The All Blacks and their second RWC Trophy

First topic message reminder :

There has been a number of articles lately on other websites on whether the All Blacks can win the RWC and whether Carter is any good, to injury niggles to Carter and McCaw will reduce the All Blacks chances this October. Then of course the usual article about the All Blacks choking or “bottling it”.

As far as the “choking” or “bottling” issue. The two main rivals for the All Blacks over the past years SA and Australia have both during the Tri Nations won 29.41 percent of their matches, this is clear proof that NZ is in fact quite a bit better than SA and Australia.

Coming to the RWC, New Zealand’s biggest rivals in RWC are firstly Australia who have won 2 out of 2 matches, SA who has won 2 out of 3 matches and France who has won 2 out of 4 matches. These are the only nations that have beaten the All Blacks in RWC history. The others thus far have had no success.
Additional teams with realistic aspirations to beating New Zealand in New Zealand would most likely be England as Ireland has never beaten New Zealand and Wales haven’t done that either for over 50 years. Here is England’s record against New Zealand at the RWC.

England lost 18-12 at Twickenham in 1991
England lost 45-29 at Newlands in 1995
England lost 30-16 at Twickenham in 1999.

Looking at the losses New Zealand has had against France, SA and Australia, you could argue that the matches against France was “debatable”, in the case of Australia in both matches New Zealand was outplayed, names such as Campese, Horan etc springs to mind.

Against SA in 1995 both teams had fly halves who employed the drop goal and Joel Stransky was the difference. During the 1999 RWC, I doubt whether the All Blacks had much motivation for the third place play offs and let’s be honest, the Springboks had a rather good team who lost on a drop goal to Stephen Larkham of all people during their semi final clash against Australia.

So that brings me to the 1999 match against France and the 2007 match against France.

There are too many events that conspired against the All Blacks in 2007 to call that a choke. A forward pass in a knock out match, an inexperienced captain, injuries and a few decisions allowed the French to take that match. Yes, I would think the 1999 loss against the French was a case of Rabbits in the headlight syndrome after France went on a scoring spree during the second half.

I get the feeling that the continual insistence by some posters is more subliminal method to convince themselves there are cracks in the All Black armory than anything else.

As far as injuries go, that is the same for any team, it is often the luck of the draw whether you have a full compliment of first choice players, but inevitably all teams are open to that. Do I believe the All Blacks will struggle without Carter and McCaw? No, I am not convinced that the All Black performance is affected so badly by the possibility of losing Carter or McCaw. They are both great players, but any team will adjust their game play to a certain extent depending on who plays in pivotal positions. As long as the replacement player plays to his own strengths and not try to emulate the injured player.

What is most important and is often the deciding factor in any match is what happens on the day. The All Blacks are the leading team in world rugby, and has been for a long time, but yet they are not invincible, and a team going into a clash against them need to use the right tactics to negate the All Black strengths.

As shown in statistics earlier there are a few teams who have a greater statistical advantage to beat the All Blacks, but they still have to do it on the day.

You could most likely categorise two ways for teams to put one over on the All Blacks, I would think for Australia and France to beat New Zealand, they will have to outplay them in attacking running rugby, and thereby test All Black defences.

In the other category I would put SA and England, both will be more effective in slowly strangling the life out of the All Blacks by using forward domination and living off mistakes. They will however need to restrict the All Blacks with possession.

I believe the All Blacks will win this RWC trophy, perhaps then two statements won’t see the light of day anymore. Firstly the choking tag can be canned, and also the statement made by many All Black supporters, that the RWC doesn’t mean much to them.

Both of these are false.

red_stag wrote:Do people think there would be much mental scarring. Would it be a death knell to the brand of the All Black?

I don't think so personally but stranger things have happened.

The public are probably far more scarred than the players!
At least the players feel they have control of their destiny.
Evry 4 years i feel like i,m having that dream where u are falling....falling...falling

Gunner wrote:

red_stag wrote:Do people think there would be much mental scarring. Would it be a death knell to the brand of the All Black?

I don't think so personally but stranger things have happened.

The public are probably far more scarred than the players!
At least the players feel they have control of their destiny.
Evry 4 years i feel like i,m having that dream where u are falling....falling...falling

Surely thats more harmful. If the NZ public and society lose faith in the All Blacks. Players can be replaced.

Red S

It hurts because we care.
Cut me and it bleeds!

mrrjfNo7


I see there is a lot of confidence amongst Europeans for a good Irish RWC.

I assume it is because of their recent success with their regional teams, which unfortunately doesn't always transfer to International performances.

Perhaps i am more of a realist than an optimist, but as much as I don't see us winning a semi final against the All Blacks, I am not so sure that Ireland is going to beat Australia or SA down south.


I can of course be totally wrong.

There was a very interesting interview with Gary Kirsten after his success with the Indian cricket team.

The discussion came around to why SA cricket just does not seem capable of getting through the knock out rounds, being beaten by statistically inferior teams.

His theory is that even though there was a whole bunch of young players in the world cup squad, the mental scarring has taken effect on the Protea setup as a whole.

When asked how he would change this into a positive, his answer was simple.

He believes that due to the scarring the players make the wrong decisions and mental focuses during the game, and the only way he saw this rectified was with exerienced players.

He believes that an experienced team can break that mental barrier more so than a bunch of youngsters.

So if Graham Henry is willing to take advice from another World cup winning coach, take as much experience to the World cup as possible.

biltongbek - you are quite right, the 'Ireland doing well' statement is only based on what they should be capable of with the players they have. It is a guess based on what I have seen in the times they play at their best. You are quite right that club success means nothing in terms of international success. I would not say it is confidence as they could very well have a lack lustre performance (as they did in 2007) but I would expect players to not make the same mistakes again - I think they will get it right this time. Just my opinion though and for any NH team to beat any of the 3N in NZ is going to be very tough task.

Your statement of experience being key I agree with completely. I think Aus have a fantastic team but I am not so sure they have the experienced players to do it - I would say the same for Eng (but they do not have the same quality in their back line).

"Yes, I would think the 1999 loss against the French was a case of Rabbits in the headlight syndrome after France went on a scoring spree during the second half. "

1999

I seem to recall the 1999 AB side were being constantly drilled that this new professional rugby game was all about being squeaky clean and not retaliating under any circumstances, in attempts to drive down the penalty count and become more mechanical.

I believe in 1999 the French came out and roughed the ABs up, and found that NZ were, erm, too well disciplined to respond. As much as it hurts to say, I think the side were bullied by a gnarly and more street wise French side that day. You could see the trepidation turn into stand offishness, and it was the French assertiveness that won out.

As it wore on it seemed that the loose ball would leap magnetically into French hands from every audacious low percentage move the French pulled.

2007

This was just utterly a Wayne Barnes choke. Sorry, but it just was. Never before or again in the history of the game has a side with nearly 70% of possession and territory failed to generate a single penalty, whilst being pinged themselves a dozen times. As we all know, 18 missed calls and a quaterback style forward fling won the day for France all under the nose of Barnes.

The GreyGhost.

The Abs lost to france, the Abs on the day was not good enough to win the game,

It is no uesd blaming Wayne Barnes for the Abs not beingable to win a game, when before the tournament started it was being as a sure thing that the Abs would simply walk it.

So stop crying about it, what is done is done.

The "sure thing" line came from the English tabloid press, not from NZ or the ABs.

Unfortunately Wayne Barnes came from England.

Was appointed on the back of a couple of lower tier 6N games, being the youngest and most inexperienced ref in RWC history.

Straight into a vital knock out between the #1 and #2 ranked sides in the world.

He was not up to the job, he bottled it, and ruined the tournament for everyone.

Hide behind your simplistic view of the world if you want, but it was a travesty.

TheGreyGhost wrote:He was not up to the job, he bottled it, and ruined the tournament for everyone.
.

Hmm, maybe not everyone, ghost?!

TheGreyGhost wrote:The "sure thing" line came from the English tabloid press, not from NZ or the ABs.

Unfortunately Wayne Barnes came from England.

Was appointed on the back of a couple of lower tier 6N games, being the youngest and most inexperienced ref in RWC history.

Straight into a vital knock out between the #1 and #2 ranked sides in the world.

He was not up to the job, he bottled it, and ruined the tournament for everyone.

Hide behind your simplistic view of the world if you want, but it was a travesty.

......................................................................................................................................................
TheGreyGhost.

I would like to think and maybe you do too that the Abs/Graham Henry learnt a valuble lesson form 2007 Rugby World Cup.

The lesson being that just because you are ranked number 1 team in the world, does not mean that you have automatic wright to be World Cup Winners.

Before the 2007 Rugby World Cup didnt Graham Henry believe that the Abs was so far ahead of every other team that he took all the Abs out of the super 14/15 tournament and put then in some sort of super fit conditioning camp?


Let the lesson be learnt if you want to be crowned world cup champions, you have to play every game, and you have to win the "FINAL GAME OF THE TOURNAMENT".

Wayne Barnes lost us the RWC. Are there really still Kiwis out there still trying to flog that dead horse? Really?

Too funny, and just a little sad.

Not me. dropped that long ago... comes across as bleating Grey...really does.

If that match had been replayed and Barnes never awarded a single penalty to the French in the whole match, who would you pick to win Grey?

AB's win by scoring tries. if we werent good enough to break through without Barnes help, then we didnt deserve it, even if the French were consistently offside.

The two teams were grossly uneven in terms of talent, experience and attacking nouse and the AB's should have ripped it easily.

Yep, well almost Taylorman. You take the decision away from the officials (England Australia 03 comes to mind) but at the same time, as much as the AB's lost that game, France also won it. Fair play to them - there was a lot of guts being shown on that pitch and some smart rugby - well by one team at least!?

I think most Kiwis agree that Barnes had a terrible day but that injuries contributed to a poor performance and that the French did a French on us and that it was all three that did it in the end.
I don't think we were arrogant just confident. On the other hand now when it comes to world cups I'm just scared.

The past is the past.in 2007 Dan Carter giving an interview before the match said he would play if 90% fit.When he started he was exactly that,France on the day were the better team and deserved to win.It was a comedy of errors.An inexperienced Ref in his first Big Game,NH number one v SH number one.An inexperienced Captain expecting to get penalties,a Yellow card when France scored 10points.Four injuries to key players and on and on.I doubt any other side in the world would have beaten France that day either.The 2007 was a good RWC for only three sides the Boks for winning it,Argentina and Fiji for going as far as they did.For the rest Australia and NZ out in the quarters,Wales ,Ireland not get out of there groups.England thrashed in the group stage,squeezed in the final.France beaten twice by Argentina."ABs win by scoring tries if we werent good enough to break through without Barnes help we did`nt deserve it"Ah what romantic naivety,All Blacks win by whatever means possible.Does the headline Don Clarke 18,Lions 17 mean nothing to you,the outcry of that result reverberated around the world.Just as Okey Geffins did 10 years previously.The result being eventually that tries were made worth more points than a try.As to if they don`t win this year it will cause mental scarring.Sorry I don`t buy that if they lose they`ll just shrug,say they`ve been there before and go about trying to be Worlds number one side again afterwards.

sorry should read ties were worth more than a penalty

emack2 wrote:The past is the past.in 2007 Dan Carter giving an interview before the match said he would play if 90% fit.When he started he was exactly that,France on the day were the better team and deserved to win.It was a comedy of errors.An inexperienced Ref in his first Big Game,NH number one v SH number one.An inexperienced Captain expecting to get penalties,a Yellow card when France scored 10points.Four injuries to key players and on and on.I doubt any other side in the world would have beaten France that day either.The 2007 was a good RWC for only three sides the Boks for winning it,Argentina and Fiji for going as far as they did.For the rest Australia and NZ out in the quarters,Wales ,Ireland not get out of there groups.England thrashed in the group stage,squeezed in the final.France beaten twice by Argentina."ABs win by scoring tries if we werent good enough to break through without Barnes help we did`nt deserve it"Ah what romantic naivety,All Blacks win by whatever means possible.Does the headline Don Clarke 18,Lions 17 mean nothing to you,the outcry of that result reverberated around the world.Just as Okey Geffins did 10 years previously.The result being eventually that tries were made worth more points than a try.As to if they don`t win this year it will cause mental scarring.Sorry I don`t buy that if they lose they`ll just shrug,say they`ve been there before and go about trying to be Worlds number one side again afterwards.

Sorry, nonsense. The only reason you lost that game is your own gameplan backfiring. When you needed to play conservatively you were not and when you needed to be expansive you turned conservative. I know this game is now steeped in legend, but come on, Henry got it wrong.

Emack2 is close to the truth there. Glas, sorry but you are wrong.

NZ played conservatively for two reasons. Firstly both Cater and Evans were injured in the second half. McAllistair was sin-binned for the last 10 of the first half. That meant 50 minutes with no 10/12 axis operating. Secondly, NZ had used the conservative forward oriented game plan to great effect in the preceding two years, particularly and most notably against France in a game that saw France concede a raft of penalties and yellow cards and end the game with uncontested scrums.

So NZ did what they had to, kept it close and ground out possession and territory. A fearsome and overwhelming amount of both, actually. The only thing that wasn't forthcoming was a penalty from Mr Barnes, despite France giving him 18 opportunities to do so in the eyes of the independent review.

As far as the absent drop goal argument goes - as mentioned, both specialist goal kickers were off the field injured. Luke McAllistair had a shot under penalty advantage. He missed, and Barnes waved play on. ..

The rest is history.

Sadly TheGreyGhost I have to agree with you on this one. With the influence Wayne Barnes had on that game it would have be impossible for the NZers to win even if they had tried something different. And I don't see why others do not realize that.

For the record, I thought Barnes performance in the NZ v Ireland game in New Zealand was equally shambolic.

I have seen him put in the odd good display at lower levels of the game though.

Perhaps he is the refereeing equivalent of Stephen Donald...

Loving the bleating.

Also loving the implication in all this that Barnes lost NZ the cup when there was still a semi and a final for the Kiwis to be beaten in as they usually are. Maybe going out in the quarters is a kindness. Dunno, what do you reckon?

Reckon Barnes is now one of the better international whistle blowers. Not sure that's saying too much.

Well it says maybe hes learned a thing or two. I just think you have to look at yourselves before you look at the ref. Just like players, refs make bad decisions and have bad days.

But they come back, and get picked again and do well. Singling a ref out considering the pressure and usually thanklessness position they are in- particularly down the grades is just stupid.

I agree with Alan... a comedy of errors, its in the past, and i believe everyone has leaned from it- and all this not taking away anything from France, who have contributed to 2 mighty efforts against the AB's.

Oddly theyre the only team to beat the ABs at Eden Park since the 87 world cup- the one test in 34 played- France- 1994- 23-20

food for thought...

I wont mind too much if the French beat us at Eden Park during the round robin as long as we win the final at eden park against whoever.

Although an Anglo-Scot I have supported the All Blacks longer than many here have been alive.I don`t care a fig who wins the RWC,though it would be nice for the ABs to get the monkey off there back.Much in the same way Ireland went so long between triple crowns.I do care passionately about the aftermath,the bust up at Hurricanes could mean players.Like Nonu,CoryJane ,Conrad Smith,Hosea Gear,AndrewHore,Piri Weepu think about leaving NZ and going abroad.Most of the Carter alternatives are North bound,Sivivatu,Rockococo,Muliana all away. Carter and McCaws staying is more important than the length of the contract.Let them help build a new dynasty to replace the old.There is loads of youngsters coming through the need a back bone of veterans to provide continuity.The 3Ns 2011,and 2012 are more important to me than whoever holds the pot. The holders who ever they are can claim to be World Champions,fine by me.The record books says the All Blacks are THE BEST by the record since 1905,though not for all that time.Long may it continue I hope a new All Black side will emerge as good as the old.As it has generation after generation amen.

Dont worry Alan...did you see the haka the young boys did for Italy?
Awesome. Plenty of kids coming through- as if on tap.
I've heard the under 20 team havnt lost a single match in this tournament- ever? and Carter was at it. Geez. Is there a record like that around...?
A clear out is good for the soul I reckon.

The commentators were hard case this morning. "You expect to see 6'2 14 st backs when these 'baby blacks' as they love to call them are among the smallest set of backs in the comp.

Love it.

Did`nt realise it was on the red button so missed it here.Lastyear i was impressed when they monstered in one match.Then played beautiful flowing Rugby in the final,they were so far ahead of the rest last year.This year is another comp.hope they keep up there record.If the ABs need a good back up for McCaw,Marty Holahs back in town !!!.

Yeah it was good to see. Sopoaaga from Highlanders is there but some real talent coming through already. Names are not too familiar at this stage but theres plenty to come. Wales I think next...

Blues Crusaders starts in 20 mins. Who's your pick. Im going Blues. Conference lead at stake here.

NZ have to be the fav's and if they hold it together should liftthe cup.

I just want the whole affair over and done with, I am not sure how much longer I can watch the Mastercard commercial's showing Samoa beating Wales!

Crusaders,ground out a win SBW and Rene Ranger off injured.Hopefully not to badly Hurricanes next.Down to Bulls v Stormers,and Redsv Force now.

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Loving the bleating.

Also loving the implication in all this that Barnes lost NZ the cup when there was still a semi and a final for the Kiwis to be beaten in as they usually are. Maybe going out in the quarters is a kindness. Dunno, what do you reckon?

Reckon Barnes is now one of the better international whistle blowers. Not sure that's saying too much.

Nope. He isn't. He can't step up to the pace of the SH game. He either whistles both sides out of existence to keep the pace down, or he gets fatigued and becomes a spectator.

Yeah Aus has every chance of beating NZ in the semi. Theyve done it before.

I just hope the grounds are ok. That time of the year theyve been through a lot, chopped up and not the same as fresh new grass you get in Feb March.

Going to be great...

TheGreyGhost wrote:

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Loving the bleating.

Also loving the implication in all this that Barnes lost NZ the cup when there was still a semi and a final for the Kiwis to be beaten in as they usually are. Maybe going out in the quarters is a kindness. Dunno, what do you reckon?

Reckon Barnes is now one of the better international whistle blowers. Not sure that's saying too much.

Nope. He isn't. He can't step up to the pace of the SH game. He either whistles both sides out of existence to keep the pace down, or he gets fatigued and becomes a spectator.

From someone from NZ a place that wants to hang most SH refs because they are "rubbish, cheats, inept, etc etc".

Mind you it is best to get excuses in early to save the embarrassment which may occur later.

Wales versus Tonga Final,Tonga win by three.Tonga will be this years surprise team loads of local support.Trust me Jonah Lomu suggested most of it so it must be true.

The conversation now seems to be back to that arrogance in sport post - "the other team didn't beat us, the ref did"
The reality is that if you are the better team then you should take it out of the ref's hands and win it yourselves, New Zealand failed to and no matter how entitled people like Greyghost feel they to just turn up and always win will change that.

The All Blacks HAVE to win this RWC. Losing is not an option. Not only are they the top ranked side but they pinched this event from Japan to give them home advantage as well. Sadly for them, even is they win they won't lose the chokers tag. Winning at home is expected but winning away takes bottle.

The suggestion that Barnes favoured one side over another is bordering on libelous, when to neutral observers at the last RWC he was mediocre but even handed to both sides. It was bad enough that he should have received death threats at the time but the continued, consistent accusations from some AB fans serves warning to any referee of an AB game lest they dare to penalise the men in black.

NZ simply have to win this RWC to stop their fans starting WWIII

Bit severe Aukster. Death threats? Really? How exactly were these delivered? Dont recall that one.

ABs and SA are the only to win the WC at home so that suggests winning at home is harder. Fact is other than Englands fantastic effort in 2003 the winner will likely come from the top 3- regardless of where its played. Cups been held 3 time in the NH- each time going to a SH side. Same in the SH, other than 2003.

Taylorman wrote:Bit severe Aukster. Death threats? Really? How exactly were these delivered? Dont recall that one.

ABs and SA are the only to win the WC at home so that suggests winning at home is harder. Fact is other than Englands fantastic effort in 2003 the winner will likely come from the top 3- regardless of where its played. Cups been held 3 time in the NH- each time going to a SH side. Same in the SH, other than 2003.

Errrrr belay that Taylorman - "England's fantastic effort" in 2003 didn't buck the trend, they were No.1 ranked team going into the tournament!

Taylorman wrote:Bit severe Aukster. Death threats? Really? How exactly were these delivered? Dont recall that one.

... probably wasn't reported in NZ? It was on the radio (BBC) and some of the Red Tops also carried it at the time.

The Great Aukster wrote:The All Blacks HAVE to win this RWC. Losing is not an option. Not only are they the top ranked side but they pinched this event from Japan to give them home advantage as well. Sadly for them, even is they win they won't lose the chokers tag. Winning at home is expected but winning away takes bottle.

The suggestion that Barnes favoured one side over another is bordering on libelous, when to neutral observers at the last RWC he was mediocre but even handed to both sides. It was bad enough that he should have received death threats at the time but the continued, consistent accusations from some AB fans serves warning to any referee of an AB game lest they dare to penalise the men in black.

NZ simply have to win this RWC to stop their fans starting WWIII

How did NZ pinch the event from Japan? I thought they merely tendered for the event, and it was awarded by the IRB. Much like England in 2015. Did England pinch the event from Japan too?

Barnes favouratism of France is not libelous at all. It's an independently documented, reviewed and accepted fact. Even POB the chief IRB referee admitted that he missed the forward pass and 18 French infringement. What is questionable is POB's assertion that this favouratism didn't cost NZ the match. Anybody who can count can see that a single one of those 18 non awarded penalties going over would've won the game for NZ. Odd statement really.

The Great Aukster wrote:... probably wasn't reported in NZ? It was on the radio (BBC) and some of the Red Tops also carried it at the time.

Seems it was - here

TheGreyGhost wrote:Barnes favouratism of France is not libelous at all. It's an independently documented, reviewed and accepted fact. Even POB the chief IRB referee admitted that he missed the forward pass and 18 French infringement. What is questionable is POB's assertion that this favouratism didn't cost NZ the match. Anybody who can count can see that a single one of those 18 non awarded penalties going over would've won the game for NZ. Odd statement really.

Paddy O'Brien -
"I've spoken to Wayne personally to congratulate him on a very fine performance,"

"We try to get it accurate if we can and WB is the brightest star we have on our books."

So, got a link to where O'Brien admitted that Barnes missed 18 French infringements?

Snoopster what started as a debate on NZ `s chances in the RWC,has degenerated into the Arch Chokers jibe.OK if you want to play with stastics here`s a few.In 2003 England had 12 match winning run going into the RWC including 2 versus NZ.They were the best team in the world at the time,by there standards they played badly in the RWC but won a very scrappy Final at death knock by 3 points.How on earth can anyone except the Bookies call the All Blacks favourites when England obviously were.Also what about the Independant Review on the 2007 officials quote"ALL the officials mad mistakes but we do not think it effected the result"[debatable].As to bleating about Refs decisions did`nt England fans make complaints about Mark Cueto and a try or something in the Final ?Arch Chokers 3 Finals ,1Win at death knock by a drop goal after 130 minutes,never beaten the All Blacks in a RWC,Beaten twice in 2007.England deserve the ephiphet more than the All Blacks.

Spot on. Not to mention the fact that England has 10 times the playing resources and 100 times the financial resources of the next best competitor.

You'd expect a better return on that than 1 out of 6 RWCs and a average rank of 5th in the world.

Compare that to NZ who regularly top the ranks, have won as many RWCs as England, possibly should have had another but for food poisoning and a high political stakes, and who export players to all other test playing nation's starting line ups bar South Africa.

I'd say NZ over achieve if anything.

Is winning the Rugby World Cup an achievement?

If NZ can be classed as overachievers based on their solitary win, then it would be unreasonable to have expected them to win in 95 and 07. Yet it seems that some fans did indeed expect them to win in these years and cite influences outside of playing ability as the reason they failed. So how can they be over-achievers if they should have achieved more?

Given the pathological obsession of the NZ public with rugby, it would be a massive underachievement and disappointment if the All Blacks don't win the RWC this year in their own country.

emack2 wrote:Snoopster what started as a debate on NZ `s chances in the RWC,has degenerated into the Arch Chokers jibe.OK if you want to play with stastics here`s a few.In 2003 England had 12 match winning run going into the RWC including 2 versus NZ.They were the best team in the world at the time,by there standards they played badly in the RWC but won a very scrappy Final at death knock by 3 points.How on earth can anyone except the Bookies call the All Blacks favourites when England obviously were.Also what about the Independant Review on the 2007 officials quote"ALL the officials mad mistakes but we do not think it effected the result"[debatable].As to bleating about Refs decisions did`nt England fans make complaints about Mark Cueto and a try or something in the Final ?Arch Chokers 3 Finals ,1Win at death knock by a drop goal after 130 minutes,never beaten the All Blacks in a RWC,Beaten twice in 2007.England deserve the ephiphet more than the All Blacks.

I wasn't bringing up stats, just asking a poster to support a claim he made. No need to go getting your knickers in a twist about it.

"it would be a massive underachievement and disappointment if the All Blacks don't win the RWC this year in their own country."

and thats an understatement...

Good to see the same old comments being regurgitated.

I still think the choke tag applies- In 2007 NZ beat France 61-10 in an all time AB record score against the French 3 months before they lost to the same team. 2 games of rugby, one beyond an annihilation, one a close match.

Some of that difference can be attributed to the French effort- but certainly not all of it, and no team improves that much in 3 months.

One rose to the occasion, one didnt. Simple as that.

Sorry.Snoopster setting the Record straight not getting my knickers in a twist.All I want is a good RWC Rugby wise,I don`t care who wins it[REALLY DON`T !!!}Just to get things settled down for the next four years,let all the players who want go there seperate ways.Then getthe 4Ns and 6Ns andS15 sorted then business as usual.With hopefully NZ still topping IRB log.

GreatAukster if you consider a 75% win rate since 1905,81.6% win rate since 1996[177 matches played 31 lost]85% since 2003,and a RWC win,Beaten RWC finalist,5 out of 6 RWC semi-finalist,The ONLY side not to lose a group match in a RWC,IRB Number One for vortually the whole of it`s existence.Underachieving you must have very high standards indeed I don`t see any other nation producing anything like those stats..Those are the stats of THE best side in WORLD Rugby no matter who held the little gold pot.

Good on ya Alan... and Aukster not only did fans expect us to win in 95 and 2007 so did a lot of people- right up to the very matches they lost.

Others mightnt have 'wanted' them to win but few expected them to lose if they were to be honest.

As a rule check the betting odds before the 2007 and 1995 matches that were lost. Odds picked by those who think with their brains and coin rather than their heart. I think you'll find the AB's were HOT faves.

Easy for all to sit there and say AB's will choke again and take the p(*&s afterwards, but how many actually got up and placed their well earned money on the thought? Not a lot according to the bookies.

So expectation wasnt just an AB fan thing- it was a generally expected thing, whether people liked to admit it or not.

NZ have been the best rugby union playing country for many a year, they've consistently been the No.1 ranked team for more time than any other nation since the rankings began, and it may be the case that they have spent more time as No.1 ranked team than all the others put together.

I don't think it's fair to label NZ as chokers as only two teams can ultimately contest the World Cup, and the margins that decide who goes through and who goes out are fine to say the least (not to mention the luck of the draw).

It's unfortunate that the IRB only hand out the gongs once every four years, and what happens in between with the rankings goes entirely unrewarded, it always leaves NZ open to the "show us yer medals" jibe.

I wouldn't get too wound up over it though fellas - you'll be right up there with the Aussies and Saffers come the end of October, just don't expect to improve on your tally come 2015 .