Golden Age for a Nation's Rugby

First topic message reminder :

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?

Sorry, but that post you have replied to is identical to the other one, I just fixed a punctuation issue.

There is no point discussing anything with you since you believe arrogantly that you hold the "definitve answer"

Submachine wrote:

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?

Its a grey area submachine, you havent a ghost of a chance finding the definitive answer.

Twickenham ? obvious really.
London is the greatest city on the circuit, maybe only Sydney coming close. Major hub, and everyone wants to come to London. Greater combo of French / ANZACs / RSA / GB&I exile residents combined than in any other rugby city. Rugby central in fact.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Sorry, but that post you have replied to is identical to the other one, I just fixed a punctuation issue.

There is no point discussing anything with you since you believe arrogantly that you hold the "definitve answer"

Liar.

I've certainly got no complains about England hosting another one. The Wobblies seem to enjoy playing RWC's there.

"RFU have paid for preferential RWC treatment?"

We dont fund for preferential treatment- We fund because its in our nature- We have the most resource and we give the most back. If the RFU picks england to host a world cup- It is down to many factors. However an important one is that it is a very profitable location and therefore can put more money from that profit back into the game

No RWC winner has defended one,and in my opinion never will so the definition is unlikelyever to be achieved.

emack2 wrote:No RWC winner has defended one,and in my opinion never will so the definition is unlikelyever to be achieved.

Never say never. I am more than certain that it’ll happen within the next 3 WC’s

But is this purely what we base a country’s performance on these days? A one-off quadrennial tournament?

emack2 wrote:No RWC winner has defended one,and in my opinion never will so the definition is unlikelyever to be achieved.

Australia came within an extra time drop goal of doing it. It's not out of the realms of possibility that someone will do it one day.

wait a minute- england got a 50/50 call against them to defend in 2007.

I would back NZ to do it in 2015 as well

mystiroakey wrote:wait a minute- england got a 50/50 call against them to defend in 2007.

I would back NZ to do it in 2015 as well

Oakey - you're referring to Cueto’s correctly called foot in touch decision? Kirchner’s one on Saturday was a far finer call and they got that one spot on.

well it may have been correct- but that doesnt mean it wasnt 50/50. The margins were so small

By definition though a 50/50 call could go either way. His foot was in touch, it cannot be a try so it cannot go any other way

you either touch the line or you don't

Biltong, tell that to Wayne Barnes who was touch judge 2 weeks ago for the Pumas Aus match. It happened right under his nose and he still missed it.

Well in the past before replays and HD- a decsion like that would have been so close it would have been given half the time..

Cueto wouldnt have had to do much different for it to have been a try

Full Credit wrote:Biltong, tell that to Wayne Barnes who was touch judge 2 weeks ago for the Pumas Aus match. It happened right under his nose and he still missed it.

We had a similar non try by Kirhcner against australia last weekend, Kirchners heel touch .75 of a blade of grass and it was unfortunately (but correctly) called in touch.

The point is the cup could have been defended and wasnt due to small marguns..

However that would have really put the cat amongst the pigeons considering england lost everything inbetween two rwc wins!!! Awop would have to invent different threads based on that random occurance

Full Credit wrote:Biltong, tell that to Wayne Barnes who was touch judge 2 weeks ago for the Pumas Aus match. It happened right under his nose and he still missed it.

But FC, they didn't call for the TMO there.

mystiroakey wrote:The point is the cup could have been defended and wasnt due to small marguns..

However that would have really put the cat amongst the pigeons considering england lost everything inbetween two rwc wins!!! Awop would have to invent different threads based on that random occurance

You would have need a bit more than that try though. Instead you got a penalty of 3 points.

So you still need more points.

Aww well thats my memory, You guys did deserve it mind..

There are no tries in rugby. Or most decisions are 50-50 calls.

Depends how you look at it. When I referee in my mind there are no 50-50 calls. I once had a coach tell me before the game all he wanted was "50% of the 50-50 calls" I just said there are no 50-50 calls. I stand over any call I make.

When I watch my team on TV every single decision is a 50-50 call.

red_stag wrote:There are no tries in rugby. Or most decisions are 50-50 calls.

Depends how you look at it. When I referee in my mind there are no 50-50 calls. I once had a coach tell me before the game all he wanted was "50% of the 50-50 calls" I just said there are no 50-50 calls. I stand over any call I make.

When I watch my team on TV every single decision is a 50-50 call.

For me only the ones that go against my side are 50-50's,the ones in my teams favour are almost always 100% spot on.

mystiroakey wrote:wait a minute- england got a 50/50 call against them to defend in 2007.

I would back NZ to do it in 2015 as well

Sadly that wasn't even the most important refereeing decision of the tournament. I reckon the right call was made but even if he had scored the Boks won by 9-greater than the possible 7 England would've had.

mystiroakey wrote:well it may have been correct- but that doesnt mean it wasnt 50/50. The margins were so small

Oh no. Not Cueto's 10 point try again...

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

red_stag wrote:There are no tries in rugby. Or most decisions are 50-50 calls.

Depends how you look at it. When I referee in my mind there are no 50-50 calls. I once had a coach tell me before the game all he wanted was "50% of the 50-50 calls" I just said there are no 50-50 calls. I stand over any call I make.

When I watch my team on TV every single decision is a 50-50 call.

For me only the ones that go against my side are 50-50's,the ones in my teams favour are almost always 100% spot on.

I think the mind set needs to be that the referees call represents reality, whatever a video replay might suggest overwise. A foot did not, or did touch the line if the referee decides. A player is off-side or not if the referee decides. You need to trust the referee for the "truth" and not your eyes, or a video replay. If you adopt this attitude then the game becomes much more fun to watch and that agonising feeling of being "robbed" goes away, and you hate referees far less.

So for example I can say Michelak made an astonishing offload in 2007 and France broke all previous defense records by having 13% of possession for 60 minutes and yet not conceding a single penalty! A simply amazing effort that is unlikey to be repeated until the next time Wayne Barnes overseas an All Blacks knock out world cup encounter!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

red_stag wrote:There are no tries in rugby. Or most decisions are 50-50 calls.

Depends how you look at it. When I referee in my mind there are no 50-50 calls. I once had a coach tell me before the game all he wanted was "50% of the 50-50 calls" I just said there are no 50-50 calls. I stand over any call I make.

When I watch my team on TV every single decision is a 50-50 call.

For me only the ones that go against my side are 50-50's,the ones in my teams favour are almost always 100% spot on.

I think the mind set needs to be that the referees call represents reality, whatever a video replay might suggest overwise. A foot did not, or did touch the line if the referee decides. A player is off-side or not if the referee decides. You need to trust the referee for the "truth" and not your eyes, or a video replay. If you adopt this attitude then the game becomes much more fun to watch and that agonising feeling of being "robbed" goes away, and you hate referees far less.

So for example I can say Michelak made an astonishing offload in 2007 and France broke all previous defense records by having 13% of possession for 60 minutes and yet not conceding a single penalty! A simply amazing effort that is unlikey to be repeated until the next time Wayne Barnes overseas an All Blacks knock out world cup encounter!

The strange thing is I could usually do that when playing the game,take a decision,don't question it and get on with the game but as a spectator it's not as easy for some reason.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

red_stag wrote:There are no tries in rugby. Or most decisions are 50-50 calls.

Depends how you look at it. When I referee in my mind there are no 50-50 calls. I once had a coach tell me before the game all he wanted was "50% of the 50-50 calls" I just said there are no 50-50 calls. I stand over any call I make.

When I watch my team on TV every single decision is a 50-50 call.

For me only the ones that go against my side are 50-50's,the ones in my teams favour are almost always 100% spot on.

I think the mind set needs to be that the referees call represents reality, whatever a video replay might suggest overwise. A foot did not, or did touch the line if the referee decides. A player is off-side or not if the referee decides. You need to trust the referee for the "truth" and not your eyes, or a video replay. If you adopt this attitude then the game becomes much more fun to watch and that agonising feeling of being "robbed" goes away, and you hate referees far less.

So for example I can say Michelak made an astonishing offload in 2007 and France broke all previous defense records by having 13% of possession for 60 minutes and yet not conceding a single penalty! A simply amazing effort that is unlikey to be repeated until the next time Wayne Barnes overseas an All Blacks knock out world cup encounter!

The strange thing is I could usually do that when playing the game,take a decision,don't question it and get on with the game but as a spectator it's not as easy for some reason.

Yes, when you are playing you can process the adrenaline, but on the sofa following the game you get the same physiological reaction but you can't process it unless you run on a tread mill and beat a punching bag while you watch. So the frustration gets pent up and you can't release it.

But what about before 87 when the wasnt a WC how you define the 'greatness' of a team then

bedfordwelsh wrote:But what about before 87 when the wasnt a WC how you define the 'greatness' of a team then

Apparently however desperate Telegraph journalists want to in order to justify that NZ are just rubbish and England are great. They just change the reasoning regularly to avoid the inherent pitfalls in their argument revealed by reality.

bedfordwelsh wrote:But what about before 87 when the wasnt a WC how you define the 'greatness' of a team then

Easy. You look back at who was considered great by Bill McLaren and TP Mclean and take their word for it

Except for Rob Andrew obviously.

AWOP you trying to lampoon me again

AWOP, did you just up and move Leinster over the sea to England again ? Their fans will be very unhappy about that.

NZ's successful defence of the 2015 RWC is already in the tea leaves. France will be the opponent.

In 1987 NZ beat France in the final.

What was the score in the 2011 final between NZ and France? 8 - 7.

What's 8 + 7 ?

The 2015 RWC champions can already be proclaimed.

I already know the score, too. 16 - 3.

16 + 3 = 3...peat

France will be in the final alright but this time they will win. In al fairness they deserve to win one at this stage having been in three finals.

GunsGerms wrote:France will be in the final alright but this time they will win. In al fairness they deserve to win one at this stage having been in three finals.

I think they are just chokers.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:France will be in the final alright but this time they will win. In al fairness they deserve to win one at this stage having been in three finals.

I think they are just chokers.

No they have never gone into a WC final as favorites nevermind tournament favorites, therefore it wouldnt really make any sense to consider them chokers. In fact they are rarely fancied to get to the final (maybe their first final they were fancied to get there). Indeed last year they were heavily fancied to get knocked out early on after having a pretty average six nations by their standards. They fact that they got within a point of winning the thing against all odds, in fighting, terrible coach showed tremendous character.

NZ by contrast do tend to lose their way at the latter stages of the world cup and are the only winners not to have managed to win the tournament away from from the comfort of their home crowd.

GunsGerms wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:France will be in the final alright but this time they will win. In al fairness they deserve to win one at this stage having been in three finals.

I think they are just chokers.

No they have never gone into a WC final as favorites nevermind tournament favorites, therefore it wouldnt really make any sense to consider them chokers. In fact they are rarely fancied to get to the final (maybe their first final they were fancied to get there). Indeed last year they were heavily fancied to get knocked out early on after having a pretty average six nations by their standards. They fact that they got within a point of winning the thing against all odds, in fighting, terrible coach showed tremendous character.

NZ by contrast do tend to lose their way at the latter stages of the world cup and are the only winners not to have managed to win the tournament away from from the comfort of their home crowd.

Interesting that the mentally robust Englishmen managed to choke in front of the comfort of their home crowd really...maybe it explains their poor record in world cups considering the huge proportion of RWC games played at Twickenham. Interesting that this doesn't just affect the team! But the officials too! With Wayne Barnes having such a poor night at home in Britain.

England prefer to win the RWC on the host's turf.
Aus used to prefer that too once upon a time.

gregortree wrote:England prefer to win the RWC on the host's turf.
Aus used to prefer that too once upon a time.

But they made an exception in NZ, because ?

Full Credit wrote:I've certainly got no complains about England hosting another one. The Wobblies seem to enjoy playing RWC's there.

Deffo!!!

Life. You don't always get your preferences. England realistic enough to live with the reality. We were not good enough this time.

Good reply gregortree

OzT, thanks.
Oz have a good RWC history in Britain.
I hope not for 2015 though, when I would like to see a home win. Maybe my last chance.

This time luckily is 3 years away!! Our expectaions can change. And we could allways posion the other teams if the quality fails us

Group 4 to do the visitors' catering then.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:France will be in the final alright but this time they will win. In al fairness they deserve to win one at this stage having been in three finals.

I think they are just chokers.

No they have never gone into a WC final as favorites nevermind tournament favorites, therefore it wouldnt really make any sense to consider them chokers. In fact they are rarely fancied to get to the final (maybe their first final they were fancied to get there). Indeed last year they were heavily fancied to get knocked out early on after having a pretty average six nations by their standards. They fact that they got within a point of winning the thing against all odds, in fighting, terrible coach showed tremendous character.

NZ by contrast do tend to lose their way at the latter stages of the world cup and are the only winners not to have managed to win the tournament away from from the comfort of their home crowd.

Interesting that the mentally robust Englishmen managed to choke in front of the comfort of their home crowd really...maybe it explains their poor record in world cups considering the huge proportion of RWC games played at Twickenham. Interesting that this doesn't just affect the team! But the officials too! With Wayne Barnes having such a poor night at home in Britain.

Interesting how you made the leap from discussing France and New Zealand to your favorite topics, England and Wayne Barnes.

Does every article have to be about England and Wayne Barnes Ghost?

emack2 wrote:My comment was as stupid as yours but at least mine was accurate.

Sorry how was your comment accurate? And can you provide an academic source that will back that up?