England Topple Australia

First topic message reminder :

Stuart Lancaster will be the benefactor of plaudits for engineering England into third position in the IRB rankings even before the AIs kick off.

Benefiting from Argentinas inaugural rugby championship victory and a succession of thumping at the hands of South Africa and New Zealand, England have reclaimed third spot.

Victories over NZ and South Africa will lift England to second spot before the World Cup opens.

Well done to Stu and the boys.

Cheers Dick.

No problem 7.5 - if you prefer Dick that's just your prerogative.

You just suit it. When I see your comments, I think Dick.

How Freudian.

Do you think Dick?

No, but you seemed obsessed by Dick this morning.

Oh, I'm stopping this now before you cop a ban.

Why would I cop a ban. Dick is just a shortened form of Richard.

WhereAs 71/2 is just a shortened form.

For Number Seven and a half.

It's all starting to sound a bit unhealthy.

Look, I've never heard of Dick being short for Richard, and I've had this name all my life. It must be particular to your region.

Richard wrote:What? That's crazy man logic. England 2002-2003 run was supplemented with a dozen hastily organised matches against the likes of the East lebanese ladies auxiliary baking committee. They limped to the RWC and then fell apart. NZ have been dominant for nearly four years.

This NZ side is probably the greatest to ever pass a ball, England were good by England's standards but definite also-rans amongst the great teams of history - the Boks, The Ella wallabies, the Welsh of the seventies, all blacks 1987, 2005, 2011...

That really shows how much you know about rugby. Your prejudices are simply laughable. The proof is out there that that England team was one of the most successful in pro history. They lost 3 matches in 20 vs the other big 5 nations.... in 4 years. Even Henry's NZ from 08-11 can't even boast a record such as that... they beat the 3N sides 12 times in a row and never lost to them in the entire cycle. Obviously you'll bring up an excuse like, "ah wasn't a great era of rugby" yawn yawn yawn.

In terms of win rates in RWC cycles .... that England side HAS been the most successful in pro history. That's not to say that they are the greatest pro side ever but they are up amongst it.

Here are a list of teams in RWC cycles  vs the big 5 (3N + ENG & FRA... no one gives a hoot if someone puts on 100 vs Italy)

ENG 2000-2003. Win rate 85%. 17 out of 20. 3 6N titles, 1 RWC.
NZ 2004-2007. Win rate 80.6%. 25 out of 31. 3 3N titles, no RWC.
AUS 1996-1999. Win rate 57.1%. 16 out of 28 . 1 3N title, 1 RWC.
SA 2004-2007. Win rate 48.4%. 15 out of 31. 1 3N title, 1 RWC.
NZ 2008-2011. Win rate 75%. 27 out of 36. 2 3N titles, 1 RWC.
NZ 2012 - Present. Win rate 82.6%. 19 out of 23. 3 RC titles, 1 left to play, RWC yet to play.

However I'd probably say the NZ side from 2004 to Present (the McCaw-Carter era) is probably the greatest pro side due to its 3 cycle consistency. However in terms of individual cycles, England has the best record.

This is the pro era we're talking about. Its too difficult to compare them to the amateur era as games were less frequent and teams would tour once a decade. The 38 boks was a great side and the war ruined what could have been a great era of rugby amongst everything else.

The Ella Wallabies? Did you read that online? Entertaining yes, successful... hardly. 1 grand slam tour doesn't make it amongst the greatest ever. They lost as many matches as they won even against lesser sides. Had an average win rate and only held the BC for what 1 year in 5. Hardly great. Quade Cooper's wallabies are entertaining.

The Lions of the 70s are right up there. They did something that NZ took another 22 years to achieve in beating the boks in an away series and did something the boks have only achieved once themselves in their entire history... within 3 years.

However the boks of the 60s-80s were so strong. This is a list of all their series from the late 60s onwards.

67 home series vs. France (won)
68 home series vs. Lions (won)
68 away series vs. France (won)
69 home series vs. AUS (won)
70 home series vs. NZ (won)
71 away series vs. AUS (won)
74 home series vs. Lions (lost)
74 away series vs. France (won)
75 home series vs. France (won)
76 home series vs. NZ (won)
80 home series vs. Lions (won)
81 away series vs. NZ (lost)
84 home series vs. ENG (won)
86 home series vs. Cavs (won)

They were easily the most successful team of the era albeit most of their series were at home for obvious reasons. Had they won the 81 tour (and they came mighty close to doing so regardless of the issues) they probably would have been undoubtedly the greatest prolonged team in history. The welsh of the 70s, the best of Europe but never beat NZ on their own (played them 6 times, lost all of them), only played the boks once (draw).

The boks are always forgotten though.

If this NZ team can win the RWC15 then I think they will have a strong case to be the best ever but its always subjective.

Great post FA.

When I was growing up in the 80s, taught rugby by a great welsh player, he always told me that it was the boks who were always the hardest team to beat. But I missed it all because apartheid was already preventing SA from touring.

Biltong wrote:7&1/2 and Richard.

I have asked politely for you to behave yesterday.

Due to the fact that both of you are not ending your back and fro I am now warning you that irrespective of who you believe is guilty, I have a new philosophy that suggests both parties will cop a 48 hour ban if either of you decide to continue in this vein.

We have lost a lot of good posters due to silly little feuds that brings nothing constructive to the forum.

Please mark the time of my post, any unpleasant banter between the two of you on any thread will result in action.

Seriously? What feud? He's a brand new poster, how can there be a feud already? It's a shortened version of his username!

Quins forever had IRB rating existed 2000-3 England would have been Number 1or 2 most
of it.The IRB system doesn't take things into account xfactors as demonstrated if you take
scores into account in 4 games late in that period.

England beat SA.NZ,Aus by less than a single score Ireland beat them twice in the period
where Ireland a better side?was it a great side [England]or just the rest weren't very good?
Nz by there best standards were average,Australia good by theres,SA in a slump.
Of course not you can only field the team you have and beat every one in front of you or
not as the case maybe.SCW forget post 2003 RWC cup had a 4-1-2 losing record v NZ,
5-5 v Aus,and a winning record v SA.during his tenure in office.


The comparison with the current NZ side is invidious but results v top 4 sides since 2011
RWC.France 3-0,England 4-1,Australia 6-2-0,SA 5-1,the top 3 sides below them and SA
have only lost to NZ and Aus ii that period.

THE Greatest team I`ve seen in my lifetime was NZ 1963-9 they lost 2 and drew 2 tests
in that period.The biggest scare a scratch England side in 1963 needed Don Clarke to kick
a 70metre Goal from a Mark[ placed]to salvage a draw.

Get out of town, a 70 m kick?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:7&1/2 and Richard.

I have asked politely for you to behave yesterday.

Due to the fact that both of you are not ending your back and fro I am now warning you that irrespective of who you believe is guilty, I have a new philosophy that suggests both parties will cop a 48 hour ban if either of you decide to continue in this vein.

We have lost a lot of good posters due to silly little feuds that brings nothing constructive to the forum.

Please mark the time of my post, any unpleasant banter between the two of you on any thread will result in action.

Seriously? What feud? He's a brand new poster, how can there be a feud already? It's a shortened version of his username!

Feuds have a starting point, it is irrelevant how long he has been here, secondly, let's be honest, we all know why his name has been shortened, the intent is clear.

Ok. Seems quite unfair to me though.

emack2 wrote:Quins forever had IRB rating existed 2000-3 England would have been Number 1or 2 most
of it.The IRB system doesn't take things into account xfactors as demonstrated if you take
scores into account in 4 games late in that period.

England beat SA.NZ,Aus by less than a single score Ireland beat them twice in the period
where Ireland a better side?was it a great side [England]or just the rest weren't very good?
Nz by there best standards were average,Australia good by theres,SA in  a slump.
Of course not you can only field the team you have and beat every one in front of you or
not as the case maybe.SCW forget post 2003 RWC cup had a  4-1-2 losing record v NZ,
5-5 v Aus,and a winning record v SA.during his tenure in office.


The comparison with the current NZ side is invidious but results v top 4 sides since 2011
RWC.France 3-0,England 4-1,Australia 6-2-0,SA 5-1,the top 3 sides below them and SA
have only lost to NZ and Aus ii that period.

THE Greatest team I`ve seen in my lifetime was NZ 1963-9 they lost 2 and drew 2 tests
in that period.The biggest scare a scratch England side in 1963 needed Don Clarke to kick
a 70metre Goal from a Mark[ placed]to salvage a draw.

Losses doesn't automatically mean a team isn't great. All teams lose now and again. This NZ side lost on the weekend. Lost to England in 2012

England only lost to Ireland once in their RWC03 cycle from 2000-2003 not twice. That match was a little unfair too. England would have walked it had it been in the 6N but due to the foot and mouth it was played in Oct. England went in the game cold, the first match of the season... Ireland played Scotland, then Wales and then England last... they had 2 warm up games and it was in Dublin too, but that's the way it was agreed and England probably should have agreed a warm up game with someone given the GS was on the cards. Can only blame themselves but that's hindsight for you.

They only lost 5 games in 4 years inc. the RWC. Were unbeaten at home over the entire period. Losing to SA once, France twice (one in a pre rwc03 friendly where they played a near complete 2nd XV vs. a full strength French side... and still only lost by 1 point), the above game in Ireland and the glorious match in Edinburgh where they a) dropped Jonno... not SCW finest decision and b) the West Lothian gale once again struck gold!

Stats are stats in the end. Not definitive but they have the best win rate of any team in the pro era in terms of RWC cycles and that inc. the current 2012 NZ class too.

I'm not saying they are better but for people to say they weren't a great side is ridiculous. Who cares if they won close matches rather than smashing teams off the park. I'd be more impressed with a team which seemed to win every game by 1-2 points than by those which won by 15 each time... it shows in the pressure moments you were always the king and that competitiveness was high.

Naughty FAO Bok Rugby incredibly strong in 1960`s-80s.?


1965 v Ireland ,Scotland both lost.
1965 v Australia lost 2-0
1965 v Nz lost 3-1.
1969-70 v England,Scotland lost
1969-70v Ireland,Wales drawn[losses to Newport,Monmouthshire]
1970 v NZ series won 3-1 unbeaten in provinces matches.
1972 vEngland lost [unbeaten in provincial games]
1974 v Lions lost unbeaten in provincial games
1976 v Nz won but last test should have been lost saved on political
grounds by a bent Ref who admitted it
1980 v Lions won 3-1 by a single score,unbeaten in provincial matches
1980 v Jaguars won but unbeaten in provincial matches
1981-2 vNZ lost won all provincial matches
1982 drew Jaguars lost all provincial matches
1986 v Cavaliers won lost all but one provincial matches.
SA rugby at provincial level and NZ were struggling
both SA and NZ rugby by there best standards were in decline.

emack2 wrote:Naughty FAO Bok Rugby incredibly strong in 1960`s-80s.?


1965 v Ireland ,Scotland both lost.
1965 v Australia lost 2-0
1965 v Nz lost 3-1.
1969-70 v England,Scotland lost
1969-70v Ireland,Wales drawn[losses to Newport,Monmouthshire]
1970    v NZ series won 3-1 unbeaten in provinces matches.
1972    vEngland lost [unbeaten in provincial games]
1974  v Lions    lost  unbeaten in provincial games
1976  v Nz    won but last test should have been lost saved on political
                          grounds by a bent Ref who admitted it
1980 v Lions won 3-1 by a single score,unbeaten in provincial matches
1980 v Jaguars   won but unbeaten in provincial matches
 1981-2 vNZ lost  won all provincial matches
 1982 drew  Jaguars lost all provincial matches
 1986  v Cavaliers won lost all but one provincial matches.
 SA rugby at provincial level and NZ were struggling
 both SA and NZ rugby by there best standards were in decline.

Alan, so why is it naughty exactly? I never said they went unbeaten. I simply listed the major series they played over a 15 year period which out of the dozen or so they lost only 2. I was simply saying they were very strong in the era.... an in an era when rugby was strong also. Series was how teams marked themselves against each other at the time.

They had a greater win rate than NZ over the period but you have excuses for that too like your, oh it was a dodgy ref etc?

Did you mention how the boks were treated in NZ in 1981? I didn't mention it myself as loses happen but you had to mention oh NZ only lost in 76 because of a dodgy ref.... but in 81............ silence.

Neither SA OR NZ were particularly strong in the period by there BEST standards. NZ
did indeed lose more games than SA but played a lot more too.The 1970`s was NZ`s
black period lost think 16 tests 1970-80 official tests.
I950 -60 it was 11 tests,1960-70 4 tests etc.percentage wise both SA and NZ period
1970-80 is about 64% each.NH were on the rise in this period being a little facetious
I know.

1981-2 tour should never have taken place,we agree to differ but PLEASE if you use
stats .Quote them all to show it warts and all.

Alan.

I didn't skip any stats to make them seem more favourable. I was talking about series and series vs. the 3N, FRA, Lions and ENG. I never suggested they won all the games in the series.... and if I wanted to make them look better I could have easily left out the lions 74 loss or the 81 loss... yet I didn't.

You want me to mention their win over the USA in 1981... is it important to their rugby greatness?

the 70s was a glorious era for rugby.. the French, the Welsh, the boks and NZ were very competitive and the play was fantastic.

The reason why you dismiss the 70s on the other hand IMO is because NZ weren't the best. Just like you dismiss England 2000-2003... oh they only won games by the skin of their teeth so their 85% win rate over the big 5 nations isn't as good as Henry's 75% rate in 2008-2011 or Hansen's 83% rate now.

The bias pours through your posts.

I don`t or didn't intend to belittle Englands achievement 2000-3 it was awesome as an
England supporter agree.It was when comparing eras and scraping wins in answer to
Quins forever.

My bias towards Nz Rugby is as obvious to me as yours is to SA`s,but we are both
of Scottish descent if that means anything.My era was that of reality when Nz and Bok
won by any means.

NO side is invincible for ever they just have there runs,give me at least the credit of
having seen many great sides and players in my long life.Most of them won matches
ugly,Boks especially during most of my lifetime it was route one.Massive packs,
solid defence,Goal kicking,tactical kicking it was also there most successful one.

The sides that emulated them AB`s 1950-66,Lions 1974 were among the most
successful of the period.take it as a compliment .

I never expect a NZ side to beat SA in Sa just hope they do,on 18 Oct the world
could see Boks at Number 1,Aus back at number 3 if they win BIG.[aus]
Third bledisloe in recent years has been a hiccup for the ABs and could well be
then too.

The AI`s could be ambush city for all the SH sides at last I`m getting a decent debate
for myself,instead of the pointless Wum`s here.