The RWC CHAMPIONS gloating thread

[austingtir]

I never said he can't say what he wants, of course he can. I'm more stating that he didn't have the opportunity in that interview to interrupt and say anything of his own accord. He would've looked a right idiot shouting her down while she's firing off questions to go all Kanye and get his 2c worth in about Australia being great on the day too.

Yep I probably misread your post actually.

The girl interview everyone was just terrible though. Its like they went out and found the most obnoxious stupid blonde bimbo they could find and be all like ask these guys the most lame questions after the game love....

 

[Crazy Horse]

As an American, my country does not have the rugby pedigree that you guys do (the Olympic gold notwithstanding) but I've been a player of limited ability and have always enjoyed watching rugby in addition to playing it.

To me, the All Blacks represent everything that is beautiful about the sport. The running rugby, the sublime handling skills from 1 to 15, the instinctive knowledge to know what to do and how to use space on the pitch... looking as an outsider, the ABs play the way rugby is meant to be played. That's why I am a fan of the ABs, have always been for the 35 years or so that I have been either a player or a fan of the game. and why I will always be an AB fan regardless of whether they win or lose.

 

[Fard]

Yep I probably misread your post actually.

The girl interview everyone was just terrible though. Its like they went out and found the most obnoxious stupid blonde bimbo they could find and be all like ask these guys the most lame questions after the game love....

Agree she was hopeless! Needed someone who was an ex-player or a well know commentator. I have never know McCaw to be anything but gracious in both defeat and winning. Although haven't seen too many interviews where he has been on the loosing end.
Well played New Zealand and looking to the RC next year.

 

[User1245]

The All Blacks are a fantastic side for rugby. They're like a team out of a movie script... They're the best team, they wear just black and do a war dance before the match. It makes beating them more fun than any other team. Here's to the next victory over them!

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

You're assuming they're going to be beaten? Big assumption.

 

[Veal]

You cant be an Aussie cricket fan then!

...and I'm not. I get no joy from Australia winning cricket anymore...... I detest the culture that Waugh, Ponting brought in and is perpetuated by Warner et al....shameful stuff

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

You're assuming they're going to be beaten? Big assumption.

It happened this year, it can happen again and they're aware of that as much as anyone else. Hope not though.

 

[ureilius]

if you just look at how rugby works in nz ...
rugby fields at pretty much nearly every school
long tradition of high school rugby with great highschool rivalries
now we have female rugby teams and at high school level (awesome girls)
and then you just go and watch club rugby
and when you just look at that you get a feel for how rugby mad our country is

 

[nzlizard]

You're assuming they're going to be beaten? Big assumption.

I think we could lose a couple next year, no big concern in the grand scheme of things, and could be good for a few of the new boys to get one early.

After losing 5 of the starting team and about the same from the bench and the WC squad, that is a lot to lose, sure we have backup players but they will take a few games to find there feet.

So I expect some real close encounters over the next year, that could lead to those losses. But I still think we will be right up there.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Honestly I haven't seen much gloating/trolling by NZ fans on this forum, they have been generally gracious winners, Well done boys (and girls)!.

If we had lost the final, this forum would still be broken with trolls having a crack. There are still a few trying to have a crack and we won lol.

Still first team to go back2back, first three time champs. I don't think rugby world supremacy has fully been restored though, might need a couple more cups to lose the chokers tag. 3/8 is only 37.5% of cups.

Some will still argue (SA fans and in a way rightly so) the 1st two cups don't count because SA weren't involved. So we are actually just level pegging them, but we have still knocked them out in the last 2 KO games that we have played them so all good.

Well done to all for not gloating.
Gracious winners are always better winners.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think winning it twice in a row and likely retiring Mccaw doesnt have to be all PC about this win.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You make it sound as if being good was a valid excuse for not being humble, when in reality both are completely independent traits.

 

[smartcooky]

Some will still argue (SA fans and in a way rightly so) the 1st two cups don't count because SA weren't involved. So we are actually just level pegging them, but we have still knocked them out in the last 2 KO games that we have played them so all good.

That is a big fat myth, I don't buy it and I never will.

Firstly, its not New Zealand's or any other country's fault that the Springboks were not invited in 1987 & 1991. They knew what they had to do to get invited, and they wouldn't do it. The remaining teams can only play what is in front of them.

Secondly, even if they were in those tournaments it is no guarantee that they would have won either of them, and IMO, they would have been nowhere near. South African rugby was in a poor state at that time. During isolation, they did play a few "rebel" tests against second rate scratch sides such as the Jaguars, the Cavaliers and a much weakened England side (in all cases, many players chose not to tour or were forbidden to by their employers) and while the Boks won many of them there always needs to be an asterisk against those matches, due to the fact that they were against weakened teams and were controlled by hometown referees. We all know what a great record they had at home with their own referees like Gert Bezuidenhout, Ian Gourlay, Max Baise and Piet Robbertse. Then, when they came back out of isolation in 1992, when all the referees were neutral, South Africa found themselves well off the pace, losing six of their first seven test matches.

Thirdly, South Africa missing from 1987 and 1991 is no more significant than England missing from all the FIFA World Cups before 1950 and a few since. You dont hear the FA whinging that the 1930, 34, 38, 74, 78 and 94 World Cups didn't mean anything because they weren't in them.

 

[TRF_heineken]

That is a big fat myth, I don't buy it and I never will.

Firstly, its not New Zealand's or any other country's fault that the Springboks were not invited in 1987 & 1991. They knew what they had to do to get invited, and they wouldn't do it. The remaining teams can only play what is in front of them.

Secondly, even if they were in those tournaments it is no guarantee that they would have won either of them, and IMO, they would have been nowhere near. South African rugby was in a poor state at that time. During isolation, they did play a few "rebel" tests against second rate scratch sides such as the Jaguars, the Cavaliers and a much weakened England side (in all cases, many players chose not to tour or were forbidden to by their employers) and while the Boks won many of them there always needs to be an asterisk against those matches, due to the fact that they were against weakened teams and were controlled by hometown referees. We all know what a great record they had at home with their own referees like Gert Bezuidenhout, Ian Gourlay, Max Baise and Piet Robbertse. Then, when they came back out of isolation in 1992, when all the referees were neutral, South Africa found themselves well off the pace, losing six of their first seven test matches.

Thirdly, South Africa missing from 1987 and 1991 is no more significant than England missing from all the FIFA World Cups before 1950 and a few since. You dont hear the FA whinging that the 1930, 34, 38, 74, 78 and 94 World Cups didn't mean anything because they weren't in them.

Which South Africans are whinging about not playing in the first 2 tournaments??

But Smartcooky, I don't think it was that easy to just get invited, due to the international sanctions imposed on South Africa at that time, I doubt that if we were invited, that we would've gone as it would just have escalated the problems we were having at homing on an international front.

And in any case, I don't think that we would've won those first 2 tournaments, we might've come close with guys like Naas Botha captaining the side, but it's merely speculation.

All we say is that we have had a pretty good run in the World Cup since we participated, and that we have been more successful that the other nations in 2 less tournaments than them.

 

[smartcooky]

Which South Africans are whinging about not playing in the first 2 tournaments??

But Smartcooky, I don't think it was that easy to just get invited, due to the international sanctions imposed on South Africa at that time, I doubt that if we were invited, that we would've gone as it would just have escalated the problems we were having at homing on an international front.

And in any case, I don't think that we would've won those first 2 tournaments, we might've come close with guys like Naas Botha captaining the side, but it's merely speculation.

All we say is that we have had a pretty good run in the World Cup since we participated, and that we have been more successful that the other nations in 2 less tournaments than them.

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.

 

[Ospervat]

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 1995

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.

Not so much invalid or irrelevant as compromised. When you don't have a team that has been consistently recognised as amongst the best in the world for over a century represented at a major tournament it does raise the opportunity to dispute any claims.

Consider North American Major League Baseball who have their World Series. Is the winner really world champions when they haven't played anyone else outside their own continent. Academic I know but true nonetheless.

Another example would be the 1980 & 1984 Olympic Games with the US (+allies) and the USSR boycotting each other's games. Can the winners of all those events truly claim to be the best in the world at that time knowing that such strong opponents weren't represented.

Consider for a moment if you will, if the AB's due to some freak of events were unable to attend RWC 2015 and Australia won the final against SA would the Kiwis recognise Oz as the world champs. I doubt it. There will always be that "what if" element to consider.

I should add that I have had the personal displeasure of making Luyts acquaintance some 35 years ago over a short period of time and I want to make it perfectly clear he was a #%*â'¬ then and I'm sure he hadn't changed in 1995.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Not so much invalid or irrelevant as compromised. When you don't have a team that has been consistently recognised as amongst the best in the world for over a century represented at a major tournament it does raise the opportunity to dispute any claims.

Consider North American Major League Baseball who have their World Series. Is the winner really world champions when they haven't played anyone else outside their own continent. Academic I know but true nonetheless.

Another example would be the 1980 & 1984 Olympic Games with the US (+allies) and the USSR boycotting each other's games. Can the winners of all those events truly claim to be the best in the world at that time knowing that such strong opponents weren't represented.

Consider for a moment if you will, if the AB's due to some freak of events were unable to attend RWC 2015 and Australia won the final against SA would the Kiwis recognise Oz as the world champs. I doubt it. There will always be that "what if" element to consider.

I should add that I have had the personal displeasure of making Luyts acquaintance some 35 years ago over a short period of time and I want to make it perfectly clear he was a #%*€ then and I'm sure he hadn't changed in 1995.

Despite what you say of Luyt, you have a whole post here seemingly backing up his opinion. Seems to me that same South African attitude about 1987 and 1991 is about and alive and well. Scarcely a comment at all saying anything that would infer that it's possible that South Africa would have lost those World Cups and plenty of comment to the contrary that they suggests they would've.

You've made examples involving dozens of countries in a multi-sports tournament to make your case. That's not the same thing at all. There seems to be a thing when people make comparisons nowadays, it's as if people say "B is more or less the same as A, because B is right beside A, and C well that's right next door to B, so that's basically A as well". Examples with a very thin connection to the discussed issue get used all the time now and it get further away from the issue.

South Africa as a country could've made changes to be a part of the world as the world progressed around it. It didn't, it wasn't there. The World Cup is simply a tournament. If you're there, you can win it. It's your nations decision to either make yourselves be there or not. South Africa made choices to keep itself out of the game, as it wasn't as a country ready to be there to hold with the ideals of all of the others. The right was forfeited by South Africa's lack of reaction.

If NZ had lost this tournament and all others, we still would be where we were/are in ranking. Number 1 for most of the time by a long way. That's what has always mattered more than a glorified knockout tournament and I'm glad to be able to say it, as I have for a long time, without someone saying, "it's only because you kiwi's keep losing them".

As final note, if New Zealand, who were certainly better than most other teams (year round) in most of the World Cups we lost, can lose and exit World Cups, then why wouldn't South Africa? As far as I'm concerned, that gets ignored.

The World Cup started in 1987 all right, but South Africa were unable as a nation to be there, based on their own choices. They had plenty of time to know what they had to do.

 

[Five Meters Out]

South Africa wouldn't have come close in 1987 or 1991, because all the Bryan Habana's and JP Peterson's of that era would have been sitting at home, watching the matches on TV.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

South Africa wouldn't have come close in 1987 or 1991, because all the Bryan Habana's and JP Peterson's of that era would have been sitting at home, watching the matches on TV.

Classic, but almost true. A lot of them wouldn't have even had the TV.

 

[Ospervat]

Despite what you say of Luyt, you have a whole post here seemingly backing up his opinion. Seems to me that same South African attitude about 1987 and 1991 is about and alive and well. Scarcely a comment at all saying anything that would infer that it's possible that South Africa would have lost those World Cups and plenty of comment to the contrary that they suggests they would've.

You've made examples involving dozens of countries in a multi-sports tournament to make your case. That's not the same thing at all. There seems to be a thing when people make comparisons nowadays, it's as if people say "B is more or less the same as A, because B is right beside A, and C well that's right next door to B, so that's basically A as well". Examples with a very thin connection to the discussed issue get used all the time now and it get further away from the issue.

South Africa as a country could've made changes to be a part of the world as the world progressed around it. It didn't, it wasn't there. The World Cup is simply a tournament. If you're there, you can win it. It's your nations decision to either make yourselves be there or not. South Africa made choices to keep itself out of the game, as it wasn't as a country ready to be there to hold with the ideals of all of the others. The right was forfeited by South Africa's lack of reaction.

If NZ had lost this tournament and all others, we still would be where we were/are in ranking. Number 1 for most of the time by a long way. That's what has always mattered more than a glorified knockout tournament and I'm glad to be able to say it, as I have for a long time, without someone saying, "it's only because you kiwi's keep losing them".

As final note, if New Zealand, who were certainly better than most other teams (year round) in most of the World Cups we lost, can lose and exit World Cups, then why wouldn't South Africa? As far as I'm concerned, that gets ignored.

The World Cup started in 1987 all right, but South Africa were unable as a nation to be there, based on their own choices. They had plenty of time to know what they had to do.

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.

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

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. 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!

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...-what-went-wrong#/recognising-what-went-wrong

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?

 

[Ospervat]

Dammit why can't I delete this post made in error.