Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
'95 back in the spotlight again, suzie at it again.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Larksea" data-source="post: 796685" data-attributes="member: 43875"><p>Not true I think most will agree and easily accept we simply weren't good enough to win in 91, 99 & 03 other teams deserved it more.</p><p></p><p>and most kiwis will accept we also dodged a bullet in 2011 with carter out and McCaw on 1 foot against a french side that played out of their skins. To win by 1 point was more of a relief than satisfaction. And I'll sympathize with the french on that one which could have gone either way.</p><p></p><p>But 1995 NZ were completely dominant up till the squad was stuck down with illness. 2007 was a bizarre refereeing display, Refs make mistakes and sometimes 3-7 points either way can decide a game and that happens sometimes. But Barnes was easily 15 points that day. He was in way over his head and had a huge influence on the result.</p><p></p><p>IMO the 1995 team was the strongest WC side we have had in comparison to the competition at the time, maybe even more so than 2015. They weren't great leading up to that tournament but once they arrived everything clicked, amazing players 1-15 that played brilliantly as a team. With most of the team clearly very ill it still took an extra time drop goal to beat them. Disregarding the reason behind the sickness and how it happened, deliberate or not. Its not a question of would they have won if they weren't sick, but by how much.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Larksea, post: 796685, member: 43875"] Not true I think most will agree and easily accept we simply weren't good enough to win in 91, 99 & 03 other teams deserved it more. and most kiwis will accept we also dodged a bullet in 2011 with carter out and McCaw on 1 foot against a french side that played out of their skins. To win by 1 point was more of a relief than satisfaction. And I'll sympathize with the french on that one which could have gone either way. But 1995 NZ were completely dominant up till the squad was stuck down with illness. 2007 was a bizarre refereeing display, Refs make mistakes and sometimes 3-7 points either way can decide a game and that happens sometimes. But Barnes was easily 15 points that day. He was in way over his head and had a huge influence on the result. IMO the 1995 team was the strongest WC side we have had in comparison to the competition at the time, maybe even more so than 2015. They weren't great leading up to that tournament but once they arrived everything clicked, amazing players 1-15 that played brilliantly as a team. With most of the team clearly very ill it still took an extra time drop goal to beat them. Disregarding the reason behind the sickness and how it happened, deliberate or not. Its not a question of would they have won if they weren't sick, but by how much. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
'95 back in the spotlight again, suzie at it again.
Top