Do The Kiwi Know There Rugby?

And now time for first time my article on rugby. Once again excuse with me by my poor English and ever will be improving. Thanks.

So my mind to day is on how because New Zeeland always the best in rugby? How is possible this? Some trick is it? Some little bit is South African there at the top on the list, and some time you might see Australia but not so long. Even once was my new home land of England for some period number one rankeding.

But all aside these small times is there New Zeeland. Winning if it is 7s game, or winning if it is rugby for girls and ladies, winning jooniar rugby competition and finally after some wait we can guessed there is another world cup win for them last year already and finally.

Now final thing from my many study on this forum and long histories in conversation here, for making better my English and understaning some things about live in the England, and also because I love so much this game I can see a true. There is many feature of New Zeeland the people that all can understand actually the rugby so much actually. You must now agree.

Now my proof is amazing prediction which you can see by searching history in this site that I can find three people Mr Taylorman, Mr Emack and Mr Grayghost they all predict something amazing that Stephen Donald will score some winning point for New Zeeland. Check yourself if you think I am lie or something like. Even at the same time telling he is not the best playing, they all say this true at one time.

I am amaze about this. And have to comment.

Have a good week.

Spooky.

Not even sure what this means either and I'm in it.
I did see a cartoon a few months out from the WCup of a guy waking up in a sweat having just had a nightmare that Donald Duck was about to kick the winning kick in the final...someone dug it out afterwards...other than that...

By the way...where is Greyghost...has he popped up on other sites...

Anuverwurldofpane,

Nice article.

anotherworldofpain,

Good article.

New Zealand is the only country which has rugby union as their national sport (at least in winter). Other countries not so much.

Australia has a number of sports which are as big or bigger than RU.
South Africa competes with football (soccer) mainly amongst the black people.

All over Europe soccer is the big game so fewer people play and watch the game.

I hope this helps.

p.s.
If you are using these pages to improve your English, you need to understand that many people use slang as well as 'good' English so you may want to use a 'slang dictionary' such as http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/

Keep trying and PM me if you need help.

To be honest and whilst many may disagree... up until SA were banned from rugby they were the kings of the sport.

They had a winning record against every side, never lost a series to NZ at home and did manage to win one away I think in the 50s and were more successful touring the UK then NZ were up until that point.

Those years in the wilderness robbed players of the 80s & early 90s of test experience and they were well below par for perhaps a decade afterwards.

In many ways the 95 RWC was a fluke albeit well earned.... personally I always thought it was just meant to be in terms of them winning the title... it meant so much to the country outside of rugby.

Since then sure NZ have overtaken them in stats but due to the number of games played today, what may have taken 20 years to notch up in terms of wins against etc, teams can now do so a few years so the weighting is heavily biased to modern times.

I'm sure Emack2 will be much more knowledgable on this then I.

There was very little difference between the 2 nations and in fact the British Lions who were more successful than NZ in SA and SA in NZ. If the BL were a full time side I believe they may have edged it overall but thats always debatable.

Well thats always been debatable fa in that we were never able to play our best teams in SA as maori were prevented from touring. We were also not allowed to play them on our OWN grounds because the Bok teams would not play against maori. We had to pick inferior players, leaving better ones out and despite that, the advantage was still not that great.

So you could say since the removal of this imposed barrier on our teams the true results are now reflected.

I do take that point but that was only ever on touring sides to SA????

Come the end of the 70s... SA did indeed field their own non white players.. well Errol Tobias before they were eventually excluded from test rugby and I do recall watching SA vs NZ early 80s rugby in NZ where Maori players were present.

Before the ban SA played 20 matches vs. NZ at home and 17 in NZ so it was pretty even in terms of who played where.

Would these players have made the difference? Perhaps though I have to say I wouldn't know as I'm not schooled up on NZ rugby pre 1980s. As you said its all debatable but what is certainly clear is that the boks were just as strong as NZ pre the professional era.

I dont understand any off that- my brain has officially exploded.

Portnoy, i may be wrong in this but i thought that Rugby leage pushed Union very hard in NZ for popularity?

anotherworldofpain, keep going with the English mate, you will get it eventually. I know what its like to move to another country and learn a completely different language.

For now, welcome to the rugby board

eirebilly wrote:Portnoy, i may be wrong in this but i thought that Rugby leage pushed Union very hard in NZ for popularity?

anotherworldofpain, keep going with the English mate, you will get it eventually. I know what its like to move to another country and learn a completely different language.

For now, welcome to the rugby board

Possibly bacon,

But it does not really change the fact that NZ is a totally rugby-mad country.

1970 was the first time a non white All Black could tour South Africa. Samoan Bryan Williams was the standout in that team.In 70 and 76 they were allowed in as honourary whites.

1928 1949 and 1960 they were not allowed to tour. 1928 would have included the great George Nepia who starred at fullback playing every match in the invincibles tour of great britain in 24- every match won.

49 admittedly was just a terrible side but we did manage to field two test sides on the same day losing both. One to Oz. One to the boks in SA.

Lets just say they werent memorable times and as a nation we have suffered a fair bit maintaining sporting relations with SA with the 81 protests splitting the country in two and the african boycott of the 76 olympics because we toured in 76.

Just tough times and stats alone dont convey the lengths our teams had to go to to maintain contact with SA.

In SA they also had their home grown Bryce Lawrences adjudicating the games.

I think our English challenged friend has gone by other names on here but I always enjoy his articles.

Ha, you're calling me bacon now as well Portnoy

Can any of the Kiwi lads let me know if League is close to being popular in NZ as Union?

Portnoy wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Portnoy, i may be wrong in this but i thought that Rugby leage pushed Union very hard in NZ for popularity?

anotherworldofpain, keep going with the English mate, you will get it eventually. I know what its like to move to another country and learn a completely different language.

For now, welcome to the rugby board

Possibly bacon,

But it does not really change the fact that NZ is a totally rugby-mad country.

That's actually a misconception Portnoy. NZ is good at playing rugby, but you'd probably find that it's a smaller proportion than what you'd expect that are actually passionate about the game. A more accurate description would be that NZ is a sports mad country.

Depends which part of NZ mate. South Auckland and Mad Butcher country and I'd say it's more important. High proportion of white gumboot freezing worksmen on the sidelines supoporting as well.

More people play golf and football but rugby gets all the press.

So then if the kiwis are a sports mad country what else do they play at a high level ??

Taylorman wrote:Well thats always been debatable fa in that we were never able to play our best teams in SA as maori were prevented from touring. We were also not allowed to play them on our OWN grounds because the Bok teams would not play against maori. We had to pick inferior players, leaving better ones out and despite that, the advantage was still not that great.

So you could say since the removal of this imposed barrier on our teams the true results are now reflected.

Taylorman, the reverse is true these days, I can't remember a time in professional rugby where OUR best team are even played at currie Cup level, let alone international level.

Rowing, track cycling, triathlon, league, canoeing, multisports, basketball, netball to name a few. OK not exactly the most widely played global sports but to be sports mad doesn't require us to play those sports.

We were the only unbeaten team at the last football World Cup which isn´t too shabby for an otherwise shabby team.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Rowing, track cycling, triathlon, league, canoeing, multisports, basketball, netball to name a few. OK not exactly the most widely played global sports but to be sports mad doesn't require us to play those sports.

We were the only unbeaten team at the last football World Cup which isn´t too shabby for an otherwise shabby team.

in all fairness you are probally better at cricket than the above. but all the same i honestly think most countries are just sports mad, but the kiwi nation is rugby mad, just like the uk and spain are football mad, just like the usa are american football mad, etc

eirebilly wrote:Ha, you're calling me bacon now as well Portnoy

Can any of the Kiwi lads let me know if League is close to being popular in NZ as Union?

League has always been kind of popular and became moreso with NZ warriors's inclusion into the Australian NRL in the mid 90s. Basically it's the only professional NZ league team in an otherwise Australian based league.

I would say that league is not, and never will be, as 'popular' as rugby in NZ, especially when you consider the tv and fan support for each respective domestic competition (itm v bartercard), which is favoured towards rugby.

The popularity of league in nz is largely on the back of one team, the warriors. Rugby has several pro rugby teams, and importantly, they occur throughout the country and not just in Auckland (warriors' home town).

Cheers EBOP and Kia. I always thought that it was very popular, maybe thats just the places i was at.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Rowing, track cycling, triathlon, league, canoeing, multisports, basketball, netball to name a few. OK not exactly the most widely played global sports but to be sports mad doesn't require us to play those sports.

We were the only unbeaten team at the last football World Cup which isn´t too shabby for an otherwise shabby team.

Dont you also have a couple of World champions in Equestrian, shooting and Archery as well?

To put it bluntly, NZ as a small country (in population) are very sports mad and have top athletes over a large variety of sports. More than can be said of Ireland

Yes I take your point mystiroakey that nothing generates hysteria and media coverage more than rugby. I live in Madrid and it is impossible to escape football even though they´ve very good at tennis, motorcycling, basketball, handball and quite a few other sports. That´s right eirbilly. For a small country, we have had quite a few Olympic successes. Valerie Adams is the current Olympic and world champion shot putter. And she´s a woman!

But as a person who got involved in triathlon in NZ and multisport racing, I can tell you that whilst there are sports that don´t receive a lot of coverage, you´d be surprised how many people are mad about the sports they do. And most people think people who do ironman, for example, are mad as well.

Then again we, like an alarming amount of other countries, have quite high obesity rates and so there are sports mad people in terms of watching it on TV rather than people actually participating.

mystiroakey wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Rowing, track cycling, triathlon, league, canoeing, multisports, basketball, netball to name a few. OK not exactly the most widely played global sports but to be sports mad doesn't require us to play those sports.

We were the only unbeaten team at the last football World Cup which isn´t too shabby for an otherwise shabby team.

in all fairness you are probally better at cricket than the above. but all the same i honestly think most countries are just sports mad, but the kiwi nation is rugby mad, just like the uk and spain are football mad, just like the usa are american football mad, etc

Well, you may be right. If it's a perception you have then there must be something in it. Guess it's easy for other countries' fans to explain nz's success at rugby simply because we're a rugby mad nation and the only one at that, which is actually not the case I reckon, anymore at least. On the mad scale, English are way more mad about football than we are about rugby, and I'd also go so far to say that the average mad welsh or English rugby fan is also madder.

really, just because you associate sports like horsey riding shooting, rowing,track cycling as popular sports(which are far from dominated by kiwis, gb on the whole do far better and they dont dominate either) doesnt mean ireland are any less sporting because they concentrate on many- like rugby, football, golf and stuff- as well as the hugely popular gaelic sports in ireland!!

not saying that new zealand arnt a top sporting nation- 25th in the oylimpic medal table is decent- but then most discount GB as a sporting nation and yet we finished 4th-There is nothing between kiwi and gb pound for pound!!


australia on the other hand- pound for pound are on another level!!

Well GB has certainly picked up its act notably in cycling and rowing and their triathletes are kicking butt. The Brownlee brothers have taken over Spain´s Javier Gomez and NZ´s and Australia´s triathletes and have dominated. Chrissy Wellington is unstoppable in ironman though is taking this year off as she´s up the duff.

But I´m not sure what you mean by pound for pound. Do you mean pound sterling? Or the weight? I think the big difference is population. NZ doesn´t have the population of London let alone England or the UK. Australia per capita take it to another level than NZ though I agree. Although their swimmers and cricketers have lost a bit of their shine in recent form.

EBOP wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Rowing, track cycling, triathlon, league, canoeing, multisports, basketball, netball to name a few. OK not exactly the most widely played global sports but to be sports mad doesn't require us to play those sports.

We were the only unbeaten team at the last football World Cup which isn´t too shabby for an otherwise shabby team.

in all fairness you are probally better at cricket than the above. but all the same i honestly think most countries are just sports mad, but the kiwi nation is rugby mad, just like the uk and spain are football mad, just like the usa are american football mad, etc

Well, you may be right. If it's a perception you have then there must be something in it. Guess it's easy for other countries' fans to explain nz's success at rugby simply because we're a rugby mad nation and the only one at that, which is actually not the case I reckon, anymore at least. On the mad scale, English are way more mad about football than we are about rugby, and I'd also go so far to say that the average mad welsh or English rugby fan is also madder.

your success is due to 3 things.

1. its your national sport(what ever you say you lot are mad on RU)
2. your mauri population are genetically big,powerfull ond strong.
3. the sport isnt very global- not many teams worldwide that play at a pro level!

england are mad on football as well- as i said. however its abit harder to reach the top when there are other mad or even madder countries of the sport like spain,brazil,argentina- with not only same levels of population but in many cases much bigger populations, and englands problem is that on the whole no other nation in the world competes at a high level in so many sports- restricting our available population!

actually i might be being a bit harsh on you kiwis- your population is about 4 mill isnt it- i assumed it was about 9 mill.

as it stands i think you are probally one of the best performing nations per capita!

4 million plus mate. I think Australia still outperform us but it´s still mighty impressive as a small population also has limited financial resources to throw around than big countries (even if that is spread wide).

well i am not totally sure that you have limited resoureces to throw around..

All of the top performing countries per capita are smalller nations- i think it actually works the other way around!

Fa0019 economical with the truth,ONLY from the period 1937-49 could you realisically be considered better than the All Blacks.After 1930 the 2-3-2 Scrum
was outlawed.By 1928 The All Blacks realised that a 7 man Scrum against a strong scrummaging side was`nt on.They adopted the 3-4-1 BOK Scrum without knowing the dynamics until shown by Danie Craven and Bo Wintle during the 1949 tour.1937 the law allowed Scrums for Line outs and was the first 3 test series.The 1937 Bok side was considered THE best touring team ever to leave Nz [including the AllBlacks].1928 two key players Nepia and Mill both stars of the 1925 AllBlack side were banned.After 1956 the Home side won there respective series BUT 1976 would have been a drawn one but for a politically motivated decision by Chris Bezen dhouit in the final match[a fact he admitted himself].The 1949 team was weakened by the loss of many Maori`s especially Vince Bevan.Scrum halve was the great weakness,the 1949 All Black was STILL a great side ,the BOKS was better.BOTH 1949 and 1956 were decidecd by Goal kickers.Okey Geffin kicked the goals,Bob Scott usually a reliable goal kick did`nt.
By the time the Boks went into isolation the gulf was closing rapidly,you can blame it for poor results up until 1998 maybe ,BUT after that?
The All Blacks had un beaten tours in 1925-6,1963-4,1967,[at test level]plus several recent tours unbeaten at test level.they didn`t play Scotland for financial reasons 1925,or Ireland 1967 because of Foot and Mouth.
They have a 76 % over all record,81% in the pro era,85% under Henry and Co.
A 55 % win record versus the Bok over all,something like 72% since the pro era versus them.10 6Ns.10 Super titles 2 RWCs areTHE most successful team on matches played there.Head to head Boks lead 2-1 in RWC wins.They are currently RWC holders at Mens ,under20,and Womens level,World series 7`s
holders,Plus currently rugby league RWC holders too.
Nz has a few names at Athletics ,Murray Halberg and Peter Snell come to mind,the odd Golfer Bob Charles the odd Cricketer.Plus America`s cup yachtsmen.IF you state the Boks and AB`s on level terms are THE best two sides sinc1905 /6 I won`t disagree.To claim the Boks are best is specious rubbish.I expect each side to win the Home Matches ALWAYS,and respect the BOKS more than any side BUT the ALL BLACKS.BUT inthe PRO ERA there is only one side at the races,and MANY VERY strong touring sides were stopped playing in SA due to political pressure the result of those games who knows?

Argentina are a bad example here as they are AWESOME at a large selection of team sports (basketball, rugby, football, polo) and far better than us in several individual sports too (tennis)

Kia I'd say every other sport pales in comparison to football, so if you take football out of the equation then they'd be relatlvely popular.

We are a pretty good limited overs cricket side too. Just don't mention tests.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Argentina are a bad example here as they are AWESOME at a large selection of team sports (basketball, rugby, football, polo) and far better than us in several individual sports too (tennis)

not much better than us at football, worse than us at rugby. but not even close to us overall in individual sporst- you quote tennis- what about all the oylimpic sports and golf!!!

sorry i dont understand what you are talking about. argentina are miles behind overall ,only slightly ahead in football and well ahead in tennis- what about the other 100 sposrts lol.

you quote polo lol

All of the top performing nations are small countries? USA and China dominate at Olympics. OK the UK are small compared to them or Brazil but EVERYONE is big compared to NZ. Australia for me are the best sports nation per capita. GB has done very well in recent times but for a long time underperformed. Obviously successes stand out more if you´re a small nation but I think many Kiwis are active in many sports. The other half are as fat as butter.

Yachting was a big omission. Good man Alan.

per capita is what we were talking about kia- surely?

I was countering your argument that other teams of a similar population are better than us at football even though it is a sport played extensively in the UK because we also play a lot of other sports. Argentina are better than us at football and play several other team sports a similar level to us and thus cannot really be used as an example if a country that only focusses on football

ChequeredJersey wrote:I was countering your argument that other teams of a similar population are better than us at football even though it is a sport played extensively in the UK because we also play a lot of other sports. Argentina are better than us at football and play several other team sports a similar level to us and thus cannot really be used as an example if a country that only focusses on football

i didnt use them as an example as a nation that focus's on one sport- i used them as an example of a football mad nation, as england/gb is- even though we focus on way more sports than they do

Ok fair enough. There´s a website that actually calculates sporting prowess based on per capita. I´ll see if I can dig it up.

It makes sense that if a country is small and relatively prosperous (NZ's QoL is, if I recall my Geography days, or at least was 7 years ago, one of the best in world significantly ahead of the UK) it will have more money to spend on sport per capita than a large rich one or a small poor one

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood your point, mystiroakey

Personally, i just feel that NZ have been sucessful are a very large diversity of sports which is why i consider it to be a sports mad country. Very much like the Aussies who are incredible when you consider what they have achieved on the sporting stage.

thats fine dude.

eirebilly no different from the uk though- and there link with the uk is probally a factor as to why they are sports mad. yes they are both better per capita, but i think its easier to get out and play sport in better weather and when an economy isnt as strained with politics,war and social issues on the same level as with the bigger economies of the world

Funding per capita is really high in some places, apparently it's very high in Ireland, and i've seen plenty of stats showing Australia's funding per capita is huge compared to ours in the UK.

emack2 wrote:Fa0019 economical with the truth,ONLY from the period 1937-49 could you realisically be considered better than the All Blacks.

Alan, you can justify your beliefs any way you see fit. FA stated South africa were the only team with a superior record against EVERY country up to the point where they went into isolation. He also stated that many would argue the fact on whether they were the best.

As for your argument about the All Blacks not being able to select their best, I have often wondered about that.

The White population in SA at the time was marginally more than the White population in NZ, so from that point of view it was pretty even. I don't doubt for one mintue that there were a good number of players from polenisian decent that would have been the best in theri positions and yes that was a dettering factor for their success.

But lets turn the same coin around in the professional era. Firstly there have now been more tests played against these two countries than before isolation, and yes the All Blacks have now a superior record against us. What everyone and his dog either forgets or sweeps under the carpet, is that since the re admission we have not been able to put out our top Currie Cup sides, Super Rugby sides or Springbok sides.

If I had the time and inclination I would find you a whole host of players that didn't get to flourish in a Springbok career because of quotas.

The argument goes both ways Sir.

Biltong ,I did`nt bring up the point on Racial grounds another did,I was just clarifying the situation.I do not profess to know the in`s and outs of Bok Rugby
post 1992.Are you saying there is an apartheid in Reverse?as you may know but may not respect.My respect for Bok rugby is and always has been profound,Bok versus All Black is THE issue whoever holds the RWC.My point was and is after 1956 the gap was gradually closed up to then the All Blacks had only won 4 matches.THAT afterwards whoever holds home advantage wins THAT I consider the norm to this day.Politics or Religon,or any other factor in sport abhors me.I Do not doubt many SA players didn`t get the chance neither did many NZ ones.THE only criteria no matter where is for me head to head in that the Boks are second not first.I freely admit in at least 8 tests weak sides were picked to win a RWC over a 3Ns,that was the choice of the coaches concerned.Frankly it did and still does disgust me you play every one to win friendlies don`t exist in test Rugby.I STILL think BOTH the Boks and the All Blacks are the best in the World it just matters where you play.I hope Meyer gets a good side together because I want,REALLY want a decent series between the countries again.BUT of course want my prefered side to win again this time against full strength Bok sides.

What he is saying is that it is positive discrimination- just like any qouta, we have many in the workplace in the uk- the boks have just extended it to sports- for very obvious reasons!

I couldn't track down that website. I need to go through a few podcasts a friend does for ironman where it was website of the week. But this one was an interesting read: http://fblog.futurebrand.com/sporting-nations-%E2%80%93-who-is-the-best/ Particularly with the obese nations and the so-called sporty nations.