The RWC CHAMPIONS gloating thread

[TRF_heineken]

heineken, it is not so much about "whinging about not playing in the first 2 tournaments" but more about the fact that there are plenty of South Africans who beleive the history of RWC begins in 1995...

[TEXTAREA]From an article in "The Guardian", Monday 26 June 1995

In a speech which resonated with the old Afrikaans arrogance, Mr Luyt proclaimed the victorious Springboks as the first 'true' world champions.

'There were no true world champions in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups because South Africa were not there. We have proved our point,' he said.

This prompted New Zealand's defeated captain, Sean Fitzpatrick, to lead his side out of the dinner - but not before some players had approached the top table to take issue with Mr Luyt.

The All Blacks were quickly followed by the French and English. 'It's disgusting. I can not believe what he has said,' Mr Fitzpatrick said afterwards.[/TEXTAREA]

Sadly, there are many South African fans who still believe this nonsense - that the All Black and Wallaby wins in 1987 and 1991 are invalid and irrelelvent because the Springboks didn't take part.

I think using Mr. Louis Luyt as an example is not the right way to go about. A lot of rugby fans hated him, some still does (my Father). It could also have been that what was said be taken out of context, as Mr. Luyt didn't speak English that well, and had that typical Afrikaner broken english accent. But I don't want to make excuses, I was still a baby when all this was said and happened.

I think he took what most thought and felt a little further than what was truly thought. My opinion is that we can't use the first 2 tournaments as a yardstick from a South African perspective because we didn't participate and couldn't even play international rugby at that time. But this was due to our own wrongdoing as a country on a political front which affected our sports teams directly.

I certainly don't believe the history of the World Cup begins in 1995. I think 1995 was the beginning of the movement of professionalism in rugby and rugby tournaments which has certainly evolved into the great spectacle it is today. But myself and many others certainly don't discredit the first 2 tournaments or the value it had.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I deliberated whether or not to respond to this as I'm absolutely convinced you did not get the point I was making - so not entirely sure it's worth taking a second crack.

I for one with absolute conviction am perfectly comfortable with the fact that AB's and Oz won the first 2 RWC's. I do not in any way begrudge them their victories or the credit due for their accomplishments.

There is no need for childish illustrations, it doesn't say much for an intelligent discussion. I would say that I may not have gotten your point fully, due to wording or whatever. I do think that I got it significantly better than you got any of mine.

Your attempt to set aside the comparisons I made with other sports are complete nonsense. Sorry but your argument on this aspect is illogical.

No, I merely stated that the impact on a multi-sports tournament is different to the impact on the Rugby World Cup. We are talking about one country, which may have done brilliantly or poorly, weighed against dozens in the Olympics. It is logically a different scenario. I would yes, still regard the winners of those medals at those Olympics as Olympic Champions. So does the world.

You are also oblivious to the real political playing field of the 70's, 80's and early 90's and the impact it had on all sports in SA. SA rugby was nothing more than a pawn in a much larger battle that had very little influence as an amateur code.

I'm not oblivious to any of that. There is no need to attempt to deride me. I was talking about the country as a whole. Not SA Rugby. You brought that into this just here.

If the international community had agreed to set aside the boycott for 1987 & 1991 I do not for one moment believe that SA would definitely have won the RWC. The knowledge, skills and experience necessary to compete on the international stage was by this time badly eroded and would have counted against them. But like all internationals at this level any tier 1 team could potentially beat any other tier 1 team on the day - anything is possible!

That's entirely correct. I agree with you.

I am not convinced by your argument that being no1 in the rankings is more important than the silverware where the AB's are concerned. Suggest you read this article which goes into the background behind the scenes for the changes in the AB's since 2007.

http://m.sarugbymag.co.za/?postslug=/blog/details/recognising-what-went-wrong#/recognising-what-went-wrong

The article does not change my opinion. A lot of New Zealanders would rather be the best team year after year, than win even more World Cups and be ranked 3rd-6th in an ongoing fashion. I think that holds water.

You have I notice chosen not to respond directly to the following:-

if the AB's due to some freak set of circumstances were unable to attend RWC 2015 and EG. Australia won the final against SA would the Kiwis so easily recognise Oz as the world champs?

I had many other things to respond to. I'm happy to respond to that. If the circumstances were such as the South African scenario? I would definitely recognize ANY other World Cup winner. Absolutely and without question.

As an aside, New Zealand have been removed from the Olympic Soccer tournament, due to poor management of their eligibility requirements. I will recognise ANY achievements of the country who reported us and took our place. I don't like how they did it, but I respectfully recognise them as being the regional team which has advanced instead of us.

 

[Mcfadden]

I might get a tirade from this, as Ritchie is seen as a God in NZ - he can do no wrong....

The ABs are deserved winners - clearly the best team for past 8 years... but I think Stephen Moore showed top form in his very gracious immediate post-match comments.

In the previous matches he also gave generous acknowledgement to the losing teams - England, Wales, Scotland, Argies.

On the flip side, McCaw could not bring himself to mention the opponents at all. No acknowledgement, no thanks. Nuthin....

The interviewer put it on a plate to him, with one question about how the Wallabies came back at them in the second half.....the response was turned around with more self congratulatory stuff about maintaining their composure.

Poor form.....and frankly this is not the first time I've seen him do this....

McCaw is the greater Athlete, but Moore is the greater sportsman.

McCaw is a great sportsman as well.

There have been plenty of times where he has acknowledged the opposition. Granted they are the usual stock standard phrases like "we knew they were going to throw everything at us" and "full credit to them" but maybe that's just in our identity; we aren't a nation of big talkers like you Australians. Maybe he was just wrapped up in winning a World Cup and being part of the first team in history to do it back to back? You've obviously been watching different post match interviews than I have! You also don't hear McCaw grizzle and groan like a certain Irish captain did when he gets intentionally injured and beaten up on the field - just quietly acknowledges it and stores it away as motivation.

To be honest, I don't expect much from you Australians. You're the most sour, bitter sort of people I've ever encountered. Sonny Bill Williams gave his medal to a child and all I've seen from Aussies are excuses about how bad that was. We obviously can't win with you guys in terms of our actions off the field. Guess it's a good thing we won where it counts aye?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but the tradition is that the immediate post match interview, when everyone is watching, is when you acknowledge the effort of the other team.......he didn't..and it was in stark contrast to Stephen Moore's gracious comments....and he has form on doing this....

Yeah, not buying it. Someone has pointed out that it isn't ALL McCaw said after the game .. you've then realized that, and you've shifted the goal posts to your argument.

 

[Ospervat]

...........you've shifted the goal posts to your argument.

Yeah. There's a lot of that going around.

 

[Shaggy]

heineken, it is not so much about "whinging about not playing in the first 2 tournaments" but more about the fact that there are plenty of South Africans who beleive the history of RWC begins in 1995...

[TEXTAREA]From an article in "The Guardian", Monday 26 June 1995

In a speech which resonated with the old Afrikaans arrogance, Mr Luyt proclaimed the victorious Springboks as the first 'true' world champions.

'There were no true world champions in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups because South Africa were not there. We have proved our point,' he said.

This prompted New Zealand's defeated captain, Sean Fitzpatrick, to lead his side out of the dinner - but not before some players had approached the top table to take issue with Mr Luyt.

The All Blacks were quickly followed by the French and English. 'It's disgusting. I can not believe what he has said,' Mr Fitzpatrick said afterwards.[/TEXTAREA]

Sadly, there are many South African fans who still believe this nonsense - that the All Black and Wallaby wins in 1987 and 1991 are invalid and irrelelvent because the Springboks didn't take part.

Cooky, if South Africa had been at the 87 and 91 RWC, they would have undoubtedly won them, because nobody else would have been there.

In 87, in New Zealand, apart from all of the other countries boycotting the event, the turmoil created by a South African sides involvement, would have torn the country apart, much like it did in 81. My opinion is that had South Africa been involved during the Apartheid era, the RWC concept would have been very short lived, and we probably wouldn't have one today.

I get that the cups prior to 1995 probably have no relevance to most South African supporters, but both sides beat the best teams that were able to play at the time; I'm not convinced that if the boks had been included in the 1991 tournament, that they would have won, based on their 1992 results, when they came back into international rugby.