Who can beat the All Blacks this RWC?

We are down to the Semi Finals and it is almost time for NZ (the team with the greatest win/loss ratio in world sport) to complete their traditional exit from the world cup.

But who, if any, is going to knock them out?

OK the poll is a WUM, that's a given, but there is a serious question behind it.

Wales, albeit bravely, lost against South Africa.... who are now out.

Australia, lost against Ireland... who are now out.

France have already lost twice in this World Cup.

NZ have cruised through their group and were given a test by Argentina which they climbed over confidently in the end.

Can any of the last 3 really compete with NZ in their backyard and stand a chance of knocking the All Blacks out?

Australia have done it this year in the Tri-Nations but Wales & France have not given them a fright for many a year.

Yawn. Why is it a traditional exit? Why isn’t it down to the better team winning on the day?

This is the 7th WC, so far:

NZ had made 5 exits
Oz 4
SA 3
England 6
Wales 6
France 6
Ireland 7

What about the traditional exits of Wales, Ireland, England and France? Are Wales and France going to choke this time?

Are Wales and France going to choke this time?

I can't see them both choking on Saturday but I can see Aus as the team to rattle the Blacks and I think they might do that on Sunday - Wal v Ais final - Aus to win

Doesn't mean NZ will choke though will it? If we're up by 20 pts but somehow conspire to lose, then it's a choke.

But when two teams with similar abilities play how can it be a choke?

If either Wales or France stuff up for the 7th time straight is it a choke?

They won't lose this time.

Donald will win it for them and the NZRU will beg him not to go to Bath but he will and he'll win us the HC this season too.

Carter who?

NZ have now moved comfortably ahead of England in world cup performance stats, with only Australia and South Africa ahead.

England have never made it past a QFinal in world cups in NZ.

NZ yet to drop their record of winning every home world cup clash by more than 20 points.

If NZ lose to a team with a better world cup record, and currently ranked #2, I fail to see how this would be a "choke".

Suspect England's traditional qfinal exit was more of a choke, especially in losing to France who lost 50% of their pool games.

Any choking with players will probably be down to the amount they smoke.

New Zealand B are vulnerable to Australia, no question. It is an open cup.

NZ won't lose, the IRB will see to that.

This has to go down as the worst RWC ever, it has set the RWC back 10 years, at least 2015 and 2019 will raise the standard again.

chewed_mintie wrote:What about the traditional exits of Wales, Ireland, England and France? Are Wales and France going to choke this time?

It's all about perception isn't it Mintie... most English, Irish, Welsh etc. were just hopeful of a good showing and considered at the start of the RWC the 1/4 finals to be their target and anything else a bonus. Wales have done superbly but are still mindful of the mountain they have to climb.

Whereas the ABs are virtually tournament favourites EVERY competition they enter. In most countries Rugby is very much a minority sport (yes... even in Wales... Cardiff City & Swansea get crowd numbers the Ospreys & Blues can only dream of) but in NZ it is drummed into every school boy from the moment they are big enough to pick up a ball that the ultimate expression of their manhood and national identity is to pull on the black jersey.

When you look at it from that point of view, NZ are lightyears ahead of anyone else in grass roots, training & development of their rugby players. So much so that they have the greatest win/loss ratio, not just in rugby but in world sport.

You could ask why does NZ ever lose?

If Scotland go out in the group stages or the 1/4 finals most people will nod sympathetically but no one is really surprised that it could happen.

NZ getting knocked out is always a surprise to everyone. So it is only natural (even if incorrect) to ascribe that loss to the AB's not wanting it as much as the opposition on the day... ergo they choke.

Hersh don't be a tool. Suck up that England lost and try to enjoy the rugby still on offer. Us Kiwis did just that after the QFs last time.

Metal Tiger NZ are NOT favourites every WC. Another common misconception. 07 and 11 are the only times we've been undisputed favourites. It's our win loss ratio that makes us hard to ignore, but that's over all time and doesn't take recent form into account. Plus those test wins weren't all cakewalks. A hell of a lot of nail biters and comebacks were in that stat too.

Australia are a bloody good side and can definitely beat us. All three sides can. Why do you think Kiwis are nervous? Though this is the kitchen sink game. All or nothing and a game that could define careers of many people.

Bring it on.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Suspect England's traditional qfinal exit was more of a choke, especially in losing to France who lost 50% of their pool games.

You have lived amongst us for so long but still have no more insight into what is the France v England rivalry. For Frenchmen as well as Englishmen there is no rule book as to how these games go, or as to how important they are to both nations. If England won 99 out of 100 games against France, France is still the team we fear because they can raise their game against us like no other nation.

A bit like how you NZers fear the Ozzies.

Isn't that just because very few nations have to bother to raise their game to beat you?

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Suspect England's traditional qfinal exit was more of a choke, especially in losing to France who lost 50% of their pool games.

Can I just explain why NZ are described as chokers. Its because most of the time they go into world cups as favourites and look the dominant team from the start. So when they are knocked out its a choke as they are the clear favourites.

If England had lost in 2003 that would have been a choke, 2007 could possibly be described as the anti choke as against all the odds England got to the final. Well if England won in 2007 it would be the anti choke.

England getting knocked out this year is not choking, England were never tournament favourites. I think at most we could have expected getting to the semi finals, nothing more. So underperformed, not choked.

It's possible for the favourite to lose without it being a psychological defect.

I put it down as a basic failure to understand statistics amongst those who use this silly term.

NZ were run away tournament favourites, but it gave them just under a 50% chance of winning, as opposed to the next favourites, Australia who had just over a 25% chance, followed by South Africa closely, and so on down to everyone else who were very small odds.

Yes, NZ were overwhelming favourites, but the still had about a 50% chance of not winning.

Can't see how people could get so easily confused about something so simple.

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's possible for the favourite to lose without it being a psychological defect.

I put it down as a basic failure to understand statistics amongst those who use this silly term.

NZ were run away tournament favourites, but it gave them just under a 50% chance of winning, as opposed to the next favourites, Australia who had just over a 25% chance, followed by South Africa closely, and so on down to everyone else who were very small odds.

Yes, NZ were overwhelming favourites, but the still had about a 50% chance of not winning.

Can't see how people could get so easily confused about something so simple.

It's easier to call NZ chokers than apply a bit of logic!

Oh, and it's more fun to label NZ as chokers


Actually, most of it comes down to jealousy, I think. People resent how good the ABs are, and how few matches they lose, and so like to wind them up. Statistically, they have been the best team in world rugby for years, but can never seem to manage the RWC.

Ah, 'tis the way in these parts that any short cut will be taken.

As it says on the coat of arms: "Laziness above Thought."

It sounds better in latin of course.

[quote="chewed_mintie"]Yawn. Why is it a traditional exit? Why isn’t it down to the better team winning on the day?

This is the 7th WC, so far:

NZ had made 5 exits
Oz 4
SA 3
England 6
Wales 6
France 6
Ireland 7

What about the traditional exits of Wales, Ireland, England and France? Are Wales and France going to choke this time?

..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Snce when have ever of the above teams gone into a rugby world cup being favourites to win?.

Apart from England in 2003 , none of the other teams have ever been favourites. OK.

This is a fantastically talented NZ team, terrible that Dan Carter had to exit early through injury, but they seem to have pretty solid, if a little inexperienced, replacements.

They have three teams to face that all have different obstacles for the Kiwis to face should they come across them.

Australia will be the first tough game they have played, France being the closest in the pool stages, Argentina gave it a bit of a go but the kiwis always looked confident. Lets see how they go, last game they played against Australia they lost. In fact the Wallabies have won five of the last six clashes between the two teams, including both Tri-Nations games earlier this year.

On the other side Australia have never won at Eden Park. The Aussies lost to an Irish team already knocked out by the excellent Welsh, New Zealand haven't made a final since 95, haven't won all their RWC matches in 24 years.

Should be a cracker...!

The team most likely to beat the Abs this Rugby World Cup is Australia.
However is the Abs get through this week end then i cannot see any one stopping the Abs from winning this Rugby World Cup.

I hope France have an off day and I hope Australia and New Zealand destroy each other.
Wales can win then!

maestegmafia wrote: In fact the Wallabies have won five of the last six clashes between the two teams, including both Tri-Nations games earlier this year.

No they haven't, they won two of the last six. And no they didn't, it was 1 all, and NZ retained the Bledisloe, again.

Aus could beat NZ in the semi, but I don't think they will. NZ by 10.

I don't think France or Wales have enough to beat them as it stands.

If the blacks get to a final they will be under serious pressure with the weight of expectation heaped upon them.

Carters loss, McCaws foot are simply ramping up the pressure even more. They havent really been tested by anyone so far this world cup and they know it, so the oz game is their first real test and they know Oz can beat them.

If its Wales they meet in the final then the expectation of a victory is bound to be higher than if it was France from the public given RWC history.

The thing is NZ look more vulnerable now than they did at the start of the tournament and if the doubts creep in against Oz it could make them freeze.

So if anyone can beat them its the Australians but what state will they be in injurywise after that match? If McCaw failed to make the final I think it would be squeeky bum time for any all black fan.

TycroesOsprey wrote:If the blacks get to a final they will be under serious pressure with the weight of expectation heaped upon them.

Carters loss, McCaws foot are simply ramping up the pressure even more. They havent really been tested by anyone so far this world cup and they know it, so the oz game is their first real test and they know Oz can beat them.

If its Wales they meet in the final then the expectation of a victory is bound to be higher than if it was France from the public given RWC history.

The thing is NZ look more vulnerable now than they did at the start of the tournament and if the doubts creep in against Oz it could make them freeze.

So if anyone can beat them its the Australians but what state will they be in injurywise after that match? If McCaw failed to make the final I think it would be squeeky bum time for any all black fan.

I entirely agree...is it just the loss of carter and McCaw being suss? I have noticed a sharp drop off in confidence and felt the perf v Argentina was a huge stall. WTF...are NZ just 2 players or is the hype over those 2 flattering to deceive? Or is everyone just on edge expecting the dream to end

NZ need to start well and keep the demons at bay. When doubt creeps in and gets a foot hold it is corrosive. Think back to the last performance against Australia at Eden Park. Australia were shut out and put away. They were forced to play from deep, and met with a swarming wall of defence.

We can take them without Carter and McCaw but it will need a lot of accuracy.

Think McCaw will play?

"yes... even in Wales... Cardiff City & Swansea get crowd numbers the Ospreys & Blues can only dream of"

err... and how does that make rugby a "minority" sport in Wales?

That doesn't make sense

Who can beat the All Blacks this RWC?

France, Australia and Wales - all the other teams,such as England, are no longer in the competition.

Australia lost to Ireland because of a New Zealand referee,South Africa lost
to Australia.because of the same referee.
Paddy o `Brien is in charge of referees,He`s a New Zealander,so he appoints a South African referee to restore the balance.
When Australia beat New Zealand on sunday,it won`t be because they are the better team.It will be the traditional All Black choke.
The South african referee is the built in excuse,isn`t that where these WUMs are going?.
A few points,England 2003 were certainly favourites NOT the All Blacks .When they were beaten by the best team on the day,1991 Australia were worlds best at the time.
1995 was a very even match going to extra time,1999 and 2007 france were better on the day over 80 minutes.
The term ""choking " is disrepecttful of the teams that beat them.
The IRB select the refs,and in the QF and SF with SH sides involved NH refs
should have officiated.

So NZ weren't the best team in these RWCs...or they were the best team but not the favourites and they didn't choke.

Jeez i AM CONFUSED.

Surely a SAFFA referee will produce a draw.

Gatts wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:If the blacks get to a final they will be under serious pressure with the weight of expectation heaped upon them.

Carters loss, McCaws foot are simply ramping up the pressure even more. They havent really been tested by anyone so far this world cup and they know it, so the oz game is their first real test and they know Oz can beat them.

If its Wales they meet in the final then the expectation of a victory is bound to be higher than if it was France from the public given RWC history.

The thing is NZ look more vulnerable now than they did at the start of the tournament and if the doubts creep in against Oz it could make them freeze.

So if anyone can beat them its the Australians but what state will they be in injurywise after that match? If McCaw failed to make the final I think it would be squeeky bum time for any all black fan.

I entirely agree...is it just the loss of carter and McCaw being suss? I have noticed a sharp drop off in confidence and felt the perf v Argentina was a huge stall. WTF...are NZ just 2 players or is the hype over those 2 flattering to deceive? Or is everyone just on edge expecting the dream to end

Geez now I've heard it all.
This is the single most important test for the AB's for at least 15 years.

I think you people are about to witness the true power of All Black rugby. NOTHING on its day is better.

vulnerable, squeaky bum?...geez talk about wishful thinking...

Taylorman wrote:

Gatts wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:If the blacks get to a final they will be under serious pressure with the weight of expectation heaped upon them.

Carters loss, McCaws foot are simply ramping up the pressure even more. They havent really been tested by anyone so far this world cup and they know it, so the oz game is their first real test and they know Oz can beat them.

If its Wales they meet in the final then the expectation of a victory is bound to be higher than if it was France from the public given RWC history.

The thing is NZ look more vulnerable now than they did at the start of the tournament and if the doubts creep in against Oz it could make them freeze.

So if anyone can beat them its the Australians but what state will they be in injurywise after that match? If McCaw failed to make the final I think it would be squeeky bum time for any all black fan.

I entirely agree...is it just the loss of carter and McCaw being suss? I have noticed a sharp drop off in confidence and felt the perf v Argentina was a huge stall. WTF...are NZ just 2 players or is the hype over those 2 flattering to deceive? Or is everyone just on edge expecting the dream to end

Geez now I've heard it all.
This is the single most important test for the AB's for at least 15 years.

I think you people are about to witness the true power of All Black rugby. NOTHING on its day is better.

vulnerable, squeaky bum?...geez talk about wishful thinking...

Fair dinkum.

emack2 wrote:Australia lost to Ireland because of a New Zealand referee,South Africa lost
to Australia.because of the same referee.
Paddy o `Brien is in charge of referees,He`s a New Zealander,so he appoints a South African referee to restore the balance.
When Australia beat New Zealand on sunday,it won`t be because they are the better team.It will be the traditional All Black choke.
The South african referee is the built in excuse,isn`t that where these WUMs are going?.
A few points,England 2003 were certainly favourites NOT the All Blacks .When they were beaten by the best team on the day,1991 Australia were worlds best at the time.
1995 was a very even match going to extra time,1999 and 2007 france were better on the day over 80 minutes.
The term ""choking " is disrepecttful of the teams that beat them.
The IRB select the refs,and in the QF and SF with SH sides involved NH refs
should have officiated.

Assuming these are quotes Alan and not your own thinking.
Neither Oz or SA lost because of refereeing. Refereeing was a component in the loss but 15 players, unable to get the ball over the line or post contributed to it.
Frankly I'm getting sick of refereeing comments. The rules need to change. Who would want to be a ref, with whole countries venting their hatred towards you?
(Now Coopers another story... )

disneychilly wrote:Hersh don't be a tool. Suck up that England lost and try to enjoy the rugby still on offer. Us Kiwis did just that after the QFs last time.

You're kidding, right? Kiwi rugby fans and commentators did anything but "just that" the last time round. Dancing on Wayne Barnes grave became the favourite sport for a while. Most boring final between the most boring sides. Set back rugby for a decade. A massive blight on the game, etc, etc.

England are hurting, just like New Zealand were hurting in 2007. That's RWC for you.

I'm more astounded at the SA-led Facebook campaign to have Bryce Lawrence removed from the reffing game, and a petition to have the quarter-final replayed.

That's not sore, that's delusional. Reminds me of a certain Irish soccer team.....

Taylorman,that is my comments on the hate attack on Bryce Lawrence which
frankly stinks.The attacks on Wayne Barnes [then a rookie]was bad enough
but this is over the top.
Gatts,a few thoughts for you All Blacks pre 1987 3 wins out of 6matches
1991 Aus.beat them for there
only loss sice the1987
1995 2wins ,1draw out of 6
1999 2 wins out of 7
2003 england on a 14 match
run of 14 matches won v Sh
sides including 2 to England
2007 lost 1 out of 14 matches
the ONLY RWC they could be
considered favourites.
It is fair to say that the All Blacks have been the dominant team in World rugby between RWCs.NOT the best during them obviously by results the
Best team does`nt always win the match,are Tonga better than France?
on the day YES,but overall.?
Were Australia better than SA last weekend?they won thats all that matters.
RWCs are down to injuries,coping with Refs etc. you don`t have to be the best team.Just BETTER on the day,did England choke in 2007 when the lost by 30 odd points.
Or were they beaten by the better team on the day?
IF you want my opinion,not that you do i don`t think the All Blacks DO[for want of a better word]RWCs.
I expected the finalists to be SA v Aus,to be honest ,Sunday anything can happen.
IF Australia win,it will be because they were the best team on the day,NOT
because the All Blacks choked again .
If that is the case well done to them,GO Wales or France.

Yes and I have to say Oz did more homework on the ref because of their experiences with him.
he was hopeless to both but Oz played him better obviously...just about being smart... shouldnt have to be that way tbut thats the parameters in which we're stuck with.
In reading the headlines before the match and posters (Rob etc) here...there was definitely an issue that needing sorting with Lawrence for Oz.

Thats why I hate blaming refs. gets you nowhere unless it achieves change. the Ab's wont lose this weekend because of the ref, it will be because they don't score more points- easy to say when theres no emotion involved but thats the reality.

Well taylorman, i hope for your sake that is the case.

Knowing it is Craig Joubert blowing the whistle can make a person confident that it won't be an issue, he has been the best referee at this tournamnet hands down.

Yeah I know but even that can change such is the nature of the rules.

To be honest watching 15 or 16 players all piling into the same spot where the little oval piece of leather is at 100 miles an hour, from all angles up to 360 degrees 40 or 50 times in a match is and expecting a ref to getting it 'right' is a bit much to ask.

I don't think it matters where the refs from because ideally it shouldn't and you have to be able to have some faith in the processes you support.

The situation looks identical to 2007 and I reckon needs changing. Bottom line is refs shouldn't need to be put under this much pressure and it is the players and the rules that is doing it.

Any views on Todd training with the ABs squad? Reports that he was opposing Vito at training yesterday.

Blatant breach of RWC rules, no?

rob b
No it isn't, alot of New Zealand teams/players over the last few weeks have provided opposition to all the visiting teams at their training sessions,If he had been packing down on the side of the scrum in Vito's place then that would have been against the rules of the tournament.

"Who can beat the All Blacks this RWC?"

3 teams CAN.

AUS , WALES OR FRANCE.

aucklandlaurie wrote: rob b
No it isn't, alot of New Zealand teams/players over the last few weeks have provided opposition to all the visiting teams at their training sessions,If he had been packing down on the side of the scrum in Vito's place then that would have been against the rules of the tournament.

Right. So, if Australia wanted to fly in 6 extras they are allowed to train with the squad as long as it opposed training? I doubt it. ABs are taking the pee.

HERSH wrote:This has to go down as the worst RWC ever, it has set the RFU back 10 years

Well I can't argue with the second bit...

robb
Quite right,during the last World Cup(2007),a number of New Zealanders who were playing in the France and the UK provided the role of Opposition for the All Blacks,it wasnt as if they were hard to find.

the nz press is surely as bad as our own- whats the facination with us lol.

Mystir
Who is us?

aucklandlaurie wrote: robb
Quite right,during the last World Cup(2007),a number of New Zealanders who were playing in the France and the UK provided the role of Opposition for the All Blacks,it wasnt as if they were hard to find.

Bit different when Todd is next in line for selection I think and it just so happens McCaw has an injury. Anyway, heaps of press about probable breach of the rules.

In any event all it tells me is that McCaw is not fully fit and if he plays he will not be 100%. A lot of pressure on Read to perform now but query of he is at 100% too

robB
McCaw and read can only run in straight lines,Guess what Genia's thinking....

Here's hoping he's thinking...