How high would a series win rank vs. a 3N side for a home nations team?

How high would a series win  rank vs. a 3N side?

SA have played 52 series in their history to tier 1 sides (2 games or more). They have lost only 8 inc. the first 2 lions tours in the 19th century (Lions 4, FRA 2, AUS 1, NZ 1) and none to ENG, WAL, IRE, SCO, ARG, ITA. In the pro era they have lost only 2 in 21 (10% loss rate).

NZ have played 63 series where they have lost only 5. (AUS 2, FRA 1, Lions 1, SA 1). In the pro era they have lost 0 in 19 (0% loss rate). Its simply formidable.

A tour to AUS is very difficult in itself but their record is a little less prestigious than SA & NZ. They've hosted 66 series but their record is 28 losses (NZ 16, Lions 7, SA 1, FRA 1, IRE 1). However in the pro era they have lost only 4 in 24 (17% loss rate) so it suggests they have caught up to speed with the likes of SA in terms of home dominance.

Sort of shows that whilst they have been difficult tours throughout history, in the pro era they're even more rare. Surely a win in NZ would be the holy grail upon holy grails of rugby; well above any RWC win. SA for instance have only 1 series win in NZ in their entire history whereas they have already 2 RWCs, for NZ its 1 win in SA but 3 RWCs.

I think Its achievable for England to beat AUS although a home win is still more likely. Had Ireland sent a fully fit team I would say their chances were equal to England's. Wales, if they got a win alone it would be something to shout from the roof tops. Where would any such achievements rank? Who knows.

On their own only Ireland have ever achieved such a feat (a 2-0 series win in AUS in 79) although they only started touring series wise in the late 70s. That's 1 series win in 43 attempts (excluding Lions who have a 12 in 31 record).

Ireland have never beaten SA in SA so one win would be historic in itself - a series win would be a massive achievement, I'd expect to see Rory Best pound the soil a la Sean Fitzpatrick if we do it.

Hopefully Madser won't do a ROG if we have a chance to draw the second test though as that would be some achievement too

To win the series in SA would be above a 6 Nations Grand Slam but below a RWC for me. Being world champions is always going to be the top prize.

Although theres less hype around the tours from the non rugby communities compared to the 6 nations.

rodders wrote:Ireland have never beaten SA in SA so one win would be historic in itself - a series win would be a massive achievement, I'd expect to see Rory Best pound the soil a la Sean Fitzpatrick if we do it.

Hopefully Madser won't do a ROG if we have a chance to draw the second test though as that would be some achievement too

He was concussed apparently!

07 at the RWC when the bookies had hitmen on his back.... yep concussed.
05 vs. Wales ... yep concussed.
01 on the lions tour when McRae tore into him... actually if he wasn't concussed then he isn't human.

Its what we must be trying to do more regularly.

We need to balance the uneven stats. The 3n teams are the benchmark, and to get close we simply must be at a level where we can go down there and really have a chance of victories and a series win.

Look, the century is now 16 years old. The time has come to cast off a few of these damn 20th century lingering records. It's like living in a modern world and riding your horse to the office.

SecretFly wrote:It's like living in a modern world and riding your horse to the office.

Well if it was a modern office it would probably be an Elephant or Camel you'd ride on.

Hmmmm. Don't often have to think on things........................

But this one here.................................
Hmmmmm......................

get back to you, rodders.

Its high. It would be a shade above the 2009 Grand Slam for me. If Grand Slams weren't so rare for Ireland, a series win would probably be even higher on my list. I would put a series 3-0 win away to NZ above a RWC win.

As Wales are in the European Football Championships, 95% of the Welsh population will have no interest in the first two tests, so those scores are irrelevant.

However once they get booted out of the Euros at the group stage there will be a desperate attempt to regain some sporting pride by getting within 30 of the All Blacks in the final test and calling it a moral victory.

A WC win would be the best because it's a list of games.  You have to keep strong, fit and you need to be a serious team to keep going and still win it at the end.

World Cup is the top.

Any series win against any 3N team right now would rank higher with me than any 6N win.

The 3N, despite all the gripes and groans from the North, remain in sequence the highest quality rugby sides there is.  Sometimes they fall lower than top 3 but, like Australia managed, new coach, new determination and back up they go.

So you should always be aiming for the top.  None of the Six Nation sides are on that list - yet.  England have a chance over the next few years.  But for now - two solid wins against South Africa in South Africa, better than a Slam.

If Wales were to get a series win in NZ this month, I'd reckon they'd rate that above the RWC. If they won 3-0, they'd be permanent World Champions!

A series win over three tour matches against NZ, SA, or Australia for any Home Nations side could put a small dent in enthusiasm for Lions tours.

Not perhaps immediately. If Wales beat NZ then it could just as easily stoke interest in the next Lions series.

However, it's possible supporters might start to want more of their own side tasting victory rather than through the proxy of the Lions.

I'd be happy to see any of Wales, England and Ireland take honours this year but the odds still looked stacked.

Pot Hale wrote:If Wales were to get a series win in NZ this month, I'd reckon they'd rate that above the RWC.  If they won 3-0, they'd be permanent World Champions!

If Wales could do that Gatland would be nailed on for the Lions and AB jobs and to be knighted

Pot Hale wrote:If Wales were to get a series win in NZ this month, I'd reckon they'd rate that above the RWC.  If they won 3-0, they'd be permanent World Champions!

Well maybe not permanent but they could get a RWC bye until 2031.

England vs Aus would not rate too highly. Aus are clearly 3rd in my view of the 3N at the moment even if they are still a great side. A victory would rate above a Grand Slam but not clearly so. England have a good side if a bit unsettled.

Ireland vs SA would rate highly based on their horrific record. Be far better than a slam considering where their team is at the moment with the changing of the guard. A win would be equal to winning the 6 nations by point difference.

Wales vs NZ would be bigger than anything bar a RWC. If they win a game, it would rate above a slam in my mind but this is as settled as Wales will ever be. Next chance to tour one of the 3N is 2018 (assuming they don't draw Arg) and they could be far weaker when Gatland picks most of them for the Lions Tour followed by a year of non-stop rugby. If they win, I fully expect the Welsh side of my family to never forget it (or let me forget about it) even though they don't follow rugby

Hazel Sapling wrote:England vs Aus would not rate too highly. Aus are clearly 3rd in my view of the 3N at the moment even if they are still a great side. A victory would rate above a Grand Slam but not clearly so. England have a good side if a bit unsettled.

Ireland vs SA would rate highly based on their horrific record. Be far better than a slam considering where their team is at the moment with the changing of the guard. A win would be equal to winning the 6 nations by point difference.

Wales vs NZ would be bigger than anything bar a RWC. If they win a game, it would rate above a slam in my mind but this is as settled as Wales will ever be. Next chance to tour one of the 3N is 2018 (assuming they don't draw Arg) and they could be far weaker when Gatland picks most of them for the Lions Tour followed by a year of non-stop rugby. If they win, I fully expect the Welsh side of my family to never forget it (or let me forget about it) even though they don't follow rugby  

Since they'll never win either, you'll never have to suffer that emotional roller-coaster.

Hazel Sapling wrote:England vs Aus would not rate too highly. Aus are clearly 3rd in my view of the 3N at the moment even if they are still a great side. A victory would rate above a Grand Slam but not clearly so. England have a good side if a bit unsettled.

Ireland vs SA would rate highly based on their horrific record. Be far better than a slam considering where their team is at the moment with the changing of the guard. A win would be equal to winning the 6 nations by point difference.

Wales vs NZ would be bigger than anything bar a RWC. If they win a game, it would rate above a slam in my mind but this is as settled as Wales will ever be. Next chance to tour one of the 3N is 2018 (assuming they don't draw Arg) and they could be far weaker when Gatland picks most of them for the Lions Tour followed by a year of non-stop rugby. If they win, I fully expect the Welsh side of my family to never forget it (or let me forget about it) even though they don't follow rugby  

Interesting that AUS tore ENG a new one in the RWC in their own backyard, got to the final and until about 60mins were right in the match level with NZ. I think AUS are better than some people make out.

My own view is that this is something no English team have ever done in 14 occasions. 1 off tests, 3rd test dead rubbers sometimes can be explained by complacency or injuries... best of 3 tests or 2 wins out of 2 are remarkable achievements.

Take 2003 for instance. England beat NZ 15-13 in NZ. Great achievement. Not sure if you remember the game but NZ threw the game away. Spencer missed a load of kicks and had the lions share of possession and territory. In fairness it was a terribly cold and windy day but had NZ faced them the next week I would say that NZ would have been a whole different beast and I'm not sure England could have won the day.. i.e. England at their best ever vs. NZ at historical one of their less successful eras I still doubt they could have taken a series win. In the end we'll never know.

A Scot talking down a good England side. Well I never,

No 7&1/2 wrote:A Scot talking down a good England side. Well I never,

I don't see how that was talking them down?

They were the best English team probably of all time. They would have beaten SA at a series (especially given they were very poor) had they faced them. They played AUS twice that season in AUS and won both (albeit not a real series). However NZ in NZ is a different kettle of fish

7.5... do you recall the match. It was a remarkable hold by the English team to win. NZ had them against the ropes all day and only Jonnys boot kept them in the match.... whereas Spencer couldn't hit a barn door (as per usual).

Its just to say how big an achievement it is to win a series in NZ.

Yeah yeah. Best England side ever, really poor SH teams having uncharacteristic dip. Never heard it before. Just found it refreshing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah yeah. Best England side ever, really poor SH teams having uncharacteristic dip. Never heard it before. Just found it refreshing.

SA were poor at the time, I don't think anyone can deny that. They were smashed in the 2002 AI by ENG, FRA, SCO. Had they played Ireland, Scotland or Wales in the RWC I think it would be fair to say they would have had their hands full.
NZ weren't their best either. Spencer at 10 was great but his kicking let him down. They had to accomodate others to fulfil the obligations and there forwards were not the best. They weren't a vintage side.... they were still very very good but not an average NZ side.

it doesn't take anything away from Englands achievement.

fa0019 wrote:it doesn't take anything away from Englands achievement.

Well it does though, come on we shouldn't sit on the fence with these things.

fa0019 wrote:it doesn't take anything away from England's achievement.

Well, it does a little.

When NZ sputter but still manage to win, while their opponents spurn chances, it's regarded as a measure of New Zealand's class.

rodders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:it doesn't take anything away from Englands achievement.

Well it does though, come on we shouldn't sit on the fence with these things.

You can say that about any team's achievement though..

91 - SA were not allowed to participate
95 -suzigate, SA at home... those strips on the bokke noses
97 - Lions had the best luck in test history, conceding 3 tries, scored none but still won the 2nd test.
03 - SA and NZ were a both in a trough
05 - BOD was taken out.
07 - SA never faced stiff opposition.
09 SA record year - McCaw and Carter were both injured for much of the season, when they played they were 100%. ROG got concussed, Burger wasn't sent off
11 - NZ may have lost to SA had Frans Steyn not got injured in the group stage, France were robbed.
15 - To be fair I can't think of anything on this one.

You can only play whats in front of you. It wasn't a flash in the pan achievement winning 12 games in a row vs. the 3N against all home and away. It will probably never happen again that stat.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:it doesn't take anything away from England's achievement.

Well, it does a little.

When NZ sputter but still manage to win, while their opponents spurn chances, it's regarded as a measure of New Zealand's class.

Do you remember the 15-13 match in 2003 in NZ? Its probably on youtube. My mate had a dvd copy too so they probably have it online somewhere.

Is that the game when 8 NZ forwards couldn't push 6 English ones?

lostinwales wrote:Is that the game when 8 NZ forwards couldn't push 6 English ones?

yep. 4 scrums on the 5 metre line. From memory hill was barely pushing either as he was watching for the release off the back.

NZ had the ascendancy for the entire game though. England's defence was superb that day

They should have went for the drop goal.

if you want here is the reports of the game

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/2982490.stm

The defensive performance was awesome and one of the best performances ever put in  - Clive Woodward

It was not a vintage England performance and they struggled in almost every phase of play

All I was suggesting was that even then, had they had 2 more tests to play I would have said that NZ were more than likely to have won. They perhaps should have won the 1st test, that is what my own memory and the bbc news article recalls.. and NZ when wounded are a cruel beast... just ask Ireland in 2012.

Just an example to suggest how difficult it is to win down there.

rodders wrote:They should have went for the drop goal.

That day the wind was so strong I think it would have gone backwards.

fa0019 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:it doesn't take anything away from England's achievement.

Well, it does a little.

When NZ sputter but still manage to win, while their opponents spurn chances, it's regarded as a measure of New Zealand's class.

Do you remember the 15-13 match in 2003 in NZ? Its probably on youtube. My mate had a dvd copy too so they probably have it online somewhere.

It's because I remember it, and have re-watched it a few times, that I think your comments are ungenerous.

If the roles had been reversed, then I don't doubt NZers would be talking about how England bottled it, and how they couldn't even score against a six man NZ scrum.

The thing is, the roles were reversed. Back then, England were the team which made other sides freeze, and New Zealand did just that on their home turf. They certainly don't do it often, but they did then, and they were a good team. The occasion got to them.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:it doesn't take anything away from England's achievement.

Well, it does a little.

When NZ sputter but still manage to win, while their opponents spurn chances, it's regarded as a measure of New Zealand's class.

Do you remember the 15-13 match in 2003 in NZ? Its probably on youtube. My mate had a dvd copy too so they probably have it online somewhere.

It's because I remember it, and have re-watched it a few times, that I think your comments are ungenerous.

If the roles had been reversed, then I don't doubt NZers would be talking about how England bottled it, and how they couldn't even score against a six man NZ scrum.

The thing is, the roles were reversed. Back then, England were the team which made other sides freeze, and New Zealand did just that on their home turf. They certainly don't do it often, but they did then, and they were a good team. The occasion got to them.

Spencer was a terrible goal kicker though, ranks with Butch James as the worst in tier 1 pro test rugby and a notable JRWC player of the year too. He missed some sitters albeit the most talented player probably the game has seen since the days of Edwards. I don't think bottling it is the right word, if a player is a poor kicker throughout his career and has another poor day I don't think you can say he bottled it.

It was an against the odds win, even the report suggests so but sure teams can bottle games. In best of 3 series you don't see it as much.
Take the RWC pool match vs. Wales. England were the better side, I would say England probably would have won the next 2 matches but sometimes in one off matches your luck goes against you. In best of 3 nearly always the best/most dominant/home team wins.

Rugby Fan wrote:

The thing is, the roles were reversed. Back then, England were the team which made other sides freeze, and New Zealand did just that on their home turf. They certainly don't do it often, but they did then, and they were a good team. The occasion got to them.

Probably the most accurate nuanced reading of the game that I've read to date after many years of reading about this one.

would they have "bottled it" in game 2 & 3 had there been one though (objective scenario though)?
NZ to me at least and also SA are always teams that are at their most dangerous when they come off a loss or even a bad performance.

AUS end NZ's win streak in 2014. The very next week they put 50 on AUS.
Ireland 2012 vs NZ. A whisker from losing test. Week later they put 60 on Ireland.
SA 2009 I think, lost to Scotland, next week put 40 past England.

Yeah...we get it, fa. We get it. We get the message. We're all in for a right trouncing.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah...we get it, fa.  We get it.  We get the message.  We're all in for a right trouncing.

I wouldn't say that. Uphill sure and had Ireland had a full compliment of players SA would be very worried. England too is a 40/60 series task.

quote="Pot Hale"]If Wales were to get a series win in NZ this month, I'd reckon they'd rate that above the RWC.  If they won 3-0, they'd be permanent World Champions! [/quote]

They'd certainly claim to be :-)

My order of Rank would be -

WC win
SH series Win
Grand Slam 6N on a par with Lions Series win
6N Title
Singular SH scalp (away) - Singular Lions SH scalp
Singular SH scalp (home)

fa0019 wrote:would they have "bottled it" in game 2 & 3 had there been one though (objective scenario though)?
NZ to me at least and also SA are always teams that are at their most dangerous when they come off a loss or even a bad performance.

AUS end NZ's win streak in 2014. The very next week they put 50 on AUS.
Ireland 2012 vs NZ. A whisker from losing test. Week later they put 60 on Ireland.
SA 2009 I think, lost to Scotland, next week put 40 past England.

I could be wrong FA but I think most of those losses that you mention though are instances where there was a distinctly different team selection.
Weaker or new combinations were being tried, key players rested - the resultant backlash comes when the established players come back in. I think that was the case for the pre-WC bledisloe cup game, and was the case for the closer NZ vs Scots game followed up by the England humping.

propdavid_london wrote:My order of Rank would be -

WC win
SH series Win
Grand Slam 6N on a par with Lions Series win
6N Title
Singular SH scalp (away) - Singular Lions SH scalp
Singular SH scalp (home)

For me, I want to see sustained excellence. So a series win would be great, but without continued strong performances it will mean little outside of starting the summer on a good note.

Interesting thing...

France in 93 & 94 won back to back series in SA and NZ. Who ranks them as a great side? They won a 6N title in 93, got 3rd place in the RWC95 and were very very unlucky to not get to the final, but couldn't beat England until the 3rd place playoff stopping something like 8 games on the trot.

Only 1 other team has done that. The Lions of 71 & 74.

FA beating SA in 93 was a regular occurence, I used to joke about SA starting with a handicap in every match those days.

But they just got back into test rugby that time so experience was a rumor

Biltong wrote:FA beating SA in 93 was a regular occurence, I used to joke about SA starting with a handicap in every match those days.

But they just got back into test rugby that time so experience was a rumor

In the early years out of their 8 series losses in 51 contested, 3 came between 92-97 in the five years after post apartheid re-introduction, there have been none thereafter. 2 were the very first tours of SA in the 19th century.

That 2nd lions test in 1997 is still the most one sided loss in rugby history in my book. 3 tries to nil, literally on the rocks for 80s mins but we still won the match through Jenkins and Guscotts boot.

marty2086 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:If Wales were to get a series win in NZ this month, I'd reckon they'd rate that above the RWC.  If they won 3-0, they'd be permanent World Champions!

If Wales could do that Gatland would be nailed on for the Lions and AB jobs and to be knighted

More than that, the Welsh would wont to canonise him.........................All arise for Saint Gats

As Disreali said there are lies,damned lies,and Stastics Tours where
you played 28-36 matches with home town refs.
Are a vast difference to what we call a Tour today the 1958-64 period
short Tours. France lost provincial matches but won 2 series v Boks,,
England a scratch side won one Provincial match,lost2 plus both tests.
A series win in SA or NZ is harder to achieve than a RWC win in my
opinion.

Let's be honest, there have been a few home nations sides over the years who could have won a tour against a SH side, but for whatever reason didn't play one. England 01-03 would certainly have been a contender against any of the tri nations, and Wales of the 70s could certainly have challenged at least the Australians. Of course there was the issue of player availability for the summer tours in the amateur days, and probably the best Wales teams coincided with the Lions years.

Anyway, for these three tours

England - a series win would show real progress. To be honest, I'd not be too disappointed with one win and some competitive performances in defeat.

Ireland - I think one win would be considered a big success, and a series win a hugely pleasant surprise

Wales - One win would be party time in Wales. A series win and the Queen has to abdicate and Gatland becomes the new head of state. To be honest though, a series win in NZ would be as likely as Japan beating SA in a RWC game... Oh...