Which team has had the toughest route to win the RWC?

since the inception of the rugby world cup, this will be the third time that the pool stages have presented a Northern hemisphere and a southern hemisphere split. it happened in 1991 and 2003.

No trinations team has yet been successful in defeating their counterparts in successive weeks of RWC to obtain the trophy.

In 1995 South Africa beat Australia in their first pool match and then beat New zealand in the final.
In 2003 New Zealand beat South Africa in the quarter final only to lose to Australia in the semi final.
In 2003 England beat South Africa in the pool match and then beat australia in the final.

This shows how tough the task will be for SA or OZ to win the trophy as no team in the history of the RWC have beaten 2 tri nation teams in sucesseive weeks.

Tough choice,I went for England 2003 as they played SA,France and then Oz in an away final.
Next choice was SA 1995 but the fact that they were at home meant I went for England.

Crikey, New Zealand have only won the tournament once and their route was a piece of p*ss! No wonder they won it!

Griff wrote:Crikey, New Zealand have only won the tournament once and their route was a piece of p*ss! No wonder they won it!

thats exactly what i thought when i read this!

Let's be honest there are only 3 contenders.

I went for 2003 because England played one more match. Australia in their backyard in a world cup final is very tough.

Also Australia in 1991 there was no South Africa in the competition.

In 1995 South Africa didn't have to defeat either England,Wales or Ireland.

I'm amazed nobody else picked the Aussies of 1999.

They played France who won the 1998 Six Nations Grand Slam.

They played South Africa who won the 1998 Tri Nations Grand Slam.

They played the host nation Wales.

They played a decent enough Irish team.

1991 played Samoa, England and New Zealand to be fair but I thought 1999 was better.

just interestingly looking at this, it's interesting that the team who has beaten NZ has only won twice out of the five world cups NZ haven't won, whereas beating France has led to four wins out of six (admittedly twice in the final). Does beating NZ take a lot out of teams?

I went for England 03 as they went and beat Australia in the final in their own back yard, and defeated some strong teams along the way. The two easiest paths seem to be NZ in 87 and SA in 07

red stag they didn't play the All blacks or England. That's two of the best performing sides in the World cup.

Yup mad for chelsea England's got progressively harder.

South Africa in the pools.
Wales in the quarters
France in the semis
Australia in the final.

You could say missing the All Blacks is a blemish but that England team was certainly capable of knocking them out in that particular competition.

I went for Aus 1991 as they defeated NZ (never easy) and a very good England team in two games in the knock out stages and there wasn't a single game against a "minnow" - Samoa and Argentina were the lowest ranked sides.

Consider matches against the big 5 rugby nations (3N + ENG & FRA) and you'll see the following.

NZ - 1 win req. Home victory.
Aus - 2 wins req. Away victory.
SA - 3 wins req. Home victory.
Aus - 2 wins req. Away victory.
ENG - 3 wins req. Away victory.
SA - 2 wins req. Away victory.

From that I would suggest it would be either SA in 95 or ENG in 03.

SA in 95.... probably the 5th best ranked team at the time. Home advantage mind.
Eng in 03, no.1 ranked team at the time. Away to Aus.

Even though ENG played away from home and 3 major matches I still think SA in 95 was the more difficult task. They weren't expected to do that well whereas ENG were by far the best team in the world at the time.

1995 South Africa for me because they beat Australia and New Zealand who were the best in the World at the time.

AlynDavies

Aus couldn't have been that good in 95 if they lost to ENG who were torn apart in the SF vs. NZ. But I agree SA in 95 was the toughest any team has had... home advantage helped mind... and the odd dodgy chef

I've gone for SA 1995. That Australia team was pants but they were still the reigning champs so a decent scalp.

Samoa tried to take the boks heads off with their tackling, they just about scraped past France in a waterlogged pitch and managed to keep beat one of the best all black sides ever albeit they had to poison them to do it.

A tough old run if I do say so myself.

Feckin hell that '07 WC run in was lame for SA.

I know ithe pools are all figured out by points 3 years before and then it's down to every team on the day, and you can only play what's in front of you but really? No Ire, Fra, Sco, Oz or NZ!

The way Ireland played in 2007 I wouldn't even have them on your list yappysnap

Mickado wrote:

Griff wrote:Crikey, New Zealand have only won the tournament once and their route was a piece of p*ss! No wonder they won it!

thats exactly what i thought when i read this!

So the ABs have never even beaten a SH side to win RWC. Blimey.

That will change this year. kia kaha

No it won't. No team is better prepared mentally to stop the ABs than RSA.

I´ll put a friendly wager on it Gatts.

Besides, SA has to beat Australia yet. The Aussies never give up.

I´m not saying that the ABs will win but I believe they will win. You´re welcome to disagree.

95, 03 and 99 in that order for me.

Done. Not sure what we can wager, a round of 'net Guinness?

NZ will beat the Argies no doubt and then face the Boks and I believe the Boks will stop them having also stopped Aus.

Gatts I love your faith in us but no team has ever beaten two trination teams back to back in rwc

biltongbek wrote:Gatts I love your faith in us but no team has ever beaten two trination teams back to back in rwc

stop being such a dullard statto biltong..

The famous quote should be changed

Lies, damned lies and Biltong's bloody stats!

I have met a few boks, call a couple mates and spent 3 weeks touring in 2009. BELIEF is the major characteristic of boks. blind it may be but it suits yoru rugby and that is what will get you through.

Honestly i like to think you are living on the veldt and popping out to shoot a couple of elephants in between compliling your stats, now thinking you are short and wear spectacles and live in Earl's Court

So if its belief and not stats gatts then what has your qouting nz hasnt beaten any sh sides matter then?
As with most cup wins key sides went out b4 they could play.
Oz were faves 87. french put them out.
My pick would be 95 then 03. probably joint.
Eng beat 2 3N teams includng the team that beat the 3rd.
95 because that AB was seriously good.
Claimed. Not claimed... Cruised to a grand slam on way to final and featured the single greatest individual performance at any cup in lomu.
Took a drop goal to beat them in extra time where every other team was slaughtered.

Sorry to burst you view of me, but there aren`t many animals running around in the city anymore, we also have tarred roads and traffic lights.

I don't own a horse but I do own a 1700 cc VTwin sports cruiser, as a young man I played loosehead prop and these days I use reading glasses, I don't get drunk on Beer and rum but on fine whiskey and a good red wine.

These days when I have an all nighter it takes a few days to recover.

But other than that I am pretty much what you expected, hardheaded conservative singleminded individual.

biltongbek wrote:Gatts I love your faith in us but no team has ever beaten two trination teams back to back in rwc

yeah but given the only sides likely to ever do that are tri nations sides how often are they actualy likley to meet the other two back to back?