Discussion in 'Tri Nations 2009-2011' started by Gavin, Aug 2, 2011.
Smells like World Cup Pressure
Partly Agree. I thought that Horvill played well & Higginbotham when he came on did well.
Felt sorry for Pocock, he was always in the mix at the breakdowns, but he lacked support from everyone else.
The amount of work the AB's do on the ball at the breakdown from 1-15 is only one of many things that set them apart at the moment.
Also, it's hard to be a World Class open side if you are going backwards.
Sure we have a great chance and we want the World Cup very badly over here.Totally true, but if it doesn't happen this time, there's only so bitter and chewed up you can feel. Some of us will of course be gutted if/when (however people want to phrase it) we crash out.
This time though, I think a lot more New Zealanders have been through this before and realise it's the nature of knock-out tourneys. The only thing to turn to if it happens will be the possibility of not being World Champions again, but somehow still being the Number 1 ranked side in the world.
If that's how it works out, that might say something about knock-out tourneys that'll make some of us sleep a little easier at night.
Maybe it won't feel as good as whoever those world champions might be, but it'll have it's own charm.
Being no1 in a statistic is nothing compared to the WC. The beauty of a final tournament is that there are so many and diverse matches that some teams can't go all the way or eventually get "read" by good tactical teams. NZ must win this time, it would be heartbreaking for them if it won't happen especially in the light of the tragic events they suffered this year, they need a morale boost as a nation, IMO...
Being Number 1 in the world is not "nothing" compared to a world cup. In World Cup year it comes second by a long way to the World Cup. The year after it probably narrowly comes second to the World Cup, but after that you can't dwell on it and say "everything else means nothing". You have to worry about the year to year business of trying to win everything else.
The Tri-Nations, the end of year tours, the Bledisloe Cup, the Lions Tours and anything else that comes the way of the All Blacks are all important.
Just because something is the most important thing, it does not make it the only thing.
Also, despite the tragic and on-going things that've plagued the people of Canterbury, we need to be realistic. As a nation we must of course want to win the world cup and a lot, but winning it will only put a smile on peoples faces and a good feeling in their heart for so long.
We're rebuilding our second biggest city and the world cup is completely unrelated and irrelevant to that.
I'd rather be the number 1 team than world champions personally, but of course would prefer to be both
Won't mind at all if a nh team win it but will be pretty gutted if Oz or the Boks win.
As we Kiwi's know though it only takes one off game and anyone can win on the day.
... Yep, but i'm sure the Wallabies will adjust to the pressure, and perform better
... Mind you, judging by 2007, they only have to finish equal to be knocked out of the tournament at the same stage as the All Blacks, for it to be a success for them ... were as the All Blacks have to win the cup
As has been said before, winning the Rugby World Cup is proof positive that you are the best team in the world over single six week period once every four years. For the remaining 202 weeks over four years, the best team in the world is whichever team is holding the No. 1 ranking at any given time.
England proved this after RWC 2003. For 18 months prior to 2003 RWC. They had a 90% winning record (27 wins from 30 matches) and were ranked No. 1, but in the 18 months after it, they dropped to No. 7 on the back of a 40% winning record (12 wins from 30 matches). It is very easy to go from champs to chumps. Despite the fact that England were still the World Cup Holders in 2006, no one in their right mind could possibly claim that they were still the best team in the world.
Almost true, I think it's more like 3-4 week period every 4 years because it doesn't matter how good you look in pool games and you can even lose a game in the pool stages. As long as you reach the knockout stages then it's all about winning just three games in a row. Quater, Semi then final.
Winning the WC doesn't make you the best team in the world, the world rankings do. Heck Ask Aussie which is easier to win, the World cup or the tri nations...
They have only won the tri nations 2 times in 15 series yet they have won the WC 2 times in 6 attempts
Same with South Africa - only managed 3 tri nations in 15 but they have got 2 WC's in 6 attempts.
Heck ask Aussie which is harder to win. A world cup or the Bledisloe Cup, they can't even get that these days.
Careful there, because the argument can also be made (even if erroneously) that Tri Nations must be easier because New Zealand have won it 11 times in 15 attempts, but have only won the RWC once in 6 attempts.
The point with the RWC is that you can get knocked out in one match. You don't even have to be consistent, as shown by South Africa in 1995. They played absolute crap in the pool and knock-out stages, but still managed to claw their way into the final and win it. Similar with England in 2007, they made the final after some less than convincing efforts earlier.
To win the Tri-Nations, you have to play home and away and although you can recover from a dropped game, consistency is the key.
what I think the key difference is that the format of tri nations rugby is better at determining who the better team is than the world cup format. That's what the results suggest to me.
Of course, that depends on how people view it. But winning the world cup would establish the All Blacks as the reigning rugby team and not the "WC chokers" some mean people use to call them. Sports in general credit the teams that win competitions and not those who establish themselves on ratings. The WC title lasts 4 years while the Tri Nations and autumn tests are yearly contested. That's my view...
IMO the reality is there i a lot of luck involved in winning a world cup.
look at 1995, NZ were by far the best team but they were struck down before the game and though they weren't themselves they put up a fight. my lasting memory of that game is of Jeff Wilson who I think is our greatest ever right winger going off early and vomiting on the sideline, AB's wpuld have only been about 60% that day. Or 2007 where south africa managed to get through the whole thing without facing a single team that was any sort of threat to them because of the luck of the draw and results going their way. I think their biggest threat came from fiji?.....
I also think one of the reasons there is so much interest in the world cup is because New Zealand haven't won it as much as they should have. If NZ had already won it say 3 times. for starters I dont think the IRB would have given NZ hoasting for this one and I also dont think international interest in it would be as high.
Well, this is the usual "play down the RWC" from AB supporters. But you know you want it.
Interested to hear how people are adapting after the earthquakes. Is the rugby spirit helping?
Of course we want to win the WC. But anyone of five or six teams is capable of winning the tournament. The draw,injury toll,and an element of luck all play a big part in a knockout tournament. The aftershocks seem to be tapering off a bit now. There is a massive cleanup and rebuilding program getting under way. It will take some years.
Argentina beat well France in the opening game of RWC 2007
England lost to South Africa 33-6 in pool stage
England beat narrowly Australia in QF
France beat narrowly NZ in QF
England outplayed France in SF1
South Africa ran over Argentina in SF2
Argentina beat again (and well) France in Bronze Final
England lost 15-6 to South Africa in the Final.
I don't see any shame here, I just see a winning team who beat anyone on his path, and a "phoenix team" who resurrected from his own ashes, thanks to key players and a winning-attitude, to become the 2nd best.
I'm sorry, but if you're saying SA's got through the whole thing without facing a single team that was any sort of threat, I dare to say you didn't see any RWC match!
Talking about rankings is, IMO, a consolation.
In between the RWC, it's a matter of 3 test in november, Six Nations or an extended Tri-Nations+Bledisloe (and some people are sick of that!) and 3 test in june, all spread in 11 month: with players rotation, turnovers, injuries and home competitions that takes the spotlight etc...
RWC is much more about attitude to perform under pressure, mind and physical as well, and to win it your team must be mentally solid and have consistence to go through 4 do-or-die matches (at least 1 pool game, +QF, SF and Final) in something less than 28 days.
And you have to do this with a group of 22-25 players (after a point, you can't continue to rotate players).
That's why people will always remember who won the last RWC, but probably they won't remember so well who topped ranking in the last four years.
Is this so easy?
Is this only matter of luck?
Now professionism is already established in this sport, I don't think so.
It's only matter of being good enough in every aspect of the game. From playing to management.
look at your own list.. here is the threat South Africa faced?
oh c'mon I know it's hardly South Africa's fault but the reality is the only sides that could have mounted a real threat against SA were NZ, Aus and France. SA made it the entire way through without having to face any of these teams. Look at SA's record against France in Europe - it's shocking. Utterly shocking.
SA won the WC because of shock results and matchups that happened giving them a golden run all the way through. Starting with Frances loss in the first game which was against form and ability. Though Argi were an ok team the result put them in a position above their actual ability and France became the huge quater final threat.
Another big result was AUS loss to ENG, Aussie are a better team than that but they always seem to struggle against The style of game england plays. The kicking game and the Huge english forward pack.
France with the help of the ref played their hearts, body and mind to a standstill against the all blacks. They were never going to recover from that game to win the next one. they were spent. That was their final. And they were exposed for England to trot past them to the final.
So many other factors went their way. Like having some more challenging competition in the pool stages compared to New Zealand was also a huge factor in the overall result.
So much of the end result was just luck and other results making progression easy to the point that the Quaterfinal, Semi and final itself was pretty much a formality.
i love the world cup format!! why change something awesome, it's awesome from a spectator and player point of view, and in most cases brings out a special something in a team who is willing to go the extra yard.
if 3 teams played eachother 3 times each year for the world cup, it would take the gloss off the tournament for sure
I agree, it would be less interesting because more often than not the best team would actually win. There wouldn't be as many suprises.
Rubbish. No way is it just playing down the RWC, and yes we do want it, but if it came at the cost of three years of humiliation on the rugby field (like England suffered post 2003) then thanks, but no thanks.
I'll take the number one ranking, because that stands every day that my team has "No. 1" next to its name. What's more, I don't give a fat rat's arse if it doesn't mean anything to anyone else; it means something to me, and that is all that matters.
Actually, the score was 36-0. The only reason I remember it is because of this.
Separate names with a comma.