NZ and broken records...

First topic message reminder :

Please don't have a pop at me, i'm just making a point, and tipping the hat to a friend of mine who has been banging a drum for a few years.

U20 WC 2/3 years ago? Smallblacks lose their first ever game (V Wales?) and a friend of mine (who is Welsh) stands in a cold dark Welsh pub in Cardiff (have no idea of the name) and has gathered a small crowd of people.

Now everyone has had a few, although he does keep following this up on the odd occasion, but he starts in on the NZRFU...

He says in 100 years time the NZ public are going to be just where the Welsh public are now, a proud but fruitless rugby power, reminising about past glories as current performances shadow their former teams. He says they will pinpoint this day in their history was the turning point, where superpowers from the rugby world in England, France and SA would start to dominate the junior game, and slowly roll that domination into the senior game.

He starts in on a nostradamus style prediction, where all forms of rugby in NZ starts to fall away from total domination and into the pack.

His first few predictions were NZ not winning the current U20 WC, or the next 2/3, of which they would have their worst ever performance. (He didn't mention home soil)

Then he went onto record losses for the senior side in the NH and SH, a poor 4N tournament before the 2015 WC where they would finish 3rd, and a poor 2015 WC.

He says NZ women would fall off top spot by 2015, and Englands money and power would be realised at this level.

He says NZ 7's also would fall into the pack, and SA and England would take the top spots, and possibly compete the final of the olympics in Rio.


Now I know this all sounds like guff, and anti NZRFU, I assure you I am not, as I have assured the English and French I am not anti them on my euro comp, and have assured I am not anti Welsh or IRish on my Rabo comments.

But this friend messaged me the other day (I havn't seen him in a year or so) to highlight NZ's first ever CW games loss (He didn't mention that in his initial predictions btw) and it got me thinking, has he made a point worth making, or is it just the ramblings of a bitter tipsy and at the time jubilent welshman?

I have looked into results etc, and findings are worrying...

NZ won the 2011 U20 WC, They lost one game on way to the final 2012 then lost the final tick
2013 NZ didn't place whatsoever = worst WC tick
2014 NZ third place on home soil = unthinkable for a NZ team not to be a contender on home soil.

Englands big win in England aside (under virus) I think the NZ senior results are contradicting his predictions so far!

NZ women are still top spot in the world rankings, although havn't they lost 3 of their last 10 games where England have won 12 on the bounce?

The message i received the other day was with regards to the CW games first ever loss, he never mentioned it originally but uses it to prove his point.

Like I said, this isn't an anti NZ thread, but there is very slight proof that maybe the rest of the world are catching up with the team who have dominated the sport in every aspect for 100 years? Or is this just where the games and teams peak and trough? and is this a trough for NZ despite nearly winning everything (scary or what)?

It's obvious that NZ can only go down from total domination, and it's amazing that such a small country has dominated the sport for so long, but are the big money players of France, England and SA ready to take that mantel on?

Some interesting reading Alan on when a century begins: http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/21st_century_start.html

Alan
 
SA had the best record in the amateur era which is what I had originally stated. Did slip in 20th century, didn't fully check that I agree. However, the professional era started in 1996 when clubs and players went pro. Up until then players had jobs even in SA (which many people mistakenly think as untrue). Even now you will see many players in SA still have jobs (a number are doctors and even go through their articles with professional firms such as EY, KPMG, PWC etc).
 
End of the century ok I agree but remember that stats now are heavily weighted to the recent rather than the past. Up to 1995 they played 42 matches (over 74 years). Since then they have played 45 matches in only 18 years. Thats an increase by 4 times. Its back loaded meaning recent success will count for more as they play more matches.
 
The boks in the 30s and 40s were super dominant. But they played only 7 tests in 20 years yet they won 6 of them (inc. an away series). Ok war had a big impact in reduced games but probably only a single tour and say 4 matches but had they had similar ratios with todays number of games the numbers would be very different.
 
Why its better to cut the line at the 1996 cut off when the game went pro.

Hi,FAO on paper I agree with your facts BUT owing to recent research on All Black v Springboks I can flesh out the bones.The historical series I was going to do is abandoned
no one is interested there loss.
Political decisions have dogged this great series more the pity and these are facts not
excuses so make of them what you will.
The conclusions/opinions are mine and as an AB supporter biased but I`m being objective
too.
Of the matches between the too in the era mentioned only 1986 Cavaliers had a so called
neutral ref.and he was more home town biased than any.
In 1919 a NZ services side toured SA no tests were played but they only lost one match
"Ranji Wilson" the McCaw of his day was banned due to politics good enough to fight and
die along side Boks but play Rugby against them.
In 1928 Nepia,Paewai,Mill,and Cooke didn't tour of these Cooke was picked but didn't tour.
Nicholls for reasons still unknown only picked for the 4th Test which he won of his own
boot.Osler considered him the hardest player he ever marked had Mill toured Nicholls
would certainly of played all 4.
In the first test only one NZ forward had played a full test before Maurice Brownlie.
In 1934-5 the Boks many of whom were in the 1937 side beat Australia 3-2 in a series
JUST.
IN 1935-6 the 2-3-2 having been banned AB`s adopted the Bok 3-4-1 scrum without
understanding the dynamics.
In 1935-6 both England and Wales beat the AB`s in England`s case the Scrum was a key
factor.
In 1937 the Bok side was thrashed by NSW in the Australian portion of the tour then
lost the first test to AB`s.
Cobden was injured and 14 AB`s won "Trevathans test",when he came on the field to
congratulate his team.The selectors said "The man can walk disgraceful he will never
play for NZ again"he didn't.He atoned if fighting and dying in the Western Desert fighting
Rommel.Craven played at 10 in this match.
After losing the second test NZ made 3 changes in the backs Steele there most dangerous
wing was moved to centre."Brushy"Mitchell a previous AB was recalled,he had a record
of injuries the move risky.In fact disastrous a leg injury recurred and he was a passenger.
In 1949 a Maori side toured Australia Captained by the ill fated Peter Smith toured OZ
drawing a 3 match series 1 each plus a draw and lost only one further match.
Later this same OZ side would win a series v NZ 2-0,a total of 18 players were for
political and other reasons not available to tour including the best 3 SH`s in NZ and
best two flankers Arnold and Blake unavailable to tour SA.
On this tour only 7 tries were scored v NZ in 20 odd matches.
In 1960 there was nothing between the sides only Walsh,Wordley,and Nathan
would have toured.
In 1970 Tremain unwisely discarded 1968 and Ken Gray the worlds best prop
refused to tour because of apartheid a theme repeated by players 1976.
According to NZ media only 19 of the side were of test quality and both partying
and the unbeaten since 1996 bit effected the younger players complanency
taking over.Meads his arm broken by a deliberate kick should have come home.
Also this was the oldest SA team in history both replacements were 34 and 36.
1976 the series would have been drawn but for a politically motivated Ref
giving the Boks a winning penalty a fact he readily admitted.
The 1981 series should never have been played,and the one nation RWC was
myth.A token non white in 1995 and 1999,2 in 2003 and 2007.
Of course everything was different in the amateur era only from 1976 did a full
NZ side tour.None were played with neutral refs tho offered in 1976.
Injuries and home town refs effected every series politics selection even today
Three tours were abandoned 1967,73,85 results no one can know.
In conclusion in my opinion full strength NZ sides would have won in 1928 in SA
and have drawn both 1949 and with a neutral ref 1976
The Gap only occurred in the period when the 2-3-2 was banned 1937 in the
circumstances no more than England/Wales.
The 1960`s were a disaster for Sa,the 1970`s except v NZ as well for both sides.
SA`s decline in pro era is politics plus there inability to win in NZ consistently
NZ on the other hand is about 45% wins in SA.
THATS just my opinion and setting the records straight but the facts may be of interest to some here.

emack2 wrote:Hi,FAO on paper I agree with your facts BUT owing to recent research on All Black v Springboks I can flesh out the bones.The historical series I was going to do is abandoned
no one is interested there loss.
Political decisions have dogged this great series more the pity and these are facts not
excuses so make of them what you will.
The conclusions/opinions are mine and as an AB supporter biased but I`m being objective
too.
Of the matches between the too in the era mentioned only 1986 Cavaliers had a so called
neutral ref.and he was more home town biased than any.
In 1919 a NZ services side toured SA no tests were played but they only lost one match
"Ranji Wilson" the McCaw of his day was banned due to politics good enough to fight and
die along side Boks but play Rugby against them.
In 1928 Nepia,Paewai,Mill,and Cooke didn't tour of these Cooke was picked but didn't tour.
Nicholls for reasons still unknown only picked for the 4th Test which he won of his own
boot.Osler considered him the hardest player he ever marked had Mill toured Nicholls
would certainly of played all 4.
In the first test only one NZ forward had played a full test before Maurice Brownlie.
In 1934-5 the Boks many of whom were in the 1937 side beat Australia 3-2 in a series
JUST.
IN 1935-6 the 2-3-2 having been banned AB`s adopted the Bok 3-4-1 scrum without
understanding the dynamics.
In 1935-6 both England and Wales beat the AB`s in England`s case the Scrum was a key
factor.
In 1937 the Bok side was thrashed by NSW in the Australian portion of the tour then
lost the first test to AB`s.
Cobden was injured and 14 AB`s won  "Trevathans test",when he came on the field to
congratulate his team.The selectors said "The man can walk disgraceful he will never
play for NZ again"he didn't.He atoned if fighting and dying in the Western Desert fighting
Rommel.Craven played at 10 in this match.
After losing the second test NZ made 3 changes in the backs Steele there most dangerous
wing was moved to centre."Brushy"Mitchell a previous AB was recalled,he had a record
of injuries the move risky.In fact disastrous a leg injury recurred and he was a passenger.
In 1949 a Maori side toured Australia Captained by the ill fated Peter Smith toured OZ
drawing a 3 match series 1 each plus a draw and lost only one further match.
Later this same OZ side would win a series v NZ 2-0,a total of 18 players were for
political and other reasons not available to tour including the best 3 SH`s in NZ and
best two flankers Arnold and Blake unavailable to tour SA.
On this tour only 7 tries were scored v NZ in 20 odd matches.
In 1960 there was nothing between the sides only Walsh,Wordley,and Nathan
would have toured.
In 1970 Tremain unwisely discarded 1968 and Ken Gray the worlds best prop
refused to tour because of apartheid a theme repeated by players 1976.
According to NZ media only 19 of the side were of test quality and both partying
and the unbeaten since 1996 bit effected the younger players complanency
taking over.Meads his arm broken by a deliberate kick should have come home.
Also this was the oldest SA team in history both replacements were 34 and 36.
1976 the series would have been drawn but for a politically motivated Ref
giving the Boks a winning penalty a fact he readily admitted.
The 1981 series should never have been played,and the one nation RWC was
myth.A token non white in 1995 and 1999,2 in 2003 and 2007.
Of course everything was different in the amateur era only from 1976 did a full
NZ side tour.None were played with neutral refs tho offered in 1976.
Injuries and home town refs effected every series politics selection even today
Three tours were abandoned 1967,73,85 results no one can know.
In conclusion in my opinion full strength NZ sides would have won in 1928 in SA
and have drawn both 1949 and with a neutral ref 1976
The Gap only occurred in the period when the 2-3-2 was banned 1937 in the
circumstances no more than England/Wales.
The 1960`s were a disaster for Sa,the 1970`s except v NZ as well for both sides.
SA`s decline in pro era is politics plus there inability to win in NZ consistently
NZ on the other hand is about 45% wins in SA.
THATS just my opinion and setting the records straight but the facts may be of interest to some here.

NZ bowed down to the demands of the S African's. The country should have grown some and refused to bend to their racist demands. Mind you after what has been happening in Christchurch some things do not go away do they.

To get this thread back on track, I received another text last night about the NZ ladies losing to Ireland, quadriple champs now in a hole to get out of.

He reminds me that another record has gone.

I imagine this Welsh friend was rubbing it in, you being a Kiwi.

With friends like that...

Cyril wrote:I imagine this Welsh friend was rubbing it in, you being a Kiwi.

With friends like that...

If I am I'm an extremely confused one with my look, accents, and speaking 2 european languages, oh and all the kiwi slating ive done. Typicall kiwi me...

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:I imagine this Welsh friend was rubbing it in, you being a Kiwi.

With friends like that...

If I am I'm an extremely confused one with my look, accents, and speaking 2 european languages, oh and all the kiwi slating ive done. Typicall kiwi me...

Which European languages?

Ixnay on Kiwis being monolingual-I've got four under my belt and Kia has a few too...though being on a rugby forum seems rather typical.

sorry to burst people's bubble but the racist laws in SA during apartheid weren't that too dissimilar to the rest in the western world post WW2 and right up the 60s.
Its only that SA stuck to their warped beliefs for a further 20 odd years thereafter once global public opinion had changed. Its nice for the rest of the world to portray White SA as this great satan but in reality they were a) largely a continuation of the laws left by the colonial government of the British Emprie b) not much different from the USA/UK/AUS's laws themselves etc etc.
 
Anyhow, whilst it is true that SA did pressure teams  to remove players of colour when touring SA that wasn't the case when SA toured other countries and in any case, in those days given you hardly ever saw an away series victory in the major hubs I doubt it would have had much impact on historical results as bad as the practice was.
 
And if it was so against the belief systems of the touring countries you would think they would make a stand... its not like SA was this all controlling behemoth at the time. In reality its like bowing down to Warwick Davis.... hardly an excuse when you scratch the surface.
 
The players themselves have always said, they wanted to play the best players available. They didn't like it but like all those athletes from nations where Presidents/Prime Ministers/Dictators pulled their teams from various Olympics during the era, they didn't have a choice.

In terms of the records it's basically SA had a winning record against everyone and NZ had a higher win percentage against everyone. Just like in the WC era NZ has a better head to head and SA have a better WC record.
Apples and oranges? Possibly, but there's daylight between the top two and everyone else that's for sure.

Cyril wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:I imagine this Welsh friend was rubbing it in, you being a Kiwi.

With friends like that...

If I am I'm an extremely confused one with my look, accents, and speaking 2 european languages, oh and all the kiwi slating ive done. Typicall kiwi me...

Which European languages?

Your not my type...

You're not American any more, ghosty?

Cyril wrote:

You're not American any more, ghosty?

Because americans can't speak multiple languages?

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:

You're not American any more, ghosty?

Because americans can't speak multiple languages?

Largely true, but that wasn't my point.

Cyril wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

Cyril wrote:

You're not American any more, ghosty?

Because americans can't speak multiple languages?

Largely true, but that wasn't my point.

What was your point?

I think the Lions need to be held in the same bracket as NZ and SA.
 
The Lions had a superior record to NZ in SA int he amateur era (up to Dec'95)
 
Lions in SA
 
11 series, 3 wins, 7 losses, 1 draw,
40 tests, 14 wins.
 
NZ in SA
 
5 series, 0 wins, 4 losses, 1 draw
22 tests, 6 wins.
 
In terms of travelling to NZ, both the Lions and SA won a single series but SA had a far test win percentage (30% vs. 18%).
 
The Lions was for a long time seen as the national team of the British Isles. It was known as the British Isles throughout the amateur era and they even sang GSTQ pre test until the 93 series. The home nations didn't tour the SH in those days as that was the the domain of the lions. That went to bed in the amateur era and its right it evolved into the British & Irish Lions but even so.
 
Anyhow IMO the Lions deserve to be right up there with NZ and SA if we are looking at the amateur era.

Hi,FAO I did`nt post the last thread to belittle Boks far from it,just posted a historical
facts.I am aware much of SA`s problems in Pro era is due to the quota system of
players and the fallout of retreat from Empire has bedevilled many Countries.
The Lions should indeed be taken into account as the have a marginally better win
ratio in NZ than the Boks.6 wins and 3 draws as opposed to 6 wins and 1 draw.
Series wise 1 win as opposed to a win and a drawn series.
Just one point 2 series wins versus Boks was late 19th or early 20th century so hardly
relavent,nor were they actually Lions teams as such.

emack2 wrote:Hi,FAO I did`nt post the last thread to belittle Boks far from it,just posted a historical
facts.I am aware much of SA`s problems in Pro era is due to the quota system of
players and the fallout of retreat from Empire has bedevilled many Countries.
The Lions should indeed be taken into account as the have a marginally better win
ratio in NZ than the Boks.6 wins and 3 draws as opposed to 6 wins and 1 draw.
Series wise 1 win as opposed to a win and a drawn series.
Just one point 2 series wins versus Boks was late 19th or early 20th century so hardly
relavent,nor were they actually Lions teams as such.

 
Lions is actually just the nickname. It was the British Isles team for a long time, only in the late part of the 20th century did they become known as the British Lions. Given that I don't see why they don't count. The only thing is that the game was in its infancy in both countries but more so in SA... like all those 100m gold medals European countries won before Jamaica started to get into gear etc.
 
It is true that SA pressurised all sports teams to drop players of colour (likewise with the cape coloured Basil D'Oliveria who was dropped from the England cricket team in the 60s). No denying that. It was terrible for sport and how these unions agreed (not necessarily the coaches but those who gave the order) to such matters shows that deep down they probably didn't think too much differently to those who proposed them.