• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

NZ test dominance: Do we need two teams?

Status
Not open for further replies.

eidde

Academy Player
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
61
Country Flag
New Zealand
Club or Nation
Hawke's Bay
Idea here guys:

Given that NZ is currently in danger of getting stuck on rankings points from getting so far ahead of there opposition, as well as the fact that most positions have three or four men competing for the spot, I reckon we could have two teams that could both beat any other national team on their day, if not consistently.

Why not make it North Island & South Island? Either Island of Origin style (players classified based on the first club they played for), or maybe go by NPC teams.....

Discuss.... if we base this around NPC teams, as players' origins may not be as well known, who would be in your matchday 23s?? Would they still dominate?

Only issue I can see being NZ can't win all the competitions now - and ranking points may drop given how even the matchup between the two teams would be.

:fb::ar15firing5de::dance::yess::victory:

Hopefully the idea hasn't been thrashed out earlier.....?
 
Why not just enjoy it while you're there, try and see how far you can go (establishing a legacy) and try and maintain excellent standards?

You'd in effect be diluting an established brand and national representative team's identity not to mention the unnecessary financial burden on the NZRU who are already having to box clever to keep up the cash flow needed.
 
Why not just enjoy it while you're there, try and see how far you can go (establishing a legacy) and try and maintain excellent standards?

You'd in effect be diluting an established brand and national representative team's identity not to mention the unnecessary financial burden on the NZRU who are already having to box clever to keep up the cash flow needed.

Yup. Every team in sporting history will eventually fall. Even the "Invincibles" Arsenal and the mighty Australian Cricket team eventually started to lose, and are now trying to get back to the good ol' days.

Enjoy it while it lasts!
 
Maybe, maybe not - did either of those teams (arsenal or Aus) have reigns even close to as long as the All Blacks have? Have the All Blacks ever not been the team to beat?

On a different tack, is it good for world rugby, and therefore for NZ rugby, to have one team that is close to unbeatable? Surely that makes other nations less attractive to support?

Anyhow, would be interesting to get the teams together and see how they go against the South Africas and Englands of world rugby - I've every confidence we would still be a level above them in terms of running and passing games, and that's not meant to sound arrogant.....
 
Maybe, maybe not - did either of those teams (arsenal or Aus) have reigns even close to as long as the All Blacks have? Have the All Blacks ever not been the team to beat?

On a different tack, is it good for world rugby, and therefore for NZ rugby, to have one team that is close to unbeatable? Surely that makes other nations less attractive to support?

Anyhow, would be interesting to get the teams together and see how they go against the South Africas and Englands of world rugby - I've every confidence we would still be a level above them in terms of running and passing games, and that's not meant to sound arrogant.....

Arsenal were called the invincibles, because they were unbeatable for more than 2 years running. Something the All Blacks haven't done yet with the current management and players.

I wouldn't say that the All Blacks are close to unbeatable. And it will be interesting to see what happens in the Rugby Championship and if South Africa will be able to beat them or not.
 
Idea here guys:

Given that NZ is currently in danger of getting stuck on rankings points from getting so far ahead of there opposition, as well as the fact that most positions have three or four men competing for the spot, I reckon we could have two teams that could both beat any other national team on their day, if not consistently.

Why not make it North Island & South Island? Either Island of Origin style (players classified based on the first club they played for), or maybe go by NPC teams.....

Discuss.... if we base this around NPC teams, as players' origins may not be as well known, who would be in your matchday 23s?? Would they still dominate?

Only issue I can see being NZ can't win all the competitions now - and ranking points may drop given how even the matchup between the two teams would be.

:fb::ar15firing5de::dance::yess::victory:

Hopefully the idea hasn't been thrashed out earlier.....?


No!
 
Arsenal were called the invincibles, because they were unbeatable for more than 2 years running. Something the All Blacks haven't done yet with the current management and players.

Arsenal play soccer. A game where once you score one goal, you can conceivably sit back, play a negative defensive game, and come away with the win. Rugby can be decided by a piece of individual brilliance, and the fact that the Arsenal team dominated for two years, while fascinating, isn't exactly mind-blowing.

You still fail to name a team that has consistently dominated for such a long period of time. When were the All Blacks last NOT rated best team in the world on form? 03 RWC? 13 years as the dominant test team..... and for how long before that I have no idea.

I wouldn't say that the All Blacks are close to unbeatable. And it will be interesting to see what happens in the Rugby Championship and if South Africa will be able to beat them or not.

Granted, the Springboks have a chance. I do still rate them as a great team. I do, however, feel that their days as a world power are numbered as long as the ridiculous apartheid hangover schemes are forced on them. To be asked to pick a team based on skin colour as opposed to merit isn't even close to reasonable for the selectors or the players. A separate gripe for another day, but my point is very soon there will be another team in the Springboks that will have no real hope of beating the All Blacks.
 
I'd argue the West Indies Cricket team are one of the most dominant in sport history having not lost a single test series between February, 1980 to March, 1995 and they are now a shadow of their formerselves. So that's 15 years....

As to New Zealand who won the Rugby Championship last year?

More importantly your talking about dominance after the world cup after retirements of key players during that dominant period your talking about (although I think it's fair to say that dominance was not for all those 13 years otherwise you'd have 3 world cups not 2) having just played quite frankly rubbish Welsh side.

I'd wait to see how you do against the other top teams in the world before claiming 4 more years. And yes it's bloody stupid we won't play for over 2 years in that time period considering it loks like both team will occupy 1 and 2 spots for a considerable length of of that time.
 
Arsenal play soccer. A game where once you score one goal, you can conceivably sit back, play a negative defensive game, and come away with the win. Rugby can be decided by a piece of individual brilliance, and the fact that the Arsenal team dominated for two years, while fascinating, isn't exactly mind-blowing.

You still fail to name a team that has consistently dominated for such a long period of time. When were the All Blacks last NOT rated best team in the world on form? 03 RWC? 13 years as the dominant test team..... and for how long before that I have no idea.



Granted, the Springboks have a chance. I do still rate them as a great team. I do, however, feel that their days as a world power are numbered as long as the ridiculous apartheid hangover schemes are forced on them. To be asked to pick a team based on skin colour as opposed to merit isn't even close to reasonable for the selectors or the players. A separate gripe for another day, but my point is very soon there will be another team in the Springboks that will have no real hope of beating the All Blacks.

Okay, I'll bite.

Let's take soccer, a sport with the highest numbers of teams, players, fans and stadiums in the world that is also the most watched sport on tv. Where no team internationally has kept the no. 1 ranking longer than 18 months, and where a team like Arsenal in the Premier league hasn't won the ***le 4 years in a row since the proffessional era. That makes their status so much better in that their consistency developed into a nickname of the invincibles. Something that hasn't of yet been in the same vocabulary as the All Blacks.

What about the Australian Cricket team? they won the Cricket World Cup 3 times in a row!! Not even the All Blacks can say that.

Sure the All Blacks has been consistent in being one of the best over a long period of time, but you are not taking any of the other teams even into consideration with your remarks, which kind of make you sound more arrogant than you might think. It's as if you are completely discrediting every other International Rugby team ever. What about the 2007 - 2009 Springboks who won the World Cup and then the Tri-Nations as well as the B&I Lions? Why are they deemed to be of a lesser standard than the current All Blacks?
 

Perhaps I should clarify

New Zealand are very, very good. I think every rugby person with just an ounce of commonsense agrees with that. But we are NOT good enough to run two teams at the top level with all that it implies. IMO, the whole idea is preposterous and would detract from the game.

As an All Blacks supporter, this thread represents the sort of arrogance and hubris that makes me cringe!
 
The original question is just WUMing.

And yes it's bloody stupid we won't play for over 2 years in that time period considering it loks like both team will occupy 1 and 2 spots for a considerable length of of that time.

On the contrary I think its great. We need to reduce international fixtures against our SH cousins to make them become special occasions again, rather than just another step on the treadmill. I realise I may be in a minority here....
 
Yes, let's dilute our national team which has played over a hundred years, into two near meaningless representative teams - because we won two World Cups in a row. Some people need to get a grip.
 
I don't think they are unbeatable, but the opposition needs to be peaking and on point to win. In the last number of years that hasn't happened for various reasons so it has made the all blacks look even better.
 
Arsenal were called the invincibles, because they were unbeatable for more than 2 years running. Something the All Blacks haven't done yet with the current management and players.

I wouldn't say that the All Blacks are close to unbeatable. And it will be interesting to see what happens in the Rugby Championship and if South Africa will be able to beat them or not.
The Invincibles were the 2003-04 side that went unbeaten in the PL.

Also the comment by OP that Rugby can be won on one piece of individual brilliance, while true, it doesn't happen anywhere near as often as soccer. As for the question, no, their dominance will end sooner or later.
 
What about the Australian Cricket team? they won the Cricket World Cup 3 times in a row!! Not even the All Blacks can say that.

Wouldn't surprise me if they won the next WC in Japan. Would be 3 in a row. I think they'll do it.
 
Wouldn't surprise me if they won the next WC in Japan. Would be 3 in a row. I think they'll do it.

But they haven't done it yet . It doesn't take a lot to lose a game in knockout rugby . Whilst it wouldn't surprise me if they did it, it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't
 
What a rubbish thread...

We are lucky to have a side like the All Blacks to support but they aren't going to be dominant forever. Lets just enjoy the ride.
 
Another thread about how good we are made by a Kiwi?? I never seen that before. Maybe just need to invest big money in Aussie Rugby and in 5 years they will beat NZ in rugby like actually do in ALL the others sports. Australia is the Kryptonite of NZ in sports, but Union is so tiny there right now and could disappear in the next 20 years.

Look at the Women 7s, NZ has been better than Australia for years then they recruited their best women athletes from others sports and now Australian women 7s are better than NZ Women 7s. They have more money, more athletes and more infrastructure than NZ. The big difference is that the women don't have to compete against giants like AFL and NRL
 
Last edited:
Another thread about how good we are made by a Kiwi?? I never seen that before. Maybe just need to invest big money in Aussie Rugby and in 5 years they will beat NZ in rugby like actually do in ALL the others sports. Australia is the Kryptonite of NZ in sports, but Union is so tiny there right now and could disappear in the next 20 years.

Look at the Women 7s, NZ has been better than Australia for years then they recruited their best women athletes from others sports and now Australian women 7s are better than NZ Women 7s. They have more money, more athletes and more infrastructure than NZ. The big difference is that the women don't have to compete against giants like AFL and NRL

Considering most kiwi's have said it's a stupid thread - not sure why you want to try and take yet another dig. You also seem to know very little about New Zealand sports.
 
unless ye split politically no ye stay as 1 team its tough sh#t on us if we can't catch ye. enjoy it not many teams in any code can match your record of success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top