No World Cup winner has ever dropped a match

Two leading contenders for the title this year- England and South Africa - have already lost a match.

Wales play Australia, and Ireland play France in the pool stages. Unless there's a draw, that's two more sides who will pick up a loss. It's entirely possible that both qualifiers from the pool of death will have dropped a match.

Australia or Wales could of course stay unbeaten, but we might find ourselves with the situation that six of the eight quarter finalists will have suffered a defeat along the way. The exceptions in that scenario will likely be New Zealand or Scotland, and France or Ireland.

Both England and France have made the final despite losing matches, so we've already had three occasions when a side had a chance to win the title without an unblemished record. It hasn't happened so far but the odds of it happening this year are perhaps now higher than previous tournaments.

Then again, NZ might just sweep all before them as the bookies predicted.

The 'group of death', with 4 top 10 teams kind of makes that stat redundant. In previous tournaments there was two clear top teams to each group and the winner was the one that typically won the head to head.

Given both France and England came close, it's just a manifestation of the fact there really hasn't been many world cups.

Or the obvious conclusion is that the team that wins the world cup is the best in form team at that event. Taking the bones out of the initial post either France or Ireland (and possibly Australia or Wales) will go out of their pool unbeaten, along with New Zealand. If England and South Africa are leading contenders to win the world cup, then all I can say is god help us. New Zealand must be as nailed on to win this world cup as is possible, to preserve the stat that the team that wins the world cup will go through the whole tournament unbeaten. The only way this won't happen is for one of Ireland, France, Australia or Wales to have a blinder against New Zealand and knock them out - as France have done a couple of times before - and to win the tournament as South Africa did back in 1995.

nlpnlp wrote:...If England and South Africa are leading contenders to win the world cup...

You may not think they are leading contenders any more, but most pundits thought the winner would come from NZ, SA, Australia, France, England & Ireland. Some also tipped Wales.

Nipnip wrote: If England and South Africa are leading contenders to win the world cup, then all I can say is god help us.

Oh, ok, can you elaborate as to why?

New Zealand have regularly been "nailed on" contenders to win the RWC. Didn't happen in 91, 95, 99, 03 or 07, though, did it?

This RWC is probably the most open in the game's history, and I think that whichever teams emerge from Pools A and B will have the potential to spring a surprise. Pools C and D are a bit of an armchair ride - the Ireland-France game aside, and there's a chance that a battle hardened survivor of the Pool A and B carnage could catch their Pool C or D opponent unawares.

I don't think there's been a tournament yet without at least one major surprise in the knockout stages. Add that to the closeness of two of the pools and it's not outside the bounds of possibility that both finalists this year could have lost a game on the way...

Biltong wrote:

Nipnip wrote: If England and South Africa are leading contenders to win the world cup, then all I can say is god help us.

Oh, ok, can you elaborate as to why?

Down boy!

This is a statistic not a law

The point is, there will be just a few "pure" potential winners. Who cares if someone wins a World Cup but already got beaten.

If England win this World Cup, chances are they will not play Wales again in the tournament, likewise South Africa to Japan.

Can a winner who couldn't beat a team in the tournament really hold their crown with any real esteem? I don't think so.

Well then , I suggest England and SA should pack their bags and concede the rest of their matches, eh?

Biltong wrote:Well then , I suggest England and SA should pack their bags and concede the rest of their matches, eh?

Can't say they can't win it, just saying who cares if they do. England have already shown they're not the worlds best. A victory would be a quirk of the draw. South Africa? Bunch of geriatrics past their sell by date living on reputation. Matfield? Habana? Yesterday's used fish wrapping.

If South Africa win ill eat a raw rhino.

If you`re into stats NO Team has won RWC`s back to back,none lost a match and won it
or won a3/4N`s in the same year.
Those are just Stats no the Holy Writ

England have never won at home, New Zealand have never won away.

Only Australia has the pedigree for this one. So sit back and watch how it's done

No team has ever won that had a Captain who was three years younger than the oldest player in Pool B.

I'll give you that.

lostinwales wrote:This is a statistic not a law

And it's possible the statistic will change.

Any time a tournament has a pool stage, there's a chance an eventual champion will have dropped a game. We've come close three times already in rugby. Not quite the same, but as recently as 2014, Germany only drew with Ghana in their group match at the football World Cup.

Going one better, Japan lost to the USA in the pool stages of the 2011 Women's Football World Cup, before beating them in the final.

Wales had never come back from a 10 point deficit in a RWC on Saturdays immediately preceeding a Blood Moon playing in England under a Conservative government. Now look what happened to that maxim.........

And the reason for that is pretty obvious.

I think SA,Argentina or Australia could well make the final but won't win because they have too many hard games, mentally and physically, to get there.

England and Wales are shot already and just waiting to be put out of their misery at this stage.

NZ or the winner of Ireland v France will win the tournament.

Not much misery over here at the moment Rodders - Depleted but Undefeated.

I said from the start SA won't win the world cup, but it has nothing to do with any stats that anyone can pull out their behinds.

Our team is not good enough to win.

We either have out of form experienced players, injured players recovered and hoping to play themselves into form, or you gsters with very little experience.

I think in 2019 we have a very good chance if the coach select the right players as currently we have more exciting talent in SA than I have ever seen in the last 20 years.

Biltong wrote:I said from the start SA won't win the world cup, but it has nothing to do with any stats that anyone can pull out their behinds.

Our team is not good enough to win.

We either have out of form experienced players, injured players recovered and hoping to play themselves into form, or you gsters with very little experience.

I think in 2019 we have a very good chance if the coach select the right players as currently we have more exciting talent in SA than I have ever seen in the last 20 years.

Many fans have said the same about their team over the years only for them to go all the way to the final.. You're in the same boat as the 2011 French fans were...

Japan was a good kick up the backside for you boys, you'll do well now.

Even though the scots look resurgent, they have a weak underbelly. I can't see you losing to them.

Biltong wrote:I said from the start SA won't win the world cup, but it has nothing to do with any stats that anyone can pull out their behinds.

Well statistically a team is 100% more likely to win a final if Victor Matfield is in your starting xv so I wouldn't give up hope

England have never won a World Cup in any sport when there's been a Conservative government in power.

France probably should have won the world cup last time despite losing two games. They lost by a couple of points so I think this stat is menaingless particularly given that this is the most competitive world cup ever.

New Zealand have never lost a game without it being the fault of an outside agency - the referee, food poisoning, viral infections, etc.  

Irish Londoner wrote:England have never won a World Cup in any sport when there's been a Conservative government in power.

Thats a nice stat but in fairness England have only won 2 world cups havent they?

If Matt Damon can win the world cup anyone can in my opinion even Ireland.

GunsGerms wrote:If Matt Damon can win the world cup anyone can in my opinion even Ireland.

Matt had Suzie

GunsGerms wrote:If Matt Damon can win the world cup anyone can in my opinion even Ireland.

Matt was a better player than Francois Pienaar in fairness - he's no Mickey Rourke though.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If Matt Damon can win the world cup anyone can in my opinion even Ireland.

Matt had Suzie

He also had Morgan Freeman on his side which in all fairness should be enough for any team. Inspirational man.

No team has ever retained the World Cup so NZ may as well have saved on the airfare. In fact Australia are the only ones that should have gone as they're the only side never to have lost a RWC match in the UK.

3 times though finalists have lost leading up to the final, all 3 times they were well in the match and the results could have easily gone the other way.

91 - Diff was 6 points (modern day 7).
07 - Diff was 8 points
11 - Diff was 3 points

It will probably happen one day.

I hear Freeman is going to play Gatland in the biopic of Gareth Thomas.

He won't be called Warren Gatland though. I think his charater is Eamon "The PitBull" De Valera.

fa0019 wrote:3 times though finalists have lost leading up to the final, all 3 times they were well in the match and the results could have easily gone the other way.

91 - Diff was 6 points (modern day 7).
07 - Diff was 8 points
11 - Diff was 3 points

It will probably happen one day.

07 was 9 points. 15-6

GunsGerms wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:England have never won a World Cup in any sport when there's been a Conservative government in power.

Thats a nice stat but in fairness England have only won 2 world cups havent they?

They've already won the World Cup in darts this year.

This is a home RWC, no?  In England.  
The RWC win should already be arranged, no?  Just with the extra drama of the loss to Wales and squeaking by the dreaded Aussies.  The green and loverly Irish will go down, and finally, in the finals, the Kiwis are done up with a last minute drop goal kicked by..........(I don't want to spoil it for you).  And then, boom, England win.  England win.  England win.

The movie, for which the rights have already been assingned and the filming almost completed, will be released in time for Christmas.  
Daniel Craig will play Mike Brown
Matt Smith will play Stuart Lancaster
The late Richard Burton will play the mid-field because they have the same personality and impact (today)
Robbie Coltrane will play the front row
Andy Serkis as Chris Robshaw
Someone will make up a role for Morgan Freeman because he is so good.  
Special appearance by Anthony Hopkins as Warren Gatland (with a little chianti).

I can sell you t-shirts now for 20 quid.

doctor_grey wrote:Andy Serkis as Chris Robshaw

Andy Serkis is actually Owen Farrell's stage name, so he will be "Andy Serkis" playing Owen Farrell - he's a bit precious about that sort of thing.

disneychilly wrote:No team has ever retained the World Cup so NZ may as well have saved on the airfare. In fact Australia are the only ones that should have gone as they're the only side never to have lost a RWC match in the UK.

I reckon they will lose to England in their group match. Good stat though. France have never lost to NZ in a world cup game in the UK either. 2 from 2. Could meet in the quarters.

The Great Aukster wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Andy Serkis as Chris Robshaw

Andy Serkis is actually Owen Farrell's stage name, so he will be "Andy Serkis" playing Owen Farrell - he's a bit precious about that sort of thing.

I stand corrected!
Alan Rickman as Robshaw.........

The Great Aukster wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Andy Serkis as Chris Robshaw

Andy Serkis is actually Owen Farrell's stage name, so he will be "Andy Serkis" playing Owen Farrell - he's a bit precious about that sort of thing.

Jason Statham as Mike Brown.
James Corden or Matt Lucas as Dan Cole
Daniel Rathcliff as George Ford

The Great Aukster wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Andy Serkis as Chris Robshaw

Andy Serkis is actually Owen Farrell's stage name, so he will be "Andy Serkis" playing Owen Farrell - he's a bit precious about that sort of thing.

Will Andy Serkis need to be once again in the motion capture studio for this role or is he going to try and act this time? That is to say, is Robshaw going to be a CGI figure ruled by maths and numbers and stylus directions?

Oh Wll Carling will be most pleased if so.

Come on there is only one man who can play Lancaster. Chris Barrie.....

I think it should be Tom Hardy, playing Ronnie Kray, playing Robshaw............... in the first half. In the second half Robshaw should be played by Reggie Kray, played by Tom Hardy again.

Liam Neeson is pencilled in to play Tommy Bowe - there's going to be a great scene where out sprints Sam Burgess, who's played by Russell Crowe, after intercepting a ball off Andy Serkus.

The Great Aukster wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:England have never won a World Cup in any sport when there's been a Conservative government in power.

Thats a nice stat but in fairness England have only won 2 world cups havent they?

They've already won the World Cup in darts this year.

As I said in the in the original post "sport"  

Only one World Cup winner has never lost a final.

SecretFly wrote:I think it should be Tom Hardy, playing Ronnie Kray, playing Robshaw............... in the first half.  In the second half Robshaw should be played by Reggie Kray, played by Fool Hardy.

I just corrected it for you

South Africa?

SecretFly wrote:Only one World Cup winner has never lost a final.

Only one winner got past the QF on the previous attempt.

SecretFly wrote:Only one World Cup winner has never lost a final.

Thats not true. Matt Damon only played in one final and he won it.