Tri Nations: All Blacks - Wallabies @ Eden Park (06-08-2011, 08:35 GMT)

[Shaggy]

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 us because of this.

Exactly! ... although the ranking is just a mathematical equation, it does represent the number of test wins against all opponents, on a game to game basis, and it is generally reflected in the fullness of the silverware in the trophy cabinet

... for a nation such as New Zealand, where every test result is important/no "Friendlies" are played, the ranking is important

 

[Larksea]

I think it's funny how some countries mostly disregard the world rankings then when they get it or have a chance to get it all of a sudden it becomes really important. Like PDV post 2007 wanted to hold the #1 spot and create a "dynesty".

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

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 ***le lasts 4 years while the Tri Nations and autumn tests are yearly contested. That's my view...

I dunno, Tennis, Golf, Boxing, Formula One and even International Rugby League (mostly since New Zealand won the World Cup - all of a sudden who's been number one the longest counts ) are very highly focused on the number one spot. There is a lot of emphasis on it in Soccer from people who want to talk about who's been the number one ranked side the most and won the most ***les in various comps over the years (Man U passing Liverpool for most League ***les for example), that's all effectively worshipping the number one spot.

The ongoing load of codswallop that people keep throwing back at New Zealand is that saying we care more about being number one lowers how much we want the World Cup. WRONG. We all want it to be won immensely. Every New Zealand rugby fan would love it won and it's number one priority this year for sure!

We've still got every right to say that it's just as important to us to try and maintain New Zealands legacy of overall success.

Right now I can tell you for sure, that if a large number of New Zealanders had to choose between the two scenarios I'm about to show I've a fair idea what we'd choose.

1) We've won 3 or 4 of the World Cups by now, but in between those wins we'd lost a large number of matches, see-sawing in the rankings between 3rd and 7th place. Over our history South Africa have passed us for the overall most wins between the two nations, Australia and England have beaten us more times than we've beaten them since World Cups began and with France we've had a 50/50 record with (winning nearly all of our games at home, but they've won nearly all at theirs). We've had an occasional loss to say Ireland (4/10 times played) Wales (3/10) and Scotland (2/10). We lost the Lions Series 2-1 (one hiding against us).

2) Or the status quo. Just the one world cup, but we've literally had a huge chunk of the number one status for most of the time since the rankings began. We've yet to lose to Scotland. We've not lost to Ireland or Wales since the World Cups started (or a fair while before that). We beat all of those other teams mentioned more often than not (home and away). We beat the Lions the last two tours and clean swept them last time.

I ask you, is the World Cup really the more important of those two scenarios? If so, no wonder New Zealanders mostly have a different philosophy and it yields different rewards.

 

[smartcooky]

I dunno, Tennis, Golf, Boxing, Formula One and even International Rugby League (mostly since New Zealand won the World Cup - all of a sudden who's been number one the longest counts ) are very highly focused on the number one spot. There is a lot of emphasis on it in Soccer from people who want to talk about who's been the number one ranked side the most and won the most ***les in various comps over the years (Man U passing Liverpool for most League ***les for example), that's all effectively worshipping the number one spot.

The ongoing load of codswallop that people keep throwing back at New Zealand is that saying we care more about being number one lowers how much we want the World Cup. WRONG. We all want it to be won immensely. Every New Zealand rugby fan would love it won and it's number one priority this year for sure!

We've still got every right to say that it's just as important to us to try and maintain New Zealands legacy of overall success.

Right now I can tell you for sure, that if a large number of New Zealanders had to choose between the two scenarios I'm about to show I've a fair idea what we'd choose.

1) We've won 3 or 4 of the World Cups by now, but in between those wins we'd lost a large number of matches, see-sawing in the rankings between 3rd and 7th place. Over our history South Africa have passed us for the overall most wins between the two nations, Australia and England have beaten us more times than we've beaten them since World Cups began and with France we've had a 50/50 record with (winning nearly all of our games at home, but they've won nearly all at theirs). We've had an occasional loss to say Ireland (4/10 times played) Wales (3/10) and Scotland (2/10). We lost the Lions Series 2-1 (one hiding against us).

2) Or the status quo. Just the one world cup, but we've literally had a huge chunk of the number one status for most of the time since the rankings began. We've yet to lose to Scotland. We've not lost to Ireland or Wales since the World Cups started (or a fair while before that). We beat all of those other teams mentioned more often than not (home and away). We beat the Lions the last two tours and clean swept them last time.

I ask you, is the World Cup really the more important of those two scenarios? If so, no wonder New Zealanders mostly have a different philosophy and it yields different rewards.

...except.. we have never lost to Ireland. For the record 23 wins from 24 matches, with one draw (in 1973). Last time we lost to Wales was 1953, and the overall record stands at 25 wins from 28 matches, but it was 3-1 to Wales at the time of the 1953 defeat!!!

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

...except.. we have never lost to Ireland. For the record 23 wins from 24 matches, with one draw (in 1973). Last time we lost to Wales was 1953, and the overall record stands at 25 wins from 28 matches, but it was 3-1 to Wales at the time of the 1953 defeat!!!

Thanks Cooky, but I wasn't quite sure about whether we'd had one loss or one draw against Ireland. I knew it was 1973, but I couldn't remember the result. I've shamefully got to admit I've never bought Men In Black and my dads copy was basically my reference material growing up. Haven't read through some of the results in that for a long time now.

As for Wales I knew it was the 50's they last grabbed a win, but would've only guessed at the year for the same reasons above.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks Cooky, but I wasn't quite sure about whether we'd had one loss or one draw against Ireland. I knew it was 1973, but I couldn't remember the result.

Well now I will show you my age, I saw the game live, I had just joined the RNZAF on the 17th of January of 1973, and the game was on the 20th (Sunday 21st in NZ at 3:00 am) NZ were still broadcasting the Black & White in those days. A group of us were watching in the Airman Cadet School's TV Lounge at Woodbourne Air Force Base.

The game was only the 4th live satellite broadcast of a rugby test into NZ, and the All Blacks needed to beat Ireland to get their first ever Grand Slam. They were leading 10-6 with time almost up, when Tom Grace scored the game-equalling try in the right wing corner after chasing his own kick ahead. Barry McGann's conversion missed by inches. I remember it like it was yesterday.

The All Blacks went on a week later to lose 27-11 to the Barbarians in what was once considered the greatest game of rugby ever played. It certainly contained the greatest try ever scored (simply known as "The Try")

 

[beerholder]

I see your points

Yet I still believe that "World Champions" sounds a lot better than "IRB No.1"

 

[smartcooky]

I still believe that "World Cup Holders" sounds a lot better than "World Number 1"

Fixed that for you!!

 

[nik]

My 2cents from watching the game.
Firstly the All Blacks dominated, they were more clinical and efficient. They dropped off in the 2nd half a bit. It was an excellent performance. A statement was made that was for sure. They shut up the Australians. Whenever the Australians start to make too much noise they get soundly beaten alas 2008, after Wallabies beat All Blacks in Sydney they got well and truely beaten the following week in Auckland. Even though the All Blacks mentioned the result of this game will no bearing in the RWC, everyone knew that psychological advantage that the Wallabies would have gained had they won this match.
Whilst the Wallabies were well and truely beaten, I was amazed at the number of opportunities they created with a pack that was dominated by the AB pack. Some of it came down to awesome defense from the ABs that shut down their awesome plays. Even at times the bounce of the ball wasnt in the Wallabies favor, a couple of kicks, one chip kick and the other grubber kick towards Digby Ioane's wing were pretty close to being scoring plays but the bounce didnt go in their favor. What I am trying to say here, is that in this particular game the ABs were not going to lose no matter what the Wallabies threw at them. However in the future, if things go in Wallabies favor such as bounce of the ball or refereeing calls (i did not have a problem with the referee) then anything can happen. With momentum Wallabies become pretty difficult to stop. In saying all this, the ABs stuffed up a couple of their chances as well. I think they could have racked up more points. Both teams will improve come world cup.

 

[Larksea]

that's a good breakdown

imo the main points of the game were

Both teams have a lot of room to improve but the most telling factor was how the all blacks defence shutdown the aussie attacking game.

The all blacks kick chase in particular was superb, even though some of dan carters kicks weren't very good the defence mroe than made up for it. Conrad smith can take a bow for that - they obviously targeted that area as it was a poor kick chase that lost the game in hong kong last year.

In contrast the little posession the all blacks had they made big inroads over the aussie gainline. There was a telling period in the 2nd half where aussie had the ball for an extended period without making much ground then NZ got a turnover and in 5 phases they went 60m up field, it kind of summed up the key points in the game for me.

NZ wont want to allow a team that much posession in future though, NZ can win games cleanly with 40% but it's much easier to win a game with 50% infact getting 50% means winning against most teams for the AB's.