Golden Age for a Nation's Rugby

So one way of measuring the "greatness" of a team might be to take the winners of rugby world cups (the biggest stage, most pressure, most prestigious prize!), and look how well they maintained the legacy.

Often a team that wins the RWC will be part of a "golden age" that maintains some global dominance, rather than a "blip" where there is some "luck of the draw" or "bounce of the ball" or refereeing indiscretion that aids their victory in this one-off knock-out format!

So we might expect a rugby world champion team to go to earn some string of wins to maintain their legacy as "rugby world champions".

Who of the stats gurus out there can rank all rugby world cup winners in order of their subsequent streak of international victories following a rugby world cup win?

Well as RWC holders the Springboks had a 17 game winning streak 1998

As RWC holders in 2009 SA whitewashed the all Blacks.

That's about it.

That would only measure how good they were after winning the cup.The England team that won in 2003 were awful post WC but that doesn't take away from how good they were in the lead up and during the WC.

Yip i had them in my Define a Great Team, the boks, but I think I did them the disfavour of cutting them off before 98, didn't England beat them to stop that streak before 98??

asoreleftshoulder wrote:That would only measure how good they were after winning the cup.The England team that won in 2003 were awful post WC but that doesn't take away from how good they were in the lead up and during the WC.

Keep on topic please. This is about a ranking of post world cup wins, which is what this article is about: a legacy. After all, does history remember a king who reigned for only a day?

Well if you take wins after each WC triumph to first loss the unbeaten stretch looks like this:

1987 – 1990 NZ 17 (inc 1 draw v Aus 1988)
1991 – 1992 Aus 4
1995 – 1996 SA 4
1999 – 2000 Aus 3
2003 – 2004 Eng 2
2007 – 2008 SA 4
2011 – current NZ 8

meAtwork wrote:Yip i had them in my Define a Great Team, the boks, but I think I did them the disfavour of cutting them off before 98, didn't England beat them to stop that streak before 98??

yep, and it started the english run of I think 7 straight wins against us, until OF course we turned it around to 9 wins.

chewed_mintie wrote:Well if you take wins after each WC triumph to first loss the unbeaten stretch looks like this:

1987 – 1990 NZ 17 (inc 1 draw v Aus 1988)
1991 – 1992 Aus 4
1995 – 1996 SA 4
1999 – 2000 Aus 3
2003 – 2004 Eng 2
2007 – 2008 SA 4
2011 – current NZ 8

So in terms of ranking of total post RWC unbeaten sequence matches the rank is:

NZ - 25*
SA - 8
AUS - 7
ENG - 2

*Still in progress

I wonder what the thresholds for "greatness" and "retrospective greatness" are? and which of those champions you would consider "great champions"?

Judging by the Author I suspect this thread was intended to rub it in that post WC we were gash and the worst World Champions ever...so well done for that AWOP...however at least we have 1 in the bag.

Surely Golden age should refer to a nations best period.
Thus England - 1990 to 2003.
3 WC finals...and severla 5/6n grandslams.

So the best in Englands history.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Judging by the Author I suspect this thread was intended to rub it in that post WC we were gash and the worst World Champions ever...so well done for that AWOP...however at least we have 1 in the bag.

Surely Golden age should refer to a nations best period.
Thus England - 1990 to 2003.
3 WC finals...and severla 5/6n grandslams.

So the best in Englands history.

Quite.

The winning streak after a RWC win is largely irrelevant if you ask me. Some teams peak perfectly for the RWC and have a strong period just before and after. Similarly, some teams are on the way up when they win and some are on the way down. All this question really asks is which teams won the RWC on the way up. A more accurate analysis would be victories around the RWC win rather than just after it.

Full Credit wrote:The winning streak after a RWC win is largely irrelevant if you ask me. Some teams peak perfectly for the RWC and have a strong period just before and after. Similarly, some teams are on the way up when they win and some are on the way down. All this question really asks is which teams won the RWC on the way up. A more accurate analysis would be victories around the RWC win rather than just after it.

I'm talking about world cup legacies. You can't create a legacy before you won. That's just called peaking too early. Surely ENG of all people wouldn't be claiming they peaked too early? surely?

It's only peaking too early if you don't go on to win. A legacy is created the minute you start creating it.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Judging by the Author I suspect this thread was intended to rub it in that post WC we were gash and the worst World Champions ever...so well done for that AWOP...however at least we have 1 in the bag.

Surely Golden age should refer to a nations best period.
Thus England - 1990 to 2003.
3 WC finals...and severla 5/6n grandslams.

So the best in Englands history.

Quite.

Well you asked for my nations golden era...and i gave you it. Or was that not the point of the thread?

Full Credit wrote:It's only peaking too early if you don't go on to win. A legacy is created the minute you start creating it.

A post world cup legacy is started the minute you win the world cup - WHICH is what I am talking about here. You can't start a world champion legacy before you are world champion...

Well we have never peaked and won two.

I think we're going around in circles here AWOP and obviously have different definitions of where such a legacy should start. However, I'll humour you and say NZ is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Well WonderBread didn't get introduced to the UK until 1930, but the ABs came three decades before that, so can we agree that sliced bread was the best thing since the ABs and leave it there?

Well played AWOP. But technically, by your ruling, NZ weren't leaving a 'legacy' of world champion supremacy until 1987. Sliced bread wins.

When did sliced bread win a world cup?

1942 I believe. Not many people know about it. Sliced bread won 19-6.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:That would only measure how good they were after winning the cup.The England team that won in 2003 were awful post WC but that doesn't take away from how good they were in the lead up and during the WC.

Keep on topic please. This is about a ranking of post world cup wins, which is what this article is about: a legacy. After all, does history remember a king who reigned for only a day?

Yes of course it does,history remembers everything that is recorded.

History only ever really secure for one generation. If a dictator destroyed all books/recordings/etc of an event, and banned it form being mentioned whilst teaching something different, the next generation will not know history as it really was but what someone else wants... Ommm....

AWOP- Its all about before the RWC win- That is the culmative acheivement- its what the team in place is striving for..

Its kinda clear why you have started this article as well pal.... Your trying to rub something in..

England were the greatest for that period and that is that!

AWOP another mischievious post,and a rehash of the previous one,to get things stirring.Selective stats don`t cut it England under SCW was 7 years in the making culminating in a RWC win still only a 71% win under his regime.A very great achievement,but has been pretty bad since,both Robinson and Ashton had better win stats than SCW over there starting period to there dismissal than sir Clive.Martin Johnson after a rocky start was getting there,before RWC.Lancaster is building nicely and come 2015 may well be there or there abouts but 2019 is more realistic.AllBlacks under Henry and co. had a near 83% win stat culminating in a RWC win.Currently they are 8-0 something which may well finish saturday.Boks post RWC 1995 went on a 17 match run under Mallett 1998,what about 1996-7 when they won one match out of 7 to the All Blacks 4 of those at home?

I'm still reeling about the sliced bread '42 revelation.

Biltong wrote:Well we have never peaked and won two.

The temperature of the chicken didn't peak either.

A thread about world cup flukes and chokes would have been more interesting, but with NZ still well on top in those departments as they are on the legacy radar.

I guess NZ will always live in Wales' shaddow when it comes to composure on the big stage Morgannwg!!!

....

Wales aspire to be the All Blacks, except without the chokes. Maybe one day we'll get away with living offside and only have one player binned per 20 yellow cards aswell. You all need a bit of luck to get somewhere I know, but that much luck...

The more skillful you become the luckier you get.

Morgannwg wrote:Wales aspire to be the All Blacks, except without the chokes. Maybe one day we'll get away with living offside and only have one player binned per 20 yellow cards aswell. You all need a bit of luck to get somewhere I know, but that much luck...

I've never seen NZ have a player yellow carded and not go to the bin Morgannwg...are you hyperbolising again?

Wales taught the AB`s how to cheat Morgannwg Bob Deans try 1905 remember? professional foul Yellow card.!!!!!

emack2 wrote:Wales taught the AB`s how to cheat Morgannwg Bob Deans try 1905 remember? professional foul Yellow card.!!!!!

Oh please Alan. Even you weren't born back then. How ridiculous are you .

My comment was as stupid as yours but at least mine was accurate.

I wonder will NZ ever win a WC outside of NZ?

Or England beat them in a RWC?

GunsGerms wrote:I wonder will NZ ever win a WC outside of NZ?

Well before anyone wins one here thats for dead certain...

All RWC finals should be held at Eden Park.

It's actually surprising the sheer number of RWC games that have coincidentally been played at Twickenham already.

What do you suggest the reason is for this coincidental occurance..

Is it maybe because it isnt actually coincedental. maybe its because England fund the IRB the most, maybe its because its the home of rugby, maybe its because we put on a great show, maybe its because we have the most players and fans, maybe its because we love the game. What do you think awop? I mean your in london yourself pal -Why are you here?(dont take offense from that btw- I am not telling you to go home!!- everyone is welcome)

mystiroakey wrote:What do you suggest the reason is for this coincidental occurance..

Is it maybe because it isnt actually coincedental. maybe its because England fund the IRB the most, maybe its because its the home of rugby, maybe its because we put on a great show, maybe its because we have the most players and fans, maybe its because we love the game. What do you think awop? I mean your in london yourself pal -Why are you here?(dont take offense from that btw- I am not telling you to go home!!- everyone is welcome)

He cleans the toilets at Waterloo. Its very odd that someone would go to all the trouble of seeking work in this country, when apparently theirs is so wonderful, and then spend all of their free time (when not mopping) biting the hand thats feeding them. Grudging respect and a little jealousy I suspect.

mystiroakey wrote:What do you suggest the reason is for this coincidental occurance..

Is it maybe because it isnt actually coincedental. maybe its because England fund the IRB the most, maybe its because its the home of rugby, maybe its because we put on a great show, maybe its because we have the most players and fans, maybe its because we love the game. What do you think awop? I mean your in london yourself pal -Why are you here?(dont take offense from that btw- I am not telling you to go home!!- everyone is welcome)

So what you are saying is the RFU have paid for preferential RWC treatment? Because last time I suggested that everyone complained to the moderators, so I'm surprised to see you claim it is true...

So another more accurate measurement of a great side is if they can mount a successful defence of their trophy. Toulouse, Leicester and Leinster in the HEC for example.

In RWC terms, any matches played in the aftermath have no bearing on the greatness of that side. Unless that winning streak includes each and every game up and including the next world cup final no world cup winning team can claim to be great.

This current New Zealand team has a chance of becoming a great WC side but until such time as they make a successful defence they are simply not.

This is the definitive answer by the way. Like 42

It's funny how this is unfolding.

It is exactly as many predicted. At least the bitterly jealous fans have moved on from the "choker" label.

It's kind of pitiful that the best there is to hold on to is European club competitions!! I guess you are safe there! Last refuge! As obviously no one outside of Europe can beat you!

Greatness as is Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

The Boks are great.......





























to support, some of the time, most of the time just frustrating.

As you clearly see by my very logical and well thought out post, there has never been a "great" world cup team. I also thought this thread included all previous world cup winners.. I believe England are still in the Northern bit of the world.
Besides, I was not comparing sides, merely the criteria for being considered a great team in any given competition i.e a successful defence.

Anyway, as I said my previous post was the definitive answer so any further discussion on this thread is redundant.

anotherworldofpain wrote:It's funny how this is unfolding.

It is exactly as many predicted. At least the bitterly jealous fans have moved on from the "choker" label.

It's kind of pitiful that the best there is to hold on to is European club competitions!! I guess you are safe there! Last refuge! As obviously no one outside of Europe can beat you!

I'd say you're rightly peed off that I replied to your original post and not this edited backpeddle. Pity life doen't have an edit button eh?