I know sod all about rugby (like most scousers), whilst listening to radio5 I hear then talking about south hemisphere and north hemisphere rugby. I am thoroughly aware of the geography, but other than that, why is there a distinction? My impression is that the southern hemisphere teams are slightly better on the whole. why? Is there s difference in styles? Please explain why is there this apparent distinction?

I think the sport gets a higher prominence in the southern hemisphere , so draws more players , more likely to net a better quality when you pick from a larger pool.

I used to think that southern hemisphere played with a more tactical gameplay, thinking further ahead, however, I think these days the gap has closed.

Plus , some of the southern chaps are naturally big lads

I think it’s simply that in Europe the main rugby has traditionally been the 5/6 nations and in the southern hemisphere the Tri-Nations of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (other nations may exist).
Regarding the level of play I noticed a dramatic change when South Africa were allowed back in the ring to play international sport and if they played Australia and NZ on a regular basis then clearly the overall standard would increase.
Argentina are a southern hemisphere team whose players generally play in Italy/Europe so not really going to fit the southern hemisphere picture that is often painted.

Several reasons:

1) In New Zealand they are fanatical about it with no football or anything else to distrct people; consequently their grass roots network is really good; there are a lot of Polynesians (including Maoris) playing and they are often the perfect build for running rugby ie powerful, fast, not tall and very dense; and finally perhaps cultural reasons. They are often cocky and self assured on the rugby pitch, which really helps too.

2) In South Africa I suppose it’s a majority sport, isn’t it? What else do they play? Perhaps it’s a bit of the old colonial public school thing happening, I dunno.

3) In Australia they are just good at sports in general, because they take it seriously!

4) For many many years, until the early or mid 90s I think, professionalism was banned up here but not down there. So of course that causes difficulties. It’s taken 20 years almost for us to transform the game as a whole into a modern professional setup. Well, perhaps not England it seems 🙂 Stuff like in the ‘Celtic’ nations they created effectively a top tier of teams drawn from the best clubs (which do still exist) – only four in Wales for example as opposed to the 20 or so small clubs that used to be in the first division. So now you have a few big clubs playing the best from Ireland and Scotland regularly instead of smaller city clubs playing very small towns. So not only do they play a higher standard of rugby more often but the top clubs are now much bigger with more resources and fans, and TV audiences are bigger and so on. Plus being professional meant there was time for more competitions and hence more TV, more game time and revenue. Those changes are now bearing fruit as the gap is very much closing. This year could easily be another year for a NH team.. 🙂

It’s a game the English invented and have apparently forgotten how to play.

I’d agree with most of the above apart from:

In South Africa I suppose it’s a majority sport, isn’t it?

I’ve only been to SA a few times, but rugby is the educated man’s sport. Therefore it’s aspirational. Soccer is the poor man’s sport. The national pride in a South African doing well, or it’s team’s, is gobsmacking.

This aspirational difference may be visible in other countries, but in SA it’s tangible and impossible to not get behind (if that makes sense?)

I’ve only been to NZ once so cant really comment.

Union is a strategic sort of game, and like any game of strategy, it’s possible to play it like a cahnt. This is what the Anglo-Saxon teams do by and large, with England being the most miserable, joyless percentage-merchants of the bunch. Imagine late-70s era Liverpool football club transposed onto a rugby field. A team that hates the sport and plays with a scowl on their face – that’s England rugby union in a nutshell.

I’m from Liverpool as well, and it’s amazing how the city erects a barrier to the oval ball. People say rugby league is the M62, but it’s certainly not the first few junctions. The best game of rugby played today was down the road at Old Trafford, with a Merseyside club contesting things, but it’s meaningless to the Scousers.

Now that’s always puzzled me. How Rugby of either stripe is ignored in Liverpool. Considering the Irish influence in the city and all..
Personally dislike the League game but much prefer it to football.

I get very bored very quickly watching League. It always seem to be the same. I dunno if I prefer it to football though, I don’t follow football at all unless it’s internationals or the odd European game, but I do really enjoy a good game. Problem is, good games seem very rare things. The typical Union game has WAY more action and excitement than footie, even the bad games.

I agree Moley, this mornings game included! I find League too ‘one-dimensional’ if that make sense?

Really dislike football as a rule but can occasionally enjoy a game with the g/f (united fan i’m afraid).

Union is where broken down League players go for their retirement…

Players like Chris Aashton and that young lad from Saints who’s signed for Bath you mean?

League plundered Welsh rugby for years and now complains that the horrible Union code pays better, and has a hugely superior profile to League.

Thanks for the informative replies chaps. have to agree with muddydwarfs comments, considering the Irish connection is greater with Liverpool than any other English city, rugby is a complete no no in Liverpool, yet just outside the city we have widnes, warrington and st helens, I guess it’s always been seen as a game for ‘wools’…

League plundered Welsh rugby for years and now complains that the horrible Union code pays better, and has a hugely superior profile to League.

Mainly has a superior profile because of the southern public school dominated media.

Don’t really get why the Irish connection would mean anything with respect to rugby in Liverpool? It’s not that popular in Ireland and never has been AFAIK – Behan memorably dismissed it as a game for protestant shop-keepers (before playing, and enjoying it, in Borstal Boy).

It’s on a relative high recently with the strong team they’ve had, but it would still be miles behind the Gaelic sports and football in popularity. Would certainly never have been imported as part of Irish heritage to Liverpool.

The difference in the two divides Southern v Northern Hemisphere is whats make the World Cup so interesting and thrilling to watch especially when Ireland beat Australia, I agree that the gap has narrowed and with what until we reach the semi’s has become a competition between the hemispheres. The southern hemisphere teams do seem to be bigger and stronger and more focused in previous years, however Wales are reputedly the fittest in the tournament and they can be used as a prime example in the differences in Rugby heritage as South Wales has all of the teams where most of the players enter the National squad were as in North Wales there has only recently been a team produced that will be entering the SWALEC league.

🙂this may not answer the question but is worth a watch anyway. 🙂