Whose luck could turn?

First topic message reminder :

Well living in Madrid, it's impossible to escape the football fever sweeping the country here. I feel happy for them. Lord knows they need something to cheer about given the state of their economy. No European team has won the Euro Cup and the World Cup successively. In knockout football, Spain has not conceded a goal since 2006.

To me it's a remarkable achievement given they were perennial underachievers in football for so many years. The last time Spain beat Italy in a title match was 1920. This was your typical team that would be talked up before the tournaments, would play one or two good games and then get dumped out of the tournament in the quarters or first elimination round.

This made me think, is there an equivalent in world rugby waiting to enjoy a similar fate? Before their title in Euro 2008 they hadn't won anything really of note. Obviously they got an influx of good players with club experience at the top level. You could see how their confidence grew in 2008 after winning on penalties against Italy. That was previously the typical game that saw them eliminated but the belief grew exponentially thereafter and really they rode that wave of self belief to World Cup victory in 2010. They enjoyed luck along the way (Robben missing two clear chances in the final with only Casillas to beat, the semi victory against Portugal on penalties this year, a borderline goal against Croatia to make them top the group and a few others along the way) but they also showed moments of dominance like against Germany in 2010 or Italy last Sunday.

So to me there are a few contenders for those who have yet to taste World Cup success.

Ireland: You can say they know all about knockout footy. Munster before and Leinster recently with Ulster and other sides performing on the European stage, you have to say experience of those pressure moments could well count for a lot in a World Cup situation. Obviously test rugby is a step up but the pressure and knowledge of how to close out a tight match are important skills that have often eluded more illustrious teams like the ABs. Ireland are the type of team that can turn on the heat but annoyingly there doesn't seem to be much hot water in the cylinder and the follow up performance seems to be lukewarm at best. But what if there was the situation where Ireland found itself in a group of death and they strung two great performances together to top the pool. Could that be enough to raise their self belief and enable them to call upon that A performance when they really needed it later on?

Wales: They are always there or thereabouts in the European club scene but somehow fail to make that final hurdle in the second half of the competition after the 6N. They have been up and down in the 6N more so than Ireland but have also won more and, moreover, when they do win they tend to do so in emphatic style. What has eluded them so far is an ability to win against the big SH sides. They came close against SA and somehow didn't win a game in Australia this series but imagine a scenario that they beat say SA, NZ or Australia or a couple in successive years. What impact will that have on their confidence and performance? Losing can become a habit but as teams like Spain in football or NZ in rugby (at least out of RWC tournaments!) have shown so too can winning.

Scotland: Ok some might say this team is a long shot. But to me the biggest hurdle Scotland has faced is consistency. They seem quite adept at pulling a big scalp out of the rugby calendar each year but then lose games they should have fought harder for more. They won the very last 5N but haven't really done much of note since. A 6N win seems beyond them based on previous results but what would a win do for them in terms of belief? Edinburgh has shown great spirit on the European stage. Why can't a similar thing happen on a national level?

France: Really with their record, it's difficult to see how they haven't won a RWC after reaching 3 finals. They came so close last time but were poor in the following 6N. Often their biggest liability seems to be themselves. They can be gloriously good and atrociously poor. String together a few more of the former at the right times and things could be quite different. When France believe they can win they often do so. The trick is for them to make the opposition think that they will have a hard time winning.

Argentina: Their RWC record is impressive given their lack of exposure to a challenging regional tournament. They might have a tough time in the new 4N but what better way to improve by regularly playing the top ranked sides. If they can grow the game in their own country and organise a professional league rather than rely on Europe for their exposure to rugby outside the international calendar, then they might well surprise in the years to come.

So have I missed anyone out and what chances do you give those teams I mentioned of becoming the rugby equivalent of Spain and tasting World Cup success?

Triangulation wrote:France? Pah dont make me laugh.

France cant play at Twickenham. They get to Twickenham and merde their pants. hahahahaha

Try telling that to the 99 All Blacks

Well you're entitled to your theory. I'm entitled to disagree with it. Let's just leave it at that.

So Kia, what negotiations do you keep yourself busy with during office hours?

I'm on holiday for two and a half months.

Nice, wouldn't mind a nice break like that.

Getting back to the 2015 RWC.

Do you think any other team realistically stands a chance to win the cup?

Other than the usual big 5?

By big 5 you mean the elephant (SA), rhino (Australia), lion (NZ), leopard (France the most difficult to see) and the buffalo (England)? If we're talking about 2015 I think the winner will come from that. If I got the right odds I'd put money on Wales. For 3 years I think that's too big an ask for the others. Who knows about the future.

I agree France is the most inconsistent, but hell at some point they must break their duck?

Wales is the most likely team outside the big 5, however I think they need to move up a step, and the question is can Gatland make that extra step.

He certainly has made a big difference by building a squad with probably the best backline Wales has had for many a year, but similar to SA, I wonder if a new face wouldn't be able to take them further?

iF ENG are at disadvantage because most kids in the UK who play rugby only pick it up in high school then the blame can in part be put at the RFUs door.

We've known this for years, rugby in the UK is not hevaily played by junior schools. Whilst kids in SA & NZ are already well schooled in the sport by 11, kids in ENG are playing it for the first time (most of them anyhow).

The RFU is the world's richest union... if it wants to put money into getting kids into rugby earlier it has the resources to do so.

Its still an elitest sport in the UK. People see it as a sport of the upper-middle classes only.. and they're turned off my this very image. Its the same with the RFU making it virtually impossible to sell tickets to anyone outside of a local rugby club membership and being mates with the ticket allocator.

If the RFU decided to put lets say 10% of their tickets to general release first come first serve they would still sell out every game but perhaps just perhaps may widen their appeal.

If you want to go and see SA in rugby, you go to your local supermarket and buy the tickets. Guys from the Platteland to Camps Bay all have the same opportunity... and they sell out.... every game, even at club level.

In the end rugby has to start the appeal early... many kids who are good at football will be good at rugby too. Its not all the same but if you're fast, have good technique and good composure then you should be reasonably good at both (size dependant obviously)... Football clubs start taking kids at 8-9 now... that means rugby has already lost first tabs at the nations talented sportsman.

Say what you may on coaching but players can only be refined/improved. They can't be made to run faster or be instilled with bravery... thats what comes from within... and for me probably the difference between club & test players.

AUS is a perfect example of how they turned their luck around... they created their institute of sport because in one olympics (can't remember which) they failed to get a medal, they looked at how they can build success and they are now pound for pound probably the best sporting nation on earth.

I can't remember a side which won a RWC/Fifa world cup out of luck... teams got the final before with a dose of luck but never have won.. well to my memory anyhow.
If countries want to turn their prospects around its within their own hands to do so.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I'm on holiday for two and a half months.

Get outta here, you lucky dog!! How about a trip to the sunny UK?!

Isnt this thread about dominance- any one of these teams can become no.1

but who can dominate is the surely the question.

agreeing to disagree kills the debate..

I am trying to get my point across.

Spain lives and breathes 'a way of playing football'

NZ lives and breathes 'a way of playing rugby'

The brazils, hollands, SA's or Englands of this world are allways arguing about the best way to play. Spain and the AB's do not. and didnt change there way of playing for a quick win

they play with a defined philosophy and stuck by that philosophy untill it paid of and spain have become dominant and no one will argue that NZ might not win the next two RWC's.

My argument is . Are AB's and Spain a coinicdence , or can we take something from them . I believe the only way to dominate a competitive worldly sport is to have a long term plan(way of playing that defines the sport and nation) and stick to it. Live and breathe that way of playing and have unity.

We could argue that they are only happy with the way they play based on wins. But thats not the case . NZ didnt win a RWC for 20 years and spain underperformed before they won one.

Can anyone see another nation in rugby or football that have this clear defined new way of playing. Calling this all luck and stuff is missing the point completly

Ok mystiroakey. To win a tournament you need a few things. I don't disagree that you need a clear game plan. Call it a philosophy if you like. But in terms of NZ, sticking stubbornly to our philosophy precisely is what STOPPED us from winning. We stubbornly stuck to our thinking we could score score more than the opposition. In the final last year, we shut down our attacking game and went for a low percentage for of rugby. That had a lot to do with how France played but it also had a lot to do with how we played.

You can control a lot of things but sometimes you need some luck to go your way. Spain came up against Italy in penalties in 2008 and Portugal in 2012. They had a goal scored against them against Paraguay only for it to be disallowed and then scored a penalty down the other end and Spanish players were also in the box then and it didn't get called. Are you trying to tell me these are things that were completely in control of Spain and had nothing to do with luck.

As for sticking to a philosophy, the tiki-taca style is only a recent phenomenon. Spain didn't play like that for all those barren years and it only is now coming off. It coincided with the rise of Barcelona and their club and world victories. In recent years Real Madrid has raised their game and Spanish clubs have dominated UEFA and the Champions. This has also coincided with age group success. Now you can put that down to planning and a good harnessing of Spain's success. But the margin between losing and winning is often a fine one and perception can change disproportionately based on winning and losing.

Now with rugby, in 2007 France didn't get called on a forward pass but NZ may well have got the rub of the green in 2011. I'm not saying it's all down to luck. I'm saying sometimes there are small margins and you can be meticulous in your preparation and carry out your game plan close to perfection but there are things that are beyond your control.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I'm on holiday for two and a half months.

Get outta here, you lucky dog!! How about a trip to the sunny UK?!

I'd love to escape the heat of Madrid (it was touching 40 degrees for much of last week) and sleep under covers and blankets and not push my wife away to the far reaches of the bed. However, I am attempting a creative project but invariably end up here on these boards. I need a yellow card and a disciplinary hearing and a lengthy ban - say 2 and a half months - to make me more productive. Is v2 like a casino? Can I bar myself from entering?

Yes its barcas philosphy, same difference though, spain have taken it on and its a very similar team and spain are very stubborn but at the same time very proud of the way they play.

Abit luck could possibly get you 1 WC or even get you to no.1 in the world- but it really cant get you to dominate over a period of time.

If NZ had changed the way they played like holland did all them years ago they may not have won the RWC in 2011, if spain had stopped this possesion style game pre 2008 they may not have won 3 on the spin!!


btw i think you have it slightly wrong when it comes to the CL, prem teams are still filling out most of the places, and spainish teams have allways been up there as well, its not recent dominance or dominance, just a very good overall record

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I'm on holiday for two and a half months.

Get outta here, you lucky dog!! How about a trip to the sunny UK?!

I'd love to escape the heat of Madrid (it was touching 40 degrees for much of last week) and sleep under covers and blankets and not push my wife away to the far reaches of the bed. However, I am attempting a creative project but invariably end up here on these boards. I need a yellow card and a disciplinary hearing and a lengthy ban - say 2 and a half months - to make me more productive. Is v2 like a casino? Can I bar myself from entering?

I am doing this for your own sake, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, now on your way, go do your creative project.

Ha! There's no ban for high rollers Kia.

Another thing we did was keep Henry/Smith/Hansen after 2007. We've now kept Hansen, so there's smooth transitions. I wonder whether Gatland's successor, when it happens, will continue with the style he's cultured, or will there be a big flip flop and back to square one

Kia lets stop talking about individual lucky events. NZ deserved the RWC in 2011, SA deserved theres in 2007 and England deserved theres in 2003, Spain have deserved the 2008,2010 and 2012.

To dominate takes alot of hard work and for most teams(the ones that arnt currently the best) a massive change in mind set and set up rather than just simply luck.

The only nations that have really changed anything over recent time is actually wales and england, and why i mentioned them as the two i would bet on to have more chance in dominating or at the very least getting amongst the big boys.

The problem with wales is although they have the passion do there have the resource, the problem with england is although they have the resource do they have the defined way of playing

mystiroakey wrote:To dominate takes alot of hard work and for most teams(the ones that arnt currently the best) a massive change in mind set and set up rather than just simply luck.

The only nations that have really changed anything over recent time is actually wales and england, and why i mentioned them as the two i would bet on to have more chance in dominating or at the very least getting amongst the big boys.

The problem with wales is although they have the passion do there have the resource, the problem with england is although they have the resource do they have the defined way of playing

Strokey, but that's simply not true, is it, NZ are continually adapting their game, almost always one step ahead of the oppo?

yeah NZ are the nuts - england and wales need alot more than just change- we/they also need passion,philosphy and resource and why its gonna be so hard for them to dominate. but my money would be on one of them over another team if any team is gonna dominate bar NZ.

NZ havent changed there expansive- allways improving approach have they

mystiroakey wrote:kia i think you have highlighted the lack of understanding(of my point) by bringing up holland- holland never stuck by there total football philosphy, maybe they should have!!

spain stuck by there possesion dominance philosophy through thick and thin and eventually it paid off. holland are the perfect example to my point really

Total tosh............ Spain has clearly changed its style over the last 6 yrs, first relying of speed of the wingbacks, and centre forward, then four years ago Torres came on the scene, and the central midfield axis came into the fro winning the 08 Euros and then WC 2010, but they have clearly changed their syle when you consider the uproar in the spanish press during the early part of the second week of the 12 Euros.

Arsene Wenger stated recently in the press (extract)

"If Spain beat the Azzurri in the Euro 2012 final in Kiev on Sunday evening, they may also go down as one of the best sides ever given they will become the first country to win three successive tournaments, but Wenger believes they will do so in a negative manner.

He added on www.eurosport.com: "Originally they wanted possession in order to attack and win the game; now it seems to be first and foremost a way not to lose.

"They have become more conservative, and they don't want to give the ball up because they don't want to give you a chance to score. That's the impression you get from Euro 2012."

I would say Kia has it more or less sport on and you my friend are quite a way off the mark

I couldnt disagree with kia or you more, and couldnt agree with my points more. Yeah its obviously abit to high brow for you to get. I understand that.. Spain has allways had a love and passion of a style of football and they stuck with it and stuck with it and have allways prided possesion and passing and skills, and its paid off(IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THEY USE THE POSSESION), NZ also have. The two teams mirror them selves so massively from different sports in so many ways and are both very dominant as well- and it isnt conincidence or luck!

mystiroakey wrote:I couldnt disagree with kia or you more, and couldnt agree with my points more. Yeah its obviously abit to high brow for you to get. I understand that.. Spain has allways had a love and passion of a style of football and they stuck with it and stuck with it and have allways prided possesion and passing and skills, and its paid off(IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THEY USE THE POSSESION), NZ also have. The two teams mirror them selves so massively from different sports in so many ways and are both very dominant as well- and it isnt conincidence or luck!

I think when hurling the abuse............... you might at least save yourself the embarressment of incorrect spelling and grammer
"a bit too" and then its "for you to understand"....... I "get" a stick

Now now laddy..... no need to resort to abuse, you know when one has lost the sense of reason, then one doth abuse hurl. Whilst you might try to thinly disguise what you originally meant, its quite clear for me (and probably most others) what you have implied, I will not return the abuse....... suffice to say the following

Teams or individuals will change patterns, tactics, dependant on their skill set, age and experience. To say that Spain has more passion than say Holland, England, Wales, Scotland and then to compare one team in one sport to another team in a different sport is a tad well lets say "unwise".

If you look at the Spain of ten years ago, even the Spain of six years ago........... and even further back to the days of the 50s Galacticos, and even the Madrid style of the late 90s, they had as much passion but didnt win any major championships, why? based on your rationale they should win everything they play in

its not unwise at all, - spain have a unified passion in there style of football

They have stuck by that philosphy of football, they have put bundles in at grass roots , they have been stubborn about a way of playing and it has paid off, they have targeted a way of playing and they have been improving on it and developing it for donkies.

We all have passion for sport and our team . But your missing the point completly. Kias argument is that what team will get lucky and dominate- lol. My point is no teams are gonna dominate without alot of hardwork and a philosphy for football and that luck has no bearing at all!! the only team that will domiate rugby today is NZ. If another team is gonna they need to look at spain and the kiwis mentality - There have a unified,stubborn passion that there way is best.. It doesnt even matter if it is- But the confidence - that projection , that determination is what is needed

Holland on the other hand used to have there own philosophy- total football. There were pioneering it- Possibly a brilliant way of going about football- but it died in its tracks, since then spain took that philosphy on baord and have pioneered it to what spain and barca are today! That is why i brought them up as a great example to my argument. Holland feel off there own band wagon to early, and maybe for spains benefit

" Total Football is proactive, not counter-attacking, based on positional interchange and hard pressing.^[8] FC Barcelona, Athletic Club de Bilbao and the Spanish national team play a style of football known as "tiki-taka"
that has its roots in Total Football. What later would become known as
tiki-taka developed and evolved from the football style propagated by
Cruyff during his tenure as manager of Barcelona from 1988 to 1995,^[9] This developed and upgraded system has more recently been employed by the Euro 2008, 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012-winning Spanish teams of Luis Aragonés and Vicente del Bosque, as well as by FC Barcelona under manager Pep Guardiola.
Tiki-taka differs from Total Football in that it puts greater emphasis
on ball circulation and passing rather than on positional interchange of
players^[10] The style has also been used by Arsenal under the leadership of manager Arsène Wenger, with defensive midfielders rushing forward to support attacks, and strikers dropping back for extra creativity or defensive shielding. Arsenal's centre backs have also found themselves in goal scoring positions in open play with midfielders dropping back to support the defence."

"no need to resort to abus"

you started the abuse. i havent and am trying to be very friendly with you dispite your lack of knowledge

Come on guys, you are allowed to disagree with each other, no need to make it personal.

mystiroakey wrote:"no need to resort to abus"

you started the abuse. i havent and am trying to be very friendly with you dispite your lack of knowledge

When did I start the abuse?
Define my lack of knowledge?

If I have started the abuse I will explain to the mods, and I will apologise

I read your comments and your tone of reply to Kia, which I thought was utter tosh. I didnt say it was all too high brow for you or infer that you had little knowledge, just that your rationale did not stack up. I have explained the reasons to my conclusion as well.

why dont you try and explain why it doesnt stack up then. Because most of your points are completly immaterial to the discussion and almost backing my stance up. My tone was fine, yours wasnt. It was as if you were arguing for the sake off it and trying to missunderstand the points

If you read my comment that you attacked in the first place you may be able to understand that i said to kia that he didnt understand my point- not have a specific mental lack of understanding- and if you read my post above that one I mentioned that the problem may be my english. there was no bad tone in that post at all. You took it the wrong way.

its not unwise at all, - spain have a unified passion in there style of football

Every team has passion in their play............ sorry thats the whole basis of your agument

Spain (or NZ) aren't dominant because of their passion of their style

Spains STYLE has changed considerably over the last 10 years, its not a particular style at all.

Listen to "experts and read all the press............ they are now calling Spains style boring where only in 2008 and 2010 it was entertaining

Its not STYLE its playing to your strengths.........

what has boring or entertaining got to do with anything. they have been playing with a possesion philosophy and pressing (win ball back within 3 sec rule) for donkies years. Just because in some games they unleash the fury and other games they dont and just keep the ball rather than moving forward to dictate the play doesnt make any difference at all. I have allways personally found spains strangling style boring, it wasnt any better in 2010 i can tell ya. Its as if you havent seen either final- They played with classy attack in this recent one- yet the 2010 final was painfull!!

Spain have developed a strength that is so much better than another team , so your point doesnt even add up even if you were right, which your not!!

Its you that needs to listen , and you start by now or live on in ignorance

Spain and the boring argument to me is a bit similar to listening to the heavy metal group Pantera. A bloke could watch Spain and say all they do is pass pass pass that's boring, and say that Pantera are just white noise and aggression. But dig a little deeper and you start to marvel at Spain's ability to constantly find space and take/pass the ball under pressure, or the amazing musicianship augmented by one of the best guitar players that has ever lived (top 10 if not top 5 IMO).

For the possession equivalent in rugby I remember it being extraordinarily hard to get the ball back of the great Brumbies influenced Wallaby team of the late 90s/early 2000s.

Aside from the last four minutes of the 2011 final I doubt anyone would find NZ boring to watch (though for me the results column is beautifully monotonous, much like our accents).

mystiroakey wrote:its not unwise at all, - spain have a unified passion in there style of football

They have stuck by that philosphy of football, they have put bundles in at grass roots , they have been stubborn about a way of playing and it has paid off, they have targeted a way of playing and they have been improving on it and developing it for donkies.

We all have passion for sport and our team . But your missing the point completly. Kias argument is that what team will get lucky and dominate- lol. My point is no teams are gonna dominate without alot of hardwork and a philosphy for football and that luck has no bearing at all!! the only team that will domiate rugby today is NZ. If another team is gonna they need to look at spain and the kiwis mentality - There have a unified,stubborn passion that there way is best.. It doesnt even matter if it is- But the confidence - that projection , that determination is what is needed

Holland on the other hand used to have there own philosophy- total football. There were pioneering it- Possibly a brilliant way of going about football- but it died in its tracks, since then spain took that philosphy on baord and have pioneered it to what spain and barca are today! That is why i brought them up as a great example to my argument. Holland feel off there own band wagon to early, and maybe for spains benefit

" Total Football is proactive, not counter-attacking, based on positional interchange and hard pressing.^[8] FC Barcelona, Athletic Club de Bilbao and the Spanish national team play a style of football known as "tiki-taka"
that has its roots in Total Football. What later would become known as
tiki-taka developed and evolved from the football style propagated by
Cruyff during his tenure as manager of Barcelona from 1988 to 1995,^[9] This developed and upgraded system has more recently been employed by the Euro 2008, 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012-winning Spanish teams of Luis Aragonés and Vicente del Bosque, as well as by FC Barcelona under manager Pep Guardiola.
Tiki-taka differs from Total Football in that it puts greater emphasis
on ball circulation and passing rather than on positional interchange of
players^[10] The style has also been used by Arsenal under the leadership of manager Arsène Wenger, with defensive midfielders rushing forward to support attacks, and strikers dropping back for extra creativity or defensive shielding. Arsenal's centre backs have also found themselves in goal scoring positions in open play with midfielders dropping back to support the defence."

If someone has misunderstood someone's point, I think it's you.

When you read the title, think of luck as a synonym of fortune. I'm not in any way suggesting Spain and NZ find themselves in their positions purely based on luck. That is indeed a laughable or lol notion. My examples of the other meaning of luck - as in random factors beyond your control - were merely to illustrate that all the meticulous planning in the world can't help you in some cases.

What the point of my post was to wonder what nation yet to win a World Cup is capable of winning one. I'm not so interested in the mechanics of how they will achieve that - whether you call it philosophy, passion, player talent, etc. - but whose fortunes or luck will change. Who will go from pauper to prince, rags to riches?

Anyway, I hope that's clear. I have been red carded by Biltong for two and a half months so must dash.

As the previous post suggests, Spain HAVE changed their style mystiroakey. The Spanish teams of the 60s and 70s were brutal punt merchants much like England of the 80s (and now arguably)

They are already fine-tuning their set-up with the 6 midfielders they deployed. The best adapt and find out a way that works. When it works, they keep looking to improve. The general philosophy may stay the same but tactically it needs to have flexibility.

flyhalffactory wrote:I think when hurling the abuse............... you might at least save yourself the embarressment of incorrect spelling and grammer

"grammar"

Indeed............... and how high and far did that irony sail over your head

Note alott ded itt

Hood83 wrote:As the previous post suggests, Spain HAVE changed their style mystiroakey. The Spanish teams of the 60s and 70s were brutal punt merchants much like England of the 80s (and now arguably)

They are already fine-tuning their set-up with the 6 midfielders they deployed. The best adapt and find out a way that works. When it works, they keep looking to improve. The general philosophy may stay the same but tactically it needs to have flexibility.

hood people are missing the point big ti,me and trying to agrue irrelevancies.

I am talking about the philosophy spain have had when it comes to football. I have allready quoted how and when the spanish or more specifically barca(which has moved on to the spainish set up as well) pioneered total football and have now recently turned that into ticka tacka football from the dutch man cruyff. But its all based around possesion, the whole team winning the ball back asap, passing and good technique. It doesnt matter if they play deeper or higher, or more attacking or not- its still based on possesion football. And there are at the forefromnt. off course they need to fine tune it and keep improving- I have never argued that at all!

I have no idea what everyone else is reading. And in fairness i am getting kind off annoyed with it.

Its simple. Spain like new zealand have very specifically targetted a philosphy within there seperate sports, they have moved them forward. and to say another team could just luckily dominate in either sport without putting alot of hard work and moving the game forward isnt gonna happen.

So when we look at the next dominate rugby team- I am trying to look at teams that have a passion for change, resourecs for change or one that is significantly trying to move the game forward- There isnt any in my mind. i mentioned that wales had a love for the game, as spain and NZ do- its not just a love its part of the fabric of there society as well. I mentioned that england have made a change recently and have the resource- but are there actually targetting a way of playing.

Any tyeam can becoming the no.1 or win the odd world cup by copying the rest- but you will only dominante if you actually take the game to another level- which spain have and NZ also have. Everyone wants to disagree- well fine. No skin of my nose

flyhalffactory wrote:

Indeed............... and how high and far did that irony sail over your head

Note alott ded itt

it's ok; I'm sure with enough help and guidance your English will soon be as good as anotherworldofpain's...

on-topic: successful teams make their own luck!

[quote="KickAndChase"]If France did win 2015, I could see them winning all the 6N up to 2019 and also RWC 2019 itself. In essence, do a Spain. [/quote
Come on, mate you're talking about players who haven't even pulled on a French shirt yet, ffs

Wales has had ALL the bad luck! Beaten by one point against SA France and Aus not mention three out of four other games against Aus by less than a score. So if we are talking about something as unreal and fantastical as luck IT'S OUR TURN. But we're not, touch wood, and the reality is that we are getting closer all the time. Our young squad is getting better more experienced
every game they play. At the same time I do ask myself how the hell did AWJ drop those 3 restart balls or Rees overthrow three line outs or even 1/2p hit the post with the one ball out of 16 that didn't middle of the middle. Dunno. Maybe I have to start wearing the same underpants to every game or have a lucky rabbit paw or something.

With respect it is not a case of a team getting lucky,in theory ANY of the the teams qualified for a RWC can win it.Under the current setup sides are seeded IRB 1,2,3,4 the second seeds in the groups usually are the remaining Tier1 Home Nation.That assumes the 4th seeded sides is a Home nation,also that
Argentina is not one of the top 8.That as far as theory goes is it the draw is known about 3 years before hand and the chess game starts.IF we come 2nd in our Group we will avoid most of the big boys until at least the Semi etc.
Truth is to date you have to WIN all your matches to win a RWC,just beat every team you meet.They may not be considered the best teams in the tournament but it IS those teams job to win all there games .THE Only game in debate because it was so close was 1995 when a Viral attack weakened the AllBlacks.
That the Viral attack occurred is not in dispute players throwing up coming out of the tunnel to start isn`t a 100% fit side and to go 120 minutes and be in at the death took a lot.I only say that one because the record 1994-6 played between the 2 sides were 2 wins and a draw to the Boks out of 9 matches between the 2 sides.Having said that a team needs luck with injuries and Refs decisions to reach a final let alone win it.

luck is the panacea for failure!

Oh we had bad luck, luck wasn't with us etc.

Fact is what Dontheman describes is the result of errors, lack of basic skills, and lack of intelligent game management. We lose by narrow margins and blame luck...that is the amateur's attitude

My advice, wear the same pants and make sure you wash between games. Perhaps keep the rabbiit paw in your pants for safe keeping?

FFS that's not the meaning of luck I meant.

What I mean by luck is fortune. There are small margins between winning and losing. Wales showed against Ireland and England (unlike the examples you gave Dontheman). It's true there are incidents in a match that are beyond your control but generally the better teams are masters of their own destinies.

So all I was asking is who is capable of improvement in the teams I listed? Who is capable of making those crucial decisions at key moments to close out matches? Who is capable of playing to their strengths and having options up their sleeve when they don't work out? Who, in general terms, is capable of turning their losses against the top sides into wins. OF COURSE THAT IS NOT DOWN TO LUCK: it requires improvement across the board in all areas.

But what I am saying is that when results start to go your way, then confidence goes up and so does invariably performance. Winning becomes a habit just like losing and the psychological benefit of winning makes you a tougher opponent than a team who can't mentally shake that feeling of losing. e.g. Australia needed 10 games to beat NZ in Hong Kong. They started beating teams like SA home and away and ended up winning the last 3N. That is what I mean by their luck or fortune changing. From losing within 6 points all the time to NZ to beating them at Brisbane to winning the title. THAT WASN'T DOWN TO LUCK. But it was down to performances that had gone their way in previous games that lifted their game to greater heights.

If Wales beat two SH opponents at home, then watch out rugby world because I think it'd do their confidence and therefore their performance a world of good. Of course, first of all you have to get that win like Spain did against Italy in 2008. WINNING THAT FIRST IMPORTANT GAME IS THE KEY. Then continuing that momentum is the next all important question. So all I was asking was out of those teams never to win a match, who is capable of doing that?

Rant over. Enjoy the weekend.

wales or england as i said kia. but in fairness no one without a long term plan- because the all blacks are allways improving anyway. England have gone backwards to go forwards- but i cant se ethat clear long term way of playing- we need to get more expansive- our rugby teams and football teams are so parrallel in style- neither will get anyway unless we cant retain possesion and start developing the expansive side. But at least with rugby we have the minerals

mystiroakey wrote:wales or england as i said kia. but in fairness no one without a long term plan- because the all blacks are allways improving anyway. England have gone backwards to go forwards- but i cant se ethat clear long term way of playing- we need to get more expansive- our rugby teams and football teams are so parrallel in style- neither will get anyway unless we cant retain possesion and start developing the expansive side. But at least with rugby we have the minerals

I heard some comment I can't remember where that said "English teams go out to avoid lose and the best teams in the world going out to win" and is some true that in close games always typifies sporting teams from here to be more defending and less attacking and yes is a true across football too. But then, England have a good record to the major knock out tournaments in both the sports and winning as many professional world cups with all teams playing as new zealand.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:FFS that's not the meaning of luck I meant.

What I mean by luck is fortune. There are small margins between winning and losing. Wales showed against Ireland and England (unlike the examples you gave Dontheman). It's true there are incidents in a match that are beyond your control but generally the better teams are masters of their own destinies.

So all I was asking is who is capable of improvement in the teams I listed? Who is capable of making those crucial decisions at key moments to close out matches? Who is capable of playing to their strengths and having options up their sleeve when they don't work out? Who, in general terms, is capable of turning their losses against the top sides into wins. OF COURSE THAT IS NOT DOWN TO LUCK: it requires improvement across the board in all areas.

But what I am saying is that when results start to go your way, then confidence goes up and so does invariably performance. Winning becomes a habit just like losing and the psychological benefit of winning makes you a tougher opponent than a team who can't mentally shake that feeling of losing. e.g. Australia needed 10 games to beat NZ in Hong Kong. They started beating teams like SA home and away and ended up winning the last 3N. That is what I mean by their luck or fortune changing. From losing within 6 points all the time to NZ to beating them at Brisbane to winning the title. THAT WASN'T DOWN TO LUCK. But it was down to performances that had gone their way in previous games that lifted their game to greater heights.

If Wales beat two SH opponents at home, then watch out rugby world because I think it'd do their confidence and therefore their performance a world of good. Of course, first of all you have to get that win like Spain did against Italy in 2008. WINNING THAT FIRST IMPORTANT GAME IS THE KEY. Then continuing that momentum is the next all important question. So all I was asking was out of those teams never to win a match, who is capable of doing that?

Rant over. Enjoy the weekend.

I repeat what i said. I think the luck you refer is entirely subjective, non existent and cannot be quantified which poor sides allude to when they fail. You then start talkign about confidence which is an entirely separate issue and which clearly is a result of training, skills and winning.

I repeat what I said. I also refrain from saying something else.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I repeat what I said. I also refrain from saying something else.

WTF go ahead....seems that if someone disagrees with you you start throwing your toys!

Ditto.

Er no kia, I am not getting riled am i: 'FFS that is not the meaning of luck I meant'
well perhaps if you had conveyed what you meant better you wouldn't be getting so upset when someone disagreed because you thought they didn't understand what you meant!
Relax fella, we all have our opinions, you think one thing I think another that is generally how it goes. Can we not have a difference of opinion?

To be clear you seem to refer to luck as fortune which i think i subjective and meaningless in pro sport, then you start to talk about confidence which is an entirely separate issue and key to performance

Some time a bit of luck lead to a bit of confidence. And if confidence is the missing ingredient then it can lead to success.