterparts. Their theory has been blown wide apart in this World Cup!

History tells us otherwise: World Cups, Autumn tests, Lions and other tours. The 3N are not snobs, you guys just seem to have this big chip on your shoulders about the South for whatever reason.

I can honestly say one thing for sure and that is if the North stop complaining about the South and really start to enjoy their rugby and be real competitive in every international match you will get no greater respect than from Aus, SA and NZ.

Go to any Southern Hemisphere rugby forum and you might think we're arrogant but it all comes down to passion and hunger.

How many Northern hemisphere teams supporters will have a drink together after a game?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ThomasH

Eh? All of them? I can't remember the last 6N or HEC game where I didn't go drinking with some of the other supporters.

You're an exception, everyone wants to drink with DaveIrl :cool:

The Southern Hemisphere is the only place I've been abused by rival supporters.

Maybe because they figured your from the Northern Hemisphere and just wanted to have a bit of craic with you

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ThomasH

I do believe you but I guess there is exceptions in both cases. You will get some SH supporters that will drink together and some don't and same goes for NH.

marco_polo

ThomasH wrote: »

I do believe you but I guess there is exceptions in both cases. You will get some SH supporters that will drink together and some don't and same goes for NH.

I cannot recall a rugby game I have attended where I have not been drinking with (or at least in close proximity to) opposition supporters afterwards. :cool:

shrapnel222

ThomasH wrote: »

I do believe you but I guess there is exceptions in both cases. You will get some SH supporters that will drink together and some don't and same goes for NH.

was in cardiff last week and i can tell you that there weren't too many kiwis mixing with the french that night. the next day, in the train back to london i was in a carriage full of kiwis, about 20% of them had been in fights the night before, some gloating about the injuries they'd inflicted on us frogs.

John_C

mikeruurds wrote: »

Originally Posted by John_C
A little bit of creative accountancy there, you include the pacific islands that do well but not the ones that do badly.

Are you referring to the PI sides that did badly against the two sides that are playing in the final? You do realise that for them to have done "well" they would've had to beat SA and Eng.

I remember them doing pretty well actually.

There's only three of them and I was referring to them all. 2 did better than expected and one worse.

ThomasH

I cannot recall a rugby game I have attended where I have not been drinking with (or at least in close proximity to) opposition supporters afterwards.:cool:

Good for you.

was in cardiff last week and i can tell you that there weren't too many kiwis mixing with the french that night. the next day, in the train back to london i was in a carriage full of kiwis, about 20% of them had been in fights the night before, some gloating about the injuries they'd inflicted on us frogs.

Poor baby. Did the French try and mix with the Kiwis or even with the English after their lost last weekend?
20% does not speak for the whole SH and I'm sure in other parts of the world many different nationalities are also fighting...

Sounds like a bit of a cliche to me tbh.

gjim

20% does not speak for the whole SH and I'm sure in other parts of the world many different nationalities are also fighting...

I've NEVER seen anything physical going on EVER between supporters that involve NH teams at all. Not a single person and this includes attendance at international, provincial, senior and junior club and schools rugby games. Maybe I've led a sheltered life but I doubt it - I've been at some pretty firey encounters.

philstar

the real acid test, is for a NH side to beat a SH in the SH, then they can say they're better.

But this hasn't happened to often has it??

accensi0n

philstar wrote: »

the real acid test, is for a NH side to beat a SH in the SH, then they can say they're better.

Thats already happened...

CJhaughey

Remember the English RWC team of 2003? They went down to NZ and managed to beat the AB's even playing with 13 men at one point in the game.
Much as it galls me to admit it they were definately a real hard team at that point who didn't know how to lose.
Then they went on to win the RWC 2003....

shrapnel222

ThomasH wrote: »

Good for you.

Poor baby. Did the French try and mix with the Kiwis or even with the English after their lost last weekend?
20% does not speak for the whole SH and I'm sure in other parts of the world many different nationalities are also fighting...

Sounds like a bit of a cliche to me tbh.

wow, that's actually quite funny. As gjim said, i've never seen bad blood in the NH after any game, and i am not a poor baby (don't think they do diapers that big these days). Considering the world cup is in France, yes the french mixed with the english and kiwis and no problems to report.
I never spoke about the SH, i'm speaking about NZ
Just as an aside, a friend of mine who was in New Zealand said that there is a lot of fighting after club matches, just like there is after football in the UK. Obviously it's a small minority as always but hooligans are rugby fans in NZ compared to football fans in the UK and everywhere else

ThomasH

wow, that's actually quite funny. As gjim said, i've never seen bad blood in the NH after any game, and i am not a poor baby (don't think they do diapers that big these days). Considering the world cup is in France, yes the french mixed with the english and kiwis and no problems to report.
I never spoke about the SH, i'm speaking about NZ
Just as an aside, a friend of mine who was in New Zealand said that there is a lot of fighting after club matches, just like there is after football in the UK. Obviously it's a small minority as always but hooligans are rugby fans in NZ compared to football fans in the UK and everywhere else

This is a SH vs NH thread and not about NZ specifically.
Also, a friend of a friend of a cousin who I met at the pub down the other day who told me this story about supporters carbage does not go well with me....I am not an AB supporter but you can't generalised about NZ's supporters as hooligans. I have a lot of Kiwi mates and have never seen them involved in a fight whether the ABs won or not.

Anyway I think the OPs real question is:
What makes the SH teams so much better than the NH teams. Let's hear it.

Remember the English RWC team of 2003? They went down to NZ and managed to beat the AB's even playing with 13 men at one point in the game.
Much as it galls me to admit it they were definately a real hard team at that point who didn't know how to lose.
Then they went on to win the RWC 2003....

2003 is 4 years ago and that was the first time in 30 years Eng had beat the ABs. Carlos Spencer missed a lot of goal kicks that day. Remember the ABs team of 2005 at Twickenham beating Eng also with only 13 men?

shrapnel222

ThomasH wrote: »

This is a SH vs NH thread and not about NZ specifically.
Also, a friend of a friend of a cousin who I met at the pub down the other day who told me this story about supporters carbage does not go well with me....I am not an AB supporter but you can't generalised about NZ's supporters as hooligans. I have a lot of Kiwi mates and have never seen them involved in a fight whether the ABs won or not.

lol, your interpretation skills leave a lot to be desired. This is not a friend of a friend of a cousin, this is a friend of mine. I have not had the pleasure of travelling to NZ, he has, and he related what he saw first hand. Hooligans are always a minority, in any sport, and i never said all NZ fans were hooligans. it seems you're the one making generalisations. 99% of all fans in any sport will always be there for the sport not the aside.

But anyway, back to the question at hand. Could it be that SH teams commit less people to the ruck in order to have more of a running game? do you think the weather might be partially responsible to the fact NH rugby is very much forward based in order to keep possession of an often wet and muddy ball, whereas SH have a more clement climate even in winter which has led to the development of a much more open game? i have no idea as to the relevance of that idea, just putting it out there.:p

Snickers Man

Talking in hemispheres is a load of balls.

That's all I've got to say on the matter.

philstar

Snickers Man wrote: »

Talking in hemispheres is a load of balls.

oval-shaped balls maybe;)

davyjose

mikeruurds wrote: »

Are you referring to the PI sides that did badly against the two sides that are playing in the final? You do realise that for them to have done "well" they would've had to beat SA and Eng.

I remember them doing pretty well actually.

Exactly, any creative accountancy, as you put it, was in favour of the NH. I didnt include the smaller sides because I don't think they are a barometer of the quality of each hemispheres strengths, do you?