Why have no team been able to defend their World Cup Title?

The Football world cup had it’s inaugural tournament in 1930. Since then only two teams have managed to defend their title, Italy in 1938 and Brazil in 1962. A total of 19 tournaments have been played. Italy defended their title in the third tournament.

The Rugby world cup is having its 7th tournament this year and no team has managed to defend their title. There are two teams who did reach the final of the next Rugby World Cup to attempt a defence of their World title. Australia in 2003 and England in 2007.

The question would be why has it not happened yet?

1991 New Zealand defence challenge.
In 1991 New Zealand had their defence hopes broken by Australia. John Kirwan, Grant Fox, Sean Fitzpatrick, Steve McDowell, Gary Whetton, Alan Whetton, Zinzan Brooke, Bernie McCahill and Richard Loe were in both match day 22’s for the final of 1987 and the Semi final in 1991.

1995 Australian defence challenge.
In 1995 Australia had their hopes blown by England in the quarter finals. David Campese, Tim Horan, Jason Little, Michael Lynagh, Phil Kearns, Ewan McKenzie, Rod McCall, John Eales, Willie Ofahengaue, Peter Slattery and Dan Crowley were in both match day 22’s for the 1991 final and 1995 quarter final.

1999 South African defence challenge.
In 1999 South Africa had their hopes stumped by Australia in the Semi final. Joost v d Westhuizen, Os du Randt and Mark Andrews were in both match day 22’s for the final of 1995 and semi final of 1999.

2003 Australian defence challenge.
In 2003 Australia has their challenge halted in the final by England. Joe Roff, Stephen Larkham, George Gregan, David Giffin, Matt Cockbain, Chris Whittaker and Jeremy Paul were in both match day 22’s for the 1999 final and 2003 final.

2007 English defence challenge.
In 2007 England had their title hopes destroyed by South Africa in the final. Jason Robinson, Johnny Wilkinson, Phil Vickery, Ben Kay, Lawrence Dallaglio, Martin Corry, Lewis Moody and Mike Cat were in both match day 22’s for the 2003 final and the 2007 final.

New Zealand carried over 8 of their players from 1987 to 1991.
Australia carried over 11 of their players from 1991 to 1995
South Africa carried over 3 of their players from 1995 to 1999.
Australia carried over 7 of their players from 1999 to 2003.
England carried over 8 of their players from 2003 to 2007.

So looking at this an average of 7.4 players are carried over from one tournament to the next, hoping that that experience will retain the trophy. To me it seems that most teams have taken a good balance between youth and experienced players, so surely that shouldn’t have been the reason why no team has been able to defend their title. Only South Africa in 1999 had very few of their squad play in the previous world cup.

It would be interesting to see those countries that haven’t won the previous world cups, what percentage of their squads are made up with players that have previous experience.

Any thoughts?

I just enjoyed seeing the older names again, thanks for writing them out!!!

I think it is like a music group. together they write, play, then have number ones.. get to the top.

Break up, one leave or whatever, and then the resultant band, even with the majority of the original players, are never, or very seldom, as good.

you said..
"So looking at this an average of 7.4 players are carried over from one tournament to the next, hoping that that experience will retain the trophy."

Or could that be interputed as carrying older slower players on their reputations?? How many of those next WC are playing their 3rd?.

Oz
But your Aussie team went on to win in 99 with some of the same players from both the 91 and 95 teams, which suggests that at least in some cases it wasn't a case of holding on to successful players for too long.

Looking at England in 03 and 07, Corry, Catt and Moody were only the back-ups in 03 and Larry Dayglo was so far over the hill by 07 that he shouldn't have been in the squad. However, the way the 03 squad was constructed methodically over the preceeding 5 years (including a rather mediocre performance in the 99 RWC), and was already showing signs of aging by the time they won the title in 03 (was a much stronger team 12-18 months earlier), it was a bleeding miracle we did so well in our defence.

Not sure this answers any of the questions posed by Biltong (other than to say the 95 Bok victory was under a very special set of circumstances, and that because of the political interference behind the scenes you were scuppered for 99 before a ball had been kicked). It does suggest that building a RWC winning side takes longer than is available in the 4 year cycle, and that only a very small number of extraordinary players are the owneres of 2 RWC winners medals.

Was Catt only backup? He was in the 95 WC... cue Lomu!!!

He must have been in 4 WC then, 95, 99?, 2003 and 2007!

I liked to read the old names again as well. How good a centre partnership was Tim Horan and Jason Little, that was something special.

I think that defending the World titel is one of the most difficult things to do in sport as there is a gap of four years between and alot can happen in four years. Players retiring or going out of form.

It's not just the continuity of players that is important, but the ability to continuing progressing as a team, adapting to new styles and the ability to blend the old and the new, rather than just chucking them together.

Australia in 2003 were probably the side closest to defending their title. Eddie Jones did a great job with Australia that year, but ultimately couldn't cover up the weaknesses he had in his front 5, despite Andre Watson's best efforts.

That's a good question Biltong. I guess Australia came the closest only losing by a bees appendage in extra time but had the advantage of home soil. I wonder when we'll next see a side get the opportunity to defend their title at home. There probably is a bit of a tendency to try to hang on to top spot with the old brigade after a RWC success. I remember Eddie Jones having a dig at McQueen for not blooding new players around 1999 and leaving him with a side of geriatrics, although there wasn't much Eddie didn't complain about.

It's likely just cyclical, we know there's not much between the top sides on their day.

Mike Catt, what a legend. He was about 36 at the time of the '07 Wc so he'd have been 24 in the '95, he could easily have done another before that if he had been better!

James O'Connor if he stays as good as he is could well do 4

Have many coaches taken their teams to two WC's? As that to me may be one of the reasons.

A new coach coming in depending upon when it happens may only get 3 and a bit years to make their team. And it may often be that those extra few months will be the crucial time that's needed to iron out problems.

If the AB's had won the '07 WC I could pretty much guarantee they'd be winning this one as well as they stuck with Henry and it seems to have paid off.

Been thinking about this, and i think the reason could be two fold.
1 The team that plays in one World cup, is not nesserseryly the same team that plays in the second World cup.

2 The coach in one World cup if not forced tobe the same coach that takes the team into the second World cup.(unless your name is Graham Henry) and you are given a second chance.

I think it just confirms the one off nature of the world cup. So many ingredients go into the winning of one let alone two its become random.
There have been either 16 or 24 at each world cup though realistically any of 6 or 7 max could win it any year.
4 Years isnt long in a players career so an average of 7 from a previous win sounds ok. Just a matter of timimg.
If any of sa nz or england win this year its likely the average will drop as all 3 are carrying aged players-10 at least over 30 each.
Oz are carrying a young squad so if they win more players will likely be around next time. So i still think the ability to defend a world cup is not something a team has great control over in terms of the previous win.
This year SA might be able to defend it but even if they do it will still ne because of the random nature of the event where anything can and usually does happen.
They might say it was that reason but that will more likely be because thats the most likely logical explanation.
Any of the world cups replayed again at the time other than 87 could easily have resulted in a different winner.nz that year would not likely have lost such was their dominance.
No other event could be said of the same with enough confidence given the scores of the eventual winners through the tournament.
This year i think it will be one of four teams with no new name on the trophy. But id say that every time.

OzT

Wiki has Catt as being in the 1999 squad (I wasn't sure), so yes he played in 4 RWCs, although I think he had to be rebuilt with entirely artificial parts after attempting to tackle Lomu in 95. He had a long spell out of the England squad around 2001-2003 but was called back in because of his versatility and got some significant game time especially against Wales

Wilkinson was also in the 99 squad, so is going into his 4th tournament. Tindall only just misses out as well, having debuted in the 2000 6Ns immediately after the 99RWC (although if anyone can explain Phil de Glanville's selection ahead of anyone other than Hape, please let me know)

Cheers dummy_half!

Tournament sport is difficult and a lot happens in four year cycles. In football there have been more than 3 times the number of world cups than rugby and only twice has a team defended their title. Even though football is far more global than rugby only 8 counties have won the cup in over 80 years of trying!

I'm not expecting a new name on the webb ellis mug this year - perhaps just a refresh of the one that's faded the most.

Thanks offload, but we haven't faded too much

Hi,Biltong the answers are complex,firstly you have answered your own question.The RWC is won by a team NOT 7 or 8 individuals,no matter how good.
Teams wax and wane,THE most successful side Post RWC All Blacks 1987,eschewed the Ruck,and based there game around the set piece and
the driving Maul.
Under the then laws the side going forward in the Maul when it stopped,had a Scrum plus feed.The All Blacks had a great Scrum,for nearly 4 years they went Unbeaten,then the law was changed.
1991 was the rise of a great OZ side,by 1995 they had fallen off a bit.in 1995 the Boks won,then went into decline until 1998.
1999 was the rise for a couple of years of another Great OZ side,winning RWC,and a couple of 3Ns titles,Bledisloe swung both ways about then with
Jonah Lomu winnig one at death knock.
Then there was the rise of the great England side,and Mitchell transforming the All Blacks beating OZ twice,and SA 3 times .but losing the key match to OZ in Semi.
Post 2003 most of England stars retired or had injury problems,had a string of Coaches.and a dreadful win/loss record.
Much to everyones surprse they reached the 2007 final ,much having my far the hardest route to the final failed to win it.
2007,side was nothing like as good as the 2003 side.
The Boks post 2007 have a pretty patchy record,less than 63% win rate under PDV,but there is nothing to say they can`t reproduce the goods now.

biltongbek wrote:Thanks offload, but we haven't faded too much

LOL gotta love the outlook!

Because, once upon a time, a TMO in France had bad eyesight.

Yes we've heard. He ruled out the game's first 11 point try.