So why are Australia and South Africa still better at international level than European teams?
Didn’t the New South Wales Waratahs win the competition in 2014?
These two aren’t better than England in particular and maybe Ireland.
France have chosen to go a different route and select invitational type teams at international level.
Yes they are.
If you haven’t forgotten, the last World Cup semi-finals were made up of four southern hemisphere teams.
Australia changed their rules before WC so they can include overseas players. SA always have. And their dominance over European teams has shrunk massively compared to what it was. Plus, my argument was completely unrelated to the international sides. Even in a poor competition S.A. have 6 pro Super rugby sides to choose from and another pro competition below that no reason at all you couldn’t pluck 30 decent internationals from that base. It’s one of biggest issues is that their quality is diluted across too many teams
Wales perfect example of national side punching miles above club sides weight as well
SA were beaten by Japan in that tournament. Australia had to rely on a referee error to get there. England beat the aussies 3 zip last summer.
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics.
No, you’re right. Australia are significantly better at rugby than England. South Africa are of course ranked much higher. Ireland are just happy to be on the same field as them.
Facts would tend to bear that out, yes. 
The only facts that matter in international rugby come in the World Cup, mate.
Those facts are quite convenient for me and quite inconvenient for you.
Who said that? Anyway I know you are bored and quite easily could argue the other side just as quick.
We were originally discussing Super rugby which is completely irrelevant to the rabbit hole you have tried to take this discussion down.
The post you quote should give you a clue.
We’re all bored, mate. That’s what modern life has conditioned us to be.
Using the phrase “rabbit hole” is a great admission of a losing argument.
England actually have a surprisingly shite record against SA over the past decade.
They are better than them at the minute though.
England are pretty equal with Australia generally, although again they pulled ahead last year.
Neither are better than England at the minute.
Ireland have a very good recent record against both (past decade). Which is surprising when you consider the grief they get against Wales, who have a disgraceful record against SH opposition.
Losing an argument? I’m not even arguing with you pal. I made a comment about super rugby you asked me a question in response I answered it then you started talking about something else entirely.
We were barely having a discussion let alone am argument
Australia and SA reducing number of teams
No interest in it in Oz
Ireland are shit at competitive rugby
1 Like
But they’re great at taking part
1 Like
They’re reasonably good at getting to quarter-finals. 6 quarter-finals reached from 8 tournaments.
But not so good at getting past the quarter-finals.
Super rugby is fucked because the kiwis are head and shoulders better than everyone else. Same goes for the tri nations, or whatever it’s called now there are four of them. SA and the Argies should play in an expanded six nations IMO.
We could then largely ignore the World Cup.
2 Likes
One of the bizarre things about Super Rugby is how it is stretched across so many time-zones. It would make a lot more sense if Argentina in particular were aligned with the European arena as they don’t have the history with NZ and Aus that SA do. There was talk before of bringing in a Pacific Islander team or two into the competition and that would bring a bit of “spice” to proceedings, as Eddie Brennan would say. As it is at the mo, you just have the Saffers huffing and puffing inside vast, empty stadiums, the Aussies and the novelty teams getting walloped and the Kiwis (except for my beloved Blues) strolling into the business end of the champ.
2 Likes