Sir Shag?

First topic message reminder :

Back to back undefeated rugby championships. Including a mythical Ellis Park five try victory dubbed the greatest test of modern rugby.

Whilst maintaining the number one ranking, Steve Hansen has blooded a raft of new talent who are already fast becoming the envy of the rugby world. 

If, as looks likely, NZ win a second consecutive World Cup, I put it to you that Steve Hansen will be the greatest All Blacks coach of all time and that this team, likely to remain undefeated until that point, the greatest All Blacks team in history, naye, THE greatest team in history.

There are simply no hoodoos left to unseat this bunch.

France at a rugby World Cup? Check.
Springboks with a point to prove at Ellis park? Check.

ANDYI,that is precisely why I hate them it isn`t a true knockout Tournament it is a 5 team
knockout one. 2007 was from my view the best because all the tier 2 sides pulled rabbits
out of the hat.

andyi wrote:Playing at home offers an advantage to any team in any sport.  
Its written in black and white in the results.

Anyone denying that fact, is deluded!

Playing at home offers an advantage on a one on one basis, it does not give a more likely home vs away result in a 24 country knock out tournament. Away is more likely to win. it is written in black and white. anyone who denies that fact, is not very intelligent.

Treat each game as an individual match during a tournament and yes the home team has an advantage in every game. Thus making it more likely that they will win each game on a game by game basis.

It means teams go further then they would and therefore have a higher chance of winning the competition subject to other factors such as relative strength compared to peers, injuries, bounce of the ball etc etc etc.

Taylorman wrote:

andyi wrote:Playing at home offers an advantage to any team in any sport.  
Its written in black and white in the results.

Anyone denying that fact, is deluded!

Playing at home offers an advantage on a one on one basis, it does not give a more likely home vs away result in a 24 country knock out tournament. Away is more likely to win. it is written in black and white. anyone who denies that fact, is not very intelligent.

What part of my post says that that it will result in a home win in a 24 team tournament?

Sorry if i wasn't clear, my point was that playing at home offers an advantage to the home team in any game, as you yourself agree.

As for the 24 team tournament (or perhaps in reality 5 team if we are talking about the RWC, as suggested by my other post) it will have a cumulative effect over each game as pointed out by FA0019. It doesn't guarantee a home win but certainly not a hindrance although perhaps an argument could be made for added pressure.

If you ask any Sports coach if he'd prefer to play at home or away, I think he'd take home.

I think you're missing the point. There's an advantage for a home team against one opponent. But 1 vs 24 statistically the odds even if 55% (say) of victory in any individual game become 0.55 x 0.55 x 0.55 x ... Or less than 50% of winning the whole tournament individually. The chances of a single other team are lower, but the odds of ANY other team winning are higher. Hence the genius of those who have managed it at home (even more so, more than once)

andyi wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

andyi wrote:Playing at home offers an advantage to any team in any sport.  
Its written in black and white in the results.

Anyone denying that fact, is deluded!

Playing at home offers an advantage on a one on one basis, it does not give a more likely home vs away result in a 24 country knock out tournament. Away is more likely to win. it is written in black and white. anyone who denies that fact, is not very intelligent.

What part of my post says that that it will result in a home win in a 24 team tournament?

Sorry if i wasn't clear, my point was that playing at home offers an advantage to the home team in any game, as you yourself agree.

As for the 24 team tournament (or perhaps in reality 5 team if we are talking about the RWC, as suggested by my other post) it will have a cumulative effect over each game as pointed out by FA0019. It doesn't guarantee a home win but certainly not a hindrance although perhaps an argument could be made for added pressure.

If you ask any Sports coach if he'd prefer to play at home or away, I think he'd take home.

Sorry Andy- perhaps you came onto the thread a little later in the piece. The discussion was around the fact that world cups are easier to win at home than away. My argument was that an away side is more likely to win than a home side, making winning a cup at home harder than 'away' due to the presence of all the other countries.

Head to head I completely agree though.

Question for people, out of Shag and Meyer, who had the better RC? I say Shag because a team doesn't play like the ABs and win in SA's heartland through dumb luck. Well done Shag, coach of the RC.

No contest ebop. Meyer is about things to come. Shag is on the throne on his own at the no. Consistency and depth has never been better...

Phew, for a minute there I'd thought you'd popped out to get your bokke shirt dry cleaned Tman:) But you're showing some of us up with your balanced views though.

The SA thing for me has always been the fact that they've never been able to raise their test level much above their best sxv side the way we have. 2010 the stormers and bulls hammered our best but in the tests they didn't front. I've always thought their limited gameplan at the top was the main cause and have waited for the day when they finally woke up to it.

NZ looking good, but to be honest they always do. i cant remember the last tournament they weren't favourites.

NH RWCs, for whatever reason, have not been happy hunting grounds for NZ though. 3rd place and a 4th place in 3 NH world cups.

What happens in my opinion is that NZ get nervous when teams dont roll over, and they experience what England experience in every 6N - that all the NH nations have the ability to seriously raise their game on any given day in front of "home" crowds.

so if they do manage to win in england in 2015, it will indeed be an achievement.

quinsforever wrote:NZ looking good, but to be honest they always do. i cant remember the last tournament they weren't favourites.

NH RWCs, for whatever reason, have not been happy hunting grounds for NZ though. 3rd place and a 4th place in 3 NH world cups.

What happens in my opinion is that NZ get nervous when teams dont roll over, and they experience what England experience in every 6N - that all the NH nations have the ability to seriously raise their game on any given day in front of "home" crowds.

so if they do manage to win in england in 2015, it will indeed be an achievement.

doesnt really explain why we had 20 straight wins in front of NH home crowds prior to England last year and in the NH World cups (or any other) havnt actually lost a game to a home union team though...

only thing that worries us in World cups are the 3 z's..Suzy, Barnzey and Ozzie- all well documented on these pages...

AIs are not RWCs

Beating all Home Nations in RWCs is. We've only lost to France, Australia and SA in a World Cup hence your argument about home nations sides doesn't hold much water. Those 3 teams were better on the day. No shame in admitting that. They, particularly France, no doubt raised their games because they faced NZ. None of the games we lost were because we played poorly apart from perhaps 2003 and that was a lot to do with selection. It's just that the opposition played better. But that hasn't translated to RWC games against Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England.

Good points. But France twice I believe? Happy to be corrected as am away from computer.

I just see patterns. Like Aus thriving on adversity/confrontation - hence why they do so well in NH world cups. France being wildly unpredictable and nobody wants them in knockout stages (stuffed England last rwc in the first match they showed up for in qns), ire, wal, sco failing to match thieir best 6N form. And NZ awesome, but if group stages go too easily their way, they can struggle if a side refuses to roll over (eng always manage to roll over for NZ in rwcs sadly).

All just my views.

France in 99. From a neutral's perspective one of the greatest comebacks. France in 2007. When the gaps don't come and the defence holds like SA in 95 we struggle to use our weapon which is to score when it matters.

2003 we were naive in our selections and got outplayed early on and lacked composure to get back. 91 we were beaten by the better side. I don't think we can read much into so few RWCs. Australia in 2007 were beaten by England as well in the quarter final and the times they won they were the dominant side in world rugby. NZ had beaten them but they individually had the pick of the players. That said we were the dominant side throughout the tournament in 2007 and 1995 and came undone so we could definitely learn for example how Australia overcame banana skins like Ireland in 91.

This coming 2015 RWC will be interesting. Australia are in a pool of death and we have a weak pool with a potential France SA knockout progression to the final. Planning and preparation will be vital and experience will be needed to be called on from previous failures as to how to get this side up for the big matches with limited preparation. Personally Id prefer to swap with Australia the pools. Get them focused from the get go. That won't happen so the players must find a way to raise their performance for the knockout games.

quinsforever wrote:AIs are not RWCs

The 20 straight were all AIs since 2004 including 3 french 5 nations equivalent grand slams...one using two completely different sides. The non world cup wins by a home union side since 87 is on top of the 20 so although I get the point you are trying to make the examples you use couldn't be worse.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:France in 99. From a neutral's perspective one of the greatest comebacks. France in 2007. When the gaps don't come and the defence holds like SA in 95 we struggle to use our weapon which is to score when it matters.

2003 we were naive in our selections and got outplayed early on and lacked composure to get back. 91 we were beaten by the better side. I don't think we can read much into so few RWCs. Australia in 2007 were beaten by England as well in the quarter final and the times they won they were the dominant side in world rugby. NZ had beaten them but they individually had the pick of the players. That said we were the dominant side throughout the tournament  in 2007 and 1995 and came undone so we could definitely learn for example how Australia overcame banana skins like Ireland in 91.

This coming 2015 RWC will be interesting. Australia are in a pool of death and we have a weak pool with a potential France SA knockout progression to the final. Planning and preparation will be vital and experience will be needed to be called on from previous failures as to how to get this side up for the big matches with limited preparation. Personally Id prefer to swap with Australia the pools. Get them focused from the get go. That won't happen so the players must find a way to raise their performance for the knockout games.

pool of death - tell me about it...whoever comes out of that group is either going to be seriously battle hardened or seriously injured.

Yeah our world cup pools are always the worst possible buildup for the knockouts. Especially when the second seed decides to throw the match a LA Scotland. In the four years in between we wouldn't play easier sides over the whole period than we do in the 3-4 weeks of pool play. Rubbish prep where other sides get good workouts.

We get a second seed ranked 9 places lower, the rest far lower. No other side has anywhere near that gap to the next seed. And when when argie see the best thing to do is to rest players we end up with another social game.

Sure it goes with the territory but that doesn't make it a less valid point.

well maybe if you wouldnt win so many matches all the time you'd get a more competitive group come RWC  

Maybe we should throw the game against Japan in November. Get the NZRU to bet all their money on a Japan win through a third party, rocket us down the rankings and keep fixtures against Japan and make them into our bogey team and clandestine cash cow and get us some tough pool play for the next RWC.  

quinsforever wrote:well maybe if you wouldnt win so many matches all the time you'd get a more competitive group come RWC  

hence why I edited it before someone inevitably raised the obvious...looks like I wasn't quick enough...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Maybe we should throw the game against Japan in November. Get the NZRU to bet all their money on a Japan win through a third party, rocket us down the rankings and keep fixtures against Japan and make them into our bogey team and clandestine cash cow and get us some tough pool play for the next RWC.  

Yeah but Aaron smith would definitely lose his place at the highlanders kia...can't have that...

Taylorman wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Maybe we should throw the game against Japan in November. Get the NZRU to bet all their money on a Japan win through a third party, rocket us down the rankings and keep fixtures against Japan and make them into our bogey team and clandestine cash cow and get us some tough pool play for the next RWC.  

Yeah but Aaron smith would definitely lose his place at the highlanders kia...can't have that...

huh?