If you don't beat New Zealand then it don't count...

Might sound petty but not since 1995 has the world cup winner beaten NZ on the way to glory.

It is an interesting point because NZ are favourites in pretty much every tournament & I don't think Oz in 99, England in 03 or SA in 07 would have beaten them.

Oz in 99 thumped us by 20 points and IMO the winner of France NZ got to get stuffed by them in the final.

You forget 91 in Dublin where Aussie won 16-6 in the semi on their way to winning their first Cup.

I said as far back as 95...

krusty wrote:Might sound petty but not since 1995 has the world cup winner beaten NZ on the way to glory.

It is an interesting point because NZ are favourites in pretty much every tournament & I don't think Oz in 99, England in 03 or SA in 07 would have beaten them.

Corect me if i'm wrong(it has been known and i am hanging this morning) but didn't we beat NZ twice in their backyard in the summer of 03?

Not at time of Coup de Monde

Why not?
Same teams, England's confidence would have been higher, and if we could beat them in NZ with 13 men for a bit, having 15 on should have been easier? Even with Watson as ref

It isn't the fault of the winners though is it? England would've beaten them in 03, no sweat.

THAT may have been decided by the goal kickers,actually you beat the ABs
in 2002 and 2003 by 2 and 3 points respectively.
Had Andrew Merthens played the full 80 in the 2002 match you would have probably lost Carlos Spencer missed 4 straight forward kicks at goal.MERTHS would have kicked at least one of them.

emack2 wrote:
Had Andrew Merthens played the full 80 in the 2002 match you would have probably lost Carlos Spencer missed 4 straight forward kicks at goal.MERTHS would have kicked at least one of them.

...but wouldn't have got their backline playing as well.

To the OP - perhaps a new rule then? Whoever knocks NZ out automatically wins the world cup. If it happens in the 1/4s or 1/2s then just cancel the remaining games.

that have may have been true, we will never know,
but the OP has it that the AB are invicable and even if you win the WC unless you have beaten the AB its worthless, while i'm just saying at the time of 03 i think England would have beaten them as we had done just before the WC. At the time of the WC we were the No1 ranked side in the world, might as well strike off NZ 87 and OZ 01 as they never beat the Boks?

new zealand have never beaten themselves on the way to winning a world cup either.

basically it seems that from this only new zealand or the team that beats new zealand are worthy winners of a world cup.

what happens if they're ever ranked No.3 going into it?

Were NZ even favs in 03? I would've put Eng and Aus ahead of them.

tomathy wrote:new zealand have never beaten themselves on the way to winning a world cup either.

basically it seems that from this only new zealand or the team that beats new zealand are worthy winners of a world cup.

what happens if they're ever ranked No.3 going into it?

New Zealand often beat themselves, they always implode in world cups...

It is petty.

Aus in 99 & Eng in 03 would have beaten them.

Eng had a 2-0 home & away record against NZ coming up to the RWC and put 12 consecutive victories on the 3N teams up to the final.... a 3 year unbeaten record.

Some like Emack may say, oh in game x so & so missed a penalty.... well perhaps but 12 in a row is no fluke.

Perhaps in 07 NZ were the better team going into the competition but only then. But they couldn't hold their nerve to beat France so its not SA's fault that they couldn't test themselves.

It holds a lot less weight that no RWC without SA counts... its like a FIFA world cup without Brazil or Argentina.

Well in 1999, France wasn't supposed to beat New Zealand.

In 2003, Australia wasn't supposed to beat New Zealand

and in 2007 France wasn't supposed to beat New Zealand.

How about we take the emotive bollucks out of this and ask...
Does it count if you don't beat the team ranked number 1, or the team consistenly ranked no.1? because surely that's what the question is really about.
Of course the answer is yes but it does take some gloss off it. However, you can only play the team in front of you.

In 2003 at least surely England were favourites and no1 in the world.

tomathy wrote:new zealand have never beaten themselves on the way to winning a world cup either.

??? Could've surprised me. Saw them do it several times... oooh... winning it you say...missed that..

Whilst we're making stupid statements how about "If you can only win a World Cup at home it doesn't count" ... If the ABs manage to win this time will the fact that they had home advantage diminish the win?

Going by the records, it seems its harder to win at home.
2 have won at home (SA and NZ) and 4 away.

How is it therefore an advantage come world cup time if the stats don't support it?

I don't think that statistic means anything either way. If you look at the host country the first question that should be asked is whether they are in a position to win, if the answer is no, then that stats means less than the paper it is written on.

Realistically how many teams are there that can win the tournament in the first place.

Heaf/Taylorman

Of course home advantage counts...

The IRB add 3 ranking points for starters when calculating your points won/lost post result if you are playing at home.

Additionally, in last 10 years NZ have played 84 matches to date against SA, Aus, FRA & ENG (tier 1) .. their win ratio at home was a whopping 88%.. their win ratio away was 61%... still impressive but the difference is significant no?

Sort of shows how important home advantage is?

In terms of world cups... it will be relative to the strength of the home nation at the time.... Aus were very strong in 99 but no where as close in 03.... they certainly over-achieved in many eyes by not only getting to the final but pushing Eng (who had a 4-0 record on them at the time) to a 14-14 draw come 90 mins.

Just to add... its not about winning or losing as hosts, Its all about exceeding potential.

87 - Hosts NZ were by far the best team in competition & won.
91 - ENG were a decent side but did well to get to final.... were not close to winners Aus talent wise.
95 - Hosts SA were probably 5th best team prior to RWC behind Aus, Eng, FRA & NZ. From 92 to the start of the 95 RWC they played NZ, Aus, ENG & FRA teams 15 times... and won 3.... in RWC they beat Aus, Fra & NZ in a matter of weeks, doubling their tier 1 success in a fraction of the time.
99 - Only time technical hosts have not come from tier 1 nation. Didn't really have chance in QF against world's top team at the time (Aus).
03 - Were not close to ENG yet got to within inches of success.
07 - FRA beat NZ who were far superior when you looked at the match man on man prior to the game.... lost to Eng in SF rather predictably... they can never string 2 good matches together.

Yes I agree and thats our main downfall.

As a note 87 we werent faves- Oz (eden park) France (Nantes) and even the boks (unofficially) all beat us in 86 so we only became the best throughout the tournament so we certainly exceeded expectations that tournament.

geez... theres another parallel... didnt we just lose to...

getting better and better!

As a note to me thats the biggest thing here. At other teams 'home' it isnt an advantage. I believe at ours it is.

Alan has said staying here longer levels teams out. Im saying with the AB's thats not the case. And in 87, it wasnt. We just got stronger and stronger. I believe part of the fact that AB's have failed away on every occasion has given the impression that other teams level out, purely because of the AB absence.

"Might sound petty but..."

No it doesn't sound 'petty' just delusional.

krusty wrote:Might sound petty but not since 1995 has the world cup winner beaten NZ on the way to glory.

It is an interesting point because NZ are favourites in pretty much every tournament & I don't think Oz in 99, England in 03 or SA in 07 would have beaten them.

And ?

NZ weren't good enough to make it to the final and the teams that beat them lost in the final, so not quite sure what logic you're using if you think the RWC winners of those years wouldn't have beaten NZ.

Youre right Nottins. It doesnt. And its immaterial. This sort of thing will go round and round till we actually have a winner- by which time we'll all be on a different merry go round...but its the journey, not the destination... that counts...

These are the statements I hear most often about the RWC.

The winner didn't play New Zealand on their way to become world champions.
The all Blacks can't win away from home.
The All Blacks will choke again.
South africa didn't score a try to win the RWC.

Mostly aimed at SA and NZ

Makes you think doesn't it?