Upset of the tournament

[Ripper]

I also want to add to the Ripper bashing on this forum. You are a young little upstart arent you! i dont agree with a lot of the things that people are saying about the all blacks (my last post) but it could do u a lot of good to listen to others points about the strengths of other teams. and your argument of AB's not being favourites going into every single world cup is poor. you are young though, and reading info on the internet and actually being around when it happened are two completely different things. They have choked in every world cup since 87, to the pleasure of anyone who isnt a Kiwi!
[/b]

Who are You?

So you saying that we were favourites in 1995? You know, the World Cup where we came in with series losses to the Aussies and French, lost to the English the last time we played them, as well as "luckily" scraping past the Lions and Laurie Mains 50% record? I don't really define choking as entering the Tournament ranked 5th or 6th and losing on a drop goal to the home team after 100 minutes in the World Cup Final - while being struck down with food poisioning.

But by all means see if you can do what Melly Boy can't and provide evidence that we entered 95 as favourites and thus choked. And while your at it, why don't you follow your own advice and look up the build ups to 91 (when we were hammered by the Aussies and had two coaches who hated each other in charge) and 99 (when we had to rebuild the entire team 12 months out - losing 5 in a row in the Tri Nations in the process)

 

[mimic]

The only reason why the All Blacks look like more of the favourites in 95 was because of the damage they inflicted 2 years after the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Although, I do agree that Andrew Mehrtens choked big time in that game. But he did go on to become a better player.

99 I didn't think we were favourites. Australia were better than every other team. Sure we lost to France, but we weren't going to beat the Aussies. They were in a class of their own in 99. Their defence was awesome.

2003 England were the favourites. They were going into the competition as #1 ranked team according to the IRB rankings. England deserved that ranking, as they were the last team to beat the All Blacks in NZ (in 2003).

The only reason people say the All Blacks choke, is because of the fact that they are a super power in rugby, and are always near the top if not on top.
I'm not saying they weren't one of the favourites. But they weren't the #1 favourites.

 

[DonBilly]

it is after reading some of the tripe going around at the moment. apparently those 2 have the strongest scrums in the world.... wouldnt it be an upset if the 2 strongest scrums in the world couldnt get past the group stage??
[/b]

Well scrums are important but that's not because you're good at scrumaging that you will domminate the match. What about the rucks? What about the lineouts? What about the defence? Etc. etc.

Italy and Argentina have both strong scrums but you need more to dominate the game.

 

[Prestwick]

The Don speaks the truth.

Their scrums and forwards are immense, but they are very much one trick ponies and when you suss them out, they are easy to bypass.

Italy and Argentina are kind of like a Baseball pitcher who only know who to throw the ball into the zone.

 

[Wellycane]

Why do outsiders have to be so vulnerable? :angry: It's time to check out some evidence.

Here''s the link showing proof of favourites of each RWC:

1987 favourites: Australia even though New Zealand still won it. http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/rwc1987.htm

1991 favourites: Australia http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/rwc1991.htm

1995 favourites: Australia; In the third question: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/rugby/wor...17/piennar_q_a/

1999 favourites: New Zealand http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/rugby/199...4/weekend1_rdp/

2003: England were definite favourites. cant find any proof

 

[shtove]

Australia favourites in 87? Wow.

I don't go along with the choker thing at all. That's just a handy way for Aussies to get up the noses of AB supporters - a local thing for local people. The rest of us should stick to facts.

And leave Ripper alone.

 

[DonBilly]

Australia favourites in 87? Wow.

I don't go along with the choker thing at all. That's just a handy way for Aussies to get up the noses of AB supporters - a local thing for local people. The rest of us should stick to facts.

And leave Ripper alone.
[/b]

After all wasn't this Wallaby team the one that had made the Grand Slam a few years before

 

[smartcooky]

.....your argument of AB's not being favourites going into every single world cup is poor. you are young though, and reading info on the internet and actually being around when it happened are two completely different things. They have choked in every world cup since 87, to the pleasure of anyone who isnt a Kiwi!
[/b]

Well I am 52 years old. I have had the pleasure of actually "being around" and seeing every RWC Final LIVE. So I'll give you my opinion on this

1987 - no-one was really a red-hot favorite but the All Blacks were expected to win. The RWC was a big unknown then, and a fully amateur competition, South Africa was, of course, excluded due to its government's apartheid policies

1991 - While the world might have expected the AB's to win, only the wildest optimist in NZ though so. Those of us from Canterbury and Auckland knew that we were doomed when John Hart and Grizz Wyllie were selected as co-coaches. These two had radically different philosophies on rugby, life, politics and just about anything else you care to mention. They couldn't even stand to be in the same room with each other. South Africa was also excluded from this tournament.

1995 - The AB's were undoubtedly the HOT favourites to win. Unfortunately, the combination of a host country coming of age as a new "Rainbow" Nation, together with a little "Indian trick" put paid to that.

1999- Again the AB's were favorites, but they came undone when the were unable to counter the disgraceful tactics of the French. If the All Black Captain had enough guts to tell the referee that he was going to walk his entire team off the field if the dirty tactics (biting and testicle grabbing etc) didn't stop (which is what John Eales did in the final a week later) the result might have been very different.

2003 - England were the favorites on our TAB, and so they should be since they were ranked #1 in the IRB World Rankings, although the AB's were at least expected to make the final.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("wellycane")</div>

2003: England were definite favourites.Cant find any proof [/b]

IRB World Rankings 6/10/2003 (4 days before opening game)
1 ENGLAND 89.95
2 NEW ZEALAND 89.80
3 AUSTRALIA 84.76
4 IRELAND 83.92
5 FRANCE 82.85
6 SOUTH AFRICA 80.92

Most betting agencies use the IRB world rankings since it correctly predicts over 85% of matches.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Smartcooky
1995 - The AB's were undoubtedly the HOT favourites to win. Unfortunately, the combination of a host country coming of age as a new "Rainbow" Nation, together with a little "Indian trick" put paid to that.

I still fail to see how we were Hot favourite's to win - the situation leading up to 95 was much worse than the situation leading upto 91.

 

[kbourke88]

i do stand corrected about commenting too quickly on the 2003 world cup. i did neglect the fact that england were clear favourites for that world cup. i do call it a kiwi chocke though, because they still lost to a team that they should have beaten (australia in the semi).

I will say again though, NZ were the only team in that world cup who could beat England, and Australia were the only team who could beat NZ (only because super 12 and tri nations meant we knew a lot of those players very well), and sadly for anyone who is not english, we've had to put up with their bloody trumpeting for the last 4 years.

I think that the upset of the tournament for most people in every world cup bar 87 has been the game that nz got knocked out on.. hence the choking tag.

 

[shtove]

1999- Again the AB's were favorites, but they came undone when the were unable to counter the disgraceful tactics of the French. If the All Black Captain had enough guts to tell the referee that he was going to walk his entire team off the field if the dirty tactics (biting and testicle grabbing etc) didn't stop (which is what John Eales did in the final a week later) the result might have been very different.
[/b]

You mean these disgraceful tactics?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtN_gEQIFs

 

[kbourke88]

Originally posted by Smartcooky
1995 - The AB's were undoubtedly the HOT favourites to win. Unfortunately, the combination of a host country coming of age as a new "Rainbow" Nation, together with a little "Indian trick" put paid to that.

I still fail to see how we were Hot favourite's to win - the situation leading up to 95 was much worse than the situation leading upto 91.
[/b]

Ah Ripper, you also fail to note the difference between favourite heading into a world cup and favourites at the world cup.

The All Blacks are always expected to make the final, I cant remember a world cup where they werent favourites or second favourites in the lead up. But after the first couple of matches, ABs have been the clear favourites to take the cup in every one. (Gotta cover all angles on this argument here about AB favourites).

As you would know, winning the cup is about peaking at the right time, and also about being a tough enough team to win the 4 most important games of a career in a row. Again, more reasons why people call the ABs chokers. They always have the ability and the class, but havent managed to grind the 4 in a row out as yet. 2 or 3 aint good enough.

I also have to mention, i am one of the most loudmouthed staunch supporters of the wallabies, and it goes a long way to show the state of our rugby at the moment that i have more to say about the all blacks. DAMN!

 

[BigTen]

"...1987 - no-one was really a red-hot favorite but the All Blacks were expected to win. The RWC was a big unknown then, and a fully amateur competition, South Africa was, of course, excluded due to its government's apartheid policies

1991 - While the world might have expected the AB's to win, only the wildest optimist in NZ though so. Those of us from Canterbury and Auckland knew that we were doomed when John Hart and Grizz Wyllie were selected as co-coaches. These two had radically different philosophies on rugby, life, politics and just about anything else you care to mention. They couldn't even stand to be in the same room with each other. South Africa was also excluded from this tournament..." Smartcooky.

It isn't actually true that South Africa was excluded from both of these tournaments. South Africa, on both ocassions declined the invitations from the IRB to attend.

 

[Wellycane]

The All Blacks are always expected to make the final, I cant remember a world cup where they werent favourites or second favourites in the lead up. But after the first couple of matches, ABs have been the clear favourites to take the cup in every one. (Gotta cover all angles on this argument here about AB favourites).[/b]

It would satisfyingly be more "covered" if you could provide some evidence.

 

[kbourke88]

Ok.. Evidence.. Bloody AB fans!

So here is a good place to start on the evidence of how great the 87 and 95 teama were:

http://www.visarugby.com/week1.aspx
Greatest ever world cup winners

It is quite a good convo between the guys. They clearly mention that in 87 and in 95 the all blacks were either clear favourites leading up to the cup or after the first couple of games. In 95 especially, NZ had the best team on paper in the world, with the likes of Fitzpatrick, the Brookes, Kronfeld, Bunce, Lomu, etc.

Now for 2003, i dont know where to look for the actual evidence, but as the world cup was hosted in my home city and having been there to feel the buzz of the tournament the whole way through, I would have to say that although the english were the favourites heading into the cup, after the first couple of games the ABs were again the clear favourites. The english had a struggle through the pool match against Samoa, and against south africa didnt look like they wanted to score tries, they just wanted to use the famous left boot of jonny. NZ on the other hand destroyed each opponent with scores of 50+ in each pool game, and even though wales brought it to them, they showed a point scoring capacity like no other team in the cup. Their loss to australia in the semi was the upset of that tournament.

In 99, ABs were without a doubt the favourites, and it was the biggest upset, in my opinion, i've ever seen in a world cup when the french beat them. I dont think there is much dispute on this point.

In 91, australia had an awesome team, and maybe this is the cup where my argument is failed... i'm sure that my memory tells me that the ABs were the favourites and that australia should not have won that semi but for a piece of magic over the shoulder from campo, but i will get back to you on that one!

I'm quite enjoying this debate! Keep it coming Kiwis!!

 

[Ripper]

1995... Best Team on Paper? - You sure thats not hindsight. Take Lomu for example, pre World Cup all he had was 2 test caps against the French, and he was shown up big time in those two tests - He was almost sent home from Laurie Mains pre cup camps as well in the first days, if it wasn't Eric Rush and what not he probably wouldn't have made the first cut for AB selection, let alone make the squad and become the Megastar he was (he probably would've got his start, but not in the fashion of destroying England in a semi final).

And say what you want about the best team on paper, but when I look at the best team on paper I don't expect them to have a 50% -60% record in the previous 3 years of International Play.

Australia hammered the AB's in the lead up to the 1991 World Cup as well IN New Zealand, that semi final was the true final anyway, the All Blacks took care of England in the Pool Play, who got to waltz into the Final to be taken care of by the Wallabies.

 

[smartcooky]

It is quite a good convo between the guys. They clearly mention that in 87 and in 95 the all blacks were either clear favourites leading up to the cup or after the first couple of games. In 95 especially, NZ had the best team on paper in the world, with the likes of Fitzpatrick, the Brookes, Kronfeld, Bunce, Lomu, etc.

[/b]

That's changing the favourite AFTER the tournament has started. What we were clearly talking about here is who was or was not favourite in the LEAD-UP to the tournament (ie BEFORE the tournament started). What you are doing here is like betting on your winning race -horse after the starter has let them go and they are running past the three-furlong post! If you are telling me that, for example, the All Blacks were favorites to win every tournament when laying bets immediately before the semi-finals, I'd have to agree with you in every case except 1991, where they were singularly unimpressive in the pool games. Beating Italy 31-21 in the Pool stage, then Canada 29-13 in the quarter-final hardly filled me with confidence!

 

[kbourke88]

ARRGHHH!! SOOO hard to argue with a Kiwi about rugby!

I hope you all appreciate the irony of this argument.

A staunch Wallaby supporter is trying to argue that the ABs are the greatest against a few Kiwis arguing the shortcomings of some of the great teams. CLASSIC!!

 

[kbourke88]

I dont think I can win this debate about ABs being favourites in every world cup. But I do feel that, largely due to me, the argument about ABs being chokers drifted to them being favourites.

So i think maybe I would like to move away from the favourites debate, I think we've gone as far as we can with that one, and move towards what you think about the ABs choker tag.

I would say that maybe 91 wasnt a choke, and Australia just won an epic clash.

I would say that maybe even 95 final wasnt a choke, and there are always those poisoning rumours.

99 semi was without a doubt a choke. And having actually been there at the game in 03, and looking at the feeling about the game beforehand, 2003 was also a choke.

That being said, I think that choke doesnt mean upset, and i reckon that in 91,95,99 and 03 the games that the ABs lost were all the upsets of the tournament.

Do any of you guys think we should start a new thread for that? Are any of you interested in having that debate (i know your up for it Ripper!!)

 

[yumyum]

I put $10 bucks on England not making the Semi-finals!!!! Is that even a upset or a given????? :mellow: Also an all Southern Hemisphere final, and Argentina just missing out on the semi's!! :bana: