From: davep@uk.sun.com (Dave Powell - Sun UK - Tech Support)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.rugby
Subject: Re: South Africa, Australia, New Zealand.
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:31:07 GMT
Reply-To: davep@uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd.

According to Bill Taylor:

> It is clear, I think, that S.A. are nowhere near the 3rd best (i.e. England).
> Indeed, I think they would lose to Scotland right now; and might have a tough
> time with Ireland or Wales, even, (though they would win these). So it
> seems their placing is FIFTH EQUAL; alongside France, (after Scotland).

I would agree with the bulk of the argument here, but wonder whether SA would lose to
Scotland, but beat Wales. After all, the last time Wales and Scotland met Wales did
*win*, and on the evidence of the season so far Wales are improving quite rapidly
(though I would agree that they still have a way to go). Personally, I think that
Wales would probably beat SA at the moment (yes, it would be close!). 

Following Argentinas win over France perhaps the "old order" is becoming a little
"blurred". Placing Scotland as 4th best is, I think, based on their performances of
two and three seasons ago rather than their more recent outings.

> Not just in line-outs, (oh my, they'll just *have* to stop that lifting, or they'll
> cut their own throats);

Hmmmm....will they really? This is something that referees are having great difficulty
with at the moment. When Llanelli played Australia there was a photograph in the 
paper (can't remember which) which showed Tim Gavin "leaping" high above the Llanelli
lineout - with one of his team mates (can't remember which!) with his feet planted
firmly on the ground and his hands around Gavins' waist. This team mate had 
obviously not even attempted to jump. And Bob Dwyer has the cheek to accuse Llanelli
of continually flouting the laws!

> Agreed; and I think that their respective results against S.A. confirmed that
> they are still better than NZ; but that the gap has narrowed enormously, as the
> Bledisloe matches indicated.

This is probably true. Partly because of the depth in strength of NZ rugby, and 
partly because the Australians are looking very tired. Note, as well, that the gap
is narrowing very quickly in the rest of the world. Wales are very much getting their
house in order, and Argentina have shown that they can mix it with the top teams
(or is it just that France are slipping?). Whatever, let us hope that the gap is
narrowing because teams are improving, rather than because the top teams are slipping.

> ...and this is indeed the heart of the matter. This crop of injuries has been
> devastating. Though they will still probably win against Wales, it is, as someone
> said, significant that people can raise the possibility of an upset without being
> laughed out of court.   Wales, indeed !

Crop of injuries? Yes, they have had injuries to some *key* players - but they have
not really been decimated. I recall when Wales toured NZ in 1988 that when they dared
suggest that their poor performances were partly due to the large numbers of
injuries they had sustained (untrue - they were just useless at the time!) that the
NZ'ers (including some All Black players) said that it was because they were not up to
it and just not fit enough. This was true - but how come it is now okay to suggest
that if Australia lose to Wales it will only be because they are injury-hit. As for
the comment "Wales. indeed!" I can only suggest that you have not seen what has been
going on in the Northern hemisphere since the world cup.

Dave