"Best" Era in world Rugby history

[SimonG]

I disagree with all that. England were a *great* side, no doubt. But that they were a class above other teams is completely false, for me. The Boks were the worst ever in their history at the time, and then you had the Aussies and NZ'ers - the English beat those every time during that stretch but it wasn't comfortably. Again, Wilko doesn't make just *one* of those impossible kicks in NZ 2003 and England loses, England certainly weren't a class above NZ but their kicker's boot was gold; and a year before that game in Twickenham England barely edged NZ, were anything but a class above them. 3 tries to NZ's 4. And a week later another in extremis win against the Aussies at home. Although I see in 2003 they beat AUS in Melbourne 14-25, 3 tries to 1, not to mention beating the Aussies again at home for the Cup months later. Very impressive.
Remember then how they were trailing at HT against Samoa in the Pools though, only managed 1 Grand Slam during those 4 dominant years choking in the GS-decider each time.
There certainly wasn't a gulf betw France and England btw. In 2002 France beat England in Paris and won the GS, and though the score doesn't show it because as usual France let its opponent back into the game late *they* were the ones that looked a whole class above England that game. Try after try, and the ones we botched at the last second, it was a festival in the 1st half. In 2003 we get 3 tries to 1 in Twickenham and I posted that video about why we lost there. Wilko's boot vs all our missed sitters. We were out-played strategy wise in the 2003 semis and England were well better on that game because more intelligent, but we certainly didn't look a a level below on the field in terms of physicality, technically, etc...their better player was Woodward.

I've highlighted why they were a class above. Boks crap?..England definitely a class above them them. Beat the Aussies and NZ during that stretch?..England definitely a class above them then. 13 men beat NZ in NZ....no-one will ever do that again. Ever. So who is left? France won in 2002...in 1973 Ali lost to Ken Norton in a non ***le fight, the year before he beat Foreman in the jungle for all the belts, in 1969 Brazil struggled in their WC qualifiers, the year before Pele and co. smashed everyone before them in the World Cup. Clive Woodward had 2003, Australia, Sydney, on the brain for years. Anything up to that point was build up in preparation. 2003 is all that matters, and the World Cup in particular.

Class encompasses everything..a kicker that kicks everything.."Wilkos boot", a pack that controls the game, a second rower who is one of the best ever in his position, a back row as a unit who were complete, the mentality of the team, the preparation of the team, the "strategy" for each game, the game management...and on and on. Right down to the zig zag strategy for Wilkinsons winning drop goal. Add all this up and England were a class above. England were favourites for that World Cup, were expected to win, and did win.

Regards Englands Grand Slam win earlier in the year....i dont know any details of the game nor do i need to. Frances didn't "let" any opponent back in the game...unless of course they partook in some match fixing? They lost because they weren't good enough. Their kicker missed sitters because....he wasn't good enough. They botched tries because...they werent good enough to finish them. That they have a weak mentality and poor strategy is part of the overall package required to win. These variables are not separate from all the other things that go into the pot in order to win. Opponents getting 3 tries to 1...3 to 4...I was under the impression that Rugby was won by scoring more points than the opposition? Didnt realise that tries are the determining factor. Clive you doofus...you and your 10 man Rugby that beat everyone and won everything in sight. What a shambles that was.

 

[Big Ewis]

^ nah man, I get the spirit of your post and its no nonsense preaching and that's fine. I'm not one for moral victories and all. But a team scoring two tries back to back EASY and gets close to scoring another two straight ones including a missed grounding from Rougerie, that's pure dominance, pure pressure. That's fact. And France especially during that 2000's/mid-2000's era was absolutely NOTORIOUS for letting teams back in, in a way no other team does - we just lose focus and think we've won already when the other team is pushing like slaves to get back in - you should know, Irishman, remember 2006 ? That thing was hilarious. We're up 40-0 or close in Paris and the end score is France 43-31.
France during that stretch were putting 40 or 50 past teams too, Tier 1 teams like Ireland, Wales or Scotland, and competitive against the big 3 as well winning games or at least tying (dropped 30 on SA and won there). Here's an example of a game we SHOULD HAVE WON, vid is the reason why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-OU3Xo_PEY

Don't give me Gelez should've kicked it in, known the rules about ball dropping from tee, made that last one. France had the upper hand in that game, even the pundit at the end of the vid goes "courageous defense from the All-Blacks" when's the last time you heard this ? - "Courageous defense from the ALL-BLACKS" to resist and take the draw.

I'm not saying France were as good as England, they weren't for reasons stated above. I'm just saying let's not forget the facts of other nations fault of being carried away by England's results. They were a *great* side, but things in sports can change RADICALLY in one play. What if France had made those easy kicks in Twickers and ENG didn't get their Slam ? Or simply lost by a point or two in Australia in the final, (or even in those games prior against NZ or AUS that ENG won by 1 or 3pts ?). We wouldn't remember England the same way from that era when it came to a point or two and when they were indeed great, we'd have forgotten about everything they were.
Had they smashed everyone like NZ does during most eras, no debate. But it wasn't the case. Their greatness comes from exactly that - not being a class above everybody but rising above the challenge almost every time and delivering when it counted the most.

EDIT: just wanted to add. Your post is an ode to how history remembers the winners only. Well I say reality is much more complex to just who won, who lost. The equation weighs much heavier, there is luck, a pinch of fortune, a smile from fate, and then loads of parameters that need be included. It's not enough to read scorelines, one needs to watch and find out what *really went on*, the realities, the complex, irregular realities. And this isn't all just to keep away from admitting England were great. They were. But then there's all the rest.

 

[tituslechmakus]

True ! SimonG's post is only appliable to NZ who is always a huge team !

 

[SimonG]

Lots of opinionated waffle and hot air


"England started the tournament as favourites"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...gby-World-Cup-2003-win-THAT-dropped-pass.html

"Pre tournament favourites and eventual world champions England"

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/teams/profile/teamid=720.html



England were a class above every other nation in 2003, were expected to win the World Cup, and did.

Just as a side note, of all the teams that came to Landsdowne Road, England '03 were by far the most dominant. Their forwards held the ball for the vast majority of the match that our backs barely got a touch of it. The most finely tuned pack and goal kicker I've ever seen.

 

[Big Ewis]

The most finely tuned pack and goal kicker I've ever seen.

that much is probably true. The combination of these two together. Most probably true.

 

[tituslechmakus]

Lots of opinionated waffle and hot air


"England started the tournament as favourites"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...gby-World-Cup-2003-win-THAT-dropped-pass.html

"Pre tournament favourites and eventual world champions England"

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/teams/profile/teamid=720.html



England were a class above every other nation in 2003, were expected to win the World Cup, and did.

Just as a side note, of all the teams that came to Landsdowne Road, England '03 were by far the most dominant. Their forwards held the ball for the vast majority of the match that our backs barely got a touch of it. The most finely tuned pack and goal kicker I've ever seen.

Because England was good or Ireland was bad that year ? just askin' !

For the kicker, I would rate Wilko just below Dan Carter in my top all time FH ! So, he can be the best you've ever seen, if you never saw Carter !

In term of pure kicking, I think O'Gara should be in all time top 5.

 

[Big Ewis]

Because England was good or Ireland was bad that year ? just askin' !

For the kicker, I would rate Wilko just below Dan Carter in my top all time FH ! So, he can be the best you've ever seen, if you never saw Carter !

In term of pure kicking, I think O'Gara should be in all time top 5.

no but as a combination of pack+kicker, the most finely tuned pack and goal kicker. I don't think NZ of any era can claim they were better, even with a good pack+Dan Carter. NZ were always great all-around, but I don't think they've ever had as dominant a pack. I mean without diminishing some quality backs they had, England were and it's been said and refuted many times on this thread, England were indeed largely a huge pack and Wilko's boot. They may have put 40 past some teams, including France, but their greatness definitely came more from the pack and Jonny than any other division on the team.