The All Blacks,NZRFU,and RWC`s

Bored,I have been musing over the enigma that for most of time post 1987 the AllBlacks were the most successful team in the World between RWC`s.Now I do not dispute that in most cases THE best team inthe RWC won it BUT was thinking of NZRFU knee jerk response to failure.Sacking of the Coaches it is not uniformerly true for all the Coaches but in the Cases of John Hart,and "Grizz"Wyllie both who had better
win stats than Henry and Co.Who given another 4 years COULD have had an either better record than the 3 wise man and delivered a RWC sooner.In effect the NZRFU tore up the rule book and started from scratch every 4 years all continuity was lost.I have the greatest respect for Henry and Co. as I have for Wyllie and Hart.Also I think that had not Robbie deans been involved in 2003 he would have been appointed Coach over Graham Henry.

Having Grizz and Hart in '95 wouldn't have helped us beat whatever Suzie put in our food...

Was it not because the NZRFU is,was trying to be the ultimate perfectcenist?

And they also believed that 4 years as a coach is plenty oif time to win a RWC.

dallym wrote:Having Grizz and Hart in '95 wouldn't have helped us beat whatever Suzie put in our food...

I recently found out Suzie was a dodgy Pizza parlour.

Alan deans was part of the 2003 team so that's a moot point. If he hadn't been he would not have had Henrys experience at international level. He was tarnished with the mitchell brush.

And if that is the case why did deans not triumph in 07 when deans winning ways with the saders and henrys loss had deans in the box seat.

Honestly where do you find these theories. In both cases the NZRFU were proved correct. Deans consistent failures with ozzie confirms it.

Bit harsh on Deans. His team is under-resourced, plus they play in a competition with New Zealand and South Africa, so there's bound to be a few losses.

If NZ won the RWC when they "should" have (1995,1999, 2007) then nobody would care about it too much because NZ would have around 70% strike rate to matching closely to non RWC statistics and it would be a non event and global rugby would suffer like rugby league does. Makes you think...and I'm not sure it's about which coach is appointed to NZ.

Taylorman,where do i get the theories?IF you read the Media at the time there was a very real move for him to take over from Henry Post 2007.He did`nt have the experience true but given the usual knee jerk mentality of the media post RWC`s.He would`nt be the first Coach hired by the media for his country.

Wasn't just the media in 07. As has has happened in the past it split the country into two parts and its usually a north south thing. Happened with hart wyllie and hart mains. Although Henry was born and raised in christchurch his coaching was all Auckland.

Henry got in because of his handling of the 2007 loss and the encouragement he got from others to reapply. It was also because some NZers had matured from the regular must drop the coach routine after a world cup and some started asking 'maybe the experience of a loss would be beneficial' rather than starting again as that certainly wasn't working.

That combined with henrys brilliant record since
2003 got him back in.

For me Deans has just had too many losses. Samoa, Ireland, Scotland and a string against the higher sides. I can't put them all down to injury, lack of talent. Oz have underperformed many times and its incredible tey accept this from a NZ coach.

If he were to finish with them today he would have achieved little in five years and Id say aussies would wonder what they've been putting up with the last few years.

your actually right awop- nz should have won all of em bar 2003-

1991 certainly not, and 1999 NZ would have been beaten finalists. 2003 NZ could have won with the correct coaching and selection decisions, to have DC and Umaga in the stands and MacDonald at center was a travesty. Also if the TMO had correctly awarded Muliaina's early try rather than bizarrely disallow it enabled the Mortlock intercept, they may have won anyway.

1995, bar food poisoning was NZs on a plate, and I have no doubt that with any other referee in the world NZ would have been 2007 finalists, I can't say it they would have won. Suspect SA were too good under the pro-neanderthal rugby rules of the day.

no you could never have beaten the best side in the world in 2003. England won fair and square- infact the only truely won RWC. nz should have won them all bar ironically the ones they actually did and offcourse 2003

Of course Mystri! the only RWC that counted. Now tell us how good Neil Back was again...

2003 was offcourse the only one that counted. how could anyone say different?

Ah the great England side under SCW versus the Allblacks played 10 lost 7 drew1 won 2 both by less than 3 points.England beat them in the 2003 RWC ?When it comes to meeting them In RWCS.England are the great "Chokers"!!

how did you feel in 2003 after the wc emack?

I'm sure he was guttered as the rest of us AB fans were. Interesting stat though.

I'm not disputing the English deserved the 2003 WC. I don't think anyone has said this above (but it has been said before), do people think SCWs team was one of the 'great' teams in history?

The reason I ask, is that sure they sweeped most that year, but it happens all the time for some teams and they're generally not considered great teams.

Name the great teams of the modern era(world cup era)

You set the parameters and we'll give it a go ay?

look i dont know enough -all I know is that england didnt just win a rwc in 2003 but were very dominant for a year before- I also know that NZ have been truely great for almost the whole era. I know that aus and sa have won 2 RWC but i dont remember any truely dominant spells!- even though i am not distputing that there wernt any such spells!

I personally would discount all others

Yeah, you're probably right. Perhaps I'm being a bit mean spirited.

Also, there's been a few average AB teams over the WC era, don't worry about that. Perhaps only a couple that would be considered truly great. Oz would have had a great side in there somewhere, 91? Can't say about SA as they have high standards.

Dunno, England's flame was so short over that 2003 era. They were a good team for sure, probably a great 'England' team, best for a long time. Maybe they were great, it's just the words don't slip easily off the tongue

I've never considered we should have won 1991, 1999 or 2003.

In 1991 Oz beat us fair and square in that semi with a high level of skill that we couldnt retain from 1987. The wheels started falling off in 1990.

1999 we got done by France in a way the AB's have never been beaten before in a high profile test match. We can cite scratching, a fair bit of luck but we were done, well and truly.

2003 I still recall the Oz defence being too good for our attacks. Players had bad games. Again , the signs were there.

And England fully deserved that cup. At its height that team went 40 wins from 43 games including 15 SH opponents in the mix. So its fair to say, despite their actual wins over NZ being close, that the best team won that year.

For me, to be able to say we should have won the event when we didnt, two things must be present.

One, the team must at least be favourite to win the event at the point at which they lost. Second favourite is not good enough. It means there was another team out there already considered better, despite the loss.

Two, something extraordinary must have occurred that was either a near once in a life time occurrance or so far away from the norm of things and that in both cases, it was considered beyond the control of the team to easily remedy.

For me, 1995 and 2007 had both factors.

In 1995 going into the final the ABs were overwhelming favourites. They had recorded a grand slam of the four home unions through pool and the knockouts, securing huge wins in the process. Similarly the Boks had good to average wins in their pool and last 8 matches and were very close to losing to France in the last minute of the semi. Not that that alone suggests NZ would have won. It does confirm them as favourites.

There is ample evidence to suggest that many (not just one, or a few, or several...many) players fell extremely ill the day before the final. In my knowledge, I have never seen players spew copiously prior to going out onto the field, read a security guards description of the AB's meeting room as a 'war room' with doctors, drips etc everywhere and the players themselves admitting at least 5 or 6 should not have played the final- not that anyone was going to admit it at that point.

To then go on to draw the match in proper time and lose in the playoff suggests to me that had there been no occurrance of the illness, or instead, SA suffered the fate instead of NZ, that it would not have resulted in a draw. Too many factors suggest otherwise.

This is in no reflection on SA who had nothing to do with either circumsance. they won the final and as winners deserved the title accordingly. It is from a NZ point of view that we believe if not for the illness that we would hav won, and we make no excuses for that.

In 2007 the AB's were again hot favourites and had gone through pool play with a LOWEST 40-0 margin against Scotland.

Against France despite around 90% possession, 90 odd tackles to Frances 340+ he ref was unable to blow a single penalty for 60 of the remaining 80 minutes. Coupled with that is the missing of a forward pass which if had been seen wouldnt have meant France would have lead at that moment.

Again, the possession, number of tackles forced on the opposition, and the lack of a single penalty, any of which could have meant a win, is an extraordinary event, and Ive yet to see anyone come up with a similar statistic in test rugby.

Again, no reflection on SA as they played whoever was in front of them. To say we would have won is conjecture but our form, combined with our overwhelming favouritism at the time, provides NZ'rs enough evidence to suggest we would have won.

And those two wins would have meant 4 cups out of 7- nearer to our usual % win rate over allcomers.

Its well documented that we go on and on about it and thats fair enough, we didnt win so tough. Doesnt me we can't feel that way or for some reason deserve them out of respect for the winners cos we don't. We respect the eventual winners just as much as we reserve the right to feel we should have won. Simple as that.

Clearly around 2001 - 2003 England were an excellent team. Before getting to the world cup they won 14 in a row then got beaten by France and then won another 11 in a row before losing to France again. That is an excellent run.
I know they won the WC of course and beat NZ a couple of times. But they did not win the 2002 6Ns or the 2004 6Ns and did not have an unbeaten year.
So in my opinion its a little hard to say they were great. Just very very good.

Also plus one for Taylor

And me, well said TM!

nganboy wrote:Clearly around 2001 - 2003 England were an excellent team. Before getting to the world cup they won 14 in a row then got beaten by France and then won another 11 in a row before losing to France again. That is an excellent run.
I know they won the WC of course and beat NZ a couple of times. But they did not win the 2002 6Ns or the 2004 6Ns and did not have an unbeaten year.
So in my opinion its a little hard to say they were great. Just very very good.

True but a run of 40 wins from 43 matches is phenomenal. Most against NH sides but 12 (just checked) straight against the top 3 SH sides. I havnt looked but I dont think we've done 12 straight against SA and Oz.

Just checked...we havnt- our longest sequence of wins against Oz and SA combined is 8, a couple of times...

I doubt 12 will ever be beaten.

12, that's a good run alright. So there must have been more than the two wins against the ABs (that we hear about) in that run of 12?

Heres their full run (In blue are the only 3 losses, NZ matches are red):

Sat, 24 Jun 2000 ENG v SAF 27-22
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 ENG v AUS 22-19
Sat, 25 Nov 2000 ENG v ARG 19-0
Sat, 02 Dec 2000 ENG v SAF 25-17
Sat, 03 Feb 2001 ENG v WAL 44-15
Sat, 17 Feb 2001 ENG v ITA 80-23
Sat, 03 Mar 2001 ENG v SCO 43-3
Sat, 07 Apr 2001 ENG v FRA 48-19
Sat, 02 Jun 2001 ENG v CAN 22-10
Sat, 09 Jun 2001 ENG v CAN 59-20
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 ENG v USA 48-19
Sat, 20 Oct 2001 ENG v IRE 14-20
Sat, 10 Nov 2001 ENG v AUS 21-15
Sat, 17 Nov 2001 ENG v ROM 134-0
Sat, 24 Nov 2001 ENG v SAF 29-9
Sat, 02 Feb 2002 ENG v SCO 29-3
Sat, 16 Feb 2002 ENG v IRE 45-11
Sat, 02 Mar 2002 ENG v FRA 15-20
Sat, 23 Mar 2002 ENG v WAL 50-10
Sun, 07 Apr 2002 ENG v ITA 45-9
Sat, 22 Jun 2002 ENG v ARG 26-18
Sat, 09 Nov 2002 ENG v NZL 31-28
Sat, 16 Nov 2002 ENG v AUS 32-31
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 ENG v SAF 53-3
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 ENG v FRA 25-17
Sat, 22 Feb 2003 ENG v WAL 26-9
Sun, 09 Mar 2003 ENG v ITA 40-5
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 ENG v SCO 40-9
Sun, 30 Mar 2003 ENG v IRE 42-6
Sat, 14 Jun 2003 ENG v NZL 15-13
Sat, 21 Jun 2003 ENG v AUS 25-14
Sat, 23 Aug 2003 ENG v WAL 43-9
Sat, 30 Aug 2003 ENG v FRA 16-17
Sat, 06 Sep 2003 ENG v FRA 45-14
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 ENG v GEO 84-6
Sat, 18 Oct 2003 ENG v SAF 25-6
Sun, 26 Oct 2003 ENG v SAM 35-22
Sun, 02 Nov 2003 ENG v URU 111-13
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 ENG v WAL 28-17
Sun, 16 Nov 2003 ENG v FRA 24-7
Sat, 22 Nov 2003 ENG v AUS 20-17
Sun, 15 Feb 2004 ENG v ITA 50-9
Sat, 21 Feb 2004 ENG v SCO 35-13

Huh, well there you go. Well done England Make sure they don't sticky that list

ps. Thanks for going to the trouble TM

That's ok. I don't really care about who gets all pumped up over things like this. I just tell it how it see it...good or bad.

All I will say Mystry, is can you imagine NZ go to ENG at the end of the year and lose to ENG twice by 30 points?

ENG 2003 was a great ENG team, and relative to ENG's history possibly the best ENG team ever. But on the global scale we need a little bit perspective into how great they were. Also is some true in the arguing that the ENG style leverage the removal of rucking and the wait before the IRB try to fix the slow-down ruck approach.

Dude i was just lowering myself to your level with the original posts..

Offcourse its not all about england.. and 2003

Thanks Taylorman for that history- England were great in that era in my mind- that record is pretty amazing- 3 losses in all of them and the biggest loss 6 pts- i am suprised it was that good

its like a 92% win rate- I am not sure even NZ has matched that over any 3 year spell

Give NZ, AUS, SA the same draw and I'm sure they would

How many times do SANZAR nations play Canada x 2, Romania and USA in the same season? Make no mistaking on it, SCW stage managed a lot of the "records" achieved by his team.

lol- we played nz sa and aus in that era- yet we beat them all!!

what a straw to cling on to awop !!

When I created this thread it was a what if?no one disputes the RWC results BUT .With a different Coach or the same one with a 8 year run selections,gameplans and results COULD have been different.To put things into perspective AllBlacks 1991,1998 a lot of great players at the endof there careers retired then.Post 2003 and 2007 there was a massive player exedous Post 2007 best part of a whole squad.Before you get carried away Geoff Cooke andJack Rowell created Great England teams better than SCW statstically.IF you are going show SCW teams results show them ALL 1997-2004. When he had a worse win loss ratio over first 15 games two successors before they were sacked.OR when he said "Judge me on my RWC results " post 1999 IF he had been an ALL BLACKS Coach he would have been sacked then !!!!NOBODY disputes England 2000-2003 were a great side,but Bok Rugby was in decline until Jake White took over.The AllBlack games of the era were decided by goal kicking Jonny Wilkinson was THE best Goal kicker in the world.Carlos Spencer for all his skills was at Test Level a 50% kicker that was the difference.A Great Side England 2000-2003 pre RWC certainly.RWC 2003 they had one really good game the Semi Final,the Final was scrappy went 120 minutes and was decided by a last minute Drop Goal.Hardly convinvcing had Stirling Mortlocks drop succeeded whether Australia deserved it or not would have gone the other way.IF the had met the AllBlacks in the Final the result would have been very debatable.Great sides Allblacks 1987-late1990,1995-7,2005-7 Pre RWC.

But you were not talking about individual wins you were talking about a record for a series of victories. I can't think of another 1st tier team who played so many paff internationals in a single season in the history of the professional game.

Beside which both NZ and SA have longer runs of victories than the 2003 ENG team and against better opponents.

Rubbish

mystiroakey wrote:
its like a 92% win rate- I am not sure even NZ has matched that over any 3 year spell

How about when the Needle was coaching? Or between the first world Cup when Buck was the captain?

AllBlacks 1987 till late 1990 had a 100 % win record until IRB changed the laws on the driving Maul because they were so successful.Nearly a 4 year run I know they did`nt play the Boks but you can only beat who you meet .By 1991 many of these players were past there best and should have been replaced.But it was a case come RWC1991 just one more year guys it was`nt enough!!!
Under Freddie Allen they had a 100% record,Lions 1966,Tour of Europe 1967,France 1968.I don`t know if the Bledisloe was played in those years .1967 would have been there first Grand Slam Tour maybe,they did`nt play Ireland because of foot and mouth.

So i know i have derailed this thread- However does anyone seriously want to argue that England wasnt a great side 200o-2003

And can someone tell me other than NZ and england that has been so dominant in the modern era(post first world cup)

To say England is economical with the truth only briefly around 1995,2000-3 .Australia briefly around 1991-2 and 1999-2000,Boks 2009 and 1998 briefly despite winning 1995 RWC.Also for the record AllBlacks under Freddie Allen 16 wins out of 16 plus 2 matches won after Sir Fred passed the baton over 1966-9 18 wins.1987-1990 26 matches played 24 wins,1 draw,1 loss [the last in 1990] 4 years a 25 match run .Since 1987 AllBlacks win stats are 81.6% including 3RWC finals and 2 wins.NO ONE can match that!!!

Probably not, there is no doubt England was a great side then.

But again, teams don't play the same opposition the same number of times.

SA's best run under Nick Mallet was 26/32 wins from 23 August 1997 to 17 June 2000, during that time they played OZ and NZ 11 times and won 7 of those matches for a total win ratio during that time of 82%.

It also included 17 wins in succession which is equal to the run NZ had.

So in my view you take the wins and records as they come, it is good times when it is happening present time and good memories when they are gone.

Anyhow, since our return to the international fold that has been out best run.

Our best since then was 2007, with 11/14.

Hi,Biltong to be pedantic last match 1965 until first Test v Boks 1970 the AllBlacks run was 19 wins out of 19.Mallett had 4-5 record versus the AAllBlacks almost as good as PDV`s?!!!.But you`re right no one can dispute England for a while under SCW WERE the best side in the World.Whether that was still true inthe 2003 RWC is debateable they had just enough to win it.

Sorry alan, I thought it was 17, that's what has been touted all this time, I am not aware of the ratio's then.

I checked it alan, it was 17 wins.

Yes I was about to mention that run Biltong. That and the recent run the ABs made before the hong kong loss were e longest win streaks. Obviously the England run above is selective and is bookended by losses either side and as Alan says it doesn't contain the whole pictur
.
In fact the position either side is almost as bad as the win run is good with some horrible losses, but that wasn't the point of the exercise. The point was to show the run at its best and its one that even if selective anywhere else, is hard to beat.

I doubt there is a 40 win from 43 match run anywhere else in the history of the sport no matter how selective you get. There are other, better consecutive runs as this one was punctuated by the 3 losses throughout the 43 but over 43 straight tests thats pretty impressive.

Regardless of the what's, why's and how's, those are the numbers.

taylor it couldnt have been more constructive- It showed an era of english rugby that has at its highest and culminated with a RWC win- there isnt anything more important that that!

We clearly didint have the depth after- maybe because we concentrated to hard on what we had rather than by blooding in new players at regular intervals- which i suggest any team has to do even if it does hurt your record if you want to stay at the top for a longer time. But I am not gonna blame that set up- because we got the ultimate prize and by blooding new players we may not have won it

The 1965 to 1969 run by the ABs was 17, bookended by the 3rd test 1965 and the first test 1970, both losses to the Boks.

The bok run in 1997-98 was also 17. Started after a loss to NZ and ended with a loss to England.

NZ have a chance to equal the England run of 40 from 43 as it is currently 31 from 34 wins since losing to SA in 2009. The hong kong loss stopped a 15 test run and the two losses to oz and SA last year are the other two.

To equal the england run NZ needs to win all 6 3N matches and the first 3 on the AI's...

Well, it is easy then, they know what to do.

mystiroakey wrote:taylor it couldnt have been more constructive- It showed an era of english rugby that has at its highest and culminated with a RWC win- there isnt anything more important that that!

We clearly didint have the depth after- maybe because we concentrated to hard on what we had rather than by blooding in new players at regular intervals- which i suggest any team has to do even if it does hurt your record if you want to stay at the top for a longer time. But I am not gonna blame that set up- because we got the ultimate prize and by blooding new players we may not have won it

Yep there's ifs and buts but regardless its a formidable run which could have had more ifs and buts. For me its an interesting exercise and one of the most difficult things for sides that keep winning is to find motivation to win the next one. Hong kong for us was a good example. Wed won everything. The 6N, the bledisloe cup. We couldn't have picked a better test to lose if we had to. Sure each test carries its own motivation but post England world cup two things happened. One was EVERYONE wanted to beat the world champions. The second was that England had done everything. Regardless of how motivated they think they were, it just could not be the same unless considerable effort was made in preparation beforehand- asd you say, blooding new players.

By not doing that, having a number of retired players the energy to stay at that level just does not exist, no matter how much you will it. Thats part of the reason for the post world cup blues, something Nz doesn't suffer a its able to maintain high levels regardless.