The wider picture

Before I start will apologize for my prose style and pc dyslexia which sometimes means my thoughts
and meanings are not quite as intended.So here we go the opinions and viewpoints,ethos are mine
and differ widely from the norm.They are ALL TEST matches are equal and important,that a 4ns/6ns
tour match is as important winning a RWC.That the RWC winner is just that and should be refered
to as the RWC Holder NOT the World Champions.
To date there have been 7 RWC`s,3 won by home sides,6 have been contested by both hemispheres.
That in 5 of RWCS the dominant side in the era won i.e 1987,1991,1999,2003,2011 the odd men out
being.1995 and 2007,1995 such was the feeling in SA the side just HAD to win and motivation moves
mountains.The Bookies probably made the AB`s favourites for all these when in some it wasn't the
case.1991,1999,2003 for example 2007 for me was the best because for once it was a knock out
one.
In my opinion the 1996 All blacks side was the best of its era and as it proved going to Sa and winning
3 out of 4 tests in Sa and winning a series there for the first time.More important than a RWC win.
That means no disrespect to ANY RWC winner anytime anywhere.
The term World Champion applies as far as I`m concerned until that side is beaten then the crown
passes over.
After losing at the Group stage how many here genuinely expected them[England] to reach the
final never mind win it.
Historically by the book two sides NZ 76.4% and SA about 63% have dominated world rugby
with others dominant locally or globally from time to time.
Now coming to today because of the lack of a global season the June/AI`s probably don`t
reflect the true perspective of sides due to fatigue/injuries etc.
The recent results don`t reflect the relevant state of Rugby in the SH as regards to
themselves or the RWC.
Comments about established/older players coming back of injury time recently and stating
there past there best is ingenous or naïve at best.
Players grow slower as they age and adapt there game eg.Hill,JW,Michael Jones,McCaw,Matfield
etc.
Finally about England the squad has great depth,SL probably knows his best side but due to
circumstances couldn't pick it.Just because the RWC is at home don`t talk the fortress bit
SH haven't lost many there to England.
Who wins neither know or care as an AB supporter first it would be nice a new name
even nicer.
Englands Group really is the key win that and you miss AB`s orBoks to the final
if they get there.

I think the '95 World Cup was more of an open field. England had beaten NZ in their previous meeting and were strong contenders. Aussies were defending champs. France always tough and had beaten NZ in NZ the previous year. Were NZ really the favourites? We were missing Michael Jones (best in the world in that time). Lomu on the wing was a huge risk considering how he had flopped against France in his previous test matches. Mehrtens at 10 was an unknown. Looking back at how they played during and after the cup it's easy to think that they were raging hot favourites to win the tournament, but heading into it were they really the favourites?

Know you dont like the world cup but the winners deserve the champions tag no matter what. It obviously doesnt mean they re the best in the world in the same way the 6Ns champions doesn t tell us the best side in the NH (due to the format).

Agree 7.5. There has never been an unworthy winner of the RWC and there never will. You ride your luck and you get your way to the final against the teams you have to face and you do the business. It can all so easily slip from your grasp so when you do win it, feel proud in your achievement and be justified in the world champions tag.

That said, there are other games in between this special tournament and it is disingenuous to say they don't matter. I do fear though that we are going down the road of football and that it is becoming impossible to juggle a bloated club schedule and compete between hemispheres who are on a different schedule. Perhaps the way forward is to play regional tournaments and in between World Cups have a competition that involves the top regional teams battling out supremacy. Money, however, seems to be driving us towards more club games and more international games. Unless both are reduced, it will be an inexorable slide towards the current state of international football: all too infrequent and largely meaningless.

No international is a friendly to me! As long as to the casual viewer internationals remain the pinacle it wont follow football imo. Still dream of a global season though.

Nor to me. But the June and November internationals are becoming increasingly difficult to have both teams on an equal footing. That either means reducing the club window for a more effective rest period - which I don't see happening or being allowed to happen - or delaying or reducing the number of tests played at this time in the calendar, which, given the needs of unions to pay their own way, is also highly unlikely. So a global season is the best way forward but, unfortunately, just as unlikely to happen.

The idea of a global season is nonsense - neither hemisphere want to play rugby in their summer nor should they. It is hypocritical for people to call for meaningful Tests but be completely unwilling to move club games to accommodate them. The best times for the NH v SH games is after each of their Test Championships - so April and October. The club games in both hemispheres should be the ones to move. This is the best arrangement for both competitiveness and player welfare.

But that is the global season we are speaking of... At least it's the one I have in mind.

Just a couple of points didn't say Nz were actually favourites only bookies making them
so.2003 for example that was plainly ridiculous England on form 2001-3 dropping only
a single match in each of those years.
1996 certainly was the strongest side for most of year with the bosh brothers in midfield
lomu.Cullen.jeff Wilson as the back 3 Merths and Marshall[would have preferred G.Bachop]
plus a great pack.
The RWC holder is only the World champion until beaten by another side [usually NZ post RWC].
EVERY side was a worthy winner don`t dispute it in theory every Tier I side should progress
except when 3 in the group.
The global system universal with Club/province/Super rugby at the same time 4n/6ns and
other tests and less of them to.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Agree 7.5. There has never been an unworthy winner of the RWC and there never will. You ride your luck and you get your way to the final against the teams you have to face and you do the business. It can all so easily slip from your grasp so when you do win it, feel proud in your achievement and be justified in the world champions tag.

That said, there are other games in between this special tournament and it is disingenuous to say they don't matter. I do fear though that we are going down the road of football and that it is becoming impossible to juggle a bloated club schedule and compete between hemispheres who are on a different schedule. Perhaps the way forward is to play regional tournaments and in between World Cups have a competition that involves the top regional teams battling out supremacy. Money, however, seems to be driving us towards more club games and more international games. Unless both are reduced, it will be an inexorable slide towards the current state of international football: all too infrequent and largely meaningless.

Unless both are reduced, our players will be injured so frequently that there will be no one left to play the damn sport.

I'd say discounting the World Cup's importance is a narrower rather than a wider view.

History only really looks back on trophies in the locker and not winning percentages or time spent as no.1 (though they are a measure of a side too, obviously). One of the reasons why England finishing 2nd in the 6Ns is annoying as they have a decent winning percentage but haven't done enough to be 6Ns Champions often enough in recent years.

You win the World Cup and you're World Champions, having won the only 'World' tournament available. You're both the Holder and the reigning Champion until the next tournament is completed.

Friendlies are what they are. They don't bring the same fire as KO rugby does.

League systems allow teams to slip up now and again. Sure consistency is admiral but its easier when you know its not all on the line and you can make it up later.

There is no tomorrow. Thats KO sport and thats how we define who becomes the new Jonny Wilkinson and who becomes the new Charlie Hodgson.

NZ v SA has NEVER been a friendly anytime anywhere FAO there was a time when you
talked of Nick Mallets great run just equalled by ABs[for the 2nd time].
Knockout Rugby?does it exist in the NH maybe can`t comment on the comps there.
Super Rugby where the top 2 sides in the league get a rest and a home semi,then
whoever was highest in the league a home final.THATS NOT KO RUGBY top 4 names
go into hat and play semi and final on neutral territory that's KO Rugby.
RWC isn`t KO RUGBY you don`t have seeds all names are drawn out of a hat,at EACH
stage.You don`t have tier 2 sides playing twice in a week and tier 1 once a week.
Stuart Lancaster said it all it`s far harder to win a 3 match series in NZ than a RWC
he`s right it last happened in 1937.
Of course as a Bok supporter it doesn't matter because you don`t win many 3/4N`s
tournaments or matches anywhere v ABs since 1995 do you?
Devalueing the 3/4Ns to try win a RWC is heresy by hiding players is heresy to me
Hansen may one unforgiveable comment in 2011."It`s only a 3Ns"when saving
players for RWC.
In case you think I am having a pop incorrect I respect SA Rugby above all others
bar NZ`s.Am at a total loss as to why Sa hasn't done better since 1995 maybe
overseas based players?

emack2 wrote:.Am at a total loss as to why Sa hasn't done better since 1995 maybe
overseas based players?

Neutral refs   

Many reasons why the boks haven't done as well since re-introduction.

The biggest...

SA played most of their games at home pre ban. Teams would travel there but SA found it very difficult to travel. Home records are far superior to away record especially in SA.

Between 1960-1992 (the era when people started to protest about SA) here are the match records for SA

SA - 97 matches (67 at home, 30 away). So 69% of matches at home.
NZ - 125 matches (65 at home, 60 away). So 52% of matches at home.
AUS - 125 matches (61 at home, 64 away). So 49% of matches at home.

In those 97 matches SA won 70% of home games but only 53% of away games. Had they had an reasonably equal number of home-away games say 49-48 rather than 67-30 you could rationally assume that SA's win record would be less.

After that there are a number of issues.

Quotas in all grades of rugby.
Leak of talent to Europe.
Weakening of Currie Cup and overall strength as fewer players playing top class opposition.

Also the boere are naturally big guys.  They had 120kg front row forwards when the norm was 100kg. Now that professionalism is here other nations such as England, NZ have caught up and lowered the boks physical dominance.

However its not all bad. By playing NZ clubs regularly their best players get higher quality exposure too so their are pros and cons.

Additionally, From 1960-1992 the boks played 72% of their games vs. tier 1 teams (3N, FRA, ENG & Lions). From 1992 they have played only 60% of their games vs. the same sides. Therefore overall they play weaker opposition which increases their win ratio but not necessarily against the best sides.

I suspect there's even more to it. I'd add the growth and connection of Australian State game with NZ provincial game and the strengthening of both countries. The ethnic change that's occurred in the makeup of many countries. I'd also add rule changes. In the good old days. It was scrum, lineout, maul and ruck. You could kick out anywhere on the full. Heavier leather balls and poor pitches made running in some conditions ore difficult.

Who knows for sure. I think these things are cyclic. We're coming towards the end of the McCaw era. Which is a golden era in NZ rugby. But it may be that NZ fade as well. The Boks are still there or there abouts.

I think thats true BC.

The polynesian impact on the NZ & AUS game has been very positive much to the detriment of those without. Then again many have benefitted... see England with Tuilagi, Vunipolas etc.

AUS went from non serious tour game on the way to NZ to an another major competitor... one who over the last few years has had the edge over the boks (with last season being a blip in the trend).

In the end SA also has had a lot of benefits too. Introduction of the game to outside the white population. All-time greats like Habana being available.

The fear and awe has gone from the boks though. Before teams played them once every decade or so. Now its more than 1 game a year.

rugby is better for it though

fa0019 wrote:In the end SA also has had a lot of benefits too. Introduction of the game to outside the white population. All-time greats like Habana being available.

The fear and awe has gone from the boks though. Before teams played them once every decade or so. Now its more than 1 game a year.

rugby is better for it though

I don't think it has. Eden Park and Ellis last year were huge and losing either or both would not have surprised me, especially off the back of 10 or 11 straight wins wasnt it for the Boks?

The ABs are still the only ones to get on top of them and Boks are at 15 from 17 since Oct 2012. (so have just realised if theyd beaten NZ both times last year it would be they instead of the ABs going for the record of 18 next match).

FAO slightly inaccurate NZ never feared or were in awe of SA,always had equal or better
forwards than them.When they had equal terms they matched them series for series.
3 times the IRB changed the laws when the AB`s had to change the basis there game.
Banning the 2-3-2 scrum,the ruck[2-3-2 scrum by another name]and laws on the driving
maul.
Boks always fielded huge packs but were matched by the AB`s not by size but technique
plus they used there own methods to negate dirty tricks.
The invincible Bok is as mythological as the invincible AB non existent they met fire with
fire in the gamesmanship stakes.
Forget the holier than though bovine feaces EVERY team in the world cheats in order to
win.Some spend more time trying to win penalties with hollywoods than playing the game.

oh we fear the boks alright Alan. The day we stop doing that is the day we'll get done. good last sentence though...ust not sure what it means...

@Alan: So not once did the Boks in the hisory of rugby have a better pack than the AB's? Of course it must be hard to imagine that the AB's did not always have 'equal or better forwards' than SA for you but......maybe just maybe.....one time....no? If not, explains why they had to rely on cheating refs and food poisoning to win matches right...because no one could possibly ever be better than the mighty AB's??

Also, thank you to the rugby gods for the virtuous AB's who can negate 'dirty tricks' with technique and their own methods.

Boks use 'dirty tricks' because they are of course mindless over grown thugs and the virgin innocent AB's use technique and 'methods'....nice.

Seriously, after the Boks I will support the AB's and have massive respect and admiration for them. Without doubt the best team most of the time, leading innovators etc but please credit where it is due to their opponents no matter how difficult it is to admit to.

MMAXX if you are a Bok supporter then you are aware of your countries proud history.
Also you will know that physical intimidation and illegal practices were the norm for
ALL countries.That AB v Boks and Lions v Boks.produced some of the most dirty matches
ever.
That the 2-3-2 Scrum was inferior to the 3-4-1 Scrum because IF you have 7 vs 8
specialists in the Scrum 8 will win.THAT was obvious in 1928 when the "rover" jumped
in at the last minute to create a 3-3-2 Scrum.
When the AB`s adopted the 3-4-1 Scrum they could have had its secrets for the asking
but pride wouldn't let them until 1949 when Johnnie Simpson approached Bo Wintle .and
Dr.Craven for its secrets .
You will also be aware that the Front row Mafia have a whole bag of tricks,including
packing on the angle[to split prop from the hooker],dropping a shoulder then moleing
[going under the prop and popping him up],that's the "Beast`s favourite trick currently.
Not to mention swinging arms on engagement,punchs from locks to hookers face,twisting
goolies[a French speciality],tripping the tight head on engagement etc.
That the lineout is jungle and rarely competed legally early jumping,treading on toes
punches to the short ribs but 3 used.
The Boks is the 3-4-1 invented by Mark Markotter at Stellen bosch in 1909 and most
of the scrum methods described were there innovations.As was lifting in the lineout
before made legal.
If the Ref didn't pick it and they seldom did players took it into there own hands
with the fist or the boot.
Nz were as streetwise as Sa forwards and fought fire with fire,Refs had different
interpratations of the same laws.
Sa ones were very strict on 1st phase infringements,Nz refs on 2nd phase infringements
"Rucking" and illegal use of the boot was always whistled differently the ruck not
being allowed to develop in Sa and NH.
Virtous angels don`t be so naïve Nz played to the Ref just like every other side
and just as dirty when required.
Boks pack were based on "Die Bokkke"[Afrikaaners] as a rule of thumb 2 players
of similar ability the heavier and taller won.
Of course over period 1921-2014 Sa or Ab forwards will have been better or worse
at an individual and team level.
Because a Touring team lost as all but 1937 side did away doesn't mean that side was
inferior often injuries were the difference.
Before neutral refs hometown decisions were common during tours period 1921-82
Heavier Bok forwards were usually combatted by more mobile tactics tiring them out
from 1921 on.
In 1974 the Touring Lions invoked the infamous "99" riot call as a counter to Boks
perceived dirty play after the 1968 tour.
I respect the Boks as much or slightly less than the All Blacks my knowledge of there
rugby is very extensive especially verses the Boks.
The pitiful attempts by players falling over crying obstruction,or trip ,or deliberately
collapsing scrums to "win"penalties is getting as bad as soccer.