­Much has been written about South Africa's fall from grace in recent weeks.  They have gone from a team that could do no wrong to a team that just can't get it right.  In particular, the South African media is falling over itself about the sudden plummet.  While one can certainly see a big difference between last years Tri-­Nations and this year's, the suggestion that the difference is only the law application is wrong minded.  South Africa is not suddenly suffering a down turn.  Instead, last year was an aberration.  The whinging coming from Africa, both in the form of the media and SARU executives, should stop.  One gets the impression that refereeing decisions are subverting rugby's world order.  South Africa is not being robbed of their rightful place.  They are performing to their usual standard.

A quick look at the history of the Boks will show that in recent times they are less impressive than one might think.  In order to demonstrate the lack of form in recent times, one should look at the Sprinboks since the end of the competition ban, viewing their record in various increments.

Since 1992-The Springboks have won about 63% of their games.  To put that in perspective, in the same period New Zealand have won about 80%, England 65%, France 64%, and Austraila 67%.  In other words, of the five main powerhouses in rugby over the last 20 years, South Africa has underperformed everyone else.  The margin may be small, but the numbers hardly show South Africa in the same stratosphere with New Zealand, miles beyond everyone else.  Some will point to the 1995 World Cup, and that win certainly was impressive.  It also happened 15 years ago.

Last 10 years-The win rate over this period dips slightly, to 62%, basically remaining steady.  The 2003 World Cup was a total failure, with the Boks easily handled by the All Blacks in the Quarterfinals.

Last 5 years-The Boks won 64% in the last five years.  Of course another RWC victory came in this period.  The difficulty of this victory is often overrated.  The '07 Boks are the only team to make a RWC final and not play one team from the Tri-Nations or Six Nations in the knock out stages.  In fact, only three other teams ('87 France, '95 South Africa, '99 France) ever made the final playing a tier two nation or Argentina in the knock out stages.  South Africa were not truly tested until the Final, beating up on the USA, Samoa, Tonga, and a hapless England side in the pool stage.  The Boks won the '07 RWC fair and square, but they had the easiest path to the title of any RWC champion.

Last 2 years-During the '08 Tri-Nations South Africa finally won in New Zealand.  They then lost to Australia in Perth, got shut out at home by the All Blacks, and let Australia win its first road Tri-Nations game in seven years.  That fall they came perilously close to losing to both Wales and Scotland.  The '09 Lions (whose quality one could question based on the abysmal form of Northern Hemisphere teams in recent years) would have drawn their series with South Africa if Ronan O'Gara didn't suffer from the same malady as Dorthy's friend the Scarecrow.  The '09 Tri-Nations was an obvious high for the Boks.  It was followed by a disastrous tour where South Africa lost to Ireland, France, Saracens, and Leicester.  This June, France and Italy were weak opposition, and South Africa has been incapable of winning in the Tri-Nations.  In 2007-2010, South Africa is still only 70% in tests.

Are South Africa the second best team in world rugby, more often than not?  Yes.  The idea that they are a team on par with New Zealand, however, is ridiculous.  When one only counts success in World Cups, then yes South Africa has the edge.  This "golden age" of Springbok rugby is, in fact, only two good runs during the '07 RWC and summer of '09.  Since the end of the competition ban, South Africa has consistently been a team that loses every third game.  Their performance this year is below average for them, but not by much.  In their last 20 tests they have won 12, 60%.  We shouldn't expect much else.

The building up of the Boks seems to be more about New Zealand then about South Africa.  In the Henry era the All Blacks have won a whopping 86% of the time.  The most likely team to topple such a juggernaut will obviously get the media hype.  When the Boks are playing like the Boks and the All Blacks play like the All Blacks, the whining and shock should not happen.  The results lately are par for the course in the world of international rugby.  According to the numbers, South Africa in the last 20 years are nothing more than one other team struggling to match the standards of the men in black.

I can't remember where I read it, but I saw an article over the past week talking about how fans no longer see the All Blacks as 'world beaters' on the back of the NZRU's announcement of a $15.9m loss for the 2009 financial year.

I come to contest that claim and suggest that any argument painting the All Blacks as less successful than those before them - in terms of a winning record - is bullshit.

It's always easy to sit there and point out losses and how bad we performed and how we lost the Tri-Nations, etc etc etc but stats don't lie.

Between 1900 and 1909 the All Blacks won 78.6% of their 14 matches, recording one loss and two draws. Over the next decade we only played 10 matches and all but one of them were against Australia no doubt due to the effects of World War 1 [the other team was the US, a 51-3 win in 1913]. The All Blacks won 8 of those 10 matches for an 80% win record.

Between 1920 and 1929 we played 14 matches and won 7, lost 6 and drew one, an oddity not often discussed. That draw was 0-0 against South Africa at Athletic Park in 1921. I wonder what the 18,000 strong crowd thought of that game. Obviously that's a 50% win record for the decade. From 1930-1939 we played 22 games, won 14, lost 7 and drew one for 63.6%. One of those losses was the 6-3 loss to the British and Irish Lions in the first game of their 1930 tour.

Over the World War 2 decade, the All Blacks only played 10 matches - all against South Africa and Australia. We won 4 of them and lost 6, though never by too many points. That's a 40% win ratio. It is worth noting that all 6 losses came in 1949, a year when the team did not win or draw a single match.

With the war over the All Blacks began making up for lost time. From 1950-1959 the team played 30 matches - only 10 out of the country - won 22, lost 7 and drew 1 for a 73.3% win record. In 1954 we beat Scotland 3-0 before losing to France the next week by the same score. Imagine what today's newspapers would have to say about that!

1960-1969 was the All Blacks best ever decade, though it's only 1.3% better than the second-place getter [more on that later]. 42 matches, 35 wins, 4 losses and 3 draws. The 83.3% win record for this decade was helped by the undefeated rein of Fred Allen. All told, the ABs played 17 matches between 1965 and 1969 and did not lose a single one of them, an impressive feat.

The next decade was a bit of a stumble though. The ABs played three more matches, upping their total to 45, but won 27, drew 3 and lost 15 for a 60% win record. The Lions toured in 1971 which I believe [if memory serves] is the only series they've won against NZ.

1980-1989 is of course the decade where we won the inaugural Rugby World Cup, and over those years we played 57 matches, winning 45, losing 9 and drawing 3 for a 78.9% win percentile. So not even our best in terms of wins, but we only lost the Bledisloe for two years over the decade, and as mentioned, won the RWC. We had the best team in the world, the best players, the best fans. Surely we dominated the shamateur part of the 90s and the professional era, thanks to the likes of Zinny, Cullen, Lomu, Fitzy and Foxy?

Sort of. While I have fond memories of that decade - being the first decade I can remember - we were actually slightly worse than in the 80s. The influence of professionalism was obvious, as the All Blacks played an unbelieveable 92 matches over the 90s, winning 68, losing 22 and drawing 2. That's a win rating of 73.9%.

Then there's last decade. You know, the shit decade. The one with the coaches who didn't know what the fuck they were doing, no-name players who couldn't catch, pass or tackle and a crisis at all positions except fullback. Oh wait, what was that? You're wondering why I haven't pointed out the second-best decade in All Blacks history? That's because it was this one.

From 2000-2009 the All Blacks played 122 matches, with one draw against France in 2002, 21 losses and an even 100 wins. That gave us a winning percentile of 82% and means that we're the first team ever to have 100 wins in a decade. The next closest was the Boks with 76.

Comparing just the last two decades with other IRB tier-one nations, we're definitely world beaters.
Australia: 90s - 74% 00s - 60.2%
Springboks: 90s - 65.9% 00s - 60.8%
France: 90s - 64.6% 00s - 61.3%
England: 90s - 67.0% 00s - 62.6%
Argentina: 90s - 41.6% 00s - 54.1%
Italy: 90s - 31.8% 00s - 27.3%
Ireland 90s - 30.0% 00s - 64.9%
Scotland 90s - 43.9% 00s - 37.5%
Wales: 90s - 49.0% 00s - 47.0%

So the truth of the matter is that we are world beaters. Losing one game can cost us a trophy, but it shouldn't lose us the support of our fans and journalists. England's football team haven't won the world cup since 1966, but do they get vilified for losing a friendly before their season kicks off? Do they have reporters within their own country writing them off a season before the world cup so if they lose the journalists can say 'I was right!' and if they win the journos can claim the team used their writing as extra motivation. Doubt it. So why the world beating All Blacks?

Before the Cricket kicked off [tipped off? Bowled off? Hit off?] this week, the fellows over at Sportsfreak were focused on the All Blacks' end of year tour, and the lack of tries in their games. The print media also seem to have chosen this as their lead angle ahead of this weekend's match (exhibit a, b, c, d... need I go on?) against France.

You can see my original response over there, where I gave some stats about the tries the All Blacks have scored and conceded in the NH over the past 11 years, but it sparked something in me. At school, I didn't really pay much attention in Maths. If it was something that captured my attention (like graphs and shit) I'd do it, but as soon as I got to sixth form I dropped it. It's never been a problem in day to day life, but this week I've felt completely incompetent. I've been trying to come up with all kinds of mathmatical stats and graphs for this post, and I'm extremely lucky to have Hadyn's patient tutelage to help me. If it hadn't been for him, you'd have all kinds of data here, and it would be presented on an unreadable line graph.

Something I didn't need help for was gathering the data for this. And it's actually a new feature of the Dropkicks. You can see it here. Currently it features all international test matches from 2006-today, but I may backdate it eventually if I see the need, and I may use it for a post about the Rugby World Cup and whether the 'minnow' teams are becoming more competitive.

The first table to have a look at, because I know you want to see the stuff revolving around the All Blacks, is the 6 Nations. [if this was TV that would be a hook - You would have no choice but to stick with me to find out. But this is a blog, so it doesn't work as well... Fuck.]

Warning: This post is a not-to-subtle call to attention directed at Robbie Deans. Yesterday I tweeted this:

Can anyone guess what these numbers mean? 76, .842 24, .708 27, .519

Graham Henry has been the coach of the All Blacks for 76 matches and has a .842 win percentage. Peter de Viliers, the coach of the Springboks who copped a fair bashing last year, has been in charge for 24 matches and has a .708 win record. I think you know who the third coach is: Robbie Deans. 27 games, .519 win record. He's only just won more than half the internationals he's been the boss for.

It’s interesting to note that Jenson Button made some rather nasty comments about the possibility of Patrick racing F1 cars. Obviously now she can tell him to go fuck himself.

So as you can see Danika Patrick was no Anna Kournikova. Kournikova herself is no Buffalo Bills (despite how bad they were). Patrick may well become Jack Nicklaus, probably not,  who knows.