A sports-minded but non-rugby friend asked: why is it important there are four Southern hemisphere teams in the World Cup semifinals?
My reply was simplistic:
The significance lies in evidence that New Zealand, South Africa, Australia play rugby more effectively and organize themselves better than the Northern -- if not to say British -- powers.
SH teams prefer to run the ball and are less inclined to kick for territory, and the elite squads are directly accountable the national governing body, much like American soccer's single-owner model.
Leading NH teams focus more on field position. This is partly due to wetter European weather -- think of Big 10 vs SEC football. Further, in the two biggest markets, England and France, the top teams are American-style franchises (a la NFL or MLB) less beholden to the NGB.
Many of the Northern teams import Southern players, which is said to crowd out promising Northern players, leaving the European national squads with a smaller talent pool.
If the Southern hemisphere teams (Argentina included) are ascendant, the Eagles are declining. In the 30 years before 2006, our historical winning percentage against Tier 2 countries was 43 42 percent. In the past 10 years it has been 27 26 percent — a fall of more than one-third.
How shall we simply describe what’s going on, so we can get on with fixing the problem?
Comments