A serious question

First topic message reminder :

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.

Winning everything matters to NZ fans. A perfect record in the RC is a phenomenal record over two years. Is that enough? No we want to beat everyone up north and then hold out England, win all the RC games and then win the RWC the next year. Those are the expectations of the team. Somewhere we'll come unstuck as we can't expect to win all our games. No matter where and when we lose we'll be reminded of that. Nobody wants to see a team win all the time unless you're a fan of that team. Rival fans will dig for the deepest root and the RWC has been a way of doing that as we've had a poor record for said standards. If we start winning more RWCs people will say but you lost to us in the autumn or June or wherever and whoever we have lost more. That's only natural. If you don't want to give relevance to the RWC Alan, then my advice is not to mention it. Don't think of the colour orange. What colour are you thinking of? Black? Case closed. Good man and move on with your life.

emack2 wrote:...BUT they were the first side to obtain a win versus the new RWC holders in EVERY CASE..

Perhaps I've missed something in your other posts, but the first team to beat England after they won the World Cup in 2003 was Ireland.

SA lost to AUS first also in 96.

It happened to the 91, 99 and 07 winners but not the 95 or 03 winners.

Not sure it means much though.

emack2 wrote: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.

closest was the lions in 74.. won 3-0 drawing the final and 4th test.

But did those 74 Lions win a World Cup. Otherwise they achieved nothing.  

RWC would be the biggest achievement from my perspective as a fan. It only comes around every 4 years. So realistically most top international players will get 1 or 2 shots at it if they are lucky. Not winning it doesnt mean that players or a team are rubbish. But winning it, for me, is the crowning achievement of world rugby. The pressure, nerves, enmities, etc are all brought to a crescendo at that tournament. Its a one of a kind.

England, in spite of having a pretty poor record over the last few years at intl level, are very focused on RWC, as opposed to 6N. And the 2003 win, and subsequent gutting of the experienced team by retirement, cause real weakness and lack of consistency for a few year. But i personally would take that any day if it meant we had a shot at RWC.

"DO you see players.teams that have not reached
a final as inferior beings."

Most definitely not. The nature of sport is that you are only as good as your last game. That's why 'winning' is so important. When your last game is a RWC final and you won then you can bask in a large amount of glory but only until your next game.

NZ win more than most. They have members in their team now that have not won a RWC but they still keep winning. Clearly they are the best team in the world at this point in time. They will stay like that until some other team beats them. (I wish).

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:But did those 74 Lions win a World Cup. Otherwise they achieved nothing.  

They have never even qualified for one Kia, even Namibia and Spain achieved that... the Lions are obviously useless!!!

Of course non-RWC winning players are inferior beings. They define themselves as such by not winning.

Just as earthlings are inferior beings. I despise both.

What about players pre 87 how are they defined?

bedfordwelsh wrote:What about players pre 87 how are they defined?

They don't exist (except in Alan's scrapbook)

In black and white grainy pictures. No HD pre-1987.

Like it or not rugby for some starts with the professional era. It didn't count before. It was just jolly good fun.

For others we'd like to be more informed about the past. Might I suggest Alan for some future posts picking a particular tour, going through the schedule and star players and the highlights of that tour. I think many like me would be interested in hearing for example about the Invincibles tour and comparing that with a modern day tour.

What this thread of yours has shown is that we need to know more about rugby before the World Cup was even thought up. Teach us Ob Alan. You're our only hope.

Cyril wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:What about players pre 87 how are they defined?

They don't exist (except in Alan's scrapbook)

Didn't they get beat 3-1 by the boks the year before???

Richard Branson bought Iggy's head at a Christy's sale in '89. Still drunk even then, it was reported in the Sun.

Me try and educate you? what`s the point you know it all.
Pointless stating defacto RWC existed from 1921 that with
the exception of 1937.SAvNZ the defacto World champions
was decided by Home advantage and that after 60 years
the only difference was 5 games.
That 1986 the NZ Cavaliers a team that was NOT an All
Black side did indeed lose 3-1 to the Boks.THAT side
by the record on games won/lost was THE most successful
side NZ legal or not sent to the Republic.
Of course Rugby Union didn't exist before 1995 and it
wasn't the Greatest year in some south Africans lives.
THAT1956 wasn't the GREATEST year in NZ`s Rugby
history.
Of Course the Lions didn't exist before 1995 so they
couldn't possibly have won Series in SA or NZ.
That Mike Gibson,Duncan Edwards,Barry John,
Willie John Mc Bride.Were not worthy to blacken
let alone lace the boots o f England 2003 side.
No point just the drooling ravings of a senile old fart.

Alan I don't buy the theory that the 3/4N is harder to win than the world cup. It is easier for NZ to win because it suits a frontrunner, a side that relies on a higher level of consistency to come out on top over a series of matches. That is why nz are usually the winners and ranked no.1.

The world cup has different dynamics for a clear frontrunner. For one, it has to play in a pool vs sides it normally wouldn't consider playing outside the tournament due to the gulf in ability of the two sides. And with the one potential tough match in the last pool game, the opposition usually plays a reserved approach, saving itself for the knockouts.

That means 4 weeks of little competition as preparation for a tough one off winner take all match, usually against a side that has already been tested to its fullest.

This is why the wcup is toughest for nz. The prep then one off nature does not suit a side looking to use consistency of performance as its key strength.

For that reason you dismiss it as a true contest when in reality the ABs aren't in a position to do that. They have to front and have to learn how to overcome these obstacles. In 07 the french won their first test vs nz after losing the 10 or so before it. Consistency guarantees an overall leading position but not a one off.

Prior to collecting the 2011 RWC NZ would often drop a game in the RC - is it portentious that they have now won two back to back clean sweeps? Perhaps they've learned the art of not dropping tournament games?

They now have a very impressive record of consecutive tournament game victories. The longest in history in fact.

emack2 wrote:...That Mike Gibson, Duncan Edwards, Barry John, Willie John Mc Bride. Were not worthy to blacken let alone lace the boots of England 2003 side...

If anyone actually held that view, you might have a point. Instead Gibson, McBride and John regularly appear in lists of all-time greats. Meanwhile, there are rugby supporters today who might well struggle to name all the members of that England side.

Duncan Edwards was a fine footballer and a great loss to Man Utd and England. I suspect that was just a small slip and you mean Gareth, He doesn't just feature in those lists, he usually tops them.

Alan, I'm not quite getting this thread.

You seem to be taking umbrage at things that haven't been posted.

I'm sure nobody seriously thinks that the World Cup is the be-all and end-all or that rugby only started with the WC Age/professionalism.

We know you don't like world cups but hey, some folk do. It's the only time that everyone gets together for a big knees-up.

I certainly don't think nations (or great players) that haven't won it are "inferior". It sometimes gets used in the NH for bragging rights but if you can't do that with a World Cup win, when can you?

As someone else posted above the World Cup win for England was fantastic for us and a solid confirmation of what had been achieved in the years before. It would have been very disappointing if that final peak hadn't been achieved (it almost wasn't as the side was already on the slide by then).

Different strokes for different folks. Whatcha talkin bout Alan!

Irony ,Cyril it seems some people see me as a sad old man so YES I`ll bite.

Alan, you are NOT a sad, old man

We all view things differently. That's part of the fun!

Cyril will only ever talk about the 2003 world cup because the Final was the first game he had ever watched on tv.

Actually misread Kia`s post IF anyone is interested would be happy to discuss Nz Tours and
Tours to Nz up to Lions 1993 tour.Or maybe some of the old great players I have a comprehensive library dated but covers most up to about 1993 or law changes that may
have effected the way game is /was played.Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.
As an example wonder if the 1963 side that Toured Europe. Whether they would have
been the first team to beat the Boks in SA. IF they had toured there BUT then a lot of the
team wouldn't be picked because of Apartheid etc.

I think many, including me, would be interested in learning more or finding out about the past with rugby Alan. So if you wouldn't mind, I for one would read those kinds of posts with great interest.  

In my view the RWC has a lot to do with luck.

The top teams inevitably qualify for the knock out rounds, but dependant on how the pool selections panned out you might get an easier run in to the knock out rounds.

An astute coach works out his route before hand, Kitch Christie in 1995 knew if he beat the then reigning champions Australia in the pool rounds he would have the easier route to the final.

In 2007 Jake White knew if he beat The reigning champions England in the pool rounds he would have an easier route.

Sometimes that luck can turn around though. SA were on the right side of the draw to meet NZ in the semi's, but then Oz went and lost to Ireland which effectively out the top three teams to meet and eliminate each other before the final.

France was woeful in 2011 losing to Tonga and NZ in the pool rounds, but somehow managed to get through on the "easier" draw to the final.

Their performance in the final proved undoubtedly that if you can find a way to the final, you have a chance.

So in my view there is a lot of luck assisting you to get to a final. Once there, the pressure of winning the cup levels the playing field quite drastically.

The RWC is not about luck it is about the chess game,draws 3 years before etc.
There should be no seeds if you are good enough to win it you will just beat all
you meet.
A blind draw at each stage stops that the excuse of not having all the top teams
in the same group doesn't wash.
Chances of the top 4 sides being in the same group are astronomical.
There should be no such thing as the easy side to the draw.

There are always an easy side to the draw. You cannot ignore the facts.

Having blind draws in international cup competitions where games are spread over a nation/nations would be a logistical nightmare.

Seedings are part and parcel of international cup competitions. Like it or not, the success and interest of a tournament for the neutral fans in the home nation often involves the bigger sides making the business end of the knockout stages.

Removing seedings wouldn't necessarily help a weaker nation or make things 'fairer' or more exciting.

Agree Cyril, but the seedings in itself is not done in the best manner possible.

I think 6 months prior to the start of the world cup is the best time to draw seedings, but even then, you need to seed them correctly.

Pool 1 - 1, 8, 9, 16, 17
Pool 2 - 4, 5, 12, 13. 20
Pool 3 - 3, 6, 11, 14, 19
Pool 4 - 2, 7, 10, 15, 20

QF's
winner pool 1 vs runner up pool 2
winner pool 2 vs runner up pool 1
winnier pool 3 vs runner up pool 4
winner pool 4 vs runner up pool 3

Semi finals.
winner of QF 1 vs Winner of QF 2
Winner of QF 3 vs Winner of QF 4

Final.

That is how tennis works, the players that are ranked top prior to the tournament is drawn in different pools as to "ideally" have the top ranked 4 meet in the semi finals.

Rugby should work the same way.

In other words, rank 1 vs rank 4 in one semi
and rank 2 vs rank 3 in the other semi.

Clearing the rankings are done too early for the WC. As much as I enjoyed Wales' run of results they were always bound to improve when they got important players back such as Jones and now we're left with Aus, Eng and Wales in a group and I have a terrible nagging worry.

bilt/7.5

Agreed, seedings are done too early and by the time the tournament comes around they often don't reflect form/current standing. It does add an extra element of getting your ranking sorted when you need to and peaking at the right time. There are always going to be so-called 'group of death' situations however you slice it.

Is 6 months enough time to sort out all the logistics for the holding nation, participants and supporters?

bilt, your seeding idea makes sense in a logical way but I think it's maybe a bit too clinical. I see the need for groups of seeded sides but stil think there should be a 'drawn' element within each 'seed group' to add a bit of random chance rather than just

Seeding in tennis is a bit more complicated isn't it? It's based not just on world ranking but form on a particular surface etc?

The seedings as they are merely reward consistency over basing your RWC campaign on performance spikes.

Nothing wrong with that!

The RWC is about luck in part, you are not guaranteed to play everyone, you can have favourable draws etc... but the winners nearly always have to face most of the big sides.

Seedings are not lucky, as GE surprisingly said, its a reward for consistency... but the seedings decided 3 years out is a bit too soon, most people will have still have points from their previous world cup campaign. Look at AUS, they had 2nd seeding yet could be 6th-7th come the actual tournament. Its possible.

Also, win your home games and you should (note should) avoid a banana skin in the QF. As their are 5 big sides in rugby and only 4 pools there will always be one pool 2 from the 3N, ENG & FRA.

SA have lost 1 pool game in 5 tournaments, NZ have lost zero.... win your pool and you should avoid these teams.I don't know of any pro team though that would purposely lose a pool game for a more favourable QF. Sensible in theory but in reality I think it would cause more problems then it solved in terms of player confidence, harmony etc.

In terms of luck... since the introduction of SA in 95 most winners have had to do it the hard way.

95 - SA beat AUS, FRA & NZ (probably the hardest route in RWC history).
99 - AUS beat SA & FRA.
03 - ENG beat SA, FRA & AUS.
07 - SA beat ENG * 2.
11 - NZ beat FRA *2 & AUS.

You could argue that SA had a lucky run, Fiji & Argentina in the final etc and that they didn't have to face AUS, NZ or FRA but ever so rarely things like this happen and I doubt SA would have lost to anyone bar NZ and even then I think SA were more of stable side also and it wouldn't have been anything less then a 50/50 match.

fa0019 wrote:I don't know of any pro team though that would purposely lose a pool game for a more favourable QF. Sensible in theory but in reality I think it would cause more problems then it solved in terms of player confidence, harmony etc.

If you try that you run the risk of being disqualified like the badminton doubles teams in the last Olympics.

I don't think the IRB could stop a team putting out a 2nd string XV like Scotland did in 07 and Wales did in 03 vs. NZ.

Yet given they were highly unlikely to challenge even with their 1st XV its a little different if its a match you can actually win.

emack2 wrote: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.

emack the problem with historical stats is that they are not relevant. england have had the better record v SH teams and WC that Wales over the last 20 years. but then at the same time Wales are a good side today and there isn't much to split england and wales

"Their performance in the final proved undoubtedly that if you can find a way to the final, you have a chance."


as did england- very similar situations 2007 and 2011

The most important fact is that ONLY sides that won every match
have actually won an RWC.
England only won the RWC when they qualified unbeaten to the
final.The other two finals they were runners up in there group.
As to teams deliberately throwing or fielding weak teams to
get a more favourable draw.
You are on very thin ice Tier2/3 sides you can forgive they with
respect.Are there to make up the numbers and improve there
games/status.
Tier1 teams it is unforgiveable France in both 2007 and 2011
did just that.2011 it was even publicly stated beforehand.