So, has there ever been a worthy world cup winner ?

Just a bit of fun. With all and sundry decrying the result of the final, some saying that NZ weren't worthy winners on the day but over the tournament they were.

Can we determine the same sort of thing for previous tournaments?

1987 NZ winners, by far the best at the tournament. But of course it didn't really count. SA weren't there, only 'professional team', others didn't really take it seriously. etc.
Verdict - No

1991 Aus winners, best team in the world at the time. Again no SA. Just scraped past Ireland, 'choked' in the final to let England get close, and the Campese intercept/deliberate knock-on.
Verdict - No

1995 SA winners, not favourites but made the final. Most of NZ suffering digestive problems (insert your own reason here), Meads almost pulled the team before kick-off. NZ missed a dg to win it SA didn't.
Verdict - Possibly

1999 Aus winners, best team in the world at the time. Easy winners. Don't recall any conrovercy. Any theories?
Verdict - Yes

2003 Eng winners, best team in the world at the time. OT win over Aus who had deservedly beaten the 'other best team in the world'. Again don't recall too much to moan about from anyone, any suggestions?
Verdict - Yes

2007 SA winners, wouldn't have called them the best team in the world at the time, but were looking strong going in. Thrashed England in the pool, but 'choked' in the final to beat the same opposition by the width of the touchline to lift the trophy. Arguably had the easiest route to the title of all, but could only play who was in front of them.
Verdict - probably


So anything to add?

Surely every team who wins it...deserve it...because they got the final and ....won it.

Winning the world cup how ever you do it...is a big thing and i think to take that away from a team is wrong.

Every team that's won it deserved it.





Except England - because nobody likes them knows their domination of world rugby at the time was just luck.

I'd actually say YES for the 1995, 1999 & 2003 RWC Final.

Fully expect to be immediately attacked by many frothing "celts" for including 2003 but hey ho.

1987 the only professional team romped home. No contest. No point.

1991 No SA. No comment.

1995 SA were the underdogs in the final but fought magnificently to win against NZ.

1999 Oz ranked no.1 team in the world prior to RWC and won in fine form.

2003 England ranked no.1 team in the world prior to RWC but Oz fought back amazingly to reach final and made it the most exciting, compelling match ever. Could have gone either way and both teams deserved it.

2007 too much reffing controversy

2011 too much reffing controversy and violating of hobbits. The better team that deserved to win were reffed unfairly out of the game. NZ threatening to ruin everyone elses party in 2015.

Since hes not here anymore IM going to play Greyghost, England werent even in the best 4 sides in that tournament, and only had to beat the 4th and 3rd best to win it. The IRB rankings were designed by the RFU finding a formula that made England number 1 after the fact.

2011... well NZ had the group of death with both finalists, had to overcome two SH teams to get to the final including the Tri Nations champs and beat the best of the NH to win it. The only good team they avoided was SA, but they beat the side that put them out.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Since hes not here anymore IM going to play Greyghost, England werent even in the best 4 sides in that tournament, and only had to beat the 4th and 3rd best to win it. The IRB rankings were designed by the RFU finding a formula that made England number 1 after the fact.

2011... well NZ had the group of death with both finalists, had to overcome two SH teams to get to the final including the Tri Nations champs and beat the best of the NH to win it. The only good team they avoided was SA, but they beat the side that put them out.

Where is Greyghost? I thought he's been quiet since the win.

I'd imagine if GG is quiet then it means he's in the cooler ....

Wasn't there a bit of controversy in the SA - France SF in 1995? France having a late try disallowed or something?

Everyone forgets in 95 not only the "alleged" food poisoning but also that France were robbed in the semi final buy (you guessed it) a refereeing decision. Clearly scored a try in the last minutes and it wasnt given.

Snap rodders...

Metal Tiger wrote:I'd actually say YES for the 1995, 1999 & 2003 RWC Final.

Fully expect to be immediately attacked by many frothing "celts" for including 2003 but hey ho.

1987 the only professional team romped home. No contest. No point.

1991 No SA. No comment.

1995 SA were the underdogs in the final but fought magnificently to win against NZ.

1999 Oz ranked no.1 team in the world prior to RWC and won in fine form.

2003 England ranked no.1 team in the world prior to RWC but Oz fought back amazingly to reach final and made it the most exciting, compelling match ever. Could have gone either way and both teams deserved it.

2007 too much reffing controversy

2011 too much reffing controversy and violating of hobbits. The better team that deserved to win were reffed unfairly out of the game. NZ threatening to ruin everyone elses party in 2015.

No frothing from me Metal Tiger, England were the best in the world at that time and even though their backs were good, the forwards were "the" best I have ever seen, that front eight would stillbe dominant now. I am just so disalusioned with rugby at the moment because to many games are not being decided by the players.

For me the best team from all the RWC winners were 1999 Australai.

Joe Roff, Tim Horan, Daniel Herbert, John Eales, Kefu, Larkham, Gregan.

Awesome team

LordDowlais wrote:
No frothing from me Metal Tiger, England were the best in the world at that time and even though their backs were good, the forwards were "the" best I have ever seen, that front eight would stillbe dominant now. I am just so disalusioned with rugby at the moment because to many games are not being decided by the players.

Actually I find most of my celtic cousins to be pretty decent & knowledgable posters but there are the usual suspects (looks around nervously for the Mods) like... ahem... (whispers quietly)... View & Gatts who will appear almost instantly on any England related thread to mock, WUM and wind up.

1987 - no comment
1991 - no comment
1995 - no comment
1999 - no comment
2003 - no comment
2007 - no comment
2011 - no comment

Each team has to beat whomever is put in front of them, it is debatable which of these world cups had the two best teams in each of its finals. The fact is some teams are better tournament players than others.

It has been said many times that form prior to a world cup rarely holds up in the Rugby wolrd cup. It has proven to be so again.

New Zealand were good before the RWC and just continued on.
Australia showed the most promise and were on fire, they had a forgetful tournament by their standards, lucky to make the semis

France were inconsistent prior to the RWc and kept on being poor for the most part of the world cup, unconvincing winners over Wales, but great performance in the final.

South Africa has been woeful for the better part of 18 months before the RWC losing 8 of 10 Tri Nation matches in 2010 and 2011. They looked underdone prior to the world cup, struggled against wales, but then started lloking strong and were over australia like a wet rash during their quarter final match. Unlucky to go out in the Quarter final.

England may have won the six nations, but didn't look convincing in their warm ups before the world cup, and crawled through mud during the pool stages, went out to france in an improved display during the second half, their fans must be disappointed.

Ireland didn't have the best 6 nations, Kidney showed nothing either way in the warm ups, but Ireland nailed Australia to the wall and valiantly lost to wales, could have won that quarter final if they took their kicks in the first half.

Wales, not convincing for near on 2 years, had a great warm up, almost beat SA, struggled in a tense match against Samoa, but pushed through, played their best game against Ireland and then lost becasue of a brain fart against France. Their world cup has a double edged sword in this world cup, got the the semi finals but only beat 1 tier 1 team, Ireland.

Scotland, well what can you say, they promise a lot with their forwards, can beat anyone at home, but lack finishers.

Argentina, how do you measure this team's form prior to any RWC, they almost never play together.

so all teams winning the RWc, whether we believe it was worthy or not, has their names engraved on old Bill, and I doubt whether any of them give two hoots whether we think it is worthy or not.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Since hes not here anymore IM going to play Greyghost

What's happened to old GG... is he banned again?

Feck its no joke GG is gone !

BY that CRITERIA,ALL RWCs are a total waste of time,ALL the Winners deserved to win it.
They beat the teams they played,you can only beat whats in front of you.
WHATEVER happens on the way there Refs decisions etc.is irrelevent they got there.
1987 SA were`nt there because the world shunned them over poilitics
Australia beat NZ twice pre RWC,were joint hosts and Favourites,THERE
were NO Professional teams pre 1999.
1991 and 1999 Australia were going thru there two major upswings since RWCs started worthy winners.
SA 1995 not the tournaments best,but worthy winners NZ were stricken with food poisoning that is FACT not "ALLEGED" Nelson Mandela`s security chief confirmed it.
2003 England were at the top of there game,did`nt play well[by there standards] in any of there games.
It was very scrappy could have gone either way,Larkham tried a drop missed JW did`nt.like 1995 Merthens missed Stransky did`nt.
2007 Boks beat every team the y met,beat England 36 -0 pool stages won
deservedly despite Refs controversy.
2011 All Blacks only team to win ALL its matches,had the harder side of the draw.Beat Argentina a side Wales,Scotland,and England who struggled against them too by twenty clear points.WALES in the pre RWC warm up game.
Beat Australia with the best display i`ve seen from them for a decade,France twice.
France despite being arguably the best side in the Final,were certainly NOT the best in the tournament.
Kept there cool ,overcame there nerves won on MERIT,since they have an 81 % win rate for ALL games played v all comers since 1987 THAT is a fair reflection.

There has never been an unworthy world cup winner. There have always been unlucky World Cup losers. That´s why we watch. Because you never know what will happen. Some may have predicted a NZ France final but it´d be a miracle if they chose how those two teams got to the final.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:There has never been an unworthy world cup winner. There have always been unlucky World Cup losers.

I concur. If you get to the final and win it, by whatever means then you are a worthy winner. Full stop.

In a knock out comp you have to ride your luck and take whatever opprotunities are presented and if you do that that then you are worthy winners.

The rational half of me says - If you win it you deserve it, this is sport not X Factor.

The other part of me says:

87 - NZ were the only pro team. they were at home, Sa were not there - Undeserved.

91 - Shameful cheating by Campese help win the final, but of course no SA - Undeserved.

95 - Gold watch given to Ref who denied semi final opponents a valid try. Poisoning final opponents - Undeserved.

99 - Australia, a good team - but would they have beaten the ABs? - Undeserved.

03 - A bunch of Ugly Orcs - Undeserved.

07 - Winners were extremely defensive and did not beat a good team in teh whole tournament - Undeserved.

11 - Cheating captain, cheating refs - Undeserved.

LondonTiger wrote:The rational half of me says - If you win it you deserve it, this is sport not X Factor.

The other part of me says:

87 - NZ were the only pro team. they were at home, Sa were not there - Undeserved.

91 - Shameful cheating by Campese help win the final, but of course no SA - Undeserved.

95 - Gold watch given to Ref who denied semi final opponents a valid try. Poisoning final opponents - Undeserved.

99 - Australia, a good team - but would they have beaten the ABs? - Undeserved.

03 - A bunch of Ugly Orcs - Undeserved.

07 - Winners were extremely defensive and did not beat a good team in teh whole tournament - Undeserved.

11 - Cheating captain, cheating refs - Undeserved.

So going by your theories (Which i quite enjoyed), 24 years just waiting for alice and her chalice(the webb ellis) has been an utter waste of our time.

Bring back tours I say.

roddersm wrote:Feck its no joke GG is gone !

Don't worry... he'll be back under an assumed nomenclature....

Keep an eye out for Le Phantome Gris!

Allez Les Bleus!

Bring back tours I say.

abso Flip lutely

It's easy, a tour of two 6N sides for each of the big three in rotation 2 tests and 2 midweek games at each stop with Argentina and a Pacific Barbarians doing a whistle stop every year.

Simples

And the most important thing is a referee can't screw you over 3 tests in a row.

Ireland has a 3 match tour against NZ next year. Wales play Australia in a series don´t they? Any other tours? I must say it´s good to see.

Personally I´d like to see the autumn and June internationals scrapped and a traditional tour with midweek games against club sides. Good for player development because you can´t use your A team the whole way through and good for ticket sales. These one-night stand games now leave you either feeling gratified but with no deeper meaning or wanting more.

Metal Tiger wrote:

roddersm wrote:Feck its no joke GG is gone !

Don't worry... he'll be back under an assumed nomenclature....

Keep an eye out for Le Phantome Gris!

Allez Les Bleus!

Hmm, FushnChups anyone?!

If I was greyghost, I would simply think of the opposite of that pseudonym.

Something like.

BlackDog
WhiteRhino
NeonSoul

things like that.

Yeah I called that AsLong... but he´s vanished too. Maybe he´s taken over Biltong´s mind but not his body.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Yeah I called that AsLong... but he´s vanished too. Maybe he´s taken over Biltong´s mind but not his body.

Sorry Bud, Bruce Lawrence isn't English.

It seemed clear in my mind mate but granted probably not to anybody else. The mind says the ref did it but the Bok fingers say the ref was Brucey.

I agree make that a MAJOR tour 16 or so matches a Saturday/Wednesday sides.4 tests too.
Biltong Ref can`t screw up 3 tests wanna bet Bok refs did a fiar job of it in the days of tours,1949,1976,home team refs big time.

I don't like to get into whether teams are 'worthy' winners or 'desreved' winners. Teams win and teams lose. Whether or not we feel emotional about a match or team, in 10 or 20 years no one will care and all anyone will see is the list of which teams won.

This years RWC is over and I enjoyed the tournament. The All Blacks have won. Good on them Let's leave it there.

biltongbek wrote:If I was greyghost, I would simply think of the opposite of that pseudonym.

Something like.

BlackDog
WhiteRhino
NeonSoul

things like that.

We need to get GG back. Any ideas? Could we have a virtual seance to communicate with him??

Good discussion folks. The subject wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, glad to see that's the case.

Couple of points which have come out which I agree with.

1. Bring back tours, I think every real fan wants this. good to see it happening.
I just watched the Haka and highlights from the 2008 Munster v AB game. This is the fantastic kind of thing we are missing out on. Interesting to see some of the names in the AB lineup - B. Franks, Thomson, Weepu, Toeava, Gear, Jane, Donald - all WC winners!


2. Every WC winner needs a slice of luck, whether it's on the day in the final, on the field in another game, injuries to their or opposition players and the who they do and don't have to face on the way.

So what was the biggest slice of luck each winner got on the way to victory?


I'll start.

87 - NZ, possibly the team that took it the most seriously or perhaps France beating Aus in the semi.

Don't really get you mate. Are you saying NZ in 87 got the biggest slice of luck for taking it the most seriously? Doesn't seem like luck to me. That team would've thumped Aussie in the final and would have beaten SA too. 20 points better than anyone else in a groundbreaking team. Not groundbreaking as in professional either as they all went to work the Monday after.

I'd have to apologise to Biltong and say 95. It wasn't just the luck that 27 of the squad were human fireworks, it was also Mandela deciding to turn up in Pienaar's shirt and send the crowd, the nation, and of course the team into a frenzy. How NZ took them to extra time I'll never know. Again that was beyond the control of the players.

Plus France had a legit try disallowed in the semi. Gold watch and all.

Disney – just checked the stats and the AB’s played Australia in Sydney a month after the 87 WC. Result was 30-16 to NZ

87 by a street.
only team to never even look like losing a match.
as weve seen since SAs presence doesnt guarantee anything. why would it then against the single most dominant team of the cups history?

THE ONLY fact is a presence in the RWC does`nt guarantee ANY side as automatic winners.Two wins from five starts,means the Boks stats ARE still better than two from seven of any one else.
BUT there is no guarantee the Boks would have won the two they missed.
1987 maybe on strength of the Cavaliers tour,BUT having every Provincial side batter you first dioes`nt help.TOURSnearly always went to the Home
side.
1991 not a hope in hell for the Boks they barely managed a win v ABs or Aus till 1995.

2011 too much reffing controversy and violating of hobbits. The better team that deserved to win were reffed unfairly out of the game. NZ threatening to ruin everyone elses party in 2015
.......................................................................................................................
I totaly agree with you there, i said on a previous thread, that once NZ got the final the world cup was theres.
The amount of times that NZ infinged and did not get pinged for was rediculas. I can understand the Ref missing some of off sides, high tackles, due to the speed of the game but what about the lines man tutch judges, what ever they are call these days.

I am not saying that NZ did not deserve to be rugby world cup winners, but i would of prefared it if, if , both teams had been refed equaly.
which this final, was not.

majesticimperialman wrote:2011 too much reffing controversy and violating of hobbits. The better team that deserved to win were reffed unfairly out of the game. NZ threatening to ruin everyone elses party in 2015
.......................................................................................................................
I totaly agree with you there, i said on a previous thread, that once NZ got the final the world cup was theres.
The amount of times that NZ infinged and did not get pinged for was rediculas. I can understand the Ref missing some of off sides, high tackles, due to the speed of the game but what about the lines man tutch judges, what ever they are call these days.

I am not saying that NZ did not deserve to be rugby world cup winners, but i would of prefared it if, if , both teams had been refed equaly.
which this final, was not.

So how come there was this unilateral agreement that Joubert was the right man for the job. Didnt see any moaning before the match.

I mean how pathetic is it that we then have this turnaround...and nothing suggests France would have won with a 'good' ref, if theres such a thing.

Obviously it can't be the quality of reffing as if the finest representative of the industry is a dudd what does that say for the rest. Clearly the current administartion of the rules on the field is lacking. Its an IRB problem and needs to be dealt with.

No business would accept such low standards or inconsistency, why should our sport?

emack2 wrote:THE ONLY fact is a presence in the RWC does`nt guarantee ANY side as automatic winners.Two wins from five starts,means the Boks stats ARE still better than two from seven of any one else.
BUT there is no guarantee the Boks would have won the two they missed.
1987 maybe on strength of the Cavaliers tour,BUT having every Provincial side batter you first dioes`nt help.TOURSnearly always went to the Home
side.
1991 not a hope in hell for the Boks they barely managed a win v ABs or Aus till 1995.

Yes thats right Alan You could interpret 2 from 5 in 2 ways. They could now be 2 from 7 and be the same as the 3N teams. Equally they could be 4.
With the Cavaliers you had to be here to understand the impact on that team. Half our country didnt want a bar of it. They werent All Blacks and they werent supported- meanwhile SA saw it as the one shining light in their darkest days to prove to the world they still had it and were desperate to prove it.
87 was a breath of fresh air and no one got close. Enough for me to suggest SA would have lost...you bet...

Agree about the 87 team. Alan, it's worth remembering that the 86 caveliers were essentially the 84 All blacks. Only 4 players from the run on team for the first test were in the first choice AB's team at the world cup (Craig Green, Warick Taylor, Grant Fox and Murray Pierce).

2003 NO
, England had to field 16 men to beat Samoa and in the quarter final Wales ran rings around England and the English could only muster up one try compared to Wales three,
Wales went in at half time ahead,in the second half the ref pinged them off the park and ignored Englands infringements .

Is it more plausable that GG just went back home to New Zealand to bask in that glory of a once deemed unnecessary Cup competition? He stayed in the NH post 2007 World Cup to help us guys up here realise how bad a ref Wayne Barnes is and that NZ were the best team in world forever depsite numerous world cup chokes.

It's now 2011, NZ are without a doubt the best team in the world and have a cup to prove it and Barnes had a shocking tournament as an official.

Taylorman wrote:
So how come there was this unilateral agreement that Joubert was the right man for the job. Didnt see any moaning before the match.

Perhaps if he'd put in a decent performance in the final then there wouldn't have been any "moaning" after the match. If Joubert had favoured France in the same way he favoured NZ I suspect NZ would be having another "independant referee review" just like they did in 2005.

viewtothegym wrote:2003 NO
, England had to field 16 men to beat Samoa and in the quarter final Wales ran rings around England and the English could only muster up one try compared to Wales three,
Wales went in at half time ahead,in the second half the ref pinged them off the park and ignored Englands infringements .

Oh dear :facepalm:

England had 16 players on the pitch for about 30 seconds. How many points did England score in that time ?

England scored more points than Wales in RWC 2003, hence they progressed. You do know that points scored wins matches, not tries scored ? I guess you don't know the laws of rugby, so you're clutching the tries scored straws ? I thought so.

Wales also committed many, many penalties in their own half in 2003 to stop England scoring tries.

England rugby fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
So how come there was this unilateral agreement that Joubert was the right man for the job. Didnt see any moaning before the match.

Perhaps if he'd put in a decent performance in the final then there wouldn't have been any "moaning" after the match. If Joubert had favoured France in the same way he favoured NZ I suspect NZ would be having another "independant referee review" just like they did in 2005.

This nonsense is getting old. Watch the match again without your blinkers on and you'll see he reffed the game the same for both sides. The French were on the wrong side of the ruck as often as the AB's. The French led the penalty count in the second half, which was appropriate because they were attacking. The kiwi's led the penalty count in the first half whilst they were attacking.

Get a grip.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

This nonsense is getting old. Watch the match again without your blinkers on and you'll see he reffed the game the same for both sides. The French were on the wrong side of the ruck as often as the AB's. The French led the penalty count in the second half, which was appropriate because they were attacking. The kiwi's led the penalty count in the first half whilst they were attacking.

Get a grip.

Please let us know why with 5 mins to go that the NZ player was allowed to play the ball on the floor onto his own side and the refereee said France knocked on ? Please open your other eye.

England rugby fan wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

This nonsense is getting old. Watch the match again without your blinkers on and you'll see he reffed the game the same for both sides. The French were on the wrong side of the ruck as often as the AB's. The French led the penalty count in the second half, which was appropriate because they were attacking. The kiwi's led the penalty count in the first half whilst they were attacking.

Get a grip.

Please let us know why with 5 mins to go that the NZ player was allowed to play the ball on the floor onto his own side and the refereee said France knocked on ? Please open your other eye.

I'm not a Kiwi my friend. If anything I was wanting a French win, but I'm not going to put the blame on Joubert. the French missed 2 penalty kicks, and a drop goal. There's no one to blame but the French. They had all the second half possesion and couldn't score.

"I'm not a Kiwi my friend. If anything I was wanting a French win"


The lady doth protest too much...

France should have been awarded a penalty in the NZ half in the front of the posts with 5 mins to go. It's Jouberts fault that they didn't get it.