Sir Shag?

Back to back undefeated rugby championships. Including a mythical Ellis Park five try victory dubbed the greatest test of modern rugby.

Whilst maintaining the number one ranking, Steve Hansen has blooded a raft of new talent who are already fast becoming the envy of the rugby world. 

If, as looks likely, NZ win a second consecutive World Cup, I put it to you that Steve Hansen will be the greatest All Blacks coach of all time and that this team, likely to remain undefeated until that point, the greatest All Blacks team in history, naye, THE greatest team in history.

There are simply no hoodoos left to unseat this bunch.

France at a rugby World Cup? Check.
Springboks with a point to prove at Ellis park? Check.

Greatest test in the modern era??? obviously you didn't see Scotland vs Wales in 2007.

Still haven't won a World Cup away from home GE. That's still on the list... Hell England won the World Cup in football when it was hosted there... Since then they have have played 8 subsequent tournaments and the best they have got to is 1 SF. home advantage is not to be sniffed at.

Fa history shows its easier to win a world cup away than at home as only SA and NZ have done so (as opposed to Eng/ SA and Oz winning away in 4 of 7) so depending on what your criteria is is it harder to win at home or away (Oz and England dont really have a case for that).

FA has a point though. It seems the ABs thrive when they set single minded goals so why not have the 'we haven't won a RWC away from home' as the singleminded focus for that tournament. It's not really that convincing of a goal but we need to fuel the engine somehow.

Winning one away from home was the obvious one after the choke thing went away. On this team although it doesnt have a list of the greatest players we've ever had (though with McCaw, DC, Read, C Smith its geting there) it certainly looks like one of the most complete sides we've had.

Not one player- including subs- could be said to have had 'bad' games in the last 2 or 3 matches. As a unit and as combinations its a serious piece of work. We've yet to learn its weaknesses (even with England no ones done that to us since until SA on the weekend carved a few tries in). Had we not won the last cup we'd be on the 'peaking too early' bandwagon but its possible we have all the same. Can't see this side getting much better.

And with the excitement of the last match simmering down the ABs can now look at the first 2 years of this tournament- 12 matches vs Oz, SA and Arg- 4 home and 4 away vs each for 12 wins is a phenomenal result. With the improving look to all 3 sides what are the chances of this happening again next year...After this effort Im not going to rule any possibility out. Well done shag, Mccaw and the whole shabang...amazing...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Back to back undefeated rugby championships. Including a mythical Ellis Park five try victory dubbed the greatest test of modern rugby.

Whilst maintaining the number one ranking, Steve Hansen has blooded a raft of new talent who are already fast becoming the envy of the rugby world. 

If, as looks likely, NZ win a second consecutive World Cup, I put it to you that Steve Hansen will be the greatest All Blacks coach of all time and that this team, likely to remain undefeated until that point, the greatest All Blacks team in history, naye, THE greatest team in history.

There are simply no hoodoos left to unseat this bunch.

France at a rugby World Cup? Check.
Springboks with a point to prove at Ellis park? Check.

As decided by the NZ media, best in 10 years possibly.

Not 12 months yet since England smashed you, memory like a bloody goldfish:whistle: 

Well the england scoreline was almost identical. So did the All Blacks "smash" South Africa? I think not.

Anyway the England game wasn't much of a classic. Last game of the season. Nothing to play for. NZ had targeted Wales. Were down with norovirus and the game didnt have much going for it. Sloppy defence, poor execution on both sides, low intensity. 

No this game on the weekend was one of the best ever, possibly the best ever game. #1 v #2 with the rankings mitigated by a home match at the Ellis park fortress. With both teams playing for the most competitive title in world rugby.

Please can the decent NZ posters get this guy on a leash?

This International section is being gradually ruined by GE (the club section is already ruined by post-Heineken Cup back-biting.

Morning Cyril. It's OK, I was outed as not being this ghost character yesterday so things should simmer down now that every thread isn't going to fill up with identity accusations.

It's nothing to do with your previous accounts.

Some of the stuff you're posting on other threads to score points is pathetic.

Yeah Tman, well done shag, Mccaw and the whole shabang, including the assistant coaches whomever they are. Just jokes, boy they've done well and exceeded all expectations. Remember the uncertainty when the coaching assistants were named? I'm not even sure if McLean is still in the set up, he is, isn't he? Talk about low profile. Heaps different from the 3 wise men Ted, Shag, Smith.

You think striving for diversity and equal opportunity representation is pathetic?

No

Taylorman wrote:Fa history shows its easier to win a world cup away than at home as only SA and NZ have done so (as opposed to Eng/ SA and Oz winning away in 4 of 7) so depending on what your criteria is is it harder to win at home or away (Oz and England dont really have a case for that).

History shows NZ struggle at away RWCs.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well the england scoreline was almost identical. So did the All Blacks "smash" South Africa? I think not.

Anyway the England game wasn't much of a classic. Last game of the season. Nothing to play for. NZ had targeted Wales. Were down with norovirus and the game didnt have much going for it. Sloppy defence, poor execution on both sides, low intensity. 

No this game on the weekend was one of the best ever, possibly the best ever game. #1 v #2 with the rankings mitigated by a home match at the Ellis park fortress. With both teams playing for the most competitive title in world rugby.

My god is this loser for real?? Nothing to play for, kinda shows his age and mentality. Try telling it to the English and the AB lads who were smashed at Twickers that day, yes hammered. Wales were the NZ target, wanna show us evidence of this ever being verbalized or is it yet another delusion in your little world of psychotic wonder? Thank God for the majority of sensible Kiwis who prove you are in a bitter and twisted minority of 1.

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Fa history shows its easier to win a world cup away than at home as only SA and NZ have done so (as opposed to Eng/ SA and Oz winning away in 4 of 7) so depending on what your criteria is is it harder to win at home or away (Oz and England dont really have a case for that).

History shows NZ struggle at away RWCs.

history shows everyone struggle at away world cups except perhaps oz. history also shows everyone struggles at home world cups except NZ and SA who are both 100%.

The game was up there with the 2000 ABs vs Wallabies at Sydney.....

I thought it was a great spectical, skills and power from both sides. A few nit picking posts I feel on here about the game and merit of both sides, but in the context of the game not worth commenting on. ABs played very well as well as the boks too, but on this occasion the ABs played the whole 80 minutes, one of their trademarks. Hard to see how much better they can play but I can see the boks getting better.

My 2c worth, plus the Wallabies had failed to ignite any excitement this tourny so not a lot to post about them, and can only hope that they really are rebuilding and come to the AI with some excitement and skill. There's of course the 3rd ABs game to play yet. Let's hope we can get them drunk or send them a dodgy cook the night before the game..... LOL!!

yes the 2000 match was also rugby in heaven...cullen at his very best as well...

C'mon the Aussies were fairly spectacular against Argentina last weekend. Where on earth did their scrum come from suddenly? To be honest Oz played the game on Saturday I thought they'd haul out against the Boks when I predicted they'd win.

Best in the world?
World cups?
Beating the French?
Hammering South Africa?

Are you trying to take all of Englands spin lines?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Morning Cyril. It's OK, I was outed as not being this ghost character yesterday so things should simmer down now that every thread isn't going to fill up with identity accusations.

Where was this?  

Taylorman wrote:Fa history shows its easier to win a world cup away than at home as only SA and NZ have done so (as opposed to Eng/ SA and Oz winning away in 4 of 7) so depending on what your criteria is is it harder to win at home or away (Oz and England dont really have a case for that).

Taylorman, You think???

1987 - hosts win
1991 - hosts runner up
1995 - hosts win
1999 - hosts QF
2003 - hosts runner up
2007 - hosts SF
2011 - hosts win

In 87 without SA, the cup was NZ to lose... Even with SA history showed that NZ at home win much more then away.
In 1991, England were the best team in Europe but still no match for the 3N sides... They got as high as they could have done.
95, SA were probably the 5th best side in the world leading up to the tournament, amazing to think but in terms off their results a fair statement. Would they have got that far if it wasn't in SA?? Doubtful.
99 - not really applicable as Wales was what the 4th best team in Europe at the time, nowhere near a challenger to the top table... They got a favourable draw to being hosts (the last RWC when that happened) and did as well as well as expected.
03 - was smashed by NZ by 20-30 points a few weeks before the tournament began... go onto convincingly beat NZ in SF. Were made to look average by England in June yet come the final they took them to extra final,
07 - interesting one this...  I backed them to win at the time and think they would have done it had England not beaten them in the SF... Perhaps the one side who could get under the French teams skin.
11 - I think NZ would have lost that final had it not been at home.

In the 7 tournaments I think only once (2007) did a team not meet their potential and in 91, 95 and in 03 they exceeded it.

What a load of subjective rot fa. The same view of things...

87- no one within 20 points in ANY match. SA's absence not a factor- they were present in 99, 03 and 11 and didnt even make the final so their absence means nothing.Away- runners up.

91- away- winners

95- SA lucky, away- runner up

99- away- winners

03- away winners

07- away-winners...and while we're alloed 'my views' if not for barnes NZ would have walked it.

11- NZ easy winners- woulod have won it anywhere including in the NH, Oz or SA.Away- runner up.

Simple fact is its easier to win away because theres more of them.

11 - NZ easy winners.

They nearly choked against a managerless team they hammered in the group stages. Not sure that qualifies as easy winners. If France had Joubert on their side that day I reckon they would have run away with that match.

Well perhaps here's where we disagree, not an a problem dude just a difference of opinion. Sure there are more contenders who are away and just because you are at home doesn't mean you are necessarily the favourites.But it doesn't mean a home teams chances are not enhanced by being home and I think I made a good case to suggest that it is.

I never said SA would have won the World Cup in 87... I said the next  best team at the time was SA so that lowered competition (not that far fetched) but given it was in NZ, even if they had been at the tournament they still were unlikely to get a win given away wins for SA in NZ have always been rare.

What is your record in pro rugby vs SA at home, what it is away... Since 96 it's been 85% win rate at home, 60% win rate away. Shows that home advantage is there.

Given we are talking 17 years and 45 games I think there are enough games to take away the odd home game where NZ lost due to gross injuries or away games you won because of injuries to the opposition etc etc,
There is a 25% improvement in success rates for this one factor.... Probably the biggest factor there is on a single game bar the relative strength of each side.

Look at every side in the world and I would bet biltongs bakkie that home wins are higher significantly then away. Doesn't mean you will be victorious, but if you are always a contender like SA and NZ are... You should be favourites in a home tournament.

yeah whatever guns...same as the ever so dominant england in 03- heard it all before. how awful it must have been for you willing France on only to have what you convinced yourself was a poor reffing display when it actually wasnt ruin your day...ohhhh! toooo bad.

Taylorman wrote:yeah whatever guns...same as the ever so dominant england in 03- heard it all before. how awful it must have been for you willing France on only to have what you convinced yourself was a poor reffing display when it actually wasnt ruin your day...ohhhh! toooo bad.

Saying it was an easy win is far from the truth and pretty disprectful to France but I wouldnt expect anything less from you. I think most neutrals thought France played better on the day.

Ok then, easy apart from all that eye gouging they tried on.

fa0019 wrote:Well perhaps here's where we disagree, not an a problem dude just a difference of opinion. Sure there are more contenders who are away and just because you are at home doesn't mean you are necessarily the favourites.But it doesn't mean a home teams chances are not enhanced by being home and I think I made a good case to suggest that it is.

I never said SA would have won the World Cup in 87... I said the next  best team at the time was SA so that lowered competition (not that far fetched) but given it was in NZ, even if they had been at the tournament they still were unlikely to get a win given away wins for SA in NZ have always been rare.

What is your record in pro rugby vs SA at home, what it is away... Since 96 it's been 85% win rate at home, 60% win rate away. Shows that home advantage is there.

Given we are talking 17 years and 45 games I think there are enough games to take away the odd home game where NZ lost due to gross injuries or away games you won because of injuries to the opposition etc etc,
There is a 25% improvement in success rates for this one factor.... Probably the biggest factor there is on a single game bar the relative strength of each side.

Look at every side in the world and I would bet biltongs bakkie that home wins are higher significantly then away. Doesn't mean you will be victorious, but if you are always a contender like SA and NZ are... You should be favourites in a home tournament.

the argument was that it is easier ti win away than at home. reason is:

- 4 from 7 have won away
- there are up to 23 other teams to compete with the one home side

In terms of winning the world cup at home your argument that on a one on one basis it easier to win at home is flawed it is not one on one. It is 23 on one.

If you cant understyand that then i cant help you- that is why winning at home is more meritorious, and done fewer times, and only why the best sides have done it.

That and being the better side overall GE. Sometimes you win when you're second best on the day, that was one of those days but overall the best team won and even I would have thought it would have been injustice if they lost after 6 years  of dominance with a short hiatus in 09.

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:yeah whatever guns...same as the ever so dominant england in 03- heard it all before. how awful it must have been for you willing France on only to have what you convinced yourself was a poor reffing display when it actually wasnt ruin your day...ohhhh! toooo bad.

Saying it was an easy win is far from the truth and pretty disprectful to France but I wouldnt expect anything less from you. I think most neutrals thought France played better on the day.

does disrespectful only apply to the opposition? refs however are free game in your eyes guns...oh i see. you get to decide who is disrespectful...oky doky...

Taylorman - that's loco. 

have a look at football and how teams significantly improve at home tournaments, how host nation Olympic sides out perform themselves how super rugby finals nearly always go to the home side. Take any sport and try and find a team who performs better away then home. seriously try it... If it's there it's rare, almost unique.

It's not rocket science mate, it's proved in every sporting oc

You're saying a home team is only 1 side and their are 19 others and therefore they've beaten the odds. 

If all those 20 sides were of equal strength then you may have a point.. But they're not. For me at least it's not saying a host nation is favourite it's saying they have a better chance and will get further then they would have done.

Question - what would you say is more valuable to you... a win in Dunedin or a win in Ellis park, Loftus, newlands etc?

It's not football.

well doesnt explain why more have won away then does it. And I'll bet of all world football cups an away side has won more than the home side- why- cos theres more of em' simple logic'- like I said- cant help you if you dont understand that simple logic.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's not football.

Because it's not football does that not mean that home advantage doesn't apply even though it applies in every other sport including our own???

Taylorman wrote:11- NZ easy winners- woulod have won it anywhere including in the NH, Oz or SA.Away- runner up.

Eh? That's an odd viewpoint based on how the final panned out.

On whether it's easier to win home or away the statistics pool is way too small. There have only been 7 tournaments.

Having said that it's normally easier to win at home in sports, though it can have negative effects in terms of adding pressure.

Cyril wrote:

Taylorman wrote:11- NZ easy winners- woulod have won it anywhere including in the NH, Oz or SA.Away- runner up.

Eh? That's an odd viewpoint based on how the final panned out.

.

Yes it is Cyril, but no more odd than these:


"11 - I think NZ would have lost that final had it not been at home."

"They nearly choked against a managerless team they hammered in the group stages. Not sure that qualifies as easy winners. If France had Joubert on their side that day I reckon they would have run away with that match."

Stupid comments deserve stupid responses...anyone can do the ...'I reckon...if woulda coulda" game.

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Taylorman wrote:11- NZ easy winners- woulod have won it anywhere including in the NH, Oz or SA.Away- runner up.

Eh? That's an odd viewpoint based on how the final panned out.

.

Yes it is Cyril, but no more odd than these:


"11 - I think NZ would have lost that final had it not been at home."

"They nearly choked against a managerless team they hammered in the group stages. Not sure that qualifies as easy winners. If France had Joubert on their side that day I reckon they would have run away with that match."

Stupid comments deserve stupid responses...anyone can do the ...'I reckon...if woulda coulda" game.

That should be 606v2's motto

In that case Cyril, woogaleeee boogalee pods goatee

Yes, Cyril has said what I was thinking

"Having said that it's normally easier to win at home in sports, though it can have negative effects in terms of adding pressure"

There were fans and media imploding all over the place in NZ during RWC11. DC out. McCaw with a broken foot. French our bogey team in the final. It was unbearable for us fans and playing at home leading up to the game for the ABs would not have been 'much' of an advantage. During the final, home advantage would have no doubt helped. Maybe home advantage for RWCs has a different dynamic to home advantage on a one off game due to all the fluff between games and then heading into the pointy end.

Final was tough we'd have to admit. France continue to be an enigma- we thtrashed them in pool play and they also lost to Tonga so go figure- you could say how on earth did England and Wales lose to them...

To be fair, on their day, Wales would've won.

England...I doubt it.

I really love it when people talk about RWCs,2 years out statements like All Blacks are
likely winners.They said that in 2006 too,All Blacks have only won at home so that does`nt
count.All Blacks given the title by Joubert in 2011 and on and on lets have it right shall we.
According to posters a various times England were robbed by Ref. in 1991,and possibly
2007.France were robbed in the Semi-final 1995,Final 2011,AllBlacks were robbed Qtr.
Finals 2007,the Boks Quarter Finals 2011.When we lose it`s the refs fault etc.
Boks would have won in 1987?why because someone says they were strong in that era.
On the strength of the Cavaliers,its one thing winning a series at home after the Provinces
have kicked hell out of you for a dozen matches before hand.Every series post 1956 went with the home side in Nz v SA.Given the time it took them to get back into world Rugby
in the period 1992-7 they met the AllBlacks on 12 matches winning 2 and drawing one.
By 2015 Boks and Australia are as likely winners,All Blacks back to back very unlikely.
England IF they get out of there Group could go all the way to,they have a group where
Australia and Wales could go thru and England go out.

So All Blacks back to back and never having lost a pool match, is unlikely, but England- if they get out of the group could go all the way...love the logic Alan...

Really?think about it you may well have a situation where England are likely finalists
Wales had been eliminated at the group stage.The 3 SH sides ending up on the
same side of the draw again.Before the fans shout that could also apply to Wales
or Australia that is one tough group if the are all on there game.NZ back to back
don`t see it because NO side has done it yet,the 1987 side was great too and went
nearly 4 years unbeaten.Cue Boks weren't there bit.Myself will watch it if I make it
to 2015 for the Rugby.The unpredictable team which will upset those backroom boffins
working out who they will meet when.Myself think the RWC is just a piece of showmanship
a cash cow.I want to see a new name on the pot,two different finalists Japan v Georgia now
that would be something.

So Alan, your only reason for why NZ can't win back to back is because nobody's done it yet? And they might have to play other SANZAR sides?

How are either of those reasons?

Playing at home offers an advantage to any team in any sport.
Its written in black and white in the results.

Anyone denying that fact, is deluded!

I see some people are using the Football WC as a comparison. I wouldn't as the RWC is easier to win for the big teams than the World Cup.

There is no qualification (I can only remember 1 very one sided game for England previously).
The lack of depth means they never failed to make the the KO stage.  

If you take the BIG5 (NZ,SA,OZ,ENG+FRANCE)
They have been in the last 8 of every single RWC they have entered.
They have claimed 24 out of 28 Semi final spots and all 14 Final spots.

For those teams it's basically a 3 match KO tournament!