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

First topic message reminder :

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?

England rugby fan wrote: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.

If that's how you wish to view a game then so be it, but an AB's supporter will equally be able to paly this game and pinpoint examples of when they should've been granted penalties or scrums. It's all irrellevant. Players must adapt to the referee.

These conversations about reffing have been popping up after every match. The ref will make dud decisions in favour of both teams every game, but ultimately they don't decide the game.

The French players should adapt to NZ players going off their feet and illegally playing the ball ? Perhaps the referee should actually apply the laws of the game to both sides ? Joubert did actually decide the game. Like I said earlier, please open your other eye.

England rugby fan wrote:The French players should adapt to NZ players going off their feet and illegally playing the ball ? Perhaps the referee should actually apply the laws of the game to both sides ? Joubert did actually decide the game. Like I said earlier, please open your other eye.

Maybe he should of. I'd ask you to go and read the rules and look at the rules relating to:
1: the scrum,
2: players going to ground without being tackled,
3: the tackle,
4: the ruck.

If you look at the French you'll see that there are numerous offences that the could have been penalised for. You'll see that not uncommonly this led to pressure on NZ. If you only look at one side you'll see offences and bias. The stats from this game indicate it's within the normal range of international refereeing. It would be great to have more than a one dimensional assessment of this game.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

England rugby fan wrote: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.

If that's how you wish to view a game then so be it, but an AB's supporter will equally be able to paly this game and pinpoint examples of when they should've been granted penalties or scrums. It's all irrellevant. Players must adapt to the referee.

These conversations about reffing have been popping up after every match. The ref will make dud decisions in favour of both teams every game, but ultimately they don't decide the game.

The french got pinged, the abs didnt. Not sure how they could adapt any further. I presume you mean just stop contesting and let the abs win which is what everyone expected, including it seems mr. Joubert

Blackc...maybe you can point out these including the penalties given against france because on analysis i have seen you have nothing to back ip your generalisations

disneychilly wrote:Don't really get you mate. Are you saying NZ in 87 got the biggest slice of luck for taking it the most seriously?

My kiwi brothers, of course not 'seriously'. I started the thread as a light hearted dig at anyone bleating about unworthy winners to see what people would come up with. Seems to have turned a bit serious.

I agree that the 87 victory is the most convincing of all. That team went on to 50 odd games unbeaten. There were players in that team who changed the way their positions were played; Fitzpatrick, Jones, Shelford, Fox, Gallagher. Buck went on to be undefeated as captain for 20 tests.

The Bok factor is a massive red herring.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:
Players must adapt to the referee.

Its a pretty weak reasoning to just say "good sides adapt". Refereeing should be consistent within a reasonable range, say under the laws and guidance as set donw by the IRB? Seems like a good starting point anyway. Otherwise sides that start by seeing what they can get away with and work backwards as they get penalised have an advantage over those who choose to start playing within the laws of the game and only start to adapt when they see the opposition run away with it.

Yes there will always be subtle diferences in teh way that people see and call incidents, its inevitable in a fluid game like rugby. But the selective choice of which laws apply changing game to game has been frightening in this cup.
Its not good for the players or the fans. It does put the Wayne Barnes blitherings into perspective. Theres been at least 2 big games involving potential cup winners significantly tainted by refereeing standards.
I have no problem with refs not seeing incidents as we do on slo mo multi angle replays, what I have a problem with is them reffing to different rulesets game to game.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:
Players must adapt to the referee.

Its a pretty weak reasoning to just say "good sides adapt". Refereeing should be consistent within a reasonable range, say under the laws and guidance as set donw by the IRB? Seems like a good starting point anyway. Otherwise sides that start by seeing what they can get away with and work backwards as they get penalised have an advantage over those who choose to start playing within the laws of the game and only start to adapt when they see the opposition run away with it.

Yes there will always be subtle diferences in teh way that people see and call incidents, its inevitable in a fluid game like rugby. But the selective choice of which laws apply changing game to game has been frightening in this cup.
Its not good for the players or the fans. It does put the Wayne Barnes blitherings into perspective. Theres been at least 2 big games involving potential cup winners significantly tainted by refereeing standards.
I have no problem with refs not seeing incidents as we do on slo mo multi angle replays, what I have a problem with is them reffing to different rulesets game to game.

+1

It is the reasoning of someone who has no answer for the incompetency of a referee. Rather shift the blame back to the losing team, then hopefully it wil go away.

It is like so many things in modern society. If we deny it, it never happened, or find another scapgoat, it is easier to handle the truth in that manner.

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:
Players must adapt to the referee.

Its a pretty weak reasoning to just say "good sides adapt". Refereeing should be consistent within a reasonable range, say under the laws and guidance as set donw by the IRB? Seems like a good starting point anyway. Otherwise sides that start by seeing what they can get away with and work backwards as they get penalised have an advantage over those who choose to start playing within the laws of the game and only start to adapt when they see the opposition run away with it.

Yes there will always be subtle diferences in teh way that people see and call incidents, its inevitable in a fluid game like rugby. But the selective choice of which laws apply changing game to game has been frightening in this cup.
Its not good for the players or the fans. It does put the Wayne Barnes blitherings into perspective. Theres been at least 2 big games involving potential cup winners significantly tainted by refereeing standards.
I have no problem with refs not seeing incidents as we do on slo mo multi angle replays, what I have a problem with is them reffing to different rulesets game to game.

+1

It is the reasoning of someone who has no answer for the incompetency of a referee. Rather shift the blame back to the losing team, then hopefully it wil go away.

It is like so many things in modern society. If we deny it, it never happened, or find another scapgoat, it is easier to handle the truth in that manner.

It's in no way denying the fact that the refs have been inconsistent. That's not the point. The point is that if you go into a match and take the gentlemens stance expecting the calls to come your way then you'll lose. You have to adapt to the rulings the referee is offering. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point. The teams that adapt and work to the boundaries they're presented with are the teams that will win. The great opensides are prime examples of this. The nearly rans don't push the limits enough.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:
Players must adapt to the referee.

Its a pretty weak reasoning to just say "good sides adapt". Refereeing should be consistent within a reasonable range, say under the laws and guidance as set donw by the IRB? Seems like a good starting point anyway. Otherwise sides that start by seeing what they can get away with and work backwards as they get penalised have an advantage over those who choose to start playing within the laws of the game and only start to adapt when they see the opposition run away with it.

Yes there will always be subtle diferences in teh way that people see and call incidents, its inevitable in a fluid game like rugby. But the selective choice of which laws apply changing game to game has been frightening in this cup.
Its not good for the players or the fans. It does put the Wayne Barnes blitherings into perspective. Theres been at least 2 big games involving potential cup winners significantly tainted by refereeing standards.
I have no problem with refs not seeing incidents as we do on slo mo multi angle replays, what I have a problem with is them reffing to different rulesets game to game.

+1

It is the reasoning of someone who has no answer for the incompetency of a referee. Rather shift the blame back to the losing team, then hopefully it wil go away.

It is like so many things in modern society. If we deny it, it never happened, or find another scapgoat, it is easier to handle the truth in that manner.

It's in no way denying the fact that the refs have been inconsistent. That's not the point. The point is that if you go into a match and take the gentlemens stance expecting the calls to come your way then you'll lose. You have to adapt to the rulings the referee is offering. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point. The teams that adapt and work to the boundaries they're presented with are the teams that will win. The great opensides are prime examples of this. The nearly rans don't push the limits enough.

With all due respect, adapting to the way a referee officates in a match is in theory possible, the problem comes in when one team intends to adhere to the referee from the start, and the other team decides not to. In a close match when one team scores from blatantly illegal play the horse has already bolted. adapting then is still necessary, but you are already behind the 8 ball.

south Africa tried to adapt in their match against OZ, but the benefit was already gained on the score board. They then adapted by playing the match in the opponent half as the 75% territory stat clearly shows. The amoutn of attacking they did with reaching 5 or more phases 15 times, breaking defenders open and clean breaks on 16 occassions was still not enough because even when you adapt slow ball will give defences enough time to reorganise.

So by virtue of that I cannot agree with you adapting to the referee is good enough. Oh, and then throw in a couple of dubious calls on passes. We threw 200 passes in that match, the two that would have led to tries, were called forward.

biltongbek wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:
Players must adapt to the referee.

Its a pretty weak reasoning to just say "good sides adapt". Refereeing should be consistent within a reasonable range, say under the laws and guidance as set donw by the IRB? Seems like a good starting point anyway. Otherwise sides that start by seeing what they can get away with and work backwards as they get penalised have an advantage over those who choose to start playing within the laws of the game and only start to adapt when they see the opposition run away with it.

Yes there will always be subtle diferences in teh way that people see and call incidents, its inevitable in a fluid game like rugby. But the selective choice of which laws apply changing game to game has been frightening in this cup.
Its not good for the players or the fans. It does put the Wayne Barnes blitherings into perspective. Theres been at least 2 big games involving potential cup winners significantly tainted by refereeing standards.
I have no problem with refs not seeing incidents as we do on slo mo multi angle replays, what I have a problem with is them reffing to different rulesets game to game.

+1

It is the reasoning of someone who has no answer for the incompetency of a referee. Rather shift the blame back to the losing team, then hopefully it wil go away.

It is like so many things in modern society. If we deny it, it never happened, or find another scapgoat, it is easier to handle the truth in that manner.

It's in no way denying the fact that the refs have been inconsistent. That's not the point. The point is that if you go into a match and take the gentlemens stance expecting the calls to come your way then you'll lose. You have to adapt to the rulings the referee is offering. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point. The teams that adapt and work to the boundaries they're presented with are the teams that will win. The great opensides are prime examples of this. The nearly rans don't push the limits enough.

With all due respect, adapting to the way a referee officates in a match is in theory possible, the problem comes in when one team intends to adhere to the referee from the start, and the other team decides not to. In a close match when one team scores from blatantly illegal play the horse has already bolted. adapting then is still necessary, but you are already behind the 8 ball.

south Africa tried to adapt in their match against OZ, but the benefit was already gained on the score board. They then adapted by playing the match in the opponent half as the 75% territory stat clearly shows. The amoutn of attacking they did with reaching 5 or more phases 15 times, breaking defenders open and clean breaks on 16 occassions was still not enough because even when you adapt slow ball will give defences enough time to reorganise.

So by virtue of that I cannot agree with you adapting to the referee is good enough. Oh, and then throw in a couple of dubious calls on passes. We threw 200 passes in that match, the two that would have led to tries, were called forward.

Leaving aside everything else Biltong, IMO the loss of Brussow for your boys was massive - if he'd been there to negate Pocock I think you'd have won despite everything Son-of-Keith did (or didn't).

Kiwi, yes it was a big loss for us, I actually am waiting for a rerun of that match, i want to watch it in slow motion as I did the final. One point of interest to me is how he got injured, I seem to recall a similar clearing of the ruck as what Bakkies Botha was carded for vs the Lions when he injured Jones.

I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. But would like to see it again.

I just had my emotions under control about this match and then i had to read some more drivel this moring about adapting.

It is becoming rather pathetic if you ask me, I simply cannot believe how many "neutrals" keep on putting the blame on our players.

"Yes Lawrence had a bad game, BUT SA should have adapted."

biltongbek wrote:Kiwi, yes it was a big loss for us, I actually am waiting for a rerun of that match, i want to watch it in slow motion as I did the final. One point of interest to me is how he got injured, I seem to recall a similar clearing of the ruck as what Bakkies Botha was carded for vs the Lions when he injured Jones.

I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. But would like to see it again.

I just had my emotions under control about this match and then i had to read some more drivel this moring about adapting.

It is becoming rather pathetic if you ask me, I simply cannot believe how many "neutrals" keep on putting the blame on our players.

"Yes Lawrence had a bad game, BUT SA should have adapted."

I know how you feel, we had to put up with 4 years of "Yes Wayne had a bad game, BUT ..."

And the screams that come back from certain NHers if I say "Yes Craig had ..." are most impressive too

biltong
In NZ we have two young International panel referees, Lawrence and Pollock.
During the Super 15 both these two got numerous opportunities to perform,I have no reason to think that both of them in time can not go on to become serious International referees,however even at S15. level I thought that they were at times out of their depth,and to put it bluntly lack of experience and were never flowing wIth the game.
It then did surprise me to find that Lawrence even made it on to the field in the WC let alone to the sharp end.