Field Theory: The Return
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I'm not going to go there on flakey field-goals vs. those forwards in close getting over the line. I'd have hung on to the ball too. Maybe even for longer.
I don't mind going there; though my memory of the actual stats is getting fuzzy seeing as I read the IRB report ages ago. Anyway, Im pretty sure during the playoffs only 1/11 drop goals were successful.
The stats of that game are absolutely incredible - especially rucks & mauls. The ABs basically set a world record which is hard to imagine ever being beaten given that it was double normal amounts.
The ABs lost that game due to the French ability to stifle their attack & offload ball without getting penalised. Even with the forward pass, and McAllister's sin-binning which people question it was the lack of penalties that meant the French won.
Its rediculous to crucify coaches & players for that game.
-
We lost because we did not have the combinations or game plan to react to where the French were stifling us. And I don’t mean the droppies.
The guile-free one-off charging at 3 defenders from all those rucks and mauls we were getting slow ball from was never going to work.
Made for impressive stats though I guess.
-
But we are the best team in the world right now, no question.
Yes, but don't tell me that being the best team right now means the same as being the best team last year, ie the winner of the World Cup. You could make the argument if the All Blacks had opted out - like England did in football before joining the world cup and FIFA - but they haven't and as things stand, the year after the world cup is the beginning of a new cycle. And besting the opposition is nice but not half as nice as being there at the end, so judging Deans vs Henry right now means very little in my estimation. You only have to think of the planning that England put in their world cup win to see that. And we tried to do the same, by the way, the rotation and resting policies (which devauled some of the intervening contests) were aimed at just that. And failed, not just because of Mr. Barnes I would argue.
Now, the failing coaches got a second chance, which is all fine and good. Not sure why Mitchell didn't get it, nor why Deans didn't deserve a go. Especially in light of the arrogance shown by Henry et al.
But that's 21 Bledisloes and only five World Cups.
It's a trophy defence with only two possible winners, though, so there isn't a lot of toing and froing. It's a matter of remembering that we had between year X and year Y, then they had it for a year, then we had it again, etc.
Could you do the Euro winners too? And Champions League? And Italian Premier League (sorry I forgot the actual name)
No, I can't, because they're not as important as the world cup. Which is kind of my point.
-
Well said GT.
What really gets me about the World Cup post-mortem, even more than blaming it on a forward pass, is the assumption that if NZ had got past France they would have won the cup. There was nothing to support that theory. And that’s even before factoring in the fact that Carter probably wouldn’t have been around.
We’d have struggled to beat England, who had sorted out their defence by then, and were clearly inferior to South Africa AT THAT TIME.
And some people wonder why other countries’ rugby fans view All Blacks at RWCs the funniest thing going around.
-
But that's 21 Bledisloes and only five World Cups.
It's a trophy defence with only two possible winners, though, so there isn't a lot of toing and froing. It's a matter of remembering that we had between year X and year Y, then they had it for a year, then we had it again, etc.
Well yeah, except you remember the team who won not necessarily the year they won it. So you might remember us winning the Bledisloe but not recall the year we did it in or how long we held it before we lost it again. Did I explain that right?
don't tell me that being the best team right now means the same as being the best team last year, ie the winner of the World Cup.
I actually think we were the best team last year. And if not we were second best by a whisker.
Despite NZ losing in the quarters to France, South Africa had to beat Fiji, Argentina and England (and the only convincing victory was over Argentina) to get ahead of us in the official rankings. After the World Cup they held the #1 status for three games before we took it off them.
-
I’ve got no idea how long South Africa held the #1 ranking for, but I do know they hold the World Cup for at least another three years.
And HG; South Africa beat England 36-0 in pool play which was reasonably convincing.
-
the best team last year, ie the winner of the World Cup.
Those are not necessarily the same thing in rugby though...
We lost one game at the world cup because we lost it. Reasons don't really matter, but neither do they take away from the performance across all tests in 2007 (what, 15 or so? if you include all RWC games?) -
I actually think we were the best team last year. And if not we were second best by a whisker.
Yes. We won an abbreviated Tri Nations that nobody really cared about (including us) and crashed out of the world cup against a team who had already lost the opener (at home!) and went on to lose the next game (at home!) against the eventual losers of the final. We were devastating!
After the World Cup they held the #1 status for three games before we took it off them.
Yes, and I remember the cheering followed by the parades when we regained the #1 ranking. It brings a tear to the eye just thinking about those glorious days.
-
Reasons don't really matter, but neither do they take away from the performance across all tests in 2007 (what, 15 or so? if you include all RWC games?)
In bizzarro world you might want to decide the best team like that. In the real world of sports, everybody trains for the games that count the most, and the games that count the most are those that everybody agrees count the most, and the team that wins that particular competition is crowned world champion, and that's that. I'm not taking away from any performances, but we came out second if not fourth best on the day. Which (thankfully) is still what counts.
-
We’d have struggled to beat England, who had sorted out their defence by then, and were clearly inferior to South Africa AT THAT TIME.
It's all guesswork, but I doubt we would have struggled to beat England.
The All Blacks have never lost to England at a world cup, though playing them in 2003 might have been interesting. Despite making the final and beating Australia and France it wasn't a particularly good English team.
I think that the All Blacks are a very talented team, and what beats the All Blacks when they're going full guns is another very talented team. That's France having it's crazy French top games and Australia and South Africa.
England in 2003? Maybe, that was a team built to win. 2007? Pretty average, bad going into the cup, well cleaned up in a pool match to finish 2nd etc. Did well to make the final.
-
and what beats the All Blacks when they're going full guns is another very talented team
The 2007 All Black team was not going at full guns.
Nowhere remotely near it.
Don’t forget the rubbish in Melbourne that year either. -
Now, the failing coaches got a second chance, which is all fine and good. Not sure why Mitchell didn't get it, nor why Deans didn't deserve a go. Especially in light of the arrogance shown by Henry et al.
Presumably because Slaphead was mad as a maggot channelling board room strategy meetings fed through his own personal Martian antenna. Deans was some kind of Dr Evil sock piuppet using Mitchell to create a 100% Cantrified AB team.
Henry probably looked like an A Grade selection in comparison. And still does.
-
In bizzarro world you might want to decide the best team like that.
So South Africa are unquestionably the best team until 2011?
If not, why is it that in a 12 month period in which a World Cup falls that one tournament defines the best team while in other 12 month periods it's a more holistic view?Note: I think we lost the World Cup through our own doing (on the flip, it was just a game that we lost), and I think South Africa probably were the best team that year by both measures. We didn't deserve that cup and weren't the best team of '07 - but those are two different things that happened to align.
I don't hold the view that for one year in four we automatically change the criteria of what constitutes "best team", even if the RWC accounts for a good chunk of that year.
-
Giovanni, you've taken a totally football-centric view of the Rugby World Cup, which is perfectly natural, being Italian and all. Some Brit fans do the same - claiming to be happy to be crap for four years because it's only the World Cup that matters, everything else is a friendly.
That's rubbish though. The Rugby World Cup exists because in 1982 NZ qualified for The Other World Cup in Spain (after setting all kinds of records: most games, most goals, most kilometers travelled, most blatantly fixed match). Of course, we were then trounced by - among others - Brazil. But we saw ourselves as the rugby equivalent of Brazil - #1 in the ranking. And we wanted some way to make it official.
To their credit, the RFU old farts in football-dominated Britain opposed the whole thing - they foresaw a future of meaningless tests between development squads, separated by a knockout lottery every four years. But they lost, and we got a Rugby World Cup.
But now we have the official IRB rankings (from 2003 at least). So the World Cup is entirely superfluous to our original requirements. You think it's important, because you're making a wholly inappropriate analogy with Italy and football. But increasingly, NZ rugby fans are getting to grips with what a World Cup is really all about - and we're caring less and less.
Or trying to... :-) -
The 2007 All Black team was not going at full guns.
Nowhere remotely near it.
It's hard to remember a time when they really were.
The second half performance against Wales is what we want, nay demand, all the time. It's our destiny or some such shit.
-
So South Africa are unquestionably the best team until 2011?
No, but arguably they were the best team of the 2004-2007 cycle. I'm not crazy about the all-absorbing power of the world cup, don't get me wrong, but that's the yardstick that the federations have chosen for themselves - and the NZRFU made absolutely no bones about it. Fans may of course feel differently, but since the teams themselves have decided to live or die by that trophy, it becomes difficult to take alternative views. For instance, you may care about the Bledisloe above all else. But it won't change the fact that the players don't.
-
oh - and France would have won the quarter final more comfortably if Barnes had penalised the AB's for killing the ball on the two occasions in the 2nd half the French broke out and looked dangerous.
The Kiwi commentators hardly broke off from whining about the sin-binning though, although Fox did murmur "the All Blacks will have to be careful here..." (code for "there go the All Blacks again, diving in from an offside position to kill the ball, surely another yellow card coming up?"). -
So South Africa are unquestionably the best team until 2011?
Nope, but they are World Champions until then.
-
**You** think it's important
The NZRFU and the players think it's important. Nobody gives a toss about the IRB rankings (which also exist in football, by the way, and nobody cares about those either). Do you want evidence? People always know who the world champion is, and seldom who's at the top of the IRB list. And there were no celebrations whatsoever - not among players, not among the media, not among fans - when the ABs gor the top spot.
The Rugby World Cup exists because in 1982 NZ qualified for The Other World Cup in Spain
I might as well confess that that's when I found out that New Zealand existed...
-
The NZRFU and the players think it's important.
You are, of course, absolutely right. But since the whole thing has been a tragic mistake, can't the rest of us all just agree to ignore the World Cup and celebrate the rankings list?
I might as well confess that that's when I found out that New Zealand existed...
...and revived your dream of playing international football?
-
can't the rest of us all just agree to ignore the World Cup and celebrate the rankings list?
I guess. It still reminds me a bit of a friend once who after being on the losing end of I can't rememebr what game delivered the immortal line "To me I'm still the winner". He was ten.
...and revived your dream of playing international football?
Heh!
-
The 2007 All Black team was not going at full guns.
I should clarify my point.
I mean, putting the best available team on the field. As compared to what they did in that Northern tour a while ago where they drew to France and lost to England, which was leave some of the best players behind.
The only two games NZ has lost to England in the professional era were that game in Twickenham in 2002 (by 3 points), and the game in Wellington in 2003 (by 2).
So I don't see NZ losing to England unless England brings something at the level of that 2003 team (which 2007 definitely wasn't), or NZ puts a B team on the field (which they wouldn't have done in the semis).
-
crashed out of the world cup against a team who had already lost the opener (at home!) and went on to lose the next game (at home!) against the eventual losers of the final
So you're against league play then? The idea that a winner is crowned after a certain number of matches. Because that will often happen in tournaments, that a team will lose to the crap teams but step up against the big guns (see the Warriors in league).
The problem with the World Ranking is that there's no bloody cup for it! If we got a cup for it then we might be happier.
Oh and there are a number of reasons why people hate the tri-nations but none of the reasons are because it says who the best Southern Hemisphere team is (excepting poor Argentina, stupid SANZAR)
-
France’s record against NZ in the professional era hasn’t been that flash either.
Except when the match has been held in the UK.
-
France’s record against NZ in the professional era hasn’t been that flash either.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.