A serious question

I would like an honest answer to a serious question.
How do you perceive teams/players who have not
won a RWC or been member of that squad.
My own opinions on RWCS are well known and
really this applies more to NH teams.
Please note this has nothing to my Dads
bigger than your DAD thing.
France for example have the most SH heads on
there poles.Been in 3 Finals but never won one.
Wales and England outside the RWC are equal
virtually win/loss and tournaments etc.
DO you see players.teams that have not reached
a final as inferior beings.PLEASE be honest.
Because this PERCEPTION is what puts me
off RWCs.Love it when the unexpected screws
up the chessmasters pre tournament prognostications.

There are many different scenarios there Alan. Are Romania are lesser team? Have they ever won a World Cup? Is it because they've never won a World Cup? 

What about Scotland? France? Wales? Or England in the last decade?

GloriousEmpire wrote:There are many different scenarios there Alan. Are Romania are lesser team? Have they ever won a World Cup? Is it because they've never won a World Cup? 

What about Scotland? France? Wales? Or England in the last decade?

The original post was an interesting one and deserved a better follow-up than that.

NZ have been, year on year, the best team in the world (early 1990s aside) and yet could not translate that excellence into the RWC. Maybe the RWC is nothing more than an interesting sideshow. Look at the all time World Best XV lists - filled with players who never won a world cup.

This is a complex and fascinating question. Only one thing for sure - the definitive answer is unlikely to be found on 606v2.

GloriousEmpire wrote:There are many different scenarios there Alan. Are Romania are lesser team? Have they ever won a World Cup? Is it because they've never won a World Cup? 

What about Scotland? France? Wales? Or England in the last decade?

Why England ?You could have said Australia in the last 14 years.

I cant help but keep going back to putting the Wotld cup back into the context of time that it is, it is a three week event that occurs every 208 weeks.

It is a vital event for International rugby.

Just because a team/player has or has not played in a final really tells us nothing that we didnt know already. if a team ranked lower than fourth in the World makes it to the semi finals, then all it tells us is that they had a good three week tournament, nothing more.

Some teams regard nothing less then winning the final as a succesful tournament, they just happen to have higher demands/expectations/standards than others.

tigerleghorn wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:There are many different scenarios there Alan. Are Romania are lesser team? Have they ever won a World Cup? Is it because they've never won a World Cup? 

What about Scotland? France? Wales? Or England in the last decade?

Why England ?You could have said Australia in the last 14 years.

It was just an example. Jeeezus pickle. Why france? Why wales? Why the obsession with Every time I happen to mention ENG?

Casartelli wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:There are many different scenarios there Alan. Are Romania are lesser team? Have they ever won a World Cup? Is it because they've never won a World Cup? 

What about Scotland? France? Wales? Or England in the last decade?

The original post was an interesting one and deserved a better follow-up than that.

NZ have been, year on year, the best team in the world (early 1990s aside) and yet could not translate that excellence into the RWC.  Maybe the RWC is nothing more than an interesting sideshow.  Look at the all time World Best XV lists - filled with players who never won a world cup.

This is a complex and fascinating question.  Only one thing for sure - the definitive answer is unlikely to be found on 606v2.

To be fair, most of the "worlds best XV" lists are a load of old political/subjective twaddle suffering from ill-education, recentism and reflective of a brain too limited to produce anything more meaningful.

To win a World Cup in most cases you have to win the games that matter, not just 8 out of 10.

Is asafa powell a multi gold medal winning sprinter??? No, but he has the most sub 10sec 100 metre runs in history yet in the history books he will only go down as a fast sprinter who mentally couldn't cope with big match pressure.

It's why we have playoffs now in club rugby, it's why American sport is judged on not who wins the most games but which of the best teams can win the big ones in KO type matches.

How would England's history have been had they not won the World Cup in 2003???

People would have said they were the sports biggest chokers in pro times and not as good as they were heralded.... Yet look at the records they produced during that era...12 games won in a row vs the 3N sides, home and away and unbeaten in 3 years.... Even the mighty NZ haven't achieved that in the modern era.... Yet it would have all been laughed off as luck, chance etc.

It's not the be all and end all... Some teams get easier routes then others, everyone gets a little bit of luck as they win games but I don't think any team who hasn't won a World Cup at a given tournament ever deserved it over the team that eventually won it.

Winning a World Cup away from home is a fantastic achievement.

That's not to say that sides who haven't won a World Cup or have only won it at home are necessarily "inferior beings". There are plenty of very competent sides and players in this category.

I think we've actually already proved conclusively that winning a World Cup at home is a tougher task. Which is why only the best sides have achieved it.

Your 'proof' was a loads of cobblers as per usual mate

You'll win a Proper World Cup one day. Winning it at home is about the same as making the 1/4 Finals away from home.

France have been in the final 3 times sure... But does that mean they deserved to win one??? To be honest no, they were good in 87 but not even close to NZ at the time and it's been the same in all their subsequent final appearances.

In fact I would say their best chance, their best rwc performing team was in 95 when they were inches from the final. 07 they choked but were not good enough when they played badly to win... That's the key really, on your worst days, when you can hardly string a couple of passes/phases together... Can you still win???

SA in 95 did, Eng in 03 did, SA in 07 did and NZ in 11 also got through these barriers.... Lesser mentally wrong sides would have cracked at the key moments during those respected tournaments.

fa0019 wrote:
SA in 95 did, Eng in 03 did, SA in 07 did and NZ in 11 also got through these barriers.... Lesser mentally wrong sides would have cracked at the key moments during those respected tournaments.

Australia 91 deserve to be in that list - if nothing else for finding a way to win their 1/4 final when not playing well.

Australia 99 were a cracking team - but they were never really stretched.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think we've actually already proved conclusively that winning a World Cup at home is a tougher task. Which is why only the best sides have achieved it.

GE - you may say it but even from you I find it impossible to believe you actually think that.

If you know mathematics at all you would know what your saying is complete bull. You and some of your compatriots said earlier that given their is 1 home team and 19 away teams then the home team should only have a 5% chance of winning.... Compared to 95% chance of an away team winning.

That's voodoo logic on a gross scale, any mathematician would laugh at you. Only if the teams were all of equal measure, that there was no such thing as home advantage on a individual game basis and all other factors were equal amongst all sides would what you say hold water. is that the case???

Name one example where playing at home is a disadvantage???

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
SA in 95 did, Eng in 03 did, SA in 07 did and NZ in 11 also got through these barriers.... Lesser mentally wrong sides would have cracked at the key moments during those respected tournaments.

Australia 91 deserve to be in that list - if nothing else for finding a way to win their 1/4 final when not playing well.

Australia 99 were a cracking team - but they were never really stretched.

Good one vietgwent on 91.

Ah but in 7 RWCs the home team has only won 3 times, while away teams have won 4. So therefore it must be harder to win at home!

Or of course you could say that Home teams represented 5% of the competitors yet provided 42% of the winners - so it is easier to win at home!


Or you could just look at the tournaments themselves. Can anyone find a tournament where the host were the best team yet failed to win?

1991 - England were 3rd best team entering the tournament - at best.
1999 - Wales were not in good shape.
2003 - Australia were 3rd best team at best.
2007 - France were in shocking shape. They may have been affected by home pressures - but they were still rubbish.

Vietgwent

I agree, It's voodoo logic... That's assuming that all teams are equal in all tournaments. Mathematically it makes no sense.

By saying a home team has only 1/20 chance and away teams have 19/20 chance is the same as having the following game...

20 cards are placed face down on a table. They all have one unique team on them, the backs are the same and you have to pick one and that card decides which team wins the rugby World Cup or any other similar competition. Does that makes sense??? No, thought not.

You could even run that game through tournament style 1 on 1 matches ups.... But that would give Georgia the same chance of winning as South Africa. If people are fine with that statement then I imagine things we see as simple tasks such as buying a loaf of bread, brushing your teeth is an uphill struggle for them.

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think we've actually already proved conclusively that winning a World Cup at home is a tougher task. Which is why only the best sides have achieved it.

GE - you may say it but even from you I find it impossible to believe you actually think that.

If you know mathematics at all you would know what your saying is complete bull. You and some of your compatriots said earlier that given their is 1 home team and 19 away teams then the home team should only have a 5% chance of winning.... Compared to 95% chance of an away team winning.

That's voodoo logic on a gross scale, any mathematician would laugh at you. Only if the teams were all of equal measure, that there was no such thing as home advantage on a individual game basis and all other factors were equal amongst all sides would what you say hold water. is that the case???

Name one example where playing at home is a disadvantage???

No you're completely misrepresenting the maths.

Great reply GE, is that all you have?

You're better than that surely??? Don't leave me disappointed

I think world cups are the real deal but i look at a player the individual, not on World cups but on Lions recognition "meaning even if not ever a test team player but a call up alone proves they are one of the best"
As far as teams thou you rate success on things won,this does not mean the likes of Scotland and England are a poor team because they haven't won much lately it just means when going into a game against them you know you will probably win.

When I asked the question I was seriously interested in the answers
but as usual it has been hijacked by the usual suspects.
I don`t care a fig about RWC`s and the answer there the best for
the Tournament sums it up for me.
Home advantage doesn't count?So right Cyril that's NZ 1987[which didn't
count anyway]2011 plus the Boks 1995.
Were`nt home sides beaten Finalists in 1991 and 2003?
Was`nt 2007 the nearest thing to Genuine knockout Tournament
with most of the Tier 1 sides falling at the Group/Qtr Final stage.
What has England`s undoubted 12 wins versus the SH sides 2000-3
or unbeaten for 3 years to do with the question?
That was a great side no one doubts it but how many wins were versus the
Boks in that era?[can`t be bothered to check it]But AllBlacks played Boks
10 times in the same period and lost once.
Wales as an example have poor recent records versus SH sides and at RWC`s
but have 3 Grand Slams and a back to back6Ns to show for it.
Does the fact Brian o`Driscoll and Shane Williams inferior to say Stephen Donald
and Hosae Gear.The Latter two have RWC Winnners medals,one for 40 minutes
Rugby.The Second for holding the tackle bags there were a lot of journeyman
besides stars with RWC`s Winners Medals.
The answer as is being drummed into me by the telly winning a world title is
one thing.Defending it another and it annoys me when people put down teams
who have been good players too.Because they haven't won an RWC are looked
down on.
The bickering between England and Wales fans especially whenever it gets heated
it`s rememember SCW`s side and the World Cup.THAT wore pretty thin in the10
years since for the team with more Players/resources than any other Country.
My Bona Fides and Opinions are well known as are my prejudices and I try to
be objective when commenting.

fa0019 wrote:Vietgwent

I agree, It's voodoo logic... That's assuming that all teams are equal in all tournaments. Mathematically it makes no sense.

By saying a home team has only 1/20 chance and away teams have 19/20 chance is the same as having the following game...

20 cards are placed face down on a table. They all have one unique team on them, the backs are the same and you have to pick one and that card decides which team wins the rugby World Cup or any other similar competition. Does that makes sense??? No, thought not.

You could even run that game through tournament style 1 on 1 matches ups.... But that would give Georgia the same chance of winning as South Africa. If people are fine with that statement then I imagine things we see as simple tasks such as buying a loaf of bread, brushing your teeth is an uphill struggle for them.

It might be voodoo logic to you fa but it is just as voodoo to leave the statement winning world cups at home is easier than winning them away without qualifying that statement.

For one- by that statement alone, it has been proven wrong as 4 have won away and 3 at home.

So what is your qualifification of that statement.

If theres none then Wales have more chance of winning at home than NZ has in Wales?

dont think so...yet left unqualified that is the reality of the statement.

All you are saying is a side is more likely to win ITSELF at home than away. That is all you can take from that statement.

So put your 20 cards back on the table and make some bigger and more likely to be chosen.

Another fact is NZ are more likely to win the World cup anywhere than anyone else.
Why? Because they are ranked higher, havnt lost to most sides for a very long time etc etc...

Then you'll say they havnt won them all? oh really...but neither has the home team won more either...so which is the voodoo logic here?

fa0019 wrote:Great reply GE, is that all you have?

You're better than that surely??? Don't leave me disappointed

I've given up trying to explain it to you. It's pretty simple really. Try again, you'll get there!!

More logic on the home and away thing.

Statement: A SH side is more likely to win the W Cup if its based in the NH than a home NH side.

Why? Because they usually have the highest ranked countries in attendance

Results: 91, 99, 2007- all won by SH sides.

Goes without saying its the same in the SH with England winning one of the 4 held.

So the Home vs away thing really doesnt apply to any likely winner of a tournament. All it says is its more likely for any specific side to win at home, than away.

But winning it at all, requires other factors, and so far being ranked in the top 3 applies regardless of where its played, making home or away negligible in terms of actually winning it.

I think NZ are the prime example of this really, they are and have been (between RWCs) the best team around but for some reason they failed to turn that in to WC wins, does that make them any less a team or their players any less a player no, they are still th bench mark for others.

Just aside and touching on the round ball but how many 'great' players have never played in a WC - Georgie Best was prime example but he was still a genius of that round ball game.

External pressure when playing a 'home' RWC can become unbearable, and when mixed with internal team pressure, a campaign can become derailed if a team is not made of the right stuff.

Internal pressure to perform at 'away' RWCs may be difficult to generate and hiccups occur when teams can't reach fever pitch without external pressure so they under perform (like several AB efforts).

Dunno if that made sense or is even true

Clearly the ABs are strong at home and I'd bank the house on us winning RWCs at home. I'd still bank the house on us winning away RWCs but that's why I live under a bridge.

ebop,

I think external pressure on the Blacks was becoming huge prior to 2011 due to the fact that as mentioned they were the best in the world between cups but until then failed to deliver.

emack2 wrote:DO you see players.teams that have not reached a final as inferior beings.

No, but..........


RWCs put a strange pressure on teams and players and we have seen teams fail to cope well with the pressure of knock out rugby. This has to have some impact on the way we view those teams. thus it would now be hard for me to view a team as a "Great" one if they had failed to perform well in an RWC.

I guess too it depends upon how you view Rugby, and what is important to the individual viewer. For me it is the sporting confrontation between the teams, watching how they overcome their opponents, adversity and sometimes the ref to achieve victory. I can find plenty to enjoy in a dour slugfest on a wet and muddy February day. My youngest grandson when watching however wants tries - and the more the better. He seems to view try saving tackles as stealing him of the try.


So no I do not view teams/players who have not won an RWC as inferior - but I do mark those who have a little higher than if they had not. So Dan Carter>Stephen Donald - but Stephen Donald WC Winner> Stephen Donald surf bum.

I look back on that 95 RWC team as one of my all time favourite teams. The fact they didn't win doesn't detract from that.

I see the England team of 2007 as more impressive in a way than 2003. The 2003 go down as one of the greatest teams but that turnaround was more impressive than Wales' in this year's 6N. Similar to France in 2011. Unfortunately nobody remembers those who don't win but that does not mean we should dismiss their achievements.

Your gripe Alan is that the top teams don't necessarily face each other. But the unpredictable nature is what appeals to people. If we all played each other twice and then seeded the knockout games like Super rugby, the winners would be predictable. The fact that an element of luck or the draw or a side who plays out of their skin make for compelling viewing.

Over time I think the statistical kinks will iron themselves out. The top football teams lead the World Cup stats. The same applies in rugby and no winner yet has been undeserving. Winning trophies is how you measure success. Be it 6n RC Bledisloe etc. the RWC is no different.

We shouldn't dismiss teams who have won it but unfortunately we don't appreciate those who don't. Harsh and unfair but a fact of life. Suck it up and come back stronger. Kia kaha

The whole thread has sadly got back to the RWC,not about the original one.
Six of the seven RWC`s have been won by SH sides Fact.
That the SH sides concerned were all rated 1-3 IRB IF it existed 2003 excepted Fact
Three of the seven RWCs were won by Homesides, Fact.
Two of the other Four were contested by Homesides Fact
Six of the RWCs were contested by NH sides Fact
No SH side has won a 3/4Ns and a RWC Fact
No team that has lost a match in the RWC Fact
Only the AllBlacks have won a decent number of matches post RWC Fact
The All Blacks have beaten the new RWC holder first up every RWC Fact
The All Blacks have been the most successful team between RWC`s Fact
You can win a RWC by only facing a Tier 1 side twice Fact
Now that's out of the way can we PLEASE answer the original question?

Unfortunately Alan the framing of your question makes it impossible to answer it without mentioning the RWC. Your OP should point out that England as well as France have 3 finals each and England won one of them so they have a better record. I rate the 2007's narrow final loss as their greatest achievement but everyone remembers 2003. Fair enough, as that was the NH's only win and the games leading up to that make it stand out more. I'd be more proud of the 2007 effort as an England fan given their context.

But let me ask you this Alan. Which NZ side do you consider great who didn't win the 3N? Same framing and the answer will be ad equally underwhelming. Who cares. Winning every game counts. Doesn't matter the competition.

We didnt beat oz first up after they won 91 Alan- we lost the series in 92 2-1 winning only the third, but yes weve beaten every other winner first up. But in answer to the question Im with kia on the 95 side- one of the truly great AB sides- and Lomu- still by far the leading try scorer in world cup history, and established a huge profile in 95 like no other player before or since, and specifically targeted by the Boks as central to their gameplan in no way makes him a lesser player than those who have won the trophy.

But World cups, whether we like it or not defines a sides measure of success. Before NZ won it in 11 they were never generally the best side because 'they hadnt won the world cup.

Now that argument has been watered down to add the word...'away' but doesnt hold as much conviction.

I think oz have generally got the balance right. Most of their great players did win the RWC.

NO KIA,that isn`t my point at all as 2007 proved the RWC is a lottery as it should be in
a knock out Tournament.
My problem or question is the idea that because a team or player hasn't won a RWC
that they are there to be belittled.
It did`nt bug me that 1987-2011 the All Blacks failed to win the RWC because I KNEW
they were STILL the best team head to head in the World.
With notable exceptions AllBlacks were Bookies Favourites in every RWC WHY?
In 1991 Australia had overtaken them,1999 that was probably also true,2003 England
was obviously Favourites.2007 was a freak result no one could predict so many Tier 1
casualties at such an early stage.
ONLY 1987 and 2011 were they clear favourites and given the number of wins against
them since1903 how could they not be.
My point is EVERY Test Match counts,a Test Match is just that there are no such thing
as FRIENDLIES just because it isn`t a RWC.
That teams deserve respect and shouldn't be put down just because they haven't won
a RWC.
I fear France more than any other side other than the top2 SH sides such is there record
12 AB wins,11 Bok wins,no doubt similar Aus wins.
3 RWC Finals but no cigar the arch "Chokers"funny it`s only the AB`s sadled with that
tag.
RESPECT where it`s due team or player that's what it s all about not a little gold pot/medal

Between RWCs, I don't give a hoot who the reigning holders are. There, answered your 'serious' question emack. Bit boring isn't it.

And SA Tman. 1995 was more heartbreaking than 2007 but just shows how a soft pool leaves you susceptible to being ambushed. That 2007 team was still formidable and what they achieved in Europe with two separate teams was incredible. But add in 1999 and less so 2003 and 1991 as the opponents were the equal if not better than us and you have to applaud the other teams' performances to undo us. Still means I hold in high esteem the 95 team and 2007 teams regardless of their RWC heartbreak.

Well Alan there's not a lot you can do about that. My username was born out of that criticism of NZ because of their failure at RWCs. Didn't stop me from supporting my team and it didn't support you. Doesn't matter what other people think. They're entitled to their opinion. Sounds like you want to convert everybody's thinking that NZ are the greatest team. Good luck with that! But what they can't take away is your belief that they are. Just be happy with that and don't belittle other teams' RWC achievements. They all deserved it.

Again my point is overlooked,it is NOT making out the AllBlacks are a great side.
The Record books show that ALL teams have highs and lo`s the Boks,England.
Wales,France,Scotland,Ireland,Australia all have had periods of dominance .
EVERY MATCH matters not just a RWC,and saying the AllBlacks are the best[or whoever]
DOES`NT answer my question nor was never mean`t to.
Incidentally TMAN,I was aware the AB`s lost the series1991 2-1 BUT they were the
first side to obtain a win versus the new RWC holders in EVERY CASE.
As to the best AB side not to win a RWC probably 2005,think they proved it 2006.
AGAIN THAT IS NOT THEPOINT OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Vietgwent

I agree, It's voodoo logic... That's assuming that all teams are equal in all tournaments. Mathematically it makes no sense.

By saying a home team has only 1/20 chance and away teams have 19/20 chance is the same as having the following game...

20 cards are placed face down on a table. They all have one unique team on them, the backs are the same and you have to pick one and that card decides which team wins the rugby World Cup or any other similar competition. Does that makes sense??? No, thought not.

You could even run that game through tournament style 1 on 1 matches ups.... But that would give Georgia the same chance of winning as South Africa. If people are fine with that statement then I imagine things we see as simple tasks such as buying a loaf of bread, brushing your teeth is an uphill struggle for them.

It might be voodoo logic to you fa but it is just as voodoo to leave the statement winning world cups at home is easier than winning them away without qualifying that statement.

For one- by that statement alone, it has been proven wrong as 4 have won away and 3 at home.

So what is your qualifification of that statement.

If theres none then Wales have more chance of winning at home than NZ has in Wales?

dont think so...yet left unqualified that is the reality of the statement.

All you are saying is a side is more likely to win ITSELF at home than away. That is all you can take from that statement.

So put your 20 cards back on the table and make some bigger and more likely to be chosen.

Another fact is NZ are more likely to win the World cup anywhere than anyone else.
Why? Because they are ranked higher, havnt lost to most sides for a very long time etc etc...

Then you'll say they havnt won them all? oh really...but neither has the home team won more either...so which is the voodoo logic here?

Taylorman

Viewing the statement that the “host nation” has only won 3 of the last 7 world cups on its own is not a useful guide onto the merits of home advantage and disregards a number of key points.

The idea of home advantage doesn’t dictate that the home team should be automatically favourites but rather enhances individual performance.

In 2003 AUS hosted the RWC, does that mean they failed because they didn’t win the competition? On the face of it without any rugby knowledge given they were hosts and defending champions you could say yes... but looking at other factors such as the relative strengths of their peers (i.e. ENG & NZ at the time) then what they achieved was significantly improved on their immediate form and expectations.  
Both ENG & NZ were seen as considerably better sides at the time; England had prior to the tournament beaten them 4 matches in a row leading up to the tournament and NZ had won 3 out of the last 4, yet they overcame NZ in the SF and took England to extra time (a standard match would have counted the game as a draw). In that case, AUS over achieved expectations.

Home advantage is about exceeding expectations, it’s not about being automatic favourites, it’s not a defining factor in itself into ultimate success. There is no one key indicator.

In 2012 London hosted the summer Olympics and came 3rd in the medal table... was it a failure that they didn’t come 1st? Of course not, given they achieved their highest gold medal haul in 100 years and improved their gold medal haul by 53% on the previous Olympics their performance can be seen as exceeding their potential.
In fact, if you look at the last 7 summer Olympics you will see that the number of gold medals increased for the host nation by 53%, 59%, 50%, 78%, 19%, 1200% & 100% respectively from London to Seoul from their previous Olympics.

Has there ever been a RWC team which has under achieved during a home tournament? Of the years where the host did not win only 07 could you argue the team didn't reach as far as realistically possible and then getting that far itself was an achievement for France.

When Japan and Korea hosted the FIFA world cup does that mean given they were unfancied teams that home advantage didn't count... well one got to the SF and the other got to the QF... neither had reached the 2nd round before and since then in the last 2 tournaments Japan have got to the 2nd round once and Korea have once again failed to get out of their group.

In Rugby, look forward 50 years and I doubt no other team will be on the trophy bar perhaps France (and thats a big if still), thats not dismissing other sides as being unable to be beat singular teams on any given day but to get so good they beat all teams over the course of a tournament and win tough matches even when they play poorly, I don't see teams like Wales, Ireland, Argentina doing that and history would suggest this.

Ireland, Italy, Argentina, Japan will/perhaps host the RWC during that period yet they won't win the trophy.... but I don't doubt they're performances will improve with the home support. It doesn't mean however that when SA hosts the RWC their chances of winning the trophy will improve because they are one of the few teams to realistically have a chance of winning the trophy nearly every competition so come their time to host the trophy again they will as ever be one of the few teams to beat.

Your original question depends on which team you support. My support for the 1995 1999 and 2007 teams did not diminish. In the eyes of neutrals they did. That's hardly surprising.

The 1991 and 2003 sides' defeats were symptoms of things already wrong with those sides. The three aforementioned stand out as they were good enough to win and were shock losers. Doesn't mean I hold them in less regard than 2011 or 1987. That's what's called a fair weather supporter.

The best team I've seen in my lifetime was probably the 97 All blacks...well until this current lot anyways..  

The Ireland team of 2006/7 should have put in a serious challenge for the RWC and the failure of that team in particular will always take away from a great period in Irish rugby history.

I don't think it takes away so much from individuals - you can have great players in not so great sides - but it probably takes away from a team... at least it adds to a team if they've won the RWC.

emack2 wrote:
AGAIN THAT IS NOT THEPOINT OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

I thought your original question was "Do you think players or teams who do not make World Cup Finals are inferior beings". Hard to tell as there was no question mark - but that was the question I answered. If that was not the question - well could you please repeat just the question and I will try to answer it.

Alan

To answer your original question as requested....

I worry if you actually think that there are many of us out there that see a RWC winner as a pre-requisite to greatness.  From a players perspective , outside the big 5 its simply not a possible target realistically. It doesn't take away their abilities but it will always leave a question mark on how good they actually were.

In terms of tier 1 (3N + ENG & FRA) sides, greatness is often determined by performances when it matters most, the clutch moments, its what separates a modern day great bok from a very good bok. How would we have determined Charlie Hodgson from Jonny Wilkinson on club rugby alone? Hodgson in that element was argubly better.

Test rugby is how we measure greatness these days.

How does Ryan Giggs get viewed as a player on an international scale? Like George Best he will become a footnote unfortunately. How would they have performed at the crucial moment, we will never know and it will always be open to debate. You can't say the same for a chap like Zidane though.. yet he was equipped with the right team to perform, Giggs, Best etc weren't... its not like football or rugby is an individual sport like tennis.

If you look at rugby's major awards its based on test rugby... therefore technically how can a guy from say Georgia compete to be named the worlds best player?

Its similar from a team perspective, fail to win the highest honour and no matter how great your team was, people will forget as those who witnessed it pass away. We like winners, very few now remember the Hungary side of Puskas but it was apparently the great side of the era (1950s).

My problem for want of a better word is that I consider EVERY Test Match important NOT
just if it happens in a RWC.
I DON`T look on the 1991,and 2007 England sides as failures and 2003 a success.
France`s failure to win one as shameful or anyother ephiphet.
I DON`T consider the RWC as difficult to win as a 3/4N or a 6N Tournament and 2007
proved that random chance does occur.
Charlie Hodgeson was a very good player,for one half versus NzMaori on an England tour
he gave the best allround performance of ANY ENgland10 I`ve ever seen.
Jonny Wilkinson was a great player BUT would he have been so lauded if he was the
starting 10 in England 2004-10 in every match.
England 10`s after JW as with NZ Dan Carter a case of the tall poppy syndrome NOPLAYER
was going to do.Hodgeson,Cipriani,Barkley,Flood,now Farrell all have lived in his shadow.
2003 was a Great England side and the RWC a great finale,BUT so were England in the 1930`s
and under Rowell and Cooke.
Knock out Tournaments by there nature can never be like Tours or League style Tournaments.
THAT doesn't mean these are greater or lesser tournaments just different.
THE ONLY interest a RWC has for me is when the surprise team upsets the applecart and
there is always one.

Actually I would argue that England under Cooke and Rowell were very good teams but not great ones.

For me the RWC is now the premier International competition - because of the pressure and the scarcity of it. Ask any All Black without an RWC winners medal if they would swap a tri-nations title for one.

For me, for a team to achieve greatness they have to do something that is quite rare - a series win in SA or NZ for instance. Now the current New Zealand team would still be regarded by most of us as a great one even had they lost the final of RWC2011 - but there would have been serious doubts about their ability to actually deliver the goods under pressure. Thankfully they stumbled over the finishing line and we had the "right" winners.

So Viet which would you choose a RWC or a 3-0 series win in NZ?

nganboy wrote:So Viet which would you choose a RWC or a 3-0 series win in NZ?

Neither are very likely for any NH team right now. While winning 3-0 in NZ would probably be the bigger achievement but would make barely a ripple in the non-rugby sporting world - posterity would remember the RWC winners more. If I were a modern player - I woudl probnably take the RWC medal - as something to show my kids and grand kids.

Ask Sean Fitzpatrick which he holds closer to his heart... his RWC winners medal or his achievement being the only AB captain to win a series in SA. I would bet a lot of money he would say the SA series.

To the world the RWC would be seen as more important. In NZ for the rugby public deep in their hearts they will know what was more difficult.

I don't think world cups are the be all and end all for judging teams but they are important as it gives people the chance/another chance to judge your team against all others. Clearly you have the AIs or summer tours but a lot of the time you find coaches developing new players or a host of excuses which come with defeats.

If you've swept all before you for a couple of years like NZ it really won't add much gloss (a little always helps though) whereas a team like England or Wales should be looking at the next WC as a chance to prove themselves after some mixed results in the recent past.

Which pretty much sums it up a 3-0 win in NZ a mere blip but a won RWC a great memory.
Not sure but don`t think any side has beaten Nz 3-0 in NZ. Certainly 2-0 until another NH
side wins a RWC that`s just about it.
Currently EVERY England team,coach,and player has to live up to RWC`s side one that
did many great things.BUT took 8 years in the making a lost RWC,a loss score overall
versus the AllBlacks and not a few Grand Slams missed.
As an England and Scotland fan as well as an AllBlack one look to the future now not the past.
It`s getting a bit like Alf Ramsey RWC 1966 now incidentally THE best Soccer sides I`ve
seen Brazil aside.Were Puskas Hungarians and Hollands total football sides with Cruyff/Neeskens.THEY didn't win a RWC either it was teutonic efficiency that triumphed
over innovation and talent.

Confirmed,just checked the side that wins a series 3-0 in NZ will be the first EVER.
NOW that would be something to brag about to your Grandkids achieving something
no other side has done before.
Come to that don`t think any side has beaten Boks 3-0,or 4-0 at home either.

Not sure i follow all your points there emack but my point about the 2003 team would be thatthey are considered Englands best team not because they won the WC but because of what went before for 2 or 3 years. The WC was the cherry on top but they would still be at the top of the pedestal. Likewise if we had somehow fluked the 2007 final that team would not be considered a great. It would be a great achievement to beat NZ 3 0 away but if England were to lose all the 6N games win 3 0 then go out to be knocked out in the group stages no one will be gloating about the team.