Most worthy "reigning" Champions

Just for a bit of fun, let’s look at which world champions had the best “reign” as world champions.

New Zealand Champions from 21 June 1987 – 1 November 1991
Tests played 30
Won 26
Lost 3
Drew 1

Australia Champions from 2 November 1991 to 23 June 1995
Tests played 28
Won 22
Lost 6

South Africa Champions from 24 June 1995 to 5 November 1999
Tests played 54
Won 38
Lost 16

Australia Champions from 6 November 1999 to 21 November 2003
Tests played 44
Won 29
Drew 1
Lost 14

England Champions from 22 November 2003 to 19 October 2007
Tests played 46
Won 21
Lost 25

South Africa Champions from 20 October 2007 to present
Test played 40
Won 26
Lost 14

New Zealand was by far the best “reigning” champions, there is a trend though, with professional rugby coming in 1996 the win percentages of the champions steadily becomes lower. Or does it?
If New Zealand does win the RWC you will definitely see an upward trend again. If they don’t, it will be interesting to see whether the trend will continue.

If NZ do win I think it would be a great time to play NZ just after the WC. I would see ot as a great chance for Ireland to get their first kiwi scalp. Ireland for example beat both the last two world champs in their first match after SA and Eng lifted the trophy. These were great results particularly against England who had hammered us in the previous few games.

Just goes to show World Cup hangovers do exist but NZ are a different animal.

Didnt realize England actually lost more games than they won between the 2 RWCs! Thats some statistic.

Well England's squad went almost wholescale away after the RWC, as well as their coach, so it was not surprising they lost after their win.

I guess for a lot of players after winning the cup may be hard to get motavated for the tests straight after, whereas other sides would be straining to take on and beat the world champs.

Boyne wrote:Didnt realize England actually lost more games than they won between the 2 RWCs! Thats some statistic.

That because you tend to only hear about it when England win......

Boyne wrote:Didnt realize England actually lost more games than they won between the 2 RWCs! Thats some statistic.

Especially when you consider they backed that up with a final in 2007...

Come on, we were woeful from 2003 right up to 2010! We're only just starting to show some signs of new life now. 2007 was a bit of an aberration.

What's really interesting is the amount of tests played after the game went pro. Huge difference.

"Especially when you consider they backed that up with a final in 2007..."

As did the Wallabies 1999-2003.... though they didn't quite lose so many games in between..

What's really interesting is the number of tests lost after the game went pro.

Heer's my ranking for what its worth:

1) The 91 Wallabies would be my choice, dominant over the AB's and the Boks, A drawn series with France in France. The only question mark is a lack of games against England (who they beat in the 91 final).

2) The 87 AB's were a great side. They were completely dominant for most of the intervening period. However, as much as I would like to, it's hard to say they are the most worthy as South Africa couldn't compete and they didn't play England until 91 (although this wasn't as important as they weren't the major force they are now).

3) The 99 Wallabies were a good side. They won most of there games in the years following their win, although the struggled against quality sides away from home, especially towards the end of their reign.

4) The 07 boks are a bit like there predecessors. Losses to NZ blow out the record. Take out the losses to NZ and Australia and their record against 6 nations sides is ok (bar the loss to Scotland).

5) The 95 boks record isn't as bad as it looks. Altough they lost quite a few games a high proportion of them were to a good AB's side, a few were to the Wallabies in the Tri Nations, a couple to the lions and a loss at Twickerham.

6) 03 English side. If it was based on the games for the 4 years leading in to the tournement, they would be there or there abouts. In terms of defending their title, they pretty much imploded and based on the years follwing the cup would have to be near the bottom.

I think England could produce a textbook on how not to perform as reigning champions. Masterfully incompetent after 2003.

I still think NZ's 50 game unbeaten streak cements their position as the best performed reigning champion SA or not.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think England could produce a textbook on how not to perform as reigning champions. Masterfully incompetent after 2003.

We were definitely a waning power by the world cup in 2003. If it had been a year later i doubt we'd have troubled the final. Talk about peaking in time...

USA Olympic Champions since 1924....... incredible.

Did not realise Romania got the Bronze!

The stats don't really take into account the quality of the opposition involved. It's true that the SANZAR nations play each other more regularly hence the value of high win statistic is greater than that of a NH side.

I think also in evaluating the merit of a "reigning champion" you have to look at the nature of the losses involved.

I recall England taking some real spankings.

blackcanelion wrote:Heer's my ranking for what its worth:

1) The 91 Wallabies would be my choice, dominant over the AB's and the Boks, A drawn series with France in France. The only question mark is a lack of games against England (who they beat in the 91 final).

You need to realise that Australia played SA in 4 tests prior to the world cup.

The first test SA played against the Wallabies was their return to International rugby on 22 August 1992, that was a bit of a wake up call.

Then SA went to Australia for 3 away tests, they won the first test by 7 then lost to the Australians by 7 and 8 points,

Then knocked them on their backsides in the world cup 1995.

Wouldn't say that was clear dominance, it was a team that came back to international rugby after 11 years of isolation, and aquitted themselves rather well.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think England could produce a textbook on how not to perform as reigning champions. Masterfully incompetent after 2003.

That particular England side was a great side (damn that hurt to say that!), but they were past their peak when they won the World Cup and were noticeably on the downslope. I think it is a testament to just how good a side they were thst they won the World Cup without reaching the peaks of performance that they had a year or so before.

Biltong we played you first at Ellis Park winning 27-24 mate.

That's correct, it was still our first tests in the return though.

When you look at this it makes you realise just how young the pro game is.

I wonder what that time line will be like in another 20 odd years?

Yeah Biltong I can imagine the NZ and SA rugby public spitting tacks if your first game back was NOT against us! I remember you came back big time-the guys didn't know what hit them.

The 99 Wallabies held onto the Bledisloe till 03 so they'll always be up there in my opinion.

Carpe Diem wrote:We were definitely a waning power by the world cup in 2003. If it had been a year later i doubt we'd have troubled the final. Talk about peaking in time...

Surely if you were a waning power by the World Cup, you had already peaked before then?

Sorry, I'm a pedant. I'm receiving medical help

ML wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think England could produce a textbook on how not to perform as reigning champions. Masterfully incompetent after 2003.

That particular England side was a great side (damn that hurt to say that!), but they were past their peak when they won the World Cup and were noticeably on the downslope. I think it is a testament to just how good a side they were thst they won the World Cup without reaching the peaks of performance that they had a year or so before.

The big issue after 2003 is that the England management stopped doing the things that made them a great side in the first place. They stopped innovating in terms of coaching methods and got left behind in that regard, but most damagingly, they stopped picking the side on form and merit, and just picked the same old guys. Prior to 2003, the likes of Leonard, Greening, Grewcock, Shaw, Bracken, Catt and Luger were all dispensed from the 1st XV in order to arrive at the right formula, with late charges from form players like Woodman, Kay, Dawson and Lewsey ensuring that England maximised their potential. England, for some reason, stopped being ruthless after 2003, particularly with its own players.

It would interesting to do a "most deserving champions" looking at the preceeding four years.

Why are people surprised on England losing so many games? We were around 3rd/4th in the 6 nations (so half the games) and we were losing to the tri-nations. I'd have been surprised if England had won more than 50%.

ML wrote:That particular England side was a great side (damn that hurt to say that!), but they were past their peak when they won the World Cup and were noticeably on the downslope. I think it is a testament to just how good a side they were thst they won the World Cup without reaching the peaks of performance that they had a year or so before.

Thats true. That team definitely peaked the previous season when they did the back to back wins over the SH trio. They were definitely on the slide by the time the WC came around. Their play had become more conservative and forward orientated and they had become more and more reliant on Wilkinson to kick points.

If Australia or NZ had managed to develop a half decent pack of forwards in time for the WC then it's likely they would have missed out on lifting the trophy. Come 2004 the chasing pack had not just caught them but surpassed them.

There's no doubt though that from summer 2002 to autumn 2003 that England were the best in the World and deserving world champions.

HammerofThunor wrote:It would interesting to do a "most deserving champions" looking at the preceeding four years.

Why are people surprised on England losing so many games? We were around 3rd/4th in the 6 nations (so half the games) and we were losing to the tri-nations. I'd have been surprised if England had won more than 50%.

In all likely hood that is NZ as their win percentages are always the highest, maybe if we're really lucky there might be a period where they lost more than someone else. Nah!

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:We were definitely a waning power by the world cup in 2003. If it had been a year later i doubt we'd have troubled the final. Talk about peaking in time...

Surely if you were a waning power by the World Cup, you had already peaked before then?

Sorry, I'm a pedant. I'm receiving medical help

No, you are absolutely right, didn't like that as soon as i wrote it!

Perhaps 'talk about the World Cup coming in the nick of time' would have been better?

HammerofThunor wrote:It would interesting to do a "most deserving champions" looking at the preceeding four years.

Why are people surprised on England losing so many games? We were around 3rd/4th in the 6 nations (so half the games) and we were losing to the tri-nations. I'd have been surprised if England had won more than 50%.

I think it looks something like;

NZ 4 years up to '87 victory
played 24
won 18
lost 5
drew 1

Doesn't look to bad, with these numbers. However, no games against the boks and a dismal year in 86.

Australia 4 years up to '91 victory
played 34
won 19
lost 13
drew 2

Lost a lions tour and hammerings by the AB's in the late 80's explain most of the loses.

South Africa 4 years up to '95 victory
played 28
won 16
lost 10
drew 2

The question did any of the major players not beat the boks in the three years leading into this world cup.

Australia 4 years up to '99 victory
played 51
won 36
lost 14
drew 1

14 losses looks bad, until you realise most of the games were against the 96-97 all blacks and 98 boks.

England 4 years up to '87 victory
played 46
won 41
lost 5
drew 0

A great side, the stats say it all. The dominant team to win a world cup. If there is a question mark it is that they didn't have the same quality of opposition as the other wc winning sides (no overseas tour in 2001, what many consider the weakest ever boks team (this was the era of Viljeon and Strauli), and one of the weakest all blacks team to tour the uk (over 20 members unavailable). Still my pick if you are going for a worthy world champion based on there form leading into the tournement.

South Africa 4 years up to '07 victory
played 53
won 35
lost 17
drew 1

Struggled against everyone.

You mean 'England 4 years up to '03 victory...? (not '87)

The other interpretation of the deserving stats of England was that for them to win it it was a requirement that they performed well up to the tournament in order to win it, as that is the only occasion a NH team has won it.

For the SH teams, who have the 5 remaining cups did not require great form to win it prior to the tournament, perhaps suggesting a hard road indeed for NH teams.

Just a thought...

Notch wrote:

Boyne wrote:Didnt realize England actually lost more games than they won between the 2 RWCs! Thats some statistic.

Especially when you consider they backed that up with a final in 2007...

Worthy of a lap of honour.

Yes thats true... England have provided both extremes. I recall their form up until the Oz game in 2007. Simply a series of disasters...

antipodean wrote:

Notch wrote:

Boyne wrote:Didnt realize England actually lost more games than they won between the 2 RWCs! Thats some statistic.

Especially when you consider they backed that up with a final in 2007...

Worthy of a lap of honour.

Yep, I'm sure there's some kind of moral victory in having been so bad.

Taylorman wrote:The other interpretation of the deserving stats of England was that for them to win it it was a requirement that they performed well up to the tournament in order to win it, as that is the only occasion a NH team has won it.

For the SH teams, who have the 5 remaining cups did not require great form to win it prior to the tournament, perhaps suggesting a hard road indeed for NH teams.

Just a thought...

Think that's pretty generous of you Taylorman.

The thing about the England 2003 team is that yes, it was a lot about the professionalism, but it was also a lot about the fluke of a very good generation of players coming through. People did catch up afterwards almost immediately but i think it was a mixture of factors. Players retired and couldn't be replaced (we just don;t produce that many good players), others focused on areas like fitness and conditioning where our money and professionalism had put us ahead previously and overtook us.

We were AWFUL after 2003, pretty much until now, and we're still far from the finished article.

SA and NZ will be the same next year in terms of rebuilding. Oz have got the jump on us but perhaps not the depth so their process seems to be ongoing.

Our 800+ caps or whatever ridiculous number it is now will be sliced and diced over the next 12 months so next year will bring a fresh look to SH rugby with SA in the same boat.

Deans will also remain but surely PDV couldnt be kept on, even should they win it...surely...

Taylorman, we shouldn't put that thought on print anywhere. Big Brother is watching and may just think that is a wonderful idea.

Even just thinking about it sends self mutilating thoughts through me

Big brothers are supposed to look after people so there cant be one watching or pdv would have been gone long ago.

I'm interested to see life after Henry as well. Hansens the obvious choice and Deans is staying over the ditch for a while- thank goodness.

Not a great fan of Hansens as he's very reactive in the same way some of us posters are so there may be less groundwork being done in favour of flavour of the moment.

Who else? Dunno...