Can Raising Your Game Against NZ Be A Curse?

Firstly, well done to France last night. Although the pitch was a disgrace, the atmosphere was electric and right from the anthems and the haka, I sensed the crowd was right behind the players and they responded in turn. Looking at that display, you'd have been forgiven for forgetting that France were wooden spooners and they had lost all 3 tests in June against NZ.

Facing NZ is a daunting prospect. Not so much the team but their consistency. NZ played last night waiting for errors to come from France. One poor kick and Dagg spread the ball wide and Ben Smith noticed the fullback had been the kicker and no one was home so put through the kick where he should have been and Piutau pounced and scored. That was the one mistake and from there the crucial score was some individual brilliance rather than capitalising on a French error. But just as it proved difficult for NZ to break the French line, so too did France find it difficult. They took their try with an offload in the tackle and keeping the ball alive. They came close at other times but it is knowing you can't go through the motions and expect to win that makes teams playing NZ raise their game to another level and find that little bit extra to get momentum on the score board.

The problem is teams find it difficult to maintain that level of consistency like NZ can. Let's take a few examples. England you could well argue have greatly improved their consistency in recent times. They played well against Scotland and came back strongly in the second half against France and then the performance started going downhill against Ireland and Italy (albeit still winning comfortably). It was interesting to note that Lancaster approached the Wales game with the mentality that if we play like we did against NZ we can win and it doesn't matter what Wales brings to the game. Unfortunately for England, they weren't able to summon up that performance against NZ and they played well below par.

Australia played well in Rosario and even though they lost against NZ, I sensed they took more out of that game than NZ did. They scored the most points ever in NZ and I felt the players had renewed confidence approaching the Autumn Series. That said, in the second half they failed to score a point against England which happened in the RC against NZ. Where was that confidence on attack they had found against NZ in Dunedin?

SA last played NZ at Ellis Park. They too lost that game but came away with a sense of confidence of being able to foot it with the best team in the world playing them at their own game. Wales was a big match for them and yet Wales was able to dominate large parts of the game.

I'm not suggesting NZ alone brings the best out of teams. Look at Wales vs England or Ireland vs Wales in the 6N as examples of that this year alone. The same applies to NZ as well. The big games bring the best out of this. It happened to an extent in Auckland when SA arrived off the back of a convincing victory for the first time in Brisbane. It certainly happened in SA at Ellis Park when NZ felt under the pump and thought the game was very much in doubt. When you feel that pressure, you respond in a different way.

My point is that ability to raise your game can not be called upon at will. It's not something you can summon up like a well rehearsed card trick. The problem is that the media or indeed the players or management can be fooled into thinking that once you have reached a certain level of performance, you can do it again and again. Since Ellis Park, NZ has shown that this is not the case. We've been nowhere near that level of intensity and accuracy in Dunedin, Tokyo and now Paris.

Similarly, teams who perform well against NZ might think well if we're capable of playing like that against the best team in the world, we're capable of playing that well against anyone. But it doesn't work like that. If A + B = C then that doesn't mean D + E = C and not just because that makes no sense in maths (the Humanities are my strength!). Just because you played against one team well doesn't mean you can replicate that performance against another team. Cross referencing that team's performance against your own performance against the same team doesn't work either. Each game is different just as last night's game in Paris had nothing to do with the 6N or the June tests. The slate is wiped clean and you have to put in the hard work all over again. It doesn't flow into the next performance, even though confidence and winning momentum can certainly help with that.

Let's take France. How do they feel about last night? Frustrated they didn't get that last score and frustrated they played well enough to indeed win the game. Conversely they'll feel that despite some players out and the rigours of Top 14 rugby, they competed well and dominated NZ in key aspects. The danger is to think now all is right and we just need to continue along that path. It doesn't work like that. You need to analyse how did we lift our performance since June and how did we do things right we previously weren't so good at? When you reach a level of performance it's not a matter of how do we replicate that performance but, rather, how do we do build on that performance and where can we improve. There's a huge difference between saying we just need to do that again and we need to find a way to execute even better what we did. That's the way you approach the next game, looking at how you performed in your last game. You can't rewind the clock and say in this match we played like this and we just need to do what we did in that game? Imagine you had to play the same game but had the benefit of preparing the same way but knowing the result. Do you think the result or at least the performance would be the same? The same applies after one good performance. You can't expect that same performance will be repeated in the following game. You need to be able to draw on new motivations and aim for consistency rather than imitation because you can be assured the opposition will be different in terms of motivation and preparation.

Yes Kia, agree with most of what you were saying. France players and coaches were very frustrated because all the good preparation work beforehand and for once good execution were not enough to have them win that game. They had the require mindset as well and you could see the players were annoyed by all the journo talk that they stood no chance so they gave their best. Those are the conditions that makes france rise : an underdog status , a worthy opponent and a lot to prove. So where do we go from here? Might have to lose to Tonga to win against SA? Or is this negative spiral ending? Will France do a wales and finally show some consistency during the 6N after a bad year? I dont know but it's impossible to expect France to perform at 110% during a whole tournament so yes this was probably a one off like australia was a year ago. The difference is that they lost so they are keen in getting some victories asap.

It doesn't have to be a downwards spiral whocares. It's just being aware that after that performance, it's not a case of saying this is where France is now at. They have to prepare in the mindset that this is what we need to do to build on that performance rather than thinking how they played last night will be how they play next game.

Quite a famous Scotland vs brasil match in the 70s/80s.

Brasil were not really doing much, Scotland competed well and then went ahead surprisingly. It was enough to wake the brasilians.... Went on the score 4.

Not really the point of the thread fa. When a team reaches a peak in their performance, do they get fooled into thinking they are thereafter capable of replicating that performance?

I don't think raising your game is a curse. That's overstating it. But I think I get what you mean about believing you can get that one off effect where everything doesn't just go well, it goes perfectly, consistently. On the other hand, Woodward in the lead up to 2003 constantly preached the need for high level consistency of performance. He got it too - for about 18 months then it was gone in the blink of an eye.

The dangerous thing I think is when the settled high quality side has been winning while playing not exactly badly but not exactly at their best. Bit like the ABs recently by the sound of it. And then come up against a side they particularly want to beat for some reason... :)From my point of view this looks worryingly like a perfect storm  You might have that one off game and massacre us.

Still, I doubt the England camp has any illusions about what we can expect. The forecasts are all black but with a hint of sunshine because, well, you never know! England are one of the sides that can make you pay if you muck it up and one of the  sides that can make you muck it up. The chances of us actually doing so are low, but if we can raise our game...well, I don't see how it would be a curse. I think we are capable of playing at a consistently higher level than we do now and OUGHT to look to raise our game.

We'd also need to raise our game against SA, Wales probably and France by the sound of it. I'm not sure why raising our game against NZ would be different. If we want to be number one and WC champs we have to reach a much higher level of consistent performance against everyone and it's likely this, if it happens at all, will be a progression of steps or peaks of increasing size rather than a smooth progression.

Chuckle. At one level...what are you saying? Don't even TRY to beat the All Blacks???

I think to raise your game you require three things.

Mentality.

You can start with belief if you want, but it a,so has to do with focus, desire and the amount of respect you have for the opponent's game.

Preparation.

Some weeks it is easy to focus and other weeks not so easy, whether it starts off with the travel arrangements from one venue to the next, the culture and environment of the population where you end up, the facilities where you train, the trip to and from the hotel.

Are you more focused on the training sessions or the inconvenience of the trip.

The opponent.

This starts from the first minute. A poor start and conceding a quick try, or sometimes two quick tries can really put you on the back foot.

Often a quick start has a positive effect on the team leading, look at England last year against NZ, they went on a roll for the first 40 minutes.

Only after the halftime break did NZ raise their game, but England dropped off for the first 20 of that second half and was almost shocked into submission by the AB's

A few penalties and the belief that they could win raised the game again.

Ultimately for me raising you game depends on many factors, it isn't something you can bottle and pull out whenever you want. There are many circumstances that can influence how much and when you raise your game, even if it is only for short spells during a game.

The title is tongue in cheek Cowshot. NZ is a team that can lift a side's performance out of fear of being whipped. It could be against any side. All I mean is that when you've tasted a high it doesn't mean you can produce that same level at will. Every team is seeking the perfect game and sometimes you get near that. When you do though people expect you to do the same and when you don't that standout performance gets a mythical status the less you approach it. That can have a negative effect on your psychology. It's like going to the casino and winning big and then expecting to win big again next time and when you don't you don't adjust your expectations.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Not really the point of the thread fa. When a team reaches a peak in their performance, do they get fooled into thinking they are thereafter capable of replicating that performance?

I see... Sure teams will reach a peak at some point and due to injuries, retirements, natural order of ageing or the opposition getting better personnel etc they will drop off eventually.

If I look at this England team I would say last year wasn't a hinderance.... Have they replicated it since, no. But they have improved into a side which wins when they're played bad etc. its a very young side and they know their performance will go up and down, but they know what they are capable of and what they have to do to taste victory against such a side.

In 97 England took the 97 ABs to a 26 all draw. One of the games of the decade and it showed what it took... The England players had the commitment but they didn't yet have the skills to win the match and the belief to go on and win those types of games... Players who had just beaten SA on the lions tour were physically sick at half time by the effort never experienced.
They didn't win, but it was the catalyst for that team... It took 6 years but by then they were the model professional side and all conquering World Cup team...  And yet they were taken to the wire.

Wins make a huge difference, not performances.... In the end do the welsh players look back to 2004 when they took the ABs to 1 point? If I recall they were 8 points up on the last play and scored a late try so the scoreline flattered them a little.

Seen a few articles lke this over the years. The biggest examples of this are surely in the world cups. France for their two wins went on to lose their very next games. SA afer beating NZ in 95 lost a series the next year 3-0.

Last year England got nothing further out of the NZ win other than perhaps a false sense of security.

I think they do raise their game, or at least their motivation, to levels they can't sustain through to the next match. They 'believe their success' thinking somehow that it will transate to further success, when the reverse is actually true.

I think it also illustrates what the ABs know in his game. They know all other sides better than anyone...because theyve learned how to beat them on the field over and over again. No one else has that luxury. They might think they know how to beat the ABs, but not in a way that they can live it, breathe it, and most of all, repeat it. For a long time beating the ABs is more of a long string of one offs- because the very next meeting, the ABs re-apply heir formula, and right the wrong.

Unfortubately, the other side of the coin is true, every side rises to the ABs more than any other. They may kid themselves into thinking their local derby's are their focus, but if youre not in this game to test yourself against the very best, then youre not in it to win, or be the best you can. Same goes with any sport. Every tennis player wanting to achieve their very best would relish a challenge of playing the Federers and Nadals of this world. others might just want to settle back and take the paycheck for another day.

If you think teams only raise their game to play NZ you are sorely mistaken.

Come on Biltong did I say that? I'm saying they raise it more than any other..if they truly have a desire to be the best, test themselves against the best. Thats standard sport 101. When growing up and playing any sport you always set your sights on the best around, the highest measure of the sport. Once you stop doing that, youre into realistic mode, settling for whatever else is going, regardless of whatever spin you put on it or call it.

Disagree. I think France were France and flattered by some average defence and ball retention by NZ. This whole thing about everyone raising their game against NZ is just arrogant nonsense. The implication is the game is harder for us than anyone else, because the rest of the time nobody is really trying. This is used as a stick to whip a close victory with instead of addressing the real issues. How much easier to say "france raised their game" than "we nearly lost to the 6N wooden spooners missing a bunch of front liners..." ?

Two things should be the core issues being addressed by the All Blacks management this week.

1) defence. It's been terrible all year. How many tries did we concede in the RC? a record number. How many tackles were missed last night? FAR too many, in the first half alone.
2) scum. either there's a global refereeing conspiracy as the Aussies suggest, or we're getting done by almost everyone since the new "guidelines" came into effect. Even Japan. JAPAN.

It's time for an honest self appraisal. I'm not sure the lessons of last year have been learned. And we know what happens when you don't learn lessons...

Biltong wrote:If you think teams only raise their game to play NZ you are sorely mistaken.

biltong has a point. If sides always raised their game (or were able to) against NZ then NZ would be beaten more often than they are.

There are countless examples of sides going against each other hell for leather. Are you saying that Georgia would be more up for a game against NZ than they are against Russia?

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:If you think teams only raise their game to play NZ you are sorely mistaken.

biltong has a point. If sides always raised their game (or were able to) against NZ then NZ would be beaten more often than they are.

There are countless examples of sides going against each other hell for leather. Are you saying that Georgia would be more up for a game against NZ than they are against Russia?

No Cyril,
Its typical ignorance to introduce the Georgia's and Russias into the argument at this point. By definition Georgia and Russia are already in 'be realistic' mode. They dont have the structures to realistically challenge let alone beat the AB's. They know this- they've known it forever. Its the same argument as saying a 51 year old former local club tennis champ is going to raise his game more against Nadal than for anyone else- at least thats akin to what youve just suggested.

What I meant was those sides with a good chance of tipping up the AB's- as a group I'd say all the RC and 6N sides and perhaps Samoa. Those sides would and should raise their games vs the AB's more than for anyone else. full stop. Why? Firstly and mostly because they need to to have a chance of winning- even a miniscule one. Secondly, because all their life its assumed theyve measured themselves as sportsmen and a team against the very best- what top sportsperson doesnt.

If they don't they've already decided on the 'reality' avenue. Wales might say the 6N is the pinnacle for them, but that will also be because of the reality mode. If it werent, it would always be the World cup, and the number one ranking, which by their definition, rate the highest in this sport.

When have Samoa got closer to NZ than Georgia?

And what of a side like Ireland? Do you think they "raised their game" for that 60-0 drubbing? Looked like they were beaten before they faced the Haka to me.

Nice post GE. I'm not saying NZ didn't play well. I agree with your criticisms. But I'm not interested in last night's game. I'm interested in what France will do in their next games. When people say you're going to get hammered and you don't, it has an effect. But I think it's a negative effect.

Australia woke up against Italy yesterday but failed to react against England scoring. They couldn't summon up that confidence they got in Rosario and Dunedin. SA did enough and will be happy enough with their win but it's going to be interesting to see which of the SH teams puts in the most convincing performance. So far it's Australia.

Taylorman, I'm not too keen on your "typical ignorance" comment mate

Yes, sides need to judge themselves against the best (currently, and almost always, NZ) but you can't discount the amount of energy sides expend against their traditional rivalries. These games happen in tournaments with a 'real' prize. The Welsh 6Ns record of recent years is admirable. I guess it depends how you treat the trophies won or ground lost in beating SH sides (in Autumn Internationals) to set themselves up for the World Cup? England and and Wales are currently are different points in that equation.

GloriousEmpire wrote:When have Samoa got closer to NZ than Georgia?

And what of a side like Ireland? Do you think they "raised their game" for that 60-0 drubbing? Looked like they were beaten before they faced the Haka to me.

They did for the second test and for the RWC pool game. Or at least they played like they wanted to play.

I think we, as NZ supporters need to get real. NZ win regularly but the margin is small and there are plenty of sides out there capable of beating us. Each win takes tremendous application,
Concentration and commitment by the players and sustaining that game after game is not reasonable to expect...especially in an era of professionalism and so many tests.

I don't buy the "raise their game" argument at all. I believe moreso that winning every test is a crippling expectation.
Will NZ see their year as a success if they lose one single match on this end if year tour? Nope. And that is why the odd game players are
Not quite "up for it". You just can't keep playing at the Ellis park level every time. That was the success for this year. Get off the guys backs and stop pretending its about the opposition pulling out a blinder.

I like what you wrote GE but this thread isn't about NZ. I welcomed that squeaky win yesterday. A walkover would've done us no favours. I don't think NZ can approach the level of Ellis Park this year. But I certainly expect that pressure on them this week to pull out that kind of performance. Similarly, I don't think the English can approach the level they reached at Twickenham last year for next Saturday. But I know that the media will be talking up England's chances after NZ barely squeaked home against France.

Yesterday I don't think France played a blinder but they played a lot better than what many people were giving credit for. When people write you off like they did in the World Cup final, it adds hunger to your preparation. But what will be the expectation now on the team that they ran the number one team close? Do you think French expectations will not have shifted after seeing their team win and will they be so hard on the players after putting in a good display, albeit a defeat? And do you think that has a positive effect on their preparation against Tonga thinking they ran the world champs so close and that they are expected to play with that level of intensity on defence and attack? Do you think France will prepare in the same way for Tonga than they did against NZ?

Actually I don't believe you see teams performing at their upmost potential when they face NZ... If anything I think it's the opposite.

Firstly the one team which everyone raises their game is vs England. Everyone hates the english at rugby and they are the number 1 rivals for Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France for sure. Argentina, the boks, AUS also have a lot of history although I wouldn't say they are their biggest rivals.

When teams face NZ I often feel half the teams are beaten before they kickoff, that the aura of the team helps to beat sides. More then anything teams look like they think "it's the ABs, were not going to win, simple".

In terms of the England match though... Last year they had played ok, got close to both AUS and SA but lost. This time they have beaten AUS and ARG without playing too well... They're in a better position then they were in last year but they do have crucial inexperience in their centre where NZ are very strong.

I think their pack is better and more settled.

In the end a you know NZ will put in a spirited performance... They want this one and if England don't turn up with equal intensity to last year it could get very ugly for them.

How will England react? You can't just recreate intensity.... It's either there or not. How they perform will be a good indicator though on their World Cup credentials... Can they raise their game when it matters? Perform when they know an almighty storm is heading their way?

I fancy them in fact to bring it, it's bubbling away nicely... But not enough to win... They'll be in the hunt at 60 but then the ABs will crank up the gears. If that were to happen it wouldn't be a bad thing.

Cyril wrote:Taylorman, I'm not too keen on your "typical ignorance" comment mate

Yes, sides need to judge themselves against the best (currently, and almost always, NZ) but you can't discount the amount of energy sides expend against their traditional rivalries. These games happen in tournaments with a 'real' prize. The Welsh 6Ns record of recent years is admirable. I guess it depends how you treat the trophies won or ground lost in beating SH sides (in Autumn Internationals) to set themselves up for the World Cup? England and and Wales are currently are different points in that equation.

Fair comment...apologies...running out the door post- hadnt realised I'd even written it that way...

I was (poorly) trying to keep in line with the Op. For some a real prize is actually beating the AB's- Ireland and Scotland for example. Not saying its the only prize but it must be real given theyve never done it. Some have had generations of family and friends supporting their sides against the AB's for over 100 years so when the xv go out onto the field that knowledge must go out there with them surely.

Fair enough taylor, thanks for clarifying

fa0019 wrote:

Firstly the one team which everyone raises their game is vs England. Everyone hates the english at rugby and they are the number 1 rivals for Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France for sure. Argentina, the boks, AUS also have a lot of history although I wouldn't say they are their biggest rivals.

No, no, no.  It's a myth oft told and the English often kind of lean on it too - as a crutch.  For yay, many of them love the very idea of being 'most hated' side.  The English are well versed in history, and history states that you earn 'hatred' by being a dominant force.  Not many people 'hate' a begger in the street, but many of them 'hate' the bugger in the big house on the hill

So, it's a badge of honour for many English to think of themselves as most reviled.  

But is it true?  I don't really think so.  I think they're a side that when they're your opposition for the weekend then you want to really beat them.  When they've moved on to another venue, the next side that shows becomes the side you fixate on and think of all the history you want to set to rights.  

Wales may be an exception though   - as they really do have an unhealthy competitive obsession for their English cousins across the border.  And................... despite the protestations to the contrary, quite a large pack of English folk feel the very same way back at them

Don't deny it - either side - us 606ers have read far far too much here to believe it ain't so....

Last time Ireland went to New Zealand they really raised their game in the 2nd test and gave New Zealand quite the scare. 22-19 and we could have sneaked it- another great addition to the long list of missed opportunities, battling defeats and "moral victories" that populate our rugby history

Though the result did not go our way, we certainliy did raise our game against the All Blacks. It would be the last really useful performance of Declan Kidneys tenure. I don't know if they expected that having gone so close in the second test we let ourselves get a bit complacent or we congratulated ourselves for a good performance while the All Blacks took it as a personal affront or what on earth happened because in the third test was the humiliating 60-0 defeat that will stay with the men on that pitch their entire careers. A dark, dark day in Irish rugby.

I'd venture that the 22-19 did us more harm than good whether there was despondency over the near miss or misplaced confidence over the performance... it didn't do us much good the next week or indeed until the end of last season.

The harm the 22 - 19 did us was already part of the team sickness.  We were already infected before we even arrived in New Zealand ... and the diagnosis of 'Not very good at all' turned out to be a very good diagnosis

Anyway, whilst I know where you're coming from Notch, I'd prefer an analogy along the lines of a car running out of fuel.  Just about when it's approaching the final 'breath' of petrol, the engine revs hard for a last few milliseconds.

That was our 22 - 19.  New Zealand didn't kill the beast.............. we accomplished that trick on our own,

That was a great game though. Its another that shook us so much we ended up with that result in the 3rd.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Firstly the one team which everyone raises their game is vs England. Everyone hates the english at rugby and they are the number 1 rivals for Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France for sure. Argentina, the boks, AUS also have a lot of history although I wouldn't say they are their biggest rivals.

No, no, no.  It's a myth oft told and the English often kind of lean on it too - as a crutch.  For yay, many of them love the very idea of being 'most hated' side.  The English are well versed in history, and history states that you earn 'hatred' by being a dominant force.  Not many people 'hate' a begger in the street, but many of them 'hate' the bugger in the big house on the hill

So, it's a badge of honour for many English to think of themselves as most reviled.  

But is it true?  I don't really think so.  I think they're a side that when they're your opposition for the weekend then you want to really beat them.  When they've moved on to another venue, the next side that shows becomes the side you fixate on and think of all the history you want to set to rights.  

Wales may be an exception though   - as they really do have an unhealthy competitive obsession for their English cousins across the border.  And................... despite the protestations to the contrary, quite a large pack of English folk feel the very same way back at them

Don't deny it - either side - us 606ers have read far far too much here to believe it ain't so....

Sorry Secret, but this is just as big a myth. You may be surprised to hear but plenty of us see no benefit in being reviled and no badge of honour in it.

I really don't root against other teams - I root for mine.  These are very contrary emotions.  Hatred is a bad emotion, actually the worst.  Hate is a four letter word I do not allow my kids to use.  

People do like getting one up on the English.  I don't consider it a badge of honour or something to bother me.  But it is reality from some small minded types.  It is something to ignore or dispose of with intent.

but in sporting parlance, we can have a lot of fun with it.  And why not.  Makes the banter more fun.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Firstly the one team which everyone raises their game is vs England. Everyone hates the english at rugby and they are the number 1 rivals for Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France for sure. Argentina, the boks, AUS also have a lot of history although I wouldn't say they are their biggest rivals.

No, no, no.  It's a myth oft told and the English often kind of lean on it too - as a crutch.  For yay, many of them love the very idea of being 'most hated' side.  The English are well versed in history, and history states that you earn 'hatred' by being a dominant force.  Not many people 'hate' a begger in the street, but many of them 'hate' the bugger in the big house on the hill

So, it's a badge of honour for many English to think of themselves as most reviled.  

But is it true?  I don't really think so.  I think they're a side that when they're your opposition for the weekend then you want to really beat them.  When they've moved on to another venue, the next side that shows becomes the side you fixate on and think of all the history you want to set to rights.  

Wales may be an exception though  - as they really do have an unhealthy competitive obsession for their English cousins across the border.  And................... despite the protestations to the contrary, quite a large pack of English folk feel the very same way back at them

Don't deny it - either side - us 606ers have read far far too much here to believe it ain't so....

An interesting point and I rather see where you're coming from.  

I'm not going to deny any of what you said, but I may perhaps tweak your comments a little, to offer perhaps, a slightly different slant.

Firstly, I don't see revulsion as a badge of honour, but it may have another connotation which I will come to after explaining my thoughts on the issue.  To be English is to have a sense of coming from the country that has been the source of the greatest period of sporting innovation the world has ever seen. We invented football.... rugby.... cricket..... and all those other sports.   We were even the source influence for the re-establishment of the modern Olympic games, and we are justly proud of ourselves for having given so much to the world.  

These games were innovated, on the one hand, primarily as a source of recreation for Victorian gentlemen on a strict amateur basis, and on another hand as part of a culture within the public school framework for nurturing the qualities necessary to run the Empire in the next generation.

Sport was never meant to be about profit, fame or glory... It wasn't meant to be about world cups or grand slams.  They came later.  To the Victorian founding fathers, it was about the developing the values of teamwork, comradeship, fortitude and character.  The amateur sportsman was a noble fellow to be looked up to, whereas professionalism was something to be despised.  

Wherever the Empire went, sport went with us and it was only natural that the locals would take up playing it.  They would then form international events at which the English gentlemen would beat them and that became the source of a resentment that only festered as time went on.  The resentment came not from being beaten by England, but by the manner and bearing of the English teams.  As I said, they were made up of gentleman 'players'.  Men who had been raised and educated in the public schools.  They were likely to be the colonial governers and administrators who were less than liked at the best of times.  They could also be haughty and aloof and tended to look down on the local populations.  

This aloofness and air of superiority was accepted in England, where there was a clearly defined class system that was deeply ingrained and understood, but was a source of teeth-grinding resentment in the colonies, and also in Scotland and Wales.   This was the source of the attitude that the English are 'arrogant'.  

Of course, times change and the old country has moved on, but attitudes towards the English have persisted.  The former colonies still see the English as 'arrogant' and it has become a standard taunt, although it is as anachronistic as the gentleman amateur himself.

In its way, it is this persistent perception of English arrogance that is a key motivator for teams when they play England in the modern day.  It stirs their blood.... they can get their hackles up and adopt a "Let's take these bar stewards down a peg or two".  It was summed up by Michael Holding after the 1976 cricket tour by the West Indies, after England captain Tony Grieg (a South African) claimed that England would make the West Indians 'grovel', the West Indies went on to thrash England in the series.  Holding, with a steely look in his eye told the TV cameras  "Now, it is WE who are the master."   There was a lot of historical enmity in that comment.

England aren't arrogant and there is no reason to dislike us.  We are a country with a rich sporting tradition and we are justly proud of that.  Perhaps it is this pride in our history and achievements that contributes to the continuance of the attitude against us.

Should we be more humble..?  Hey... when does anybody show any humility towards us..?  A humble Australian..?  Where are you going to find one of those..?

Those haughty, aloof gentlemen players of Victorian times are a long gone, sepia tinted memory now and the world has moved on to the professional era.  It is in that which we have to compete now.  But we can't do anything about the attitudes that prevail towards us.  We can't change the past and all the time it is easy for them to use historical enmity as a motivator and a stick to beat us with, they will.

Scots, Welsh, Australian, Kiwi.....  If they need this gut-wrenching emotion in order to hype themselves up for a game, and consider England to be such a scalp that they have to resort to such desperate measures in order to achieve it, then perhaps we shouldn't be antagonised by that.

Perhaps we should take it as a compliment.

geez, perhaps we should all start paying land taxes again...

Taylorman wrote:geez, perhaps we should all start paying land taxes again...

Who is this "Geez" fellow you keep talking to..?  You've answered to him a couple of times this morning and for the life of me, I can't find any posts by him anywhere.     Is it short for 'Geezer', perhaps...?   I'm confused (but that's nothing unusual).

As for land taxes...  we all have to pay taxes, even Poms.  According to Mark Twain, that and death are the only two certainties in life.

I don't think any team prepares through hate. Healthy respect is formed out of traditional rivalry and motivation can be found if you feel respect hasn't been given.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Taylorman wrote:geez, perhaps we should all start paying land taxes again...

Who is this "Geez" fellow you keep talking to..?  You've answered to him a couple of times this morning and for the life of me, I can't find any posts by him anywhere.     Is it short for 'Geezer', perhaps...?     I'm confused (but that's nothing unusual).

As for land taxes...  we all have to pay taxes, even Poms.  According to Mark Twain, that and death are the only two certainties in life.

Well if he were here today he add a loss to the ABs to the list. 

Hood83 wrote:
Sorry Secret, but this is just as big a myth. You may be surprised to hear but plenty of us see no benefit in being reviled and no badge of honour in it.

There's lots of you in it, Hood.  55 million or so and rising?  Therefore my statement still stands.  I believe many English people love the tag...just as I'm sure you're correct in saying many don't.  I never did say 'All' English people love the tag.

PS. - I should add that I purposefully placed the word 'hate' inside inverted commas to distinguish it as a particularly sporting 'hatred' (a strongly competitive urge to beat an opponent)  I should have also done the same for the word 'revile'.  I of course use the word in a robust and sportingly atagonistic context.