Can Mike Tindall Count?

"New Zealand are in good form... but they don't have a great record in the tournament. England do have a great record."

Erm.

Maybe he meant recent record? Otherwise what a plank. Needs to watch more Sesame Street!

"Tindall says coming down under holds no fear for England. He believes England's pre-World Cup success against the All Blacks in 2003 was instrumental to their title triumph."

He must be suffering from a knock to the head surely, or just has problems with rudimentary logic, perhaps the journalist could have used some ground-breaking journalistic skills and asked a question like.."but Mike, you didn't beat NZ last year."

3 out of 6 Finals ain't bad, about 45%!

Come on GG give him a break.He's knocking on a bit. It's the mind that goes first!...

Give the guy a break, he's about to get married. His wife to be is probably in his ear every second of every day about totally pointless detail and cravings for food because she's starving herself to death to fit her dress!

No but they have beat Australia at home and they're 'more likely' to play them on the way to the final. He probably just expects somone else to knock New Zeland out for us.

His been in Glaws too long with all the other inbreds, in fact! he should fit in well with the royals!!!!

Only Joking Glaws fans

I think you missed the point he was talking about music and is therefore fully justified as Andrew Sheridan recorded and released an acoustic rock album, entitled "Where We Go From Here"

You don't need to be a mathemetician to work out that England and NZ have both won one WC apiece. However, NZ's was back in the amateur days and considering that every WC they go in as favourites, the only logical conclusion you can draw is that they're chokers, bottlers or spineless and although Tindall's comment was innacurate, what it does highlight is the the AB's are no better than England when it comes to WC time, and I'm pretty sure they'd consider themselves better than the English, GreyGobbler certainly does.

New Zealand - won one WC at home and lost one final
England - won one WC away from home and lost two finals

Then you have the fact that England have been in every final in the last ten years... New Zealand haven't made one in that period.

I know which record I would prefer and it isn't New Zealands

Are those quotes of quotes you're using to bulk out this peice? I'd be curious to know how much of this he actually said and the context.

yappysnap wrote:Are those quotes of quotes you're using to bulk out this peice? I'd be curious to know how much of this he actually said and the context.

See thread https://www.606v2.com/t9233-difference-in-philosophy-mike-tindall

Mike Tindall doesn't have to count now he's more or less a Royal. Surely he has somebody who counts for him?

Stephen Jones IS the Count!

snoopster wrote:New Zealand - won one WC at home and lost one final
England - won one WC away from home and lost two finals

As much as it pains me he- and Tindall- are 100% correct

Great White wrote:You don't need to be a mathemetician to work out that England and NZ have both won one WC apiece... what it does highlight is the the AB's are no better than England when it comes to WC time, and I'm pretty sure they'd consider themselves better than the English, GreyGobbler certainly does.

Agreed, your point that I've put in bold. If you can see it, and say it, even in the middle of such a rant - then why does Tindall think England's record is so much better? That's my question.

Because, in relative terms, it probably is.

Regardless of WC performance, it's pretty clear that NZ tend to be much more consitant between years. I wouldn't necessarily say they bottle it at cup time but its more of a case that other teams feel the need to fight for it more when it comes to playing NZ.

Great White wrote:Because, in relative terms, it probably is.

That's fine, as long as he's talking about a relative victory Is that something like a "moral victory" ?

I would ask you to tell me, but you wouldn't know the difference We all await with baited breath to see where the much vaunted AB drop out of this year's competition....

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Great White wrote:You don't need to be a mathemetician to work out that England and NZ have both won one WC apiece... what it does highlight is the the AB's are no better than England when it comes to WC time, and I'm pretty sure they'd consider themselves better than the English, GreyGobbler certainly does.

Agreed, your point that I've put in bold. If you can see it, and say it, even in the middle of such a rant - then why does Tindall think England's record is so much better? That's my question.

But it is better... they won their Cup away from home, New Zealand won theirs in New Zealand. That's harder. They've reached two other finals, New Zealand have reached one. New Zealand have only failed to reach the semi-finals once whereas England have twice fallen at the quarter-final stage but apart from that England have the better record.

When you look at what they've achieved relative to World Rankings going into the tournament, the disparity between over-achieving England and under-achieving New Zealand is even clearer.

The point is not that England are a better team; they are obviously not. The point is when it comes to the knockouts England (if they qualify from their group) will feel no real pressure because they have a history of having done better than expected at that stage at the tournament. The weight of history will not lie upon them. New Zealand (who I would bet the house on reaching the knockouts, had I a house) will know that they have suffered upsets in the knockout stages, they will have to deal with a lot more pressure.

Tindalls point is valid.

Home venue. Decent Super 15. Great Autumn up North and winning the previous Trinations. Easy to see why most rank them as favourites.

And its bated breath not baited breath. The latter doesnt even make sense.

Thanks for picking me up on a grammatical technicality. I bet your Mum is real proud of you?

NZ are always favourites going into every WC, so i'm not sure what your point is, since they haven't won any more than England, and that at home in the amateur era.

*really

TheGreyGhost wrote:"New Zealand are in good form... but they don't have a great record in the tournament. England do have a great record."

Erm.

Although that quote is probably taken out of context, I'm assuming Tindall's talking about each teams record in the tournament generally, not so much the exact number of wins?

Great White you're talking rubbish. NZ are NOT always favourites. Check the results.

You're a tad touchy aren't you?

Fun fact: Overall win percentage
NZ: 75
Eng: 52.99

And for WC (no. of games)
NZ: 83.33 (36)
Eng: 71.43 (35)

The results show that NZ have only won it once despite being the favourites on almost every occasion, so i'm not sure that it isn't you talking rubbish actually.

Scoped, yet again, well done, your Mum must be gushing! But those stats are meaningless, because the only two that count is how often each team has lifted the trophy and their relative world ranking.

Oh so one a piece with NZ being current rank 1. Glad we finally agree that NZ are much better.
And mother dearest is always happy with my English and maths abilities.

Notch wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Great White wrote:You don't need to be a mathemetician to work out that England and NZ have both won one WC apiece... what it does highlight is the the AB's are no better than England when it comes to WC time, and I'm pretty sure they'd consider themselves better than the English, GreyGobbler certainly does.

Agreed, your point that I've put in bold. If you can see it, and say it, even in the middle of such a rant - then why does Tindall think England's record is so much better? That's my question.

But it is better... they won their Cup away from home, New Zealand won theirs in New Zealand. That's harder. They've reached two other finals, New Zealand have reached one. New Zealand have only failed to reach the semi-finals once whereas England have twice fallen at the quarter-final stage but apart from that England have the better record.

When you look at what they've achieved relative to World Rankings going into the tournament, the disparity between over-achieving England and under-achieving New Zealand is even clearer.

The point is not that England are a better team; they are obviously not. The point is when it comes to the knockouts England (if they qualify from their group) will feel no real pressure because they have a history of having done better than expected at that stage at the tournament. The weight of history will not lie upon them. New Zealand (who I would bet the house on reaching the knockouts, had I a house) will know that they have suffered upsets in the knockout stages, they will have to deal with a lot more pressure.

Tindalls point is valid.

No it isn't...he doesn't say "England have a marginally better record than NZ do in world cups (despite getting spanked by NZ every time we play them)." he says "NZ do not have a good record. England do have a good record."

1 Win out of 6 is either good, or bad. It can't be both. Frankly making it marginally further through the tournament despite being completely trousered by South Africa in the pool, and then losing to them *again* in the final is splitting hairs and can't possibly substantiate his claim of some difference in pedigree.

Now - if you're taking into account the venues as you are trying to do...then his comments become even for ridiculous. If we're talking about RWC's in which NZ were the host nation (or joint host as it was in '87 - as seems to be forgotten) then England's record is going out to Wales in the quarters. Again - not a better feat than winning.

Finally - on your suggestion that "winning at home is easy". Then why did England lose at home?

NZ, have won more games, they are world ranked 1, so yes, they are, without question and on the whole, a better side. When it comes to WC however, they have consistently choked despite having gone into each WC having won more games than England and being world ranked 1. Ergo, at tournament time, they are not better than England, they are relatively worse actually. Therefore if you'd bothered to read the article in context, you'd see Tindall was right wasn't he?

87-Aussie won the Bledisloe in 86 and France turned NZ over that year too. Aussie were favourites to win.

91 Aussie stuffed us in Sydney and NZ had to rely on Eden Park being a bog and Fox to get a 6-3 win to retain the Bledisloe. NZ were on a downward spiral and Oz were clearly ascendant.

95 England knocked NZ over in 93, France won 2-0 in NZ in 94 and Australia won the Bledisloe in 94. I'd say there was no clear cut favourite then and if so it definitely wouldn't have been NZ.

99 Aussie won the Bledisloe and thumped NZ by 21 points in the last game. The winner of the France NZ semi got the prize of getting thumped by the best Aussie side ever IMO.

03 England and NZ as you said

07 NZ as you said.

I posted this on another thread Great White-the one mentioned before. There are the facts for you and backup what I said about NZ NOT being the perennial favourites.

Grey, you can twist comments and argue your point endlessly, it will not alter the fact that the AB are chokers. Live with it.

So, what you're actually saying Disney, is that NZ are pretty poo really?

What hes clearly saying is that it has nothing to do with being chokers and much more to do with being in a tournament against the top teams in the world! There wouldnt be much point to any sport if there was one team that would decimate all others .
Top teams lose to other top teams, thats how it works. They arent chokers, bottlers or spineless, they are just another team who happen to be the highest ranked in an ever changing table.

A benchmark team that choke in WC. Simples.

Nice try Great White.

The reason NZ are always among the favoured teams is their 75% test win ratio over all time. So certain people choose to ignore form leading up to the tournament and concentrate on that. Don't get me wrong it's a great thing and if NZ ever aren't considered as among the favourites then that could mean alarming consequences for the sport. But yeah mate you're clutching at straws on that particular part of your argument.

More along the lines of, a great team who occassionally lose againt other great teams. Simple.

Great White wrote:Grey, you can twist comments and argue your point endlessly, it will not alter the fact that the AB are chokers. Live with it.

Chokers who've won the world cup as many times as England.

My point is not whether NZ are chokers or not. But whether England "have a great record" whereas NZ "have a bad record".

Tindall is making this claim. And I'm saying it's not true, based on simple facts based in logic and maths.

In fact, I'd even go as far as to say his statement is the kind baseless obvious WUMMery that would have been moderated under 606 rules for being provocative and based on untruths.

Perhaps he meant to say "New Zealand referees do not have a great record in the RWC, but then neither to English referees". There's something I could agree whole heartedly with.

You'd certainly know all about that wouldn't you Grey. Christ, that's the most obvious case of the pot calling the kettle black i've ever seen.

Scoped wrote:More along the lines of, a great team who occassionally lose againt other great teams. Simple.

When it really, really counts, like in World Cups... LOL

He's a professional athlete representing his country in the published media. I'm just some guy with a keyboard.

I think the onus is more firmly on one of us to behave.

Not a WUM. Just a hot headed poster who easy bites a baited post.

(correct use of baited, just so you know)

Great White wrote:

Scoped wrote:More along the lines of, a great team who occassionally lose againt other great teams. Simple.

When it really, really counts, like in World Cups... LOL

I have to admit. It must be great to be an England fan. What with them never losing a game at a world cup, ever.

Great White wrote:

Scoped wrote:More along the lines of, a great team who occassionally lose againt other great teams. Simple.

When it really, really counts, like in World Cups... LOL

They've won the exact same amount. England choked in the last final by your standards.

You're forgetting Scoped that 2007 was a Moral Victory for England...who were robbed of victory by having an 11 point try disallowed simply on the basis that a player was already in touch.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

Both records are cr*p if you're a NZer. One is cr*p and one is amazing if you're an Englishman. That's kind of what it boils down to.

NZ are more often than not at the top of the pile. But rugby is a game of inches and always has been. A lot of NZ's wins have been epic close contests and come from behind wins-the aren't the flat track bullies certain idiots imply they are. I'd say NZ's peak isn't as far from their usual performance as other teams enabling them to outplay the All Blacks in the World Cup. Look at France vs NZ and vs England.

Scoped wrote:Not a WUM. Just a hot headed poster who easy bites a baited post.

(correct use of baited, just so you know)

'Bites at a baited post'

(Correct use of grammar, oh and capitalisation, just so you know)