Bragging rights and trophies.

This is something I have been thinking about for quite some time. We love having bragging rights over opposing fans, we often get a dig in at our opposing fans when we have won matches even if the result was fortuitous.

There was a thread not so long ago that discussed what was more important, the win or the method of the win.

I was quite vociferous in my opinion that the quality of the play of my team was very important to me, where as other posters believed winning at any cost is more important than how it is achieved.

Although technology has assisted over the past few years to more accurately decide tries, there are many areas in rugby that is left up to the interpretation of the referee and hence it affects the outcome of games, negatively and positively for our teams.

I can remember a number of matches where a referee either missed something, or interpreted a law in a certain way, or where players commit obstructive running and get away with things.

As Redstag mentioned the 2007 six Nations and a TMO decision questioned by Craig Joubert could have seen Ireland win the tournament.

Last year Wales won their Six Nation match against Ireland with what I have read on 606v2 with an illegal quick throw in with the wrong ball.

In 2004 John Smit was instructed by Paul Honiss to have a talk with his players but allowed Ronan O’Gara to continue play and he went on to score from a quick tap penalty.

There are many who are of the opinion that NZ had the rub of the green in last year’s world cup final.

Many south Africans ( Yeah I know it is only us) believe Lawrence cost us a semi final place in last year’s world cup.

I have seen too many matches over the past number of years where obstructive running won matches.

In 2007 France eliminated New Zealand with a try scored from a forward pass.

So looking at this, do we only enjoy the game when we win, no matter what, and do we put too much weight on titles, trophies and records.
Or is it just par for the course and we accept the records full well knowing the best team on the field or the best team in a tournament is not necessarily always the victor?

Tough question there biltong, and will cover all sides by saying I would love our teams to win playing blistering rugby, be it a forwards dominated match or incredible magical back moves, whatever your side leans to.

But failing that, I would take a messy win over losing with style.

So yeah, a win first and foremost, then work on the style.

biltong,

From a Welsh view point I am sick and tired of the plucky losers or another gallant loss.

At the moment for me its the win, I would have happily taken a boring fall asleep 3 nil win against France in the WC than the ' unlucky 14 man Wales lose' again reports I had to read.

Yes in the perfect world teams will play brilliant rugby and win but its not perfect that often, winning and winning regulalry breeds success and confidence, then maybe the style of play and sytle in which you win grows etc.

Winning is most important, but if it can be done with style all the better.

If the best side always won the game/tournament there would be no more sport.

Believing that a ref/TMO decision 'robbed' a side of victory can become a crutch and is no help in improving or moving on from that defeat, however painful. I think fans tend to get more hooked on this than players or coaches who are often more pragmatic. These things will happen and obviously it goes both ways.

Teams apply double standards.

I am furious when a refereeing decision costs my team.

However when we benefit from it I like to claim "swings and roundabouts".

loss playing badly < loss playing well < loss with mitigating factors < draw < win with mitigating factors < win < massacre

Massacre < Get the Winning Score in the Last Minute

biltong, it's very simple for us Scots folk - it's either a PLAIN victory (we won on the scoreboard) or a MORAL victory (we lost on the scoreboard)

What do you think the effect of Scottish Independence will be on Scottish rugby AsLongAs?

Over the course of a season I want to watch entertaining rugby but if Ulster were in a HC cup final I'll take a dull match and a marginal decision to secure victory.

miteyironpaw wrote:What do you think the effect of Scottish Independence will be on Scottish rugby AsLongAs?

mitey, it's well over a century since the SRU and Scottish clubs were 'members' of the RFU, so maybe time for politics to follow suit?! In all seriousness, I think there wouldn't be a hugh difference tbh

Winning ugly? - Well, yes, it's acceptable if it's ugly in the right way. Rough, physical aggressive (rugbywise) play whereby you negate the skill sets of your opponents with sheer blood and guts intensity. Yes, that has a beauty to it. It's old school rugby but it possibly projects the best qualities of rugby itself - strength, endurance, a heavy physical challenge... a boxing match with thirty men involved.

Winning on the drop of a ref's misguided whistle (or lack of it)? - Relief might be a feeling after a game like that but also a lot of guilt. No, I don't like victories stolen from the jaws of defeat. If the 80 minutes of play didn't merit it and the opposing team did everything they could to justify winning the game except putting the appropriate points on the board, it can be a very hollow feeling indeed.
- Some say 'tough' - that's rugby. You take what it gives you and don't look back. But personally, I don't feel great about shallow victories. It's always about how 'the outside world' see it. That's always the defining point. I'm not interested in how 'We' see the victory but how 'They' see it.

Winning with an imposing game of powerful forward play matched to scintillating backs orientated beauty? Well that's the best feeling in the world. I love a killer instinct - in any team. I admire a team that aren't satisfied that they've easily won a game but go for the jugular and sustain the pace and intent right to the end.

Losing whilst playing an imposing game of skilled and impressive rugby...well, it's only nice in the sense that it proves that game is in your side and that hopefully it might transmit into a 'winning' formula in subsequent games - but - I've done enough 'moral victories'. They leave a sour taste in my mouth; we have a history of them and the memories aren't in any way 'rosetinted' by time. And again, doesn't matter how well you've played if your side loses, the opposition supporters always have the gamut of excuses ready to kill you. "Oh well, our guys were saving themselves for the next game", "Our guys just did enough and got their points", "Our guys were cruising in the final 20", "Our guys were practicing their defence for the final fifteen".......yeah, right!

That is a very good answer secretfly, sums up just about how I feel, I simply cannot look my mate in the eye and tell him my team deserved a victory over his team when I full well know it was because of a wrong decision by the referee or a fortuitous incident.

I am thankful and relieved to win, but say as little as possible about it.

biltongbek wrote:That is a very good answer secretfly, sums up just about how I feel, I simply cannot look my mate in the eye and tell him my team deserved a victory over his team when I full well know it was because of a wrong decision by the referee or a fortuitous incident.

I am thankful and relieved to win, but say as little as possible about it.

That to me is the difference between us and wendyball in a nutshell!

Of course, it's a very rare fan that will admit his/her team's win was because of a contentious refereeing call.

There are far more who will admit when they lost that way...

Judging by our record, winning is at the forefront of the success of the AB's.

We are also lucky to be able to do it in a way that entertains the fans, something GH and those before him, and the NZ rugby fraternity has embedded into our game at all levels.

The fundamentals of our game is to run the ball and enjoy the game. That is at its very grass roots and it shows when its represented at the top levels.

On top of that we place winning on the shoulders of the guys that turn out come test time, but in essence they are still representative of the way Kiwi's love to watch and play the game as a whole.

We know we're lucky in that respect.

miteyironpaw wrote:Of course, it's a very rare fan that will admit his/her team's win was because of a contentious refereeing call.

There are far more who will admit when they lost that way...

Enter biltong stage left...

Gatts wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Of course, it's a very rare fan that will admit his/her team's win was because of a contentious refereeing call.

There are far more who will admit when they lost that way...

Enter biltong stage left...

It is not something I like to do, but this time I stand by it. You continue to dismiss it if you wish.

Its really in the eye of the beholder Biltong. This is not directed at you but from a NZ perspective non NZers probably never blinked a lid with Barnes and with respect Lawrence wasn't as one sided as Barnes in his failings- end result being identical though.

NZers also got no (and never will ) empathy for that and were called whinging, moaning etc etc in 95 (in the words of the SA security guard at the time- "It looked like a battlefield- players were scattered around the room getting seen to by doctors and physio's)- the day before the final.

When imagine if the reverse happened- AB's training hard out after thrashing all and sundry up to that day- while the whole Bok team were out with bowel problems- I think even you could confidently say that extra time wouldnt have been needed, but thats neither here nor there.

That's what NZ'ers have had to put up with, being told we werent good enough over the last 24 years when we know...we were...

Regardless of whether or not we sit near or at the top of the tree we've had our misfortunes too...big time, and probably more so than anyone else, so we understand completely what its like.

Its just hard to be empathetic towards others when it happens- thats why you found many of the Kiwis jumped on the SA thing here.

It was almost as though we were saying 'its about time it happened to someone else'...I could see it in the posts though they (we) were trying, often struggling, to be empathetic at the same time, particularly in your direction Biltong, the huge respect I know Kiwi's have for you on these boards.

We know Lawrence was Cr%^$p- unfortunately we just had a different agenda in addressing it... bit weak of some of us I know...but I think it felt like two huge pressure valves being released at once after all these years.

Hopefully we go forward with this sort of thing behind us, and get this ref mess sorted for the better because it does no one any good having matches like that.

Plus...it is only a game....Gawwww

biltongbek wrote:

Gatts wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Of course, it's a very rare fan that will admit his/her team's win was because of a contentious refereeing call.

There are far more who will admit when they lost that way...

Enter biltong stage left...

It is not something I like to do, but this time I stand by it. You continue to dismiss it if you wish.

it isn't that straightforward is it...fact is i could spend the rest of my life blaming alain rolland for the red which may/may not have caused our loss to France...but there comes a time when you realise that blaming the ref is utterly useless and a total waste of time

Well its never a 'total' waste of time.

Poor refereeing, particularly ones that result in an official not performing t the expected standard needs to come under scrutiny, primarily to prevent it reoccurring. The ref either is removed or gets his act together.

Lawrences 'next' test won't be as bad as the SA one, which is good for the two teams on the day. But in terms of the actual result, yes it S&(*^cks and unfortunately we have to just take it, and its a good thing these boards are around to vent some frustration because it could go to worse places- good to have a rant, sign off and go and play with the kids and doggy out on the lawn!

Who cares (other than the mods) but if its done the right way- and it 'usually' is here...why not...

Gatts wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Gatts wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Of course, it's a very rare fan that will admit his/her team's win was because of a contentious refereeing call.

There are far more who will admit when they lost that way...

Enter biltong stage left...

It is not something I like to do, but this time I stand by it. You continue to dismiss it if you wish.

it isn't that straightforward is it...fact is i could spend the rest of my life blaming alain rolland for the red which may/may not have caused our loss to France...but there comes a time when you realise that blaming the ref is utterly useless and a total waste of time

Gatts, you just don't get it. do you?

firstly just to remind you, you are the one that started with Lawrence and my blame game. Unfortunately you do not understand the difference between a blame (which is a lingering hatred or excuse as to why your team has lost and can eat you up inside) and stating a mere fact (which is recording a dissappointing event and remembering it only for what happened.)

In my life there are a few sporting disappointments my teams have had which is stored in my memory for various reasons of why we lost or had a dissappointing exit to a tournament.

1. In 2004 when Paul Honiss told John Smit to talk to his troops and allowed Ronan O'Gara to play on, and Ireland won the first of three matches against us in the last decade. Having their fans use these exact "bragging rights" over us for the past 7 years.

2. In 1999 we drew a semi final against Australia when Herschelle Gibbs because of youthfull exuberance caught Steve Waugh when he had only a few runs in the 1999 ICC cricket world cup, while in the act of still catching the ball he threw it up i the air and t slipped out of his hand, the umpire deemed it not a completed catch and Waugh went on to make 100 runs, in the same game Alan Donald and Lance Klusener needed 1 run from 4 balls to win a match that would have set us up against Pakistan in the final, and then Doanld panciked and got run out. In this case the Aussie supporters are very polite about it, but nevertheless, it is something recorded in my memory as a match we lost because of two stupid decisions made by Gibbs and Donald.

3. In 1997 South Africa scored 3 tries to nil against the British and Irish Lions and did not kick one penalty, conversion or dropgoal, lost the match and we subsequently lost the series.

4. In the 2003 ICC cricket world cup Shaun Pollock misread the duckworth Lewis system and we tied a match against Sri Lanka becuase he misread the score to tie as the score to win, and hence we were knocked out in the world cup we hosted, once again becuase of stupidity.

5. In 2011 rugby world cup Keith Lawrence's son Bryce Lawrence changed his way of officiating the way he did between australia and Ireland (where he was pedantic) to not getting involved at all in the match between SA and OZ. His non chalant attitude gace Australia the only try in the match when allowed allowed Pocock to not only come from the side at a ruck, but to remain offside and then kick the ball from an offside position into the hands of his team mate, for an easy try from 5 meters out against a South African team not set up for defence. Incidently Keith Lawrence was also the guy who in the late nineties wrote an email to his australian counterpart about "teaching the Japies a lesson".

All these events above are ingrained in my memery for two reasons, we lost either because of stupid decision making or inconsistency by an official. This is not about blaming, it is about factual reasons why these matches or tournaments ended dissappointing.

Taylorman wrote:

NZers also got no (and never will ) empathy for that and were called whinging, moaning etc etc in 95 (in the words of the SA security guard at the time- "It looked like a battlefield- players were scattered around the room getting seen to by doctors and physio's)- the day before the final.

When imagine if the reverse happened- AB's training hard out after thrashing all and sundry up to that day- while the whole Bok team were out with bowel problems- I think even you could confidently say that extra time wouldnt have been needed, but thats neither here nor there.

That's what NZ'ers have had to put up with, being told we werent good enough over the last 24 years when we know...we were...

Its just hard to be empathetic towards others when it happens- thats why you found many of the Kiwis jumped on the SA thing here.

It was almost as though we were saying 'its about time it happened to someone else'...I could see it in the posts though they (we) were trying, often struggling, to be empathetic at the same time, particularly in your direction Biltong, the huge respect I know Kiwi's have for you on these boards.

We know Lawrence was Cr%^$p- unfortunately we just had a different agenda in addressing it... bit weak of some of us I know...but I think it felt like two huge pressure valves being released at once after all these years.

Hopefully we go forward with this sort of thing behind us, and get this ref mess sorted for the better because it does no one any good having matches like that.

Plus...it is only a game....Gawwww

Taylorman, firstly I completely understand the euphoria of winning the cup for the first time in 24 and the fact that mnay New Zealanders thought it is about time it happened to someone else. That is the point. The New Zealanders by stating that admitted to the fact, and that is all I wanted. Empathy is sometimes put across in an unintended manner, but it is still empathy. Of course I wouldn't expect the New Zealand posters to forsake the sense of relief and celebrations for winning the cup.

About the 1995 one, I was honestly never aware of the food poisoning thing even during the match, perhaps once again because it was the ratification of "told you so" when we won the first one we entered that the celebrations and elation about winning the Webb Ellis was the only thing on our minds.

The responses I have read on this thread are so apt for the reason I wrote this in the first place. Some will revel in the saticfaction of rubbing salt in wounds and others are aware of how things turn around and can happen to your own team.

I have to say, apart from one or two Ozzie posters the rest were extremely aware of not gloating or being arrogant about their win over us in the quarter final. And for that I have a lot of respect.

Tenous link to talk about England for a minute here if you indulge me. I thought the England team got little praise for taking the quarterfinal loss to France on the chin and accepting we weren't good enough. It would have been tempting for some to point the finger at Steve Walsh who has his share of history with the side. For all else that went wrong, at least England took the defeat like men and didn't try to blame anyone else for it.

I thought Lawrence was weak at the breakdown in the SA/Aus game and I also think Australia's opening score came from a blatant side entry at the ruck by Pocock. But what I don't understand is that South Africa had overwhelming possession and won a massive majority of rucks. I'm not sure they can blame the loss on the referee for the mistakes he did make. With that much possession they only have their inability to convert it into points; similarly to NZ in 2007 where a referee had a poor game but NZ probably should have won anyway.

All good Biltong, it was similarly the same for us with the "elation about winning the Webb Ellis was the only thing on our minds".

The ref comments only served to fire the kiwi posters up as a 'release valve' where 'no one gave a ^%$ about us when we were claiming foul at ref time' so that and the win became a double whammy after both have been a black mark for years.

Anyway, that said...good to get it out of the way. It'll take a while for you to see Lawrence as anything else but a ref who had a poor day- which is how I view Barnes now- he's actually had a couple of shockers since but he's still there. But that day will come.

Mitey I think by then England had kind of done their dash from a media perspective by that match and probably wanted to just disappear to lick their wounds and disappear but you've a point. Rather a surprisingly quiet end to a rather high profile entrance.

Agree with 2007 as well. We still should have won as we were many points the better team. We should have known how to make ground with the French backs in amongst ours- not joking- we really should have.

McCaw just wasnt quick enough in thinking on his feet as a skip at the time and has learned from that- being in the thick of it at the end this time, ensuring that the last few minutes were counted down and out on that far sideline.

He waited for penalties that were never going to come and needed to be smarter. The injury count- again Carter and Evans- didnt help at the time either, nor did not being tested at any stage over the last few weeks.

But agree, they should still have won with the posession, in the same way SA should have. You have no choice but to counter whatever is in front of you and neither side did, despite having all the ball.

Still doesnt make it right...

To an extent I think it comes down to whether you crave a moral or actual victory. NZ kept bashing away as NZ did in 2007 with no change of a penalty from an erm, very tired, Mr Barnes. Given the loss of both fly halves (second five eighths should I say?) it was sensible tactic and any impartial viewer could see that NZ were the technically superior side. Moral victory NZ. Unfortunately you have to play the interpretations being applied on the day and not the interpretations evaluated retrospectively as being more correct if you want to actually win. Obviously. No matter how "unfair" they are.

Contrast that to 2011 and you can see that's exactly what New Zealand did. They were very conservative in defensive rucks in kickable range realising that (perhaps contrary to the prevailing interpretation prior to the world cup) defensive infringements were being treated more harshly. A lot of people on these boards and elsewhere have chosen to see France's superior possession in the last 20 minutes as a sign of breakdown dominance. But assuming that conservatism was deliberate as I suggest it was, then it was a genius piece of collective understanding. There are many many times in that last 20 where you can see Kaino and others sorely tempted to go after a turn over and then resist, until the critical moment where Mermoz (from memory I think) is isolated by Smith and brilliantly turned over by McCaw to effectively win the game for NZ. It's just superb defensive control in my mind.

This is an area England need to learn from. In the world cup England conceded on average 9 first half penalties and invariably lost a man to the sin bin late in the first half. We are still thinking old-school about "professional" spoiling, 3-rather-than-7, instead of adopting this new model of defensive control, breakdown management and timing. Genuinely professional spoiling. It's similarly important that England (if not our fans) watch and learn, rather than criticising the referee this time just as it was for NZ to learn last time around rather than criticising the referee.

We need to trust the referees internal processes to help them improve their performances which seems to be happening. Full credit to Lawrence for putting his hand up to having an off day. However additionally frustrating that must have been for the South African fans.

Why is it that every NZ win or loss has to be like a scene out of Gone With The Wind?

How about we all just win or lose within the same calendar year and move on.

Well that started being necessary when Richie was quoted in late 2007 as saying:

"Because with God is my witness, as God is my witness they're not going to lick me again. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."

English Ref: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Now off you go. 10 minutes

SecretFly wrote:English Ref: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Now off you go. 10 minutes

That would be 19 years at least. And an extra scene.

Before 2011 it really used to grate NZers that the only trophy that matters is the World Cup and 1987 doesn´t count because it was in the amateur era. So our bragging rights were the trophies we racked up in between and the fairweather supporters all spoke of the rankings. The truth is every game counts to real AB supporters. We don't like losing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that so long as you know, as a supporter, to lose with grace and acknowledge the efforts of the team who beat you. Unfortunately, too many seem incapable of this preferring to use the tired excuses of we didn't play well or the ref robbed us.

Of course trophies matter and the Webb Ellis trophy is the coveted prize. But you tell me the Calcutta Cup or the Gallagher Trophy or the Bledisloe are not important. Or a Wales victory over England or an Ireland victory over France or Australia? Bragging rights may well endure far longer than the actual games but to me you're only as good as your last game and if you lose the next one then there's nothing to brag about.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Before 2011 it really used to grate NZers that the only trophy that matters is the World Cup and 1987 doesn´t count because it was in the amateur era. So our bragging rights were the trophies we racked up in between and the fairweather supporters all spoke of the rankings. The truth is every game counts to real AB supporters. We don't like losing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that so long as you know, as a supporter, to lose with grace and acknowledge the efforts of the team who beat you. Unfortunately, too many seem incapable of this preferring to use the tired excuses of we didn't play well or the ref robbed us.

Of course trophies matter and the Webb Ellis trophy is the coveted prize. But you tell me the Calcutta Cup or the Gallagher Trophy or the Bledisloe are not important. Or a Wales victory over England or an Ireland victory over France or Australia? Bragging rights may well endure far longer than the actual games but to me you're only as good as your last game and if you lose the next one then there's nothing to brag about.

+1.

That said, I suspect Air New Zealand won't be getting out the spray paint the next time the AB's lose a match

Spoiler:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
Of course trophies matter and the Webb Ellis trophy is the coveted prize. But you tell me the Calcutta Cup or the Gallagher Trophy or the Bledisloe are not important. Or a Wales victory over England or an Ireland victory over France or Australia? Bragging rights may well endure far longer than the actual games but to me you're only as good as your last game and if you lose the next one then there's nothing to brag about.

Victory matters - of course it does, especially when you're crying out for one (NOT a big note in the All Black diary) Winning any game matters. Winning is the fun. But Ireland winning a game against France? Yep, as long as it was earned. I just don't want any questions in people's minds. If, in the aftermath of a game, there are big questions being asked (and not just by the fans of the opposing side), then that victory is soured.

But I don't think New Zealnd have too much worrying to do on bragging rights anytime soon. It has bragging right to the whole notion of 'bragging rights'!

I take your point SecretFly. Us AB supporters are a miserable lot and demand not only winning each game but to win it with style. To be perfectly honest, the close final took a lot of the gloss of that semi final clinical demolition of Australia for me. Then again I was so relieved for the players that they finally won that even if we had made it more convincing, I would´ve been so drained mentally at the end of the match regardless of how many we had won by. We fans get all too much reward but I felt that the players often are in a lose-lose situation. Nice to see them get something to really cheer about!

Requirement one for any fan is the win, there is no doubt about that.

However a poor performance or a fortuitous win there after does seem hollow and nothing to brag about.

My original point for this thread was to question the "bragging rights" we associate with those hollow wins.

You often see the most bragging about those wins sadly.

Yeah, perhaps it helps with the deniability of the fortuitous win.