Here we go again...Scotland 2007 all over again...

Never mind resting players in leadup games ...especially when you can rest them when you're at it!

If teams are going to do this they should just give dispensation to the AB's every world cup so they can go off and play some hard Auckland club games. pool games are a waste of 3 weeks in terms of prep.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5551863/France-hedging-bets-for-All-Blacks-clash

and another...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5548815/All-Blacks-match-down-priority-list-for-Japan

Must see if Canada and Tonga will bother even playing their games...

France certainly shouldnt play a weakened team! There job is to scare the All Blacks

Yeah well like Scotland they will focus on their last game. We now have to rely on Canada and Tonga.
Our record in pool play means we go into knockouts more under prepared than for anything else we play:

AB's pool record since 1987:
Played 20. Won 20
Total points for 1274, against: 238 at a game average score of 64-12
Tries for: 182, against 20 at an average of 9:1

16 of the 20 matches we scored 40 points or more with 2 over 100.
Only one match- England in 1991 at 18-12 was undecided with a minute to go.

Understandable why teams don't want to front but by doing this they inflate the issue. Not only do we have to play weaker teams, we even have to player their seconds.

Our tournament doesn't start till the last 8 and by then we have had nothing you could call a 'test'. Others buckle and strain in the pressures of pool play and come out hardened.

GH will need to find other ways of getting them match fit because the pool matches don't do it. I reckon we should line up Ponsonby, University and Marist immediately after each match.

Its all part of our massive conspiracy to make sure you're under cooked when you reach the knockouts

If this doesn't work, the combined resources of the other leading rugby nations have contrived to bring George Clancy to New Zealand. Now we've just got to figure out how to get him to ref your quarter-final and we're set!

But yeah, it's going to be absolutely dire if France don't even give you a full test side. I mean, they have strength in depth right through their squad but you'd like to hope that is one of the marquee games of the pool stages.

Thing is, Lievremont will be looking at Pool A and thinking they are all much of a muchness. I would think the French would want to avoid England though- of course they aren't gauranteed top spot either.

Taylorman wrote:

AB's pool record since 1987:

What's the knockout stages record since 1987 ?

It must be a comfort to NZ to know their tournament only start in the semi's, no disrespect to the other teams, but the reality is unless NZ meets one of the top five team in the quarters, nit even that is a "test" to them.

WHAT the All Blacks want is a SETTLED team,and a good hit out in pool and
Qtr Finals.IF they reach that far,complacency and fine tuning should be done by now.
The time for tinkering is over,they have problems enough coping with injuries.
WHAT they need is a settled match fit,battle hardened side to face possibly
the Boks in a Semi-Final.
There record in the knockout stages is better than most,2 finals,3 semis,2 3rd Place,1-4th place.Overall they have won more games than ANY other side.
Incidentally Nottins will we see the ARCH CHOKERS England actually beat the All Blacks in a RWC?

As an ENGLISH man, surely you know the record of your home nation. Not exactly sure why you're mentioning England in a thread about NZ ?

Obvious isn`t it? try making constructive Debates instead of cheap jibes,and wumming constantly. CYRIL because i`m sure thats who you are.
YES i`m an Anglo-Scot and proud of it and support England then Scotland
versus any one versus the All Blacks.
I`m fully aware of one of my native countries record in a RWC,3 finals one win a 33% win rate.The fact they have NEVER beaten the All blacks in a RWC.That they have only managed to beat them anywhere 6 times since
1905,that it is second only to France 12 times in the NH.That Wales have only managed to beat them 3 times in the same period.
Who,I choose to support is my business,as is my opinion to each his own.
I don`t need to justify my self to anyone least of all a Wummer,don`t worry
moderators end of reply.

I don't understand why france would do this. Pool A is really weak on depth of quality, they should cruise to 2nd place playing B teams against all the other nations - why not target giving it a good crack against the AB's? Unless they think its advantageous to finish 2nd in the group rather than win it. Frustrating.

As rugby fans, most of us on here can get excited about any game at the RWC, but for the casual viewer who we should be trying to attract they'll only be interested in the big games like NZ vs FRA and if those games are completely one sided as well then it won't reflect well on the state of world rugby. I can imagine the comment articles in the papers will be talking about 5 weeks of predictable and boring results followed by the semi finals/finals, we could and should aspire to more. I'm really annoyed!

Still not quite sure why you need to go off topic by mentioning anybody's history against NZ outside of an RWC ?

England have the same record in RWC finals as NZ.

CYRIL ?

Islintonv2,This is a RWC ,Tonga,are a big physical side,Japan have just won the Pacific Nations cup.Canada may be weakest in the group,Lievremont has been replaced as coach.
Wants to go out in a blaze of glory,IF he`s won his first two matches.
He may elect to go for second place,and the weaker side of the draw[if there is such a thing.
Myself he would be advised to try to beat a injury weakened All Black side
whilst at full Strength.

Again stating the obvious,you asked if I was aware of Englands Record,I have just demonstrated that I am.Same record in finals hardly 2 finals,1 win 50% elementary maths..
BUT of course in your World,the extra final a ppearance proves complete superiority.
AS if I care who wins the RWC,for me ANYONE but the same cosy group it`s getting boring.Japan maybe that would really shock them.

With all due respect to Tonga, Japan and Canada they are not strong. There is no 3rd team in this group which can realistically cause a threat like there is in the other 3 groups - i'm willing to stick my neck on the line on that one.

They could go full strength against Japan, rest a few against Canada and then be ready and fresh for the AB's with still plenty in the tank to play full strength against Tonga as well. These are professional players use to playing week in week out.

Of course this all assumes Lievremont knows his first choice team....

The question was, "What is their knock out stages record since 1987 ?" You replied, "There record in the knockout stages is better than most,2 finals,3 semis,2 3rd Place,1-4th place." So in effect you were saying that NZ have had 2 finals since 1987. As you proclaim yourself to be "the greatest ever NZ fan" I would have thought you know what you're talking about with regards to NZ RWC final appearances since 1987, hence the reason I made the comment about 33%.

I just love those people who,discount 1987 as a win,I can read what is said
for practical purposes it applies to ALL RWCS.stop nit picking.
Also if you read my posts ,you will be fully aware I know NZ records backwards,sideways,and inside out.
You also know that RWCs mean nothing to me,and head to head is the only
mark for me.
IF you want to debate Rugby with me please feel free,instead of cheap wums.Try having some original thoughts instead of acting like a parrot.
Moderators forget it THAT is my final comment to Nottins on this subject

Where has anyone on this thread who's discounted 1987 as a win ? You'll find it was actually a NZer who first mentioned records "since 1987" and then you jumped in on my question.

I find it quite funny that NZ and NZ fans were really behind getting a RWC into place and now the fans say the competition doesn't matter. I wonder if they would be saying the same if they hadn't only won it just the once ?

will you two get a room?

Zinzan Brooke blamed Scotland for NZ being 'under-cooked' against France 4 years ago. Now the conspiracy is laid bare, France are returning the favour so that the mightly Scotland team will take their turn at knocking out another 'under-cooked' NZ team ( evil laugh )

In all seriousness though, Hadden naming a Scotland B team against NZ back then was one of the lowest points I can remember, made worse by his insistence that he had selected a team he believed could beat the All Blacks. No team should do that, regardless of playing resources, such a strategy in my view goes against the most basic tenets of competition and sportsmanship.

Most,NZ fans are OBSESSED with winning the RWC ,I think I am probably unique in disliking the RWC.

Suggest you just Foe Nottins. He's just looking for attention.

The worst example of this was surely Wales in the JRWC, they shot themselves in the foot by playing a B team against NZ that got trousered by 50-odd points. And the structure of the competition was such that the last finals spot was determined by finding the best loser from the 3 pools. Awful error of judgement.

How would you know what France's first team was? when they don't? All you can do is show up and beat the fifteen random frogs that hop out on the day.

In terms of treachery it ranks well down the list behind nuking half of the south pacific and sending their special forces to kill New Zealander's in Auckland harbor, so I'm kind of relaxed about it.

Purely as a discussion point,it is solely the perogative of the respective
selectors in the RWC.What there respective expectations and agendas
are,Obviously injury management and player welfare come in there somewhere..

Clearly NZ should throw the game against France in order to switch sides of the draw, then beat England, Australia and South Africa to win the RWC.

What could be more gratifying after waiting a quarter of a century to win a second RWC than to beat the #2,#3 and NH champions en-route?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Suggest you just Foe Nottins. He's just looking for attention.

The worst example of this was surely Wales in the JRWC, they shot themselves in the foot by playing a B team against NZ that got trousered by 50-odd points. And the structure of the competition was such that the last finals spot was determined by finding the best loser from the 3 pools. Awful error of judgement.

How would you know what France's first team was? when they don't? All you can do is show up and beat the fifteen random frogs that hop out on the day.

In terms of treachery it ranks well down the list behind nuking half of the south pacific and sending their special forces to kill New Zealander's in Auckland harbor, so I'm kind of relaxed about it.

ouch ... it hurts

amongst some other statement that might border on ignorance, you are right in saying there is not such thing as a french first XV : ML recently stated that again as well as implying that the group stage would be a long series of warm-up games to prepare for a QF against england. Not only it would be an insult against the host but also a sign of little faith in his own players which is really sad. I would rather see them doing their best vs NZ even if it means they lose against tonga after.. rather than waiting to be kicked out by england in what will probably be a dull game full of dodgy referee decisions.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Clearly NZ should throw the game against France in order to switch sides of the draw, then beat England, Australia and South Africa to win the RWC.

What could be more gratifying after waiting a quarter of a century to win a second RWC than to beat the #2,#3 and NH champions en-route?

Please please please please don't [I'm doubt you have any impact on selection but I don't want to take the chance]

TheGreyGhost wrote:Clearly NZ should throw the game against France in order to switch sides of the draw, then beat England, Australia and South Africa to win the RWC.

What could be more gratifying after waiting a quarter of a century to win a second RWC than to beat the #2,#3 and NH champions en-route?

You are of course assuming that England, Australia & South Africa don't also throw their games thus avoiding the ploy

IF every thing goes to the script for the All Blacks
top group,France second.
QF Scotland
SF The Boks
F Wallabies
RWC winners.
BUT thats a hell of a lot of IF`S

TheGreyGhost wrote:Clearly NZ should throw the game against France in order to switch sides of the draw, then beat England, Australia and South Africa to win the RWC.

What could be more gratifying after waiting a quarter of a century to win a second RWC than to beat the #2,#3 and NH champions en-route?

If you ever level an accusation of arrogance at anyone else, ever again, I will hunt you down and eat your soul.

That is rather pathetic,

France are one of the few teams who can beat NZ at WC time so should go for it.

krusty wrote:That is rather pathetic,

France are one of the few teams who can beat NZ at WC time so should go for it.

Agreed, as a Frenchman (half a Frenchman really) I’m very disappointed with this approach and will be surprised if ML really does this.

I’ve already said before in an earlier post, that I think France having NZ in the pool is a blessing in disguise. France tends to have one great match in them each world cup (as long as they avoid England), Aus 87, NZ 99 & NZ 07. After these games they seem to fall apart in typical French style, so having NZ in the final would mean they could literally save the best till last, though playing a possible England QF and OZ SF will not be a walk in the park.

I’d expect France to lose in the pools anyway, but to not at least test the waters with your best team seem foolish to me. I really hope the “mad Bar Steward” Lievremont doesn’t put out a weakened side. I understand the logic of what ML is thinking and what Scotland did. You don’t have to win the pool to win the world cup, but it helps (every RWC winner has won every match). Scotland did it because of player resources, but France doesn’t have to do that.

Really hope this is just a bit of mind games from ML.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Clearly NZ should throw the game against France in order to switch sides of the draw, then beat England, Australia and South Africa to win the RWC.

What could be more gratifying after waiting a quarter of a century to win a second RWC than to beat the #2,#3 and NH champions en-route?

It would also be beating the only 3 other countries to have won the World Cup on route to doing so. We'd beat you though, so you better go all out and beat France.

nottins wrote:What's the knockout stages record since 1987 ?

You know, sometimes you can be a bit of a pillock. Just saying! Don't flame me; no need to stir the pot is all.

PJHolybloke wrote:If you ever level an accusation of arrogance at anyone else, ever again, I will hunt you down and eat your soul.

More of this!

Expletive deleted. Any need for that ?

notch wrote:

nottins wrote:If you ever level an accusation of arrogance at anyone else, ever again, I will hunt you down and eat your soul.

More of this!

You've got your quoting mixed up, I never said that. I suggest you lay off the barmaids apron

Come on people, it's the last day of the win a Russia RWC top today, so get your entry in here, it will only take you 30 seconds...

https://www.606v2.com/t11894-win-a-signed-rwc-jersey

This is why the seeding system doesn't work.

It would be much better if England, France, Australia and South Africa were in New Zealand's pool.

That way each team would get a good try out in each of their pool matches. And other teams would get a chance advancing beyond the pool stages.

Makes sense to me.

Anyone else?

So the small teams don't get a chance to play the big teams?

MBTGOG wrote:So the small teams don't get a chance to play the big teams?

Well. two of the big teams will get a chance to play the smaller teams - those who qualify from the pool. If they're good enough, they'll make it through to the knockout stages and final.

Yeah but that creates the sense of elitism which already prevalent at the moment doesn't need to be exaggerated.

It's a backwards step anyway and says that we aren't able to have a competitive global competition.

MBTGOG wrote:Yeah but that creates the sense of elitism which already prevalent at the moment doesn't need to be exaggerated.

It's a backwards step anyway and says that we aren't able to have a competitive global competition.

Eh? We aren't able to have a competitive global competition? Do we have one? Or do we see the same old teams turning up time and again in the final cos they've all been given the best opportunity to progress?

Seeding is an artificial skew in a knockout tournament to ensure all the "big teams" all get a chance to progress to the knockouts.

Seeding is wankology in my view. It's a bit ridiculous that New Zeland could effectively field a second team for most of their pool games bar the French one - assuming the French weren't as well. As per the OP's point, much better that NZ would actually have to play to actually get out of their group. Ditto SA, Eng, etc.

The problem is RWC is billed as THE ultimate knockout tournament,but is no such thing.TRUE knockout tournaments are decided by lot,pure luck putting you in a group.
MONEY is the reality,,all the ranyzagoo that goes with it.
RWCS where in the example you gave the 5 teams could be Nz,SA,OZ,France,England in the same group,only 2 reaching theQF.
IF the 3 SH sides all went out for example,and one was hosting it gate revenues would plummet,fans may decide not to bother go home early etc.
Sky tv is already commenting on teams downgrading 3Ns rugby,add to that Lions tours ditto by hiding players till tests [SA2009].
At the moment they are overlooking and understanding it.BUT when future contracts come up they may not be so understanding.
In an age when Rugby Union is packaged like a supermarket,teams and star players are more and more part of the package.
Sponsorship and Tv rights,are worth more than bums on seats,a diluted product may not always be acceptable.
NZ need to field the strongest available team in the first 3 pool games to get continuity going.
The time for tinkering is over now the real NZ have to stand up and be counted.
There squad needs to cover Read and Thomson.Boric and Whitelock can cover both 4,5,or 6 at a pinch.
Richard Kahui may have a run on the wing.

Well true knockout is lose a match you're out.
Few tournaments are true knockout.
The 3N and 6N is pure round robin whereas the sxv is combined pool and knockout. FA Cup is the only real knockout Im familiar with. Which of the NH tourneys are knockout.
Odd when comments re NZ not having the experience of knockout test rugby- the World cup is the only time any kind of knockout happens in tests so where that myth came from I dont know.

Taylorman wrote:Well true knockout is lose a match you're out.
Few tournaments are true knockout.
The 3N and 6N is pure round robin whereas the sxv is combined pool and knockout. FA Cup is the only real knockout Im familiar with. Which of the NH tourneys are knockout.
Odd when comments re NZ not having the experience of knockout test rugby- the World cup is the only time any kind of knockout happens in tests so where that myth came from I dont know.

The 6N isn't pure round robin. It's five matches played on alternating home or away basis each year.

My error was in describing the RWC solely as a knockout tournament when clearly it isn't - in theory at least. But it nearly amounts to one when you consider that the predictions for the qualifiers from the pools hasn't really changed since the seedings and draw in December 2008. A pot-luck draw may seem "unfair" to some of the bigger teams not progressing, yet is the current strictly seeded alternative that much better?

Whilst there is always likely to be at least one poorer side in every pool, would a pot luck draw of the current 20 teams that had the following pools be that much unfairer?

A NZ, SA, Eng, Tonga, Russia
B France, Wales, Canada, Romania, Scotland
C Ireland, Japan, Argentina, Australia, Namibia
D Samoa, USA, Georgia, Fiji, Italy

Maybe if the IRB rankings are to continue to be used as some kind of metric for the draw, the solution might be to make the first two selections from a pot of the top 8 ranked teams, and then the remaining three rounds from a pot of the remaining 12.

Such a small competition.
Seeding by rankings
Get rid of the quarter finals.
Top team from each pool goes through to the semis for the cup
2nd in each pool plays a semi for the plate -
3rd in each pool plays a semi for the bowl
4th in each pool plays a semi for the saucer
5th in each pool plays a semi for the spoon

or something like that.

You are on the right track nganboy, but I reckon a simpler solution:

NZ play South Africa in the final.
Everyone else complains about how McCaw cheats.
Except the Welsh who say "On our day, we'd beat both of 'em."

....and when the ABs lose, they spend 4 years blaming the ref.

the fans not the ABs
... and the Socts say we're still rebuilding but will be up for the next one

No re-building required this time round. We've reached the pinnacle of mediocrity.