Field Theory: The Return
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
It's hard to remember a time when they really were.
June 2004 until November 2005 from memory. The sloppy display against Scotland at the end of the GS was a sign of things to come, even though there were several impressive wins in 2006. 2007 definitely had a sense of staleness creeping in to the performances.
-
So you're against league play then? The idea that a winner is crowned after a certain number of matches.
I'm absolutely in favour of league tables to decide league-style tournaments. The IRB rankings use league tables to find the winner of a non-existing league-style tournament, and that makes no sense to me (or anybody else really).
-
France’s record against NZ in the professional era hasn’t been that flash either.
Yup. And NZ losing to France isn't a complete surprise. France normally get their butts kicked by NZ, but occasionally, seemingly on big occasions, they play 'one of those games'. They're that sort of team. England aren't.
-
I'm absolutely in favour of league tables to decide league-style tournaments. The IRB rankings use league tables to find the winner of a non-existing league-style tournament, and that makes no sense to me (or anybody else really).
I view the rankings system as vaguely sensible, and useful for a number of things, not the least, pool allocation for the world cup.
I wouldn't say it makes us world champion, the best it would make us is the 'number one ranked team'. For which there should be no trophy. Maybe a certificate?
-
Or an IRB “Fair Play” Award and an invitation to a nice dinner.
-
I vote for a fluffy toy.
-
We get bragging rights.
Knockout tournaments are irrelevant - the top teams in the English Football Premiership use them to give their B squads a run around (I believe Arsenal B just lost to Burnley in something?). Granted, if you are Burnley, then a knockout tournament is what you're going to focus on, since you've got no chance of winning a league. Likewise for everyone but NZ in rugby - they're rubbish year-in, year-out, so their only hope for glory is to fluke a win in a knockout tourney, where someone else does the giant killing for them.
We don't have to stoop to their level - we can ignore the World Cup entirely. (Just as soon as we get over the last couple).
-
We get bragging rights.
Knockout tournaments are irrelevant - the top teams in the English Football Premiership use them to give their B squads a run around (I believe Arsenal B just lost to Burnley in something?). Granted, if you are Burnley, then a knockout tournament is what you're going to focus on, since you've got no chance of winning a league. Likewise for everyone but NZ in rugby - they're rubbish year-in, year-out, so their only hope for glory is to fluke a win in a knockout tourney, where someone else does the giant killing for them.
We don't have to stoop to their level - we can ignore the World Cup entirely. (Just as soon as we get over the last couple).
-
Ah, yes. To paraphrase I can't remember whom: you can't beat the All Blacks. At best you'll manage to score more points than them.
To us, we're still the winners!
-
Stephen from Dunedin,
Bad analogy re the knockout tournaments. The main reason Arsenal fielded their "B" team this week was the quality of the knockout tournament.
The top players were being rested for Arse’s main priority this season; the Champions League. Which also happens to be a knockout tournament, when it matters.
If you seriously think you can convince rugby players and followers that the IRB rankings are more prestigious than the World Cup then you’re missing the point.
And where were the people alleging this priority list when rugby was being devalued last year as everyone was resting?
-
Well, OK, but apart from Giovanni, Legbreak, the NZRFU, the other national unions, the IRB, the players, the sponsors, the broadcasters, the overseas fans and most AB fans - apart from that lot, no one really thinks that the World Cup is all that important. Surely?
-
You've got an ironclad argument there :-)
-
Well done SFD,
I can see it now. The rugby world comes to a screaming halt in Nov 2009 as South Africa takes on Scotland in front of 100,000 spectators and a worldwide audience of millions of Adidas wearing fans, waiting to see if the tourists can win the match by 12 points to win back the most coverted prize in World Rugby.
The IRB Top of the Table Ribbon.
This, of course, after the All Blacks had surprisingly gone down in Rome by 20 the previous weekend in their only loss of the year.
Forward passes and a lack of penalties were to blame.
-
__I watched the game again recently, and was struck by how much better than Brazil we played__
I'd quite like to see the game again actually
First time you're in Wellington and with a couple of hours to kill, it's a date.
-
Giovanni, next time I'm in town visiting ma and big bro I just might take you up on that kind offer. If only we can agree that Falcao was the absolute cats pyjamas.
-
If only we can agree that Falcao was the absolute cats pyjamas.
The eighth king of Rome? You'll get absolutely no argument from me there.
-
I'm with st ephen in this...
The All Blacks were the epitome of rugby for years & years, with South Africa knocking at the door when politics and internal ructions allowed. People who were fans in those days are much less impressed with the RWC which is (rightly or wrongly) viewed as a Johnny-come-lately knockout competition.
While I would be happy for the ABs to win the RWC I am happy to accept that they are the pre-eminent international rugby team in the world. If fans of the RWC as supreme arbiter of rugby see this as a cop-out, fair enough.
South Africa's win last year and their subsequent 3rd in the TriNations devalues the worth of going by who holds the RWC. Sure enough, they can claim to be World Champions until the next tournament (and maybe beyond?) but they are obviously not the best team in the world and England are obviously not the 2nd best team in the world.
All Blacks Uber Alles
-
South Africa's win last year and their subsequent 3rd in the TriNations devalues the worth of going by who holds the RWC.
Same goes for the Poms in 03, and a couple of other teams from memory. Has anybody analysed the respective performances of the World Champs in the 12 or 24 months after the tournament? (I don't really have time!) I'm sure someone like Rugby Heaven has...
-
The fact that World Cup winners are generally rubbish within a year fits the theory that the World Cup is everything, teams focus on that alone and nothing else matters. So let's not go there...
I still think there are better sports to use as a model for rugby than football. When did the English football team last play Munster? When did Italy last win a Grand Slam against Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay? When did Brazil ever win a test series in England with mid-week fixtures against Swindon Town and Wigan Athletic?
The only reason to treat the Rugby World Cup as the only thing that matters would be if that's the only thing you have a prayer of winning. I say it's time we hit up the IRB for a weekly presentation of that #1 Ranking ribbon/cuddly toy.
The clincher - the IRB rankings comes with a "draw your own pretty graph" feature (with more than the RWC's 6 data points).
-
An error message from that IRB rankings page:
Please for year 2003, select as start month at least october
It's like yoda coded the page.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.