How heavy is the weight of history?

Firstly I must ask that posters keep this article sensible and objective.

How much does a recent or long term sequence of results affect a team?

If A has never beaten B at C for x years may be explained if key players remain - but not normally ten years on.

In practical terms this is a question about why NZ are considered RWC chokers, why England can't beat Ireland away etc.

I'll leave it as open as that.

But keep it friendly...

Portnoy at a certain stage it becomes quite big. Good point.

If Ireland play NZ next week the questions will be why we haven't been able to beat them so far, what will we do differently now. The captain or someone within Ireland camp will say its not something they are thinking about. However fact he even has to ask the question means it is something they are painfully aware of.

Its like many teams were beaten for they set foot in Thomond Park often times to what were fairly average Munster teams. History has a big bearing sometimes.

Depends how heavy you let it be. Strong characters can block out what's gone before and just focus on the 80 minutes ahead of them.

Take Quins beating Munster in the Amlin, for example. They didn't focus on the fact that Munster had only ever lost at home in Europe once before, they treated it as what it was, a rugby match against 15 other men. Quins got in their faces, played to a game plan and came away with the win.

Obviously the media plays a part in it. Pre-game stats are trotted out here, there and everywhere. If you let it in, you're in trouble.

"In practical terms this is a question about why NZ are considered RWC chokers, why England can't beat Ireland away etc"

What do mean england can't beat ireland "Away"

caoimhincentre wrote:"In practical terms this is a question about why NZ are considered RWC chokers, why England can't beat Ireland away etc"

What do mean england can't beat ireland "Away"

Ireland an England played their 6Ns in reverse in terms of performance in many ways.

But I believe that somehow history was a component in the result. I'll say no more.

Portnoy wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:"In practical terms this is a question about why NZ are considered RWC chokers, why England can't beat Ireland away etc"

What do mean england can't beat ireland "Away"

Ireland an England played their 6Ns in reverse in terms of performance in many ways.

But I believe that somehow history was a component in the result. I'll say no more.

Probably just as well because that last statement made no sense,

I think its a good point Portnoy. Ireland have become a bogey team for England since 2004 and the history behind the 2007 Eng v Ire clash was a big factor then. O'Connell and Trimble spoke about wanting to get the win over England.

There was no sense of determination within the Irish side in this year's 6Ns in the early rounds.

Would they have been contenders for a GS had they met England on the first week-end?

This is my point. Does it matter about recent history, or old History, or a jinx or mental preparation?

The weight of history culminates in belief.

Then of course there is also the quality of the players.

I think wins of any sort is the main factor as that builds cofidence and a winning mentality.

That said History does play a part and it does affect teams, a lot will remember the first Ireland England game at Croke Park and Me personally never thought for one minute Ireland would lose. Likewise Scarlets first game at Stradey after Gravs death - That said these outside influences could affect a team.

In terms of WCs then history will play heavily on the Blacks come September due to the fact that for the four mour years in between WCs they have been seen as the best team in the world and everyones tip to win - yet they still haven't won it since 87.

It is strange why ancient rugby history lies heavily on teams.

And History makes a difference.

Maybe ancient history doesn't neccesarily lie heavy on current players (everyone deals with it differently) but its the added pressure that fans and media make of it.

You can guarantee there will be hundreds of media stories in NZ leading upto the WC.

There was a fair amount of media before the Croke game and again likewise before the game after Gravs death.

England vs …. Winning / losing streaks (over 3 in a row) post 1970

England vs Ireland
1972 – 1976 – Ireland 5 straight wins home & away
1988 – 1992 – England 6 straight wins home & away
1995 – 2000 – England 6 straight wins home & away
2004 – 2007 – Ireland 4 straight wins home & away
2009 – ? – Ireland 3 straight wins home & away and counting

England vs Scotland
1970 – 1972 – Scotland 4 straight wins home & away
1977 – 1981 – England 5 straight wins home & away
1991 – 1999 – England 10 straight wins home & away
2001 – 2005 – England 5 straight wins home & away

England vs Wales
1975 – 1979 – Wales 5 straight wins home & away
1987 – 1989 – Wales 4 straight wins home & away
1994 – 1998 – England 5 straight wins home & away
2000 – 2004 – England 7 straight wins home & away

England vs France
1989 – 1995 – England 8 straight wins

England vs S. Africa
2000 – 2006 – England 7 straight wins home & away
2006 – ? – S. Africa 7 straight wins home & away and counting

G2 wrote:England vs …. Winning / losing streaks (over 3 in a row) post 1970

England vs Ireland
1972 – 1976 – Ireland 5 straight wins home & away
1988 – 1992 – England 6 straight wins home & away
1995 – 2000 – England 6 straight wins home & away
2004 – 2007 – Ireland 4 straight wins home & away
2009 – ? – Ireland 3 straight wins home & away and counting

England vs Scotland
1970 – 1972 – Scotland 4 straight wins home & away
1977 – 1981 – England 5 straight wins home & away
1991 – 1999 – England 10 straight wins home & away
2001 – 2005 – England 5 straight wins home & away

England vs Wales
1975 – 1979 – Wales 5 straight wins home & away
1987 – 1989 – Wales 4 straight wins home & away
1994 – 1998 – England 5 straight wins home & away
2000 – 2004 – England 7 straight wins home & away

England vs France
1989 – 1995 – England 8 straight wins

England vs S. Africa
2000 – 2006 – England 7 straight wins home & away
2006 – ? – S. Africa 7 straight wins home & away and counting

This isn't about England. It's about how the pressure of history long before the current team was united has a strange effect on the side's confidence.

Very very heavy. Especially when it comes to Ireland v NZ games. I will be a complete mess the day we finally beat the ABs.

The omens are good though as no team has ever beaten Ireland 18 times in a row. NZ now have 17 in a row.

Sorry Portnoy,

But the above shows that a team can go winning streak against a particular nation but it only lasts about 4 or 5 years, maybe 6.

After that time, new players come in / players retire and the streak is broken.

That said I do believe that history does play a part, if a team gets a psychological advantage over another team that can be enough to win those close games, this psychological advantage is gradually eroded by time as personnel change.

England can’t win in Ireland at the moment, I think a lot of that is because Ireland just have a better team at the moment and you would expect a better team to win especially when playing at home.

Perhaps I should have said that with the original post

Good topic Portnoy. It's obviously a psychological effect more than everything. If you have a history of losing against a certain team than an early score or mistake will dent your confidence somewhat. The first few minutes and score can have a huge effect. If your team comes off better in the early exchanges then you could take some ins[iration and belief from that.

It's also why SCW put so much weight on having a win against all of the SH gaints home & away in the run up to the 2003 WC.

There is another element, and that is consistently playing your opposition. Wales have had a poor run of results over the last few years but we have mainly only played teams better than us in the Rankings, we have also often fielded our weakened side against teams ranked lower and sometimes either paid the ultimate penalty or come close to it.

Our performances against those teams ranked above have improved over that time, though they have not become convincing enough for anyone to think that a forth coming match could have a definitely positive conclusion in Wales' favour.

It has been good to see the players looking very despondent after close loosing results to better ranked teams. They know how much it is to get close, and they know how much more it takes to go that bit further.

I would say that history does pay its part, but more so for the pre-match media hype than for the actual way that the players approach in preparation.

leinsterbaby wrote:Very very heavy. Especially when it comes to Ireland v NZ games. I will be a complete mess the day we finally beat the ABs.

This is a slab worth jemmying up.

It's easier to raise a performance against Historical performance than historical rugby performances ? or !

Portnoy wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Very very heavy. Especially when it comes to Ireland v NZ games. I will be a complete mess the day we finally beat the ABs.

This is a slab worth jemmying up.

It's easier to raise a performance against Historical performance than historical rugby performances ? or !

...or I haven't a clue what you are saying? What's jemmying?

leinsterbaby wrote:
...or I haven't a clue what you are saying? What's jemmying?

Using a crowbar.

He means jimmying

Ok fair enough I confess I didn't understand the rest either though.

Me either. He gone a bit mad there Ted...

Watch Ireland panic if things aren't going well against the French. Knock ons, wayward passes, brainfarts, Flannery taking up kung fu. Then see the steely determination with which Ireland will fight England for 80 minutes. I do believe history effects a teams psychology.

Ireland believe they can and will beat England, even if they fall behind. They've become used to it. However, because of their experiences against les bleus, they fear the French (fear is probably to strong a word but I can't think of a better one), and they let the pressure beat them.

munkian wrote:He means jimmying

Not in my part of the world he doesn't munkian.

Ireland do get sweaty fingers when it comes to the French alright.

G2 by your logic England are better than France. France are better than Ireland.......

The French seem to struggle against England. Even last year when they coasted past every other side they limped over the line against us at home.

I wasn't trying to be logical, just showing that a team can gain the upper hand over a particular team for a number of years then something happens and the situation changes.

It could be said that up to 2003 England would nearly always beat Ireland, but now …..

Perhaps my response was a bit disjointed

Logic has nothing to do with this article. That's the underlying principle.

It's the reason why in some circumstances some teams can step on to the field a pace or two ahead/behind of the opposition for reasons which can't be explained logically by form or ability - just a run of results.

Portnoy wrote:Logic has nothing to do with this article. That's the underlying principle.

It's the reason why in some circumstances some circumstances some teams can step on to the field a pace or two ahead/behind of the opposition for reasons which can't be explained logically by form or ability.

Exactly. Its a great point. Sport is rarely fair or logical. There is rarely if ever tournaments that go completely as you'd expect based on form, ability and logic. There is often the intangiable and history/past experiences is one of those factors.

History usually means a lot,in RWCs no pool runner up has won trophy,since 1903 only 7 sides have beaten the All Blacks in test matches.
Including the Lions and a Rest of the World side ,Only 36 wins by the away team in that time.
All Blacks are the only side to have a plus score against every other nation
etc.
Which lets face it when two teams face off history goes out the window and either side can win.

The examples you use Portnoy are a little selective. NZ at world cups- is neither consecutive matches to a particular team nor teams.

But as far as the event is concerned- the World cup in general. I believe yes. For some reason the AB's fail to apply as much pressure on other countries as they do outside the event.

In the last 5 world cups- other teams haven risen to the occasion more than the AB's.

Henry has admitted that this year that from one of the lessons of 2007 instead of looking forward, is looking to use the lessons of history to campaign this event, so hopefully that, along with 7 hard months of detailed analysis gives hi what he needs.

The other example Ireland England away? - extremely selective. Over what period.

Perhaps the 23 or 24 match non winning runs of the Irish and Scots over the AB's- anywhere might be a good example? What does an Irishman or 15 think about history when going onto the field against the AB's.

That I'd love to know- does it affect them? Or do they treat it as 15 against 15 (all 24 times?)

I think that would answer your question succinctly.

I dont think past results have any bearing to be honest.
Wales lost to Samoa in 1991, they ambushed us no one knew who Samoa were. they ambushed us in 1999 after we won 10 games on the trot but Wales were far too cócky and threw the ball around in a silly manner. We lost in 1994 as 5 Nation champions because the game was played at a bad time of day in Samoa, when it was extremely hot, and several of our players collapsed from heat exaustion while on the field. It was freakishly hot even for that country that day and Wales players simply hadn't experienced weather like it.

As for Fiji, well we just scraped past them in 2005 with a reserve team when Nicky Robinson kicked a last minute drop goal to win the game.
We lost the 2007 World Cup game due to a number of factors. Firstly the referee Stuart Dickinson, decisions at the tackle area were a disgrace, Popham was hit twice with late and malicious tackles, and little was said about it, both should of been yellow at least.
Dwayne Peel was hit with a swinging fore arm in the throat right in front of the referee which he didn't seem to care about. In fact the only card he did issue when when Akapusi Qera knee'd Stephen Jones in the groin! There must of been 6-8 incidents that players would probably of been carded for Fiji with a sensible referee. This is why assume Wales have insisted on strict Northern Hemisphere referees (Alain Rowlands and Wayne Barnes) for their games against Fiji and Samoa. The only way Fiji and Samoa can knock Wales off their stride is to tackle dangerously and rough them up, but if they do it illegally then players will go to the bin!
Stephen Jones also had a shocker with his goal kicking, in fact he hit the post 3 times, and missed several shots altogether. Matthew Rees has a terrible time with his line out throwing.
It's worth noting that as stupid and reckless as Wales played we did out score Fiji 5 tries to 4, but Nicky Little hit 7 out of 8, missing only 1 conversion I think, were Jones missed several conversions and several penalties.

Really depends if the teams are generally similarly matched.
If one has a breakthrough after losing many then it paves the way for the others I believe.
Oz lost 11 straight but have now won the last against the AB's. That has to help.

Ireland need to overcome the French bogey before they are ready to shake off the Kiwi chip on their shoulder.

Certainly as a fan I expect us to beat Australia and South Africa and to be fair over last decade we've had good results against them. However France and New Zealand are stumbling blocks.

I think that Ireland have an excellent chance of recording a double victory over France this summer and it would be their biggest confidence boost since winning the Grandslam two years ago.

One day ireland will beat the All Blacks...

I hope it happens in Dublin.and I hope I am there.
The next 24 hours WILL be HISTORIC...........

Idefinitely wouldnt want to be around if it happened down here....

Look at how Munster played in 2008 against the All Blacks - they didn't have same issues that Ireland did mentally as the province has beaten the Kiwis but not the national team.

red_stag wrote:Look at how Munster played in 2008 against the All Blacks - they didn't have same issues that Ireland did mentally as the province has beaten the Kiwis but not the national team.

The mental factor kicks in on both sides Stag. No AB wants to be known as the 1st to lose to Ireland (or Scotland, etc). A couple of times in recent years they've found ways to get the job done.

Wait. Didn't Munster lose in 2008? I'm sure Ireland have had the odd near miss. In which case, does that statement even make sense?

Grey - I've never seen Ireland play like that against New Zealand ever and its a game I love to watch.

Kiwi - thats a very good point about mental factor kicking in on both teams.

red_stag wrote:Ireland need to overcome the French bogey before they are ready to shake off the Kiwi chip on their shoulder.

Certainly as a fan I expect us to beat Australia and South Africa and to be fair over last decade we've had good results against them. However France and New Zealand are stumbling blocks.

I think that Ireland have an excellent chance of recording a double victory over France this summer and it would be their biggest confidence boost since winning the Grandslam two years ago.

I think you need to start beating them away as well. Good recent records against Aus and SA but only at home.

There's nothing simple in a simple question it there?

Why does the legacy of of what went on years ago with different teams of men, coaches, styles etc. all gone makes a psychological difference.

The most telling statement I've seen so far is the AB's hex over Ireland.

That doesn't make sense. Ireland can beat England but not the Blacks.

It's a conundrum best explained in the same comment (by Kiwi I think) that it's the fear of ABs losing which compounds the pressure on the Irish desperation to win.

In 1995 (?) England played in the worst game of any RWC in SA - for 3rd/4th. England had an ubeaten run of about 7-8, but had no spirit to win that game and didn't. And subsequently lost a bunch on the spin.

The fear of losing wasn't there.

Yeah Ive seen Ireland matches where I thought they might win to be sure- mainly in NZ.
Scotlands the same. They've had some big battles but somehow ABs manage to point ahead even when they weren't playing well at all.

I know AB teams mention the record before every Ireland and Scotland match- "WE do NOT want to be the first team to lose one... "

Other nations like Argies, Italy and all the Pac Islands etc havnt done it either but for Ireland and Scotland this has been going on since 1905.

On its own its a great record and one no player wants to be a part of to end.

I, for one would celebrate with either on this one but I've been saying that for a very long time, wondering if its ever going to happen...!

there, just jinxed them...

Psychology is huge in any human confrontation, it's what keeps us in contact with our animal instincts and the natural principal of fight or flight, when it comes to a physical sport like RU it's not a factor it's the gospel.

Winning "runs" against any team builds up a level of confidence that is almost impossible to shake other than through the experience of a resounding defeat against a team you "expect" to beat.

You only have to look at England's "rabbit in the headlights" performance in Dublin this year to know that there is a different level at which the game is really played. Compare that with Johnno's "we've been had before so get your shoes dirty Mary" turn-up in 2003 and there's no comparison between the two. One team hopeful, the other without doubt.

With regard to the upcoming WC, I would suggest that any team coming up against NZ should use the hiatus between the anthems and the dropout to get in a huddle and sort their gameplan out, let them get on with The Haka and let yourselves get on with working out how to win the gsme.

I don't see the point in lining up to "face" something which you can't do anything about and isn't part of the Laws anyway, so use the downtime to your own advantage - NZ do.

leinsterbaby wrote:The omens are good though as no team has ever beaten Ireland 18 times in a row. NZ now have 17 in a row.

draw it is then

Hi ya PJ...

"I would suggest that any team coming up against NZ should use the hiatus between the anthems and the dropout to get in a huddle and sort their gameplan out"

I'd also recommend using a little time before that to sort one out as well....

Sorry couldnt resist...

Ha Laurie I live in Dublin. Good banter every game despite the stats. I think due to the English media I'd rather NZ lose to Ireland for the first time than lose to England for the next time.