RugbyRebels

Strauss - of course.

I just remembered that Grayson Hart, who now plays for Glasgow, earned a handful of Scotland caps. He made a few appearances for the Blues a few years ago, but it would have been during a period where the starting 9 position was dominated by Alby Mathewson, Chris Smylie and Piri Weepu.

WP Nel played for the Cheetahs for a few years as well.

Registered players according to World Rugby:

Europe 1.5 million
Africa 642 K
Oceania 555 K
Asia 285 K
SAmerica 165 K
N America 160 K
--------------------
Total 3.3 million

by continent (5 K & over)

Europe
France 542 K
England 382 K
Ireland 101 K
Italy 87 K
Wales 83 K
Scotland 49 K
Spain 35 K
Russia 26 K
Holland 13 K
Belgium 12 K
Germany 11 K
Romania 10 K
Georgia 8 K
Poland 7 K
Portugal 6 K
Switzerland 6 K
Czech 5 K

Africa
SA 405K
Kenya 50K
Madagascar 34K
Zimbabwe 26K
Uganda 23K
Rwanda 18K
Senegal 16K
Tunisia 15K
Botswana 12K
Swaziland 11K
Namibia 8K
Zambia 8K
Morocco 7K

Oceania
Australia 230 K
NZ 150 K
Fiji 122 K
Tonga 23 K
Samoa 12 K
Solomon Is 10 K

Asia
Japan 105 K
Sri Lanka 55 K
China 35 K
India 18 K
Hong Kong 15 K
Thailand 12 K
Malaysia 10 K
Singapore 10 K
Taiwan 6 K

SAmerica
Argentina 105 K
Brazil 16 K
Chile 11 K
Peru 10 K
Uruguay 9 K
Colombia 5 K
Paraguay 5 K

NAmerica
USA 119 K
Canada 27 K
Mexico 6 K

World
1 France 542 K
2 SA 405 K
3 England 382 K
4 Australia 230 K
5 NZ 150 K
6 Fiji 122 K
7 USA 119 K
8 Japan 105 K
9 Argentina 105 K
10 Ireland 101 K
11 Italy 87 K
12 Wales 83 K
13 Sri Lanka 55 K
14 Kenya 50 K
15 Scotland 49 K
16 Spain 35 K
17 China 35 K
18 Madagascar 34 K
19 Canada 27 K
20 Russia 26 K
21 Zimbabwe 26 K
22 Uganda 23 K
23 Tonga 23 K
24 India 18 K
25 Rwanda 18 K
26 Brazil 16 K
27 Senegal 16 K
28 Hong Kong 15 K
29 Tunisia 14 K
30 Holland 13 K
31 Samoa 12 K
32 Thailand 12 K
33 Belgium 12 K
34 Botswana 12 K
35 Germany 11 K
36 Chila 11 K
37 Swaziland 11 K
38 Singapore 10 K
39 Malaysia 10 K
40 Solomon Is 10 K
41 Romania 10 K
42 Peru 10 K
43 Uruguay 9 K
44 Georgia 8 K
45 Namibia 8 K
46 Zamabia 8 K
47 Morocco 7 K
48 Poland 7 K
49 Taiwan 6 K
50 Portugal 6 K
51 Switzerland 6 K
52 Mexico 6 K
53 Colombia 5 K
54 Paraguay 5 K
55 Czech 5 K

I know I've done this before, but the figures are different now (and most likely just as unreliable as the last time)

Player numbers per capita:

21.5 Tonga 23 K 1/5
13.3 Fiji 122 K 1/7
6 Samoa 12 K 1/17
3.3 NZ 150 K 1/30
2.75 Wales 83 K 1/35
1.75 Ireland 101 K 1/45
1.66 Solomon Is 10 K 1/47
1 Australia 230 K 1/100
0.8 France 542 K 1/120
0.8 Swaziland 11 K 1/120
0.7 SA 405 K 1/150
0.7 Scotland 49 K 1/150
0.7 England 382 K 1/150
0.5 Botswana 12 K 1/200
0.4 Namibia 8 K 1/250
0.3 Uruguay 9 K 1/300
0.3 Georgia 8 K 1/300
0.25 Sri Lanka 55 K 1/400
0.25 Argentina 105 K 1/400
0.2 Zimbabwe 26 K 1/500
0.2 Hong Kong 15 K 1/500
0.18 Singapore 10 K 1/600
0.15 Madagascar 34 K 1/750
0.15 Rwanda 18 K 1/750
0.14 Italy 87 K 1/800
0.12 Tunisia 14 K 1/900
0.11 Senegal 16 K 1/950
0.1 Kenya 50 K 1/1000
0.1 Belgium 12 K 1/1000
0.08 Japan 105 K 1/1200
0.075 Holland 13 K 1/1300
0.075 Switzerland 6 K 1/1300
0.07 Canada 27 K 1/1400
0.07 Spain 35 K 1/1400
0.07 Paraguay 5 K 1/1400
0.065 Chile 11 K 1/1700
0.06 Uganda 23 K 1/1800
0.05 Romania 10 K 1/2000
0.05 Portugal 6 K 1/2000
0.05 Zambia 8 K 1/2000
0.05 Czech 5 K 1/2,000
0.033 Malaysia 10 K 1/3000
0.033 Peru 10 K 1/3000
0.03 USA 119 K 1/3500
0.025 Taiwan 6 K 1/4000
0.02 Russia 26 K 1/5000
0.02 Morocco 7 K 1/5000
0.018 Poland 7 K 1/6000
0.017 Thailand 12 K 1/7000
0.013 Germany 11 K 1/8000
0.01 Colombia 5 K 1/10,000
0.008 Brazil 16 K 1/12,000
0.005 Mexico 6 K 1/20,000
0.0025 China 35 K 1/40,000
0.0013 India 18 K 1/80,000

So what does that tell you? There are really only three major hotbeds of rugby - Oceania, North-West Europe, Southern Africa. Anywhere else it's distinctly a minor sport. We have to go all the way down to Uruguay before we find the country outside those 3 regions with the highest number of registered players per capita, and they only have 9000 from a population of 3 million - or about 1/300 citizens.

Grand Slam killers

I wandered down the wormhole of reading about the old Grand Slam tours, and started compiling a list of the teams that prevented the failed tours by the SANZAR teams.

1905 - NZ - Wales
1906 - SA - Scotland
1927/28 - Aus (NSW) - Scotland
1935/36 - NZ - Wales
1947/48 - Aus - Wales
1953/54 - NZ - Wales
1957/58 - Australia - Wales (all tests lost, lol)
1963/64 - NZ - Scotland (draw)
1966/67 - Aus - Scotland
1969/70 - SA - Scotland (no tests won, with 2 losses and 2 draws)
1972/73 - NZ - Ireland (draw)
1975/76 - Aus - Scotland
1981/82 - Aus - Wales - the last time a Grand Slam tour wasn't concluded by the end of the year it commenced
1998 - SA - England
2004 - SA - Ireland
2009 - Aus - Ireland (draw)
2010 - SA - Scotland
2013 - Aus - England
2016 - Aus - Ireland

Here are the number of times the teams have respectively stopped Grand Slam attempts:
Wales - 6
Scotland - 7 (1 draw)
Ireland - 4 (2 draws)
England 2

Scotland is surprisingly the most successful at killing Grand Slam attempts, and despite their struggles since the move to professionalism, they still share the record for stopped attempts with England and Ireland at 2, post-1996.
Wales, interestingly, has never been the team to stop a Grand Slam attempt since professionalism, with the last of their 6 successful attempts at being the Home Nations gatekeeper being in 1981, when they beat the Wallabies.

Of course, England's 2 successful attempts at gatekeeping isn't really a reflection on their quality or any perception of a lack thereof, but rather, more to do with the fact that the touring side's fixture against them has historically been in the latter stages of the tour, rather than early on - case in point the 1998 South Africa tour, where England were the last team on the itinerary. England actually have the most wins against touring Grand Slam sides at 10 (4 of them have come post-amateurism), it's just that the vast majority of those have come after the touring side has already been beaten by one of the other three.

Conversely, it has often been either Scotland or Wales that has had the first crack at the tourists, which would explain why they've been far more successful as gatekeepers than either Ireland or England. Scotland also have the second highest number of wins against touring teams attempting a Grand Slam at 9, followed by Wales with 7. Ireland have only 4 wins to their name, although they have managed 3 draws compared to the 1 each that the other 3 sides have managed - the latest of which scuppered Australia's 2009 attempt.

Are grandslams still a thing? I thought they went out with professionalism, like Southern Hemisphere nations actually making full-scale tours of one another.

It's interesting people say rugby needs the Lions tours because of the amount of revenue they bring in. But couldn't the same have once been said of tours between SA & NZ? There was nothing bigger than an All Blacks tour of SA or a Boks tour of NZ.

rowan wrote:Are grandslams still a thing? I thought they went out with professionalism, like Southern Hemisphere nations actually making full-scale tours of one another.

Uh yeah, they are very much a thing. Just because it doesn't go on for months on end with games against domestic teams and local invitational sides in between test matches doesn't mean the primary objective of "beat all 4 home nations teams on their patch" is any different.

Cheers. I don't follow tier 1 so closely anymore. Done that to death and am more interested in tier 3, as you're probably aware. I think the grandslam was huge in the amateur era, but the belated success in 78, followed by the advent of the World Cup (which settled all accounts) seemed to diminish the slam's importance to Kiwis in the pro era. Aside from that, the two major events on the international calendar were full-scale tours by the Boks & Lions, followed by the Wallabies and Les Bleus. Two of those were dispensed with almost seamlessly upon the arrival of SANZAR competitions, yet suggest to anyone the Lions tours are also past their sell-by date and all hell breaks loose . . .

Only once has there been a nation v nation sweep over a Super Rugby season. In 2002 Australian teams were 12 from 12 against South African teams.

This year, NZ are 15 from 15 (10 to play) and Argie are 1 from 1 (4 to play) v Aussie sides. NZ are also 4 from 4 (1 to play) v Japanese teams.

Of course, there were only the three Aussie powerhouses back then, and ACT were only a powerhouse because they were chocka with NSW & Q'land players. The ACT representative team is about NZ division 2 standard. I seem to recall Wellington dominating them in an annual Capital Cup fixture in the pre-Super Rugby era, but I don't think it lasted long.

Anyway, what all this proves is that things move in cycles, what goes around comes around, the more things change the more they stay the same, and a few other well-worn cliches. I don't know how many times the imminent collapse of Australian and South African rugby has been discussed over the years - particularly during the pro era - only for those two nations to pop up in the semi-finals of the World Cup - a meritorious achievement by any standards.

The reason for this is plain to see. They are constantly being judged by their results against New Zealand. Name a team that wouldn't appear on the point of collapse under those circumstances. The Lions have only beaten them in one series (71) and won just 6 out of 38 matches, England have only won 7 out of 40 & France 12 out of 57.

Meanwhile, England crashed out of their own World Cup at the group stages the year before last but nobody's talking about their demise because they immediately bounced back to win the 6 Nations title twice in a row, notwithstanding a loss to Ireland this year. If England were involved in an annual competition with the Kiwis, on the other hand, I guarantee we'd be contemplating their 'collapse' almost every year as well...

The problem is that the Wallabies' poor results against NZ affect the popularity of the whole sport in Straya. Union is falling behind soccer and has always been behind League (since WWI) and AFL. In the pro era they need more than the private school old boys and universities to attract top athletes to the code. Yer average Ocker is simply not going to form a lifelong bond with a sport where the boys in gold regularly get tonked by the sheep shaggers over the ditch.

I'm not sure that any of the above is new. Rugby has been falling behind soccer throughout the rugby-playing world over the past few generations, and particularly since TV began to bring us live coverage of World Cups and European first division leagues. More kids seemed to be playing the round-ball code than the oval-ball one when I was at school in Wellington many eons ago, in fact, but New Zealand rugby hasn't suffered for it, evidently. & from a spectator's point of view union has always been a niche market in Australia, largely reliant on the expat communities to fill the stadiums for tests against international touring teams. But is there any evidence of playing numbers in Australia actually declining? I don't think so. According to World Rugby stats they have more than New Zealand (230K v. 150K), and I'm sure that wasn't the case a few decades ago. In fact, I believe their 1990s World Cup successes brought legions of new fans to the game, and the sports popularity among Aussie fans reached its apogee when the Red Continent hosted the World Cup itself in 2003. But they haven't been able to replicate those achievements since and will remember the last World Cup more for the pummelling they received from the All Blacks than the fact they did so well just to make the final. As you say, the regular defeats to New Zealand teams at all levels are not going to jibe well with the Aussie psyche. Nothing new under the sun there, however.

Lizard wrote:The problem is that the Wallabies' poor results against NZ affect the popularity of the whole sport in Straya. Union is falling behind soccer and has always been behind League (since WWI) and AFL. In the pro era they need more than the private school old boys and universities to attract top athletes to the code. Yer average Ocker is simply not going to form a lifelong bond with a sport where the boys in gold regularly get tonked by the sheep shaggers over the ditch.

Schlesische at the Something Awful forums put it best:

"After the Golden Era of Rugby, they kinda of anticipated a growth of interest in Super Rugby that they were hoping the regions would pick up the slack and push through grassroots reform and would be a path to more sustained junior numbers.
Outside of Canberra, that never really happened. Gee, I wonder why.
As I've said before, the interest levels they captured in 2003 with the Wallabies wasn't sustainable, because it was based on the idea that the AFL and NRL weren't going to recover from their then nadirs. Which was always going to happen when Vic and NSW teams won the respective flags. It didn't help that the Wallabies were the only team on Free-to-air, which is a big deal in Australia when a lot of kids don't have access to Foxtel because buying foxtel is a terrible fucking idea.

The end result was a spectacular lack of investment in the states on the other side of the Barassi line, a general lack of investment everywhere and here we are 15 years later and the ARU is basically bankrupt and having to kill one of it's two "over the line" franchises.

The right move would have been to have pushed for a club rugby set up like they have in New Zealand or South Africa. Until the establishment of the NRC in 2014, they only vaguely tried once, in 2007 when it was way too late.
Rugby is reverting slowly to it's natural position as the private schoolboy sport in NSW and Queensland, and is losing what little grip it had on Victoria and WA. The only upside is that Rugby League is so far up it's own arse that it's in absolutely no position to counter the AFL's aggressive "WE ARE THE NATIONAL SPORT, FUCK YOU" move in putting teams everywhere (and, as a by-the-by, the AFL treats it's expansion teams far better than the NRL does), meaning that if the ARU ever got a second golden generation it would be in a decent position to do the actual right thing."

Just an anecdote, but I lived in regional North QLD from 2002-2006. Although there was a local rugby union team which had a pretty good history, it was AFL that was making all the inroads with young players. They had great programs to get kids into the game, probably helped by Victorians moving north for the (stinking hot) climate, and well-organised leagues set up. Rugby was nowhere. You would have to have made a real effort to get your kid into rugby, and be prepared to travel a fair way for Saturday games. The organisation of AFL was really impressive, particularly considering this is in what is traditional rugby/league territory.

In the early 70s the Aussies were dubbed the 'Woeful Wallabies' after a disastrous tour of New Zealand and the NZRFU seriously discussed dropping them from the agenda. Just a few years later the Wallabies thumped the All Blacks 30-16 at Eden Park with Greg Cornelsen scoring 4 tries. It was the first time the Kiwis had ever conceded 30 point, and would set the tone for encounters between the two nations over the next few years, as the Wallabies beat them again in 1979 then won a series against the All Blacks in 1980. In fact, it was Australia who entered the first World Cup as favorites, having also won a series against New Zealand in 86, albeit seriously disrupted by the Cavaliers fiasco. The moral of the story is, don't write them off until they start crashing out of World Cups in the group stages . . .

Of course, one thing union has over both league and Aussie rules is a genuine international following, with the World Cup being among the most-watched sports events on the planet. That's got to be the main attraction for any aspiring footballer - to play in a genuine world championship on a true world stage. On the other hand, I think the increasingly multi-national appearance of Super Rugby is not a good thing, because it contains few traditional rivalries and now lacks regional identity, which goes against long-standing perceptions of what an annual club competition should look like. The average Aussie must be scratching his head in wonder every time he looks at the schedule and sees teams such as Tokyo's Sunwolves and Buenos Aires' Jaguares on the agenda.

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Are grandslams still a thing? I thought they went out with professionalism, like Southern Hemisphere nations actually making full-scale tours of one another.

Uh yeah, they are very much a thing. Just because it doesn't go on for months on end with games against domestic teams and local invitational sides in between test matches doesn't mean the primary objective of "beat all 4 home nations teams on their patch" is any different.

The Boks achieved a grand slam of grand slams against the Home Unions between 1912 and 1952 - long before either NZ or Australia had achieved one. Winning 16 straight tests on four successive tours, the Boks amassed 196 points in those 16 games and conceded just 25. Their victories included a 38 - 0 pummelling of Ireland on the first of those tours and 44-0 demolition of Scotland on the last. These were huge scorelines at the time, with 3-point tries and muddy pitches to contend with. Meanwhile, in not one of those 16 games did they concede more than five points.

Neutral tests in NZ (non-RWC)

Wales has been confirmed to play Tonga in Auckland in June. Here is a list of previous neutral tests played in NZ:

3-6 Sept 2003: the Oceania Cup (eastern group) was played in Auckland:
Cook Is 55 v New Caledonia 5
Niue 78 v Tahiti 8
Niue 17 v Cook Is 14
Tahiti 18 v New Caledonia 17

4 June 2004: Scotland 38 v Samoa 3

14-21 Oct 2006: the FORU Cup was played in Pukekohe:
Niue 41 v Tahiti 6
Cook Is 87 v Tahiti 18
Cook Is 41 v Niue 15

10 February 2007, RWC Qualifying repechage at Henderson:
Tonga 85 v Korea 3

27 June 2009, RWC qualifier at Pukekohe:
Cook Is 29 v Niue 7

So who knew Waitemata Park was a test venue? I've seen NZ Lawyers v French Lawyers there but never would have guessed it also hosted a full international.

Cook Islands v Niue - the combined populations of those two nations wouldn't even fill half of Eden Park. Fact!

Ahead of the RWC draw tonight -

Most common RWC match-ups:
7 matches: NZ v France (5-2 NZ)
6 matches: Aust v England (3-all); Aust v Wales (5-1 Aust)
5 matches: NZ v Italy (5-0 NZ); NZ v Scotland (5-0 NZ); SA v Samoa (5-0 SA); Aust v Ire (4-1 Aust); Eng v France (3-2 Eng)

Most Common RWC Pool stage match-ups:
5 matches: NZ v Italy (5-0 NZ); Aust v Wales (4-1 Aust)
4 matches: France v Canada (4-0 France); NZ v Tonga (4-0 NZ); SA v Samoa (4-0 SA)

So New Zealand has met Italy at 5/8 World Cups so far. That really does show up just how static this tournament is, with just four groups and basically the same teams turning up every time. I think Brazil and Germany, the two giants of football, had never met once in that code's World Cup prior to the 2002 final. So, perhaps this should be regarded as another argument in favor of expanding to 24 with six groups of four at the preliminary stages.

New RWC match-ups coming in 2019

Australia v Georgia
Fiji v Georgia
France v Samoa
Wales v Georgia
South Africa v Italy

Of these, Aust v Geo has never been played. Neither has Wales v Geo but that is scheduled for November.