How heavy is the weight of history?

First topic message reminder :

Firstly I must ask that posters keep this article sensible and objective.

How much does a recent or long term sequence of results affect a team?

If A has never beaten B at C for x years may be explained if key players remain - but not normally ten years on.

In practical terms this is a question about why NZ are considered RWC chokers, why England can't beat Ireland away etc.

I'll leave it as open as that.

But keep it friendly...

Taylorman wrote:Hi ya PJ...

"I would suggest that any team coming up against NZ should use the hiatus between the anthems and the dropout to get in a huddle and sort their gameplan out"

I'd also recommend using a little time before that to sort one out as well....

Sorry couldnt resist...

Hi Taylorman,

No problem with that bud, kind of asked for it really! No more than I deserved.

History is very important to a teams psyche, take the Springboks vs England, they lost to them 7 times in succession and Jake white put huge emphasis on the fact that in 2006 the Boks had to win at Twickenham, as they needed to instill the belief that they could beat them away from home, as they would meet them in the RWC pool matches.

In 2006 that is exactly what they did, it took a huge effort for them to accomplish that.

come RWC pool game, the belief was there and they beat them 36-0. Thus they were on their way and now have won 7 in a row.

All mental, isn't it.

nganboy wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:The omens are good though as no team has ever beaten Ireland 18 times in a row. NZ now have 17 in a row.

draw it is then

I'd take that. Of course nobody had beaten Ireland 17 times in a row until NZ did it so in reality a win might not be very close down the line but it will happen some day.

The WC is a unique beast but I'm wondering if England can get over the line against SA and NZ-as Biltong said SA have won 7 in a row and NZ hasn't been beaten by England since before the 03 cup.

Leinsterbaby I can see it happening next year. You've got three cracks at it.

Well. Conversely france had lost 10 straight to nz over a few years including a latest 61-10 thrashing a few months earlier.
Then knocked us out of 2007 cup.
An instance where someone didnt give a flying stuff about history!
And good on them.

For the All Blacks?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=10+ton+weight&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1348&bih=589&tbm=isch&tbnid=LZhmhKsCVy62MM:&imgrefurl=http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/adamwestbrook/tag/me_trying_to_be_funny/%3Fnum%3D10%26start%3D10&docid=lRcqnOKU88-v0M&w=435&h=536&ei=-8lpTuy-OoXJsga75qDbBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=176&vpy=65&dur=8495&hovh=249&hovw=202&tx=97&ty=191&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=113&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

?
Mind games for the overconfident...

Headline writers , what the point ?

McCaw ready to create history

"History has shown that what has happened previously - good or bad - means nothing come kick-off."

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/148395.html

That is an awesome comment

142lbs or 64.41012kg in new money.

Wales felt it today.

So much the better side and history on both sides made the difference. Expectancy and unexpectancy proved the essential difference between pride and hope.

Sad...

Really? Or you could say that Wlsh shame about ther history in world cups drove them to one of their best performaces for years against a far bttr side...but they came up short because they werent good enough and one kick may or may not have been missed.
Im sure theres a million other interpretations you could force to fit the game today.

Youre making a bit of a leap to prove a point there Portnoy.

There are always reasons rather than excuses.

We've seen Argentina just fall short of England and we'll soon see how Ireland fare against Australia.

This is neutral territory and a suitable place to lay some old demons - but it seems to be really, really tough to shift a shouldered burden heaped upon you by your forebears.

Don't tell me it's just on the day.

So youre saying England played badly because New Zealanders are used to choking?

I think it´s disrespectful to the sides who have beaten NZ in RWCs to put the choker tag and the weight of history on the ABs. If you look at all the RWC winners, all are deserved champions.

Sometimes the more results go against your way, the harder it is to find that extra spark in the dying moments when the pressure is on. But Australia found it in Hong Kong after 10 failed attempts and they found their winning way back again in the deciding 3N game. Where they have struggled in recent years is in NZ and especially Eden Park. That must play on their minds before the whistle goes, but they are a side who have self belief and are not afraid of the weight of history.

Where it may well serve in the interests of the ABs is in games where the opposition have never beaten the ABs. NZ have only ever been beaten by France, SA, Australia, England and Wales. Some of the rest have come mighty close but it must be a psychological hurdle. Sure it works in your favour that you want to be the first team to beat them, but the ABs don´t want to be the first team to lose either.

Wales showed yesterday that they lacked that final killer blow. The drop goal seemed a good option but I can´t help but think if they had held onto the ball and tried to retain possession a few more times, they might´ve had a better chance. It´s about summing up the situation and taking the right options. That has been the downfall of NZ in RWCs, particularly last time, but is normally one of their strengths.

So it may well be a factor but there are many other factors on the day to consider. But I for one am still confident about NZ´s chances at home. kia kaha

Weight of history? Can be pretty heavy.

One of the reasons that 2003 Eng were such a great side (and as a good Welshman, it pains me a little to say that). Eng went to southern hemisphere and worked over NZ and Oz away. Then back for the World cup and in spite of the fact that they could have crumbled in the final - no northern hemisphere side had ever won the Webb Ellis after all - they didn't.

As for Wales - the bad years of the 90s and early 00s manifest themselves now. Players brought up on the idea of losing to teams like SA - and so go out hoping to win. SA expect to win every game, even though they aren't the force they were. Dirs on the beeb put it nicely by saying Wales are a classy side that don't realise quite how classy.

Not so heavy for Ireland after a great win in the SH. Great stuff against the Tri-Nations champions.

Grrrrreat.

I don't know man, we don't have that much history against the Aussies. It's the Kiwis and French who put the fear into our current team!

But yeah- we normally get travel sick in the Southern Hemisphere so this was a BIG moment.

I mean there was 1991, the game they snatched from us then. But thats an isolated incident compared to what the French have done to us...

I win in the SH against Oz is a significant win.

Bogey laid.

No side who has been beaten in the pool matches has come back to win the World Cup though England did make the final last year time after being hammered by SA in their pool game.

But this is only the 7th World Cup so very early days and plenty of chances to go against what has happened before.

Portnoy wrote:I win in the SH against Oz is a significant win.

Bogey laid.

I agree Portnoy. That is definitely another box ticked from an Irish point of view and a huge weight of our shoulders.

The difference between closing out that win and just coming up short like Wales did against the Boks is massive from a psychological perspective, especially as we lost by one point against the Wallabies in 2003 and have had plenty of near misses against the Tri nations since away from home.

Certainly did England a lot of good after their win Down Under a couple of years ago. It should never be underestimated the benefit of changing results for the better and what that does to your confidence.

The trick for Ireland is after that huge game, they need to find focus and consistency against much more limited opposition.

In 1987 no team had won the cup before

In 1991 no team had won away from home

In 1995 no team outside of the Australasia (or whatever that continent is called) had won it

In 1999 no team had won it twice

In 2003 no team from NH had won it

In 2007 erm...can't think of anything

There's been a "no team who.......has ever won it" pretty much every year.

A few thoughts,Wales have`nt beaten the All Blacks for 58years,the biggest
controversy between them was "The Deans try".
Whatever the rights or wrongs it was no fluke,did you know Wales 1900-11
lost only 7 games out if 43 .Only one of those at home.
Cliff Morgan one of the Welsh most famous Fly halves,never tried a dropped goal in his life,considering it awaste of possession.
Ireland have only ever achieved 2 Grand slams.
That only 5 national sides have ever beaten The All Blacks,Wales among these have never beaten them at home.
Only 37 matches have been lost by the All Blacks in New Zealand since 1903.
Only 3 sides have ever Beaten the All Blacks in a RWC,England have never beaten them,Australia always beaten them.
All Blacks have the best overall record of any side in a RWC,and are the only side ever to have won every match at the group stage.
That no side beaten at the Group stage has gone on to win a RWC.

Or how about England 1994 -2005,THE England team under Sir Clive Woodward.England versus NZ played 11 won 2 [those by 3 and 2 points respectively]

Who will be the sixth national side to beat the All Blacks? Argentina, Scotland, Ireland or Italy? Or maybe Tonga, Fiji or Samoa?

For the semis:

Team for team it's featherweight.

KO success/experience might be slightly heavier.

emack2 wrote:A few thoughts,Wales have`nt beaten the All Blacks for 58years,the biggest
controversy between them was "The Deans try".
Whatever the rights or wrongs it was no fluke,did you know Wales 1900-11
lost only 7 games out if 43 .Only one of those at home.
Cliff Morgan one of the Welsh most famous Fly halves,never tried a dropped goal in his life,considering it awaste of possession.
Ireland have only ever achieved 2 Grand slams.
That only 5 national sides have ever beaten The All Blacks,Wales among these have never beaten them at home.
Only 37 matches have been lost by the All Blacks in New Zealand since 1903.
Only 3 sides have ever Beaten the All Blacks in a RWC,England have never beaten them,Australia always beaten them.
All Blacks have the best overall record of any side in a RWC,and are the only side ever to have won every match at the group stage.
That no side beaten at the Group stage has gone on to win a RWC.

You are like a rugby data computer that has gone into meltdown!

Great thing about stats is they can't predict a thing.

And who would have predicted Wales at an RWC semi from stats

Ireland beating Aus from stats

Tonga beating France.

Stats are history, that is all.

I do think that history does play apart in any match.But if you take this week ends game Australia v New Zewland, New Zealand have never beaten Australia in a Rugby World Cup.

But another thing with regrads to this week ends game is that the game is being played at Eden Park.Aplace where the Abs have very seldom lost a game.

So like i say, it will be interesting this week end.

"How heavy is the weight of history?"

very -it defines us.

in terms of what you mean by this statement- again it defines us- its down to us to overcome that and define the moment to change history- it can take a momumental effort, or an underacheivement(or slide in ability) from the other nation.

History now shows that New Zealand has beaten Australia in a World Cup game.

And another thing, I dont know if its the weight of history or just spooky,But this year the final will be played NZ and France, both from pool A.
In 2007 the final was between South Africa and England, both from pool A.

New Zealand have never beaten Australia in a World Cup out side of New Zealand.

No aucklandlaurie NZ was not in Pool A. They were in Poi-E.

I´ll get me coat...

When and how can the NH break through the tons of history?

By not looking backwards.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
By not looking backwards.

Hmm.
Yes. But why, when on the brink, do they constantly fail.

Ireland especially in one of greatest international matches in recent times and had many 'old heads' on display plus one of the best kicking new fly-halves on the circuit plus a healthy core of dominant Leinster and Munster sides well-versed in stringing out a scoreboard lead or coming back at the last minute just nick it - Ireland just bottled it. Why?

There must be something about the weight of history.