'95 back in the spotlight again, suzie at it again.

[austingtir]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iQBLgndTU

 

[Larksea]

^this

Pretty much any time NZ lose all the other fans have to put with "were the best anyway if only we hadn't been ill/cheated by ref/been terrible injured".

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.

 

[nzlizard]

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.

Agree with this completely, 1995 was our most complete WC, and I believe with everything we would have won if we had no been sick.

As per 91, 99 and 03 we never really delivered a consistent set of performances, or even had the right team IMO to win.

 

[smartcooky]

One is very likely to pick up food poisoning looking at the itinerary some travelling teams have. I'm actually surprised we havn't heard of visiting sports teams complaining about picking up tuberculosis in SA seeing as we are the world hot spot for the highly contagious illness. Visitors visit dodgy areas with the best intentions but don't always realize the risks.

Yup. Ask any western cricketer what happens to their "Number Twos" on a tour of the Indian Sub-Continent

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Add to that the fact that in 95, South Afrcia were extremely lucky not to be knocked out by France n the semi-final after Benazzi was not awarded a match-winning try in the last second.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Regarding RWC 2007 QF - again no mention by AB fans here of the ABs leadership group, including McCaw not recognising that Barnes was "in over his head" and was not going to award them any penalties and to take the game out of Barnes' hands and go for drop goals. Not including McAllister's awful attempt from the half way line. Something the ABs did recognise and learn from on the two subsequent RWCs, despite most ABs seeing drop goals as being beneath them.

 

[ncurd]

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.

I wasn't referring to just world cups the whole 3 times I can remember us beating NZ there are always excuses.

 

[smartcooky]

Regarding RWC 2007 QF - again no mention by AB fans here of the ABs leadership group, including McCaw not recognising that Barnes was "in over his head" and was not going to award them any penalties and to take the game out of Barnes' hands and go for drop goals. Not including McAllister's awful attempt from the half way line. Something the ABs did recognise and learn from on the two subsequent RWCs, despite most ABs seeing drop goals as being beneath them.

You'll find, if you bothered to check, that many if not most of the NZ posters here, including myself, have repeatedly acknowledged exactly what you are saying... that they had no plan "B" and especially no plan for an incompetent referee or one that was that was out of his depth. Despite that fact however. it does not excuse Barnes abysmal "possum in the headlights" display.

The failure of a team or its coaches and leadership group to understand quickly enough that the referee isn't up to the task does not excuse the referee for his performance, nor does it excuse those who chucked him in at the deep end. A referee with only two top level (Tier 1 v Tier 1) test matches should have never even been appointed to officiate at a Rugby World Cup, let alone a prime knock out match. The decision to appoint him was pure "Home Unions" politics; he was the RFU's "Golden Boy" and they pushed very hard for his inclusion.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

You'll find, if you bothered to check, that many if not most of the NZ posters here, including myself, have repeatedly acknowledged exactly what you are saying... that they had no plan "B" and especially no plan for an incompetent referee or one that was that was out of his depth. Despite that fact however. it does not excuse Barnes abysmal "possum in the headlights" display.

The failure of a team or its coaches and leadership group to understand quickly enough that the referee isn't up to the task does not excuse the referee for his performance, nor does it excuse those who chucked him in at the deep end. A referee with only two top level (Tier 1 v Tier 1) test matches should have never even been appointed to officiate at a Rugby World Cup, let alone a prime knock out match. The decision to appoint him was pure "Home Unions" politics; he was the RFU's "Golden Boy" and they pushed very hard for his inclusion.

I'm not going to check every single NZ supporter's post on here to see if they acknowledge their 2007 team's lack of a team B.
But it seems to be a myth perpetuated that still holds true in most, if not all NZ supporters minds, not to acknowledge this failing/contribution to their own demise. Who is to say even had the team got through and got a different referee in the semi or final, that this deficiency in this team would not have been exposed. I just remember watching that match and thinking why don't the ABs go for the drop goal - being only 2 points behind and yet they still kept trying to bash at France and hope they would get a try.

I remember talking to one Kiwi/AB fan in a Cardiff pub when watching the SA-Wales QF, which Barnes was reffing and all he went on about was Barnes and how bad he was in this match. We then got talking about the 2007 QF and again it was all Barnes' fault. When I mentioned the ABs lack of plan B, McCaw's relative lack of experience at that stage as captain of his AB career and not going for the drop goal, he went a bit quiet.

I'm not excusing Barnes's performance that day or appointment, but a bit of balance (see Larksea's post)when acknowledging that AB team of 2007 had no plan B needs to be added.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm not going to check every single NZ supporter's post on here to see if they acknowledge their 2007 team's lack of a team B.
But it seems to be a myth perpetuated that still holds true in most, if not all NZ supporters minds, not to acknowledge this failing/contribution to their own demise. Who is to say even had the team got through and got a different referee in the semi or final, that this deficiency in this team would not have been exposed. I just remember watching that match and thinking why don't the ABs go for the drop goal - being only 2 points behind and yet they still kept trying to bash at France and hope they would get a try.

I remember talking to one Kiwi/AB fan in a Cardiff pub when watching the SA-Wales QF, which Barnes was reffing and all he went on about was Barnes and how bad he was in this match. We then got talking about the 2007 QF and again it was all Barnes' fault. When I mentioned the ABs lack of plan B, McCaw's relative lack of experience at that stage as captain of his AB career and not going for the drop goal, he went a bit quiet.

I'm not excusing Barnes's performance that day or appointment, but a bit of balance (see Larksea's post)when acknowledging that AB team of 2007 had no plan B needs to be added.

With respect, you've been on here a while now, and you are bound to have come across similar discussions before. I know that Larksea, Smart Cooky, and myself (to name a few of us, there are undoubtedly more) have all said on multiple occasions that the ABs lacked a plan B, that they hadn't practiced drop goals etc ... basically, they failed to adapt in 2007, and that lack of planning and savvy on the field undoubtedly lead to the 2011 and 2015 successes.

I think most of us find it a little wearisome trying to explain the same thing over and over, and it certainly isn't going to alter the result, so, to a certain extent, it's not worth the effort; my personal view is that if a team isn't good enough to overcome any of the factors that negatively impact their team, be it illness, refereeing, injuries to key personnel, then, they weren't good enough, end of story.

Having said that, while Wayne Barnes was not the sole reason we lost, it wasn't a great refereeing display, and he certainly was a factor.

If you think that kiwi fans didn't recognise the short comings in their own team, and hold them accountable, you only need to see the abysmal treatment the 2007 team received when they arrived home.

Once again, if you look at any result, in any test match, for any nation, you are bound to come across individuals who will find excuses, and blame the various officials, etc ... hell, there's been FB hate pages put up for some referees, so, I don't think this trait applies to either to just AB supporters, or solely AB supporters.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

my personal view is that if a team isn't good enough to overcome any of the factors that negatively impact their team, be it illness, refereeing, injuries to key personnel, then, they weren't good enough, end of story.

Exactly!!! Anyway back to the point of threads like this, the discussion is only really going to go one way - i.e. the country involved comes across as the victim and anyone not from that country is thinking - "not again!!!"

This SA body guard is only bringing it back up because he's on a speaking tour of NZ and he has a willing audience to listen to him and to drag it all up. It was already in his "book" he published a while back.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

 

[austingtir]

I wasn't referring to just world cups the whole 3 times I can remember us beating NZ there are always excuses.

Of course theres excuses its a simple fact that you lot should not be beating us and if you do we cocked something up. History has proven this time again so I really dont get what your on about. SA (maybe Australia sometimes) is the only team that has consistently beaten us on merit and thats just a fact.

 

[Adakins]

As a All Blacks fan, I was heartbroken when we lost in SA. I was angry about the loss and the circumstances about how we lost. But at the end of the day it's in a books as a South African win and that can't be changed. Bringing anything up now is just pointless, unless they are gonna change the record book, which they won't, there's no point in talking about it anymore.

 

[smartcooky]

As a All Blacks fan, I was heartbroken when we lost in SA. I was angry about the loss and the circumstances about how we lost. But at the end of the day it's in a books as a South African win and that can't be changed. Bringing anything up now is just pointless, unless they are gonna change the record book, which they won't, there's no point in talking about it anymore.

Well, there goes the subject of "History" at school; so much for the "History Channel".

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana (December 1863)

 

[Adakins]

Well, there goes the subject of "History" at school; so much for the "History Channel".

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana (December 1863)

I remember it all too well, but unless there's actually evidence coming out and saying what he is saying is just pointless.

 

[otapouri]

With respect, you've been on here a while now, and you are bound to have come across similar discussions before. I know that Larksea, Smart Cooky, and myself (to name a few of us, there are undoubtedly more) have all said on multiple occasions that the ABs lacked a plan B, that they hadn't practiced drop goals etc ... basically, they failed to adapt in 2007, and that lack of planning and savvy on the field undoubtedly lead to the 2011 and 2015 successes.

I think most of us find it a little wearisome trying to explain the same thing over and over, and it certainly isn't going to alter the result, so, to a certain extent, it's not worth the effort; my personal view is that if a team isn't good enough to overcome any of the factors that negatively impact their team, be it illness, refereeing, injuries to key personnel, then, they weren't good enough, end of story.

Having said that, while Wayne Barnes was not the sole reason we lost, it wasn't a great refereeing display, and he certainly was a factor.

If you think that kiwi fans didn't recognise the short comings in their own team, and hold them accountable, you only need to see the abysmal treatment the 2007 team received when they arrived home.

Once again, if you look at any result, in any test match, for any nation, you are bound to come across individuals who will find excuses, and blame the various officials, etc ... hell, there's been FB hate pages put up for some referees, so, I don't think this trait applies to either to just AB supporters, or solely AB supporters.

We recognised the teams shortcomings but the brain stops working when with over 90% of pocession and ler frogs conceding a penalty every couple of minutes but Wayne not pulling them up; you start to think what hell can you as a team do about it.

 

[Five Meters Out]

^this

Pretty much any time NZ lose all the other fans have to put with "were the best anyway if only we hadn't been ill/cheated by ref/been terrible injured".

Dunno about that.
1993- Both teams were rubbish - England wins.
June 2003 - England beat AB's in Wellington and deserved the win. No excuses there.
Fact is though in those November Tests the AB's will be tired from a long season and play like they want to go to the beach. Same with June tours for the Nth Hemisphere sides. That's not excuses that's a fact.

 

[Maverick1987]

Of course theres excuses its a simple fact that you lot should not be beating us and if you do we cocked something up. History has proven this time again so I really dont get what your on about. SA (maybe Australia sometimes) is the only team that has consistently beaten us on merit and thats just a fact.

England beat NZ by a record margin in 2012 on MERIT ! we were the best team that day by far . It's simple ! All I can say it's a bloody good job you are an ABs supporter because if you supported Wales in the 90s or England in the 70s you would have probably hung yourself by now ...... Or minimum you would have run out of your crappy excuses

 

[ncurd]

Dunno about that.
1993- Both teams were rubbish - England wins.
June 2003 - England beat AB's in Wellington and deserved the win. No excuses there.
Fact is though in those November Tests the AB's will be tired from a long season and play like they want to go to the beach. Same with June tours for the Nth Hemisphere sides. That's not excuses that's a fact.

See I don't agree sure it should be the normal the advantage goes to the home side. However there's also the flip side the fresh team hasn't had any time together that season.

Plus a wins a win and we're tired is an excuse possibly a marginally valid one but an excuse all the same.

 

[saulan]

Dunno about that.
1993- Both teams were rubbish - England wins.
June 2003 - England beat AB's in Wellington and deserved the win. No excuses there.
Fact is though in those November Tests the AB's will be tired from a long season and play like they want to go to the beach. Same with June tours for the Nth Hemisphere sides. That's not excuses that's a fact.

This post is a joke right? Open up by saying that you don't believe that New Zealand supporters don't make excuses and then follow that by excusing two losses to England in November tests?

(Please note that I don't agree with the statement that New Zealand fans always have excuses, I just couldn't not comment on this specific post and its irony.)

Also, that argument put forward is an absolute joke anyway. So we should never really count matches between NH and SH teams because one team will be starting off and one team wants to go on holiday? What rubbish is this? One side may (potentially) be fatigued a bit but the other is going to (potentially) lack chemistry having not played together for 6 to 8 months. Both sides can have excuses or facts as you put it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

This post is a joke right? Open up by saying that you don't believe that New Zealand supporters don't make excuses and then follow that by excusing two losses to England in November tests?

(Please note that I don't agree with the statement that New Zealand fans always have excuses, I just couldn't not comment on this specific post and its irony.)

Also, that argument put forward is an absolute joke anyway. So we should never really count matches between NH and SH teams because one team will be starting off and one team wants to go on holiday? What rubbish is this? One side may (potentially) be fatigued a bit but the other is going to (potentially) lack chemistry having not played together for 6 to 8 months. Both sides can have excuses or facts as you put it.

Why would NZ want to go to the beach in England?? it's almost just as cold and crappy up there as in NZ... They'd rather go to Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Australia or SA for some fun in the sun.

But what is true is that when the SH teams travel to the NH in November our teams are battered and bruised, as it is the last matches of their heavy schedule for the year. While it's not the same case for the NH teams as it's basically just the beginning of their season. The same can be said of the NH teams traveling South during the June tests. How often does it happen that the NH teams send down a second string squad and perform poorly.