NZ's biggest threats.

Similar to Alan's point on teams that haven't won a RWC...

NZs fortress Aoteaoroa now stretches back 30 matches, and an incredible 32 consecutive games at Eden Park.

So who have been the biggest threats?

1) France - getting within one point
2) Ireland - getting within three points
3) Australia - getting within seven points 

Of course lets not forget the last team to best is at home. 

4) South Africa - loss by 2 points with that heart breaking chip and chase try in the last minute back in 2007.

Now, if you'd had to compile a list in 2007 of the teams likely to push NZ close if not win, would you have picked that bunch?

   

yawn

Does this not raise serious grounds (no pun) for consideration to be given, for all home AB tests to be played at Eden Park?

When I saw the thread naturally thought we were talking the AI`s but no it`s the Elephant in
the corner.
So here we go on any known form the AllBlacks will win there Group it is the easiest of
the four.
Winner of England `s Group will go in the easier side of the draw,runners up will face
All Blacks at quarter final stage.[probably]
Boks will meet All Blacks at the Semi-Final stage assuming both get there.
France need to try this time if they wish reach at least the Semi-Final stage.
The All Blacks will be undercooked and Australia,England,or Wales will never
have a better chance.
All that assumes all these sides proceed to progress and get much better but
18 months out anything can happen.

Only certainty for NZ is DC will fall crook in the knockouts...how far is Bath from Twickers? Do they have whitebaiting nearby?

I was actually talking about home games, and not the world cup. But, whatever. Better than a discussion about snow tyres erupting.

When NZ knock England out at the Qfinal stage, it'll be very good for NZ. I'm sure the hordes of English fans will get right behind NZ. They tend to like the team that beat them to go on and win the competition. So the final is likely to be like a home game for the All Blacks. Who knows? there might even be a positive reaction to the Haka.

 

It was actually in 2008 GE. Januarie's chip and chase.

Wasn't it in august?

I would have thought that the biggest threat to NZ is people getting an idea that everyone from NZ is like a certain poster...

Oh, lord, it's hard to be humble:)

Some more info on the feat

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11143698

Sequence to savour

* The All Blacks' last defeat on home soil was against South Africa in Hamilton 2009 when the Springboks won 32-29. Back then I Gotta Feeling by Black Eyed Peas was the number one song, The Hangover was a big hit at the box office and Ardie Savea was a 15-year-old playing for the Rongotai College First XV.

* Of the 30 straight victories the closest win was the 8-7 victory over France in the 2011 Rugby World Cup final. Only two other teams have got within single figures of the All Blacks during the streak with Australia's eight-point defeat on Saturday the third closest. Ireland also got within three points in Christchurch last season.

* The 30 tests include seven against Australia and five against South Africa and France. Top 10 nations that don't feature include England, who tour next year, Scotland and Samoa.

* 11 of the victories were played at Eden Park where the All Blacks haven't lost since July 3, 1994 - a 32-match unbeaten streak.

* The most points conceded by the All Blacks during the streak is the 33 scored by Australia on Saturday. The next best is Ireland who lost 66-28 in New Plymouth in 2010.

* The 30-test run began with a win over Australia in the final game of the 2009 Tri-Nations, played at Westpac Stadium. The All Blacks cruised to victory 33-6. Names in the All Blacks side that day include Isaia Toeava, Joe Rokocoko, Jimmy Cowan, Aled de Malmanche, Jason Eaton and Tom Donnelly on debut. Current All Blacks include Ma'a Nonu, Dan Carter, Tony Woodcock, Andrew Hore, Richie McCaw and Kieran Read.

* The All Blacks next play on home soil against England in a three - test series next year. The All Blacks haven't lost to England on home soil since 2003.

* Over the same span (Sep 14, 2009 - Oct 20, 2013) - South Africa have lost five times on home soil, England have lost eight tests and Australia have lost 10.

* During the same timeframe the All Blacks have played 26 tests away or on neutral soil and have lost just four.

* Going further back, the All Blacks have lost just three tests on home soil in 64 tests played in the past decade.

An amazing and intimidating record. No wonder the rest of the IRB constituents don want the World Cup to go back to NZ. For "economic" reasons....yeah right.

NZ's biggest threats are powder puff pools followed by knockout games with sides who have good defence systems.

GloriousEmpire wrote:An amazing and intimidating record. No wonder the rest of the IRB constituents don want the World Cup to go back to NZ. For "economic" reasons....yeah right.

Perhaps they just want NZ to try and win the trophy outside of NZ like SA, AUS & ENG have done.

You're right though.... its nothing to do with attendances being 35% down from the previous tournament (in fact the worst in the pro era overall) and TV match times in their core regions (Europe & SA) being unsatisfactory for revenue purposes. Money matters, and not for greed... who will fund all the tournaments, all the unions around the world without the IRB?

The drop in match attendance was over 3/4 of a million... say the IRB took 40 euros profit from those tickets... thats 30MM euros less to play with over the course of 4 years. Thats a huge budget deficit to fill and not one they will want to do too often.

Fairness of hosting and tournament rotation has to be taken with a dose of reality.

fa, I think the host nation only gets revenue from ticket sales so your math is a tad off, that's $30 million off to start.

The IRB require a $150 million rights fee and they get all sponsorship, broadcast and merchandise revenue. So I doubt they're substantially out of pocket after 2011.

The NZRU were out of pocket though and were the first union to be so and that was thanks to our pokey little stadiums that foreign teams seem to struggle winning in and greed associated with the IRB model.

ebop wrote:fa, I think the host nation only gets revenue from ticket sales so your math is a tad off, that's $30 million off to start.

The IRB require a $150 million rights fee and they get all sponsorship, broadcast and merchandise revenue. So I doubt they're substantially out of pocket after 2011.

The NZRU were out of pocket though and were the first union to be so and that was thanks to our pokey little stadiums that foreign teams seem to struggle winning in and greed associated with the IRB model.

If it was just about greed the last World Cup would have been hosted in Japan?

ebop

The IRB did come out and say they will have to revise their tournament hosting policy after the 2011 world cup due to revenue issues. Why they went to the ultimate cash cow in England straight after, it was badly needed.

Its not a case of NZ not holding it again, but if there is a drop in revenue then it will hurt... and give the IRB is the major funder of rugby around the world, especially in its development regions whenever we see disappointing revenue receipts its going to hurt the smallest/poorest unions the most. Will it mean every 30 years or so that for 4 years the IRB will have to make temporary funding cuts? If so where and who gets the cuts? Most of the major unions run a deficit year after year, let alone the smaller nations such as Samoa, Fiji etc who have obvious financial issues, hardships etc.

If NZ were to host it again (which they have as much right as anyone) both the global rugby community (which is funded by the RWC) and the host union would have to take a more objective and longterm view at how they can address the obvious issues which will naturally occur in a distant  (to the majority of market) and sparsely populated country with infrastructure not flexible for large scale global tournaments.

Hang on, not sure where you guys get your info from, but this says that it wasn't too bad, actually the second most profitable yet and second only to France (before GFC)

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/161660.html

The 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand is set to become the second-most financially successful event in the tournament's 25-year history, despite the global economic situation.

The International Rugby Board has announced the World Cup is on track to achieve a net surplus of £90million, £10 million above what was originally forecast. The tournament attracted gross commercial revenues of £142 million, which were within 3% of the total achieved for the record-breaking 2007 World Cup in France.

The bake off was good last night wasn't it lads?

Well played Frances

ebop wrote:Hang on, not sure where you guys get your info from, but this says that it wasn't too bad, actually the second most profitable yet and second only to France (before GFC)

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/161660.html

The 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand is set to become the second-most financially successful event in the tournament's 25-year history, despite the global economic situation.

The International Rugby Board has announced the World Cup is on track to achieve a net surplus of £90million, £10 million above what was originally forecast. The tournament attracted gross commercial revenues of £142 million, which were within 3% of the total achieved for the record-breaking 2007 World Cup in France.

It will be interesting to see a full breakdown of where the revenue came from.

I suspect the television broadcasting revenue would have been much higher in itself.

I think the ticketing sales (number of tickets sold) compared to the 2007 would be less.

I would like to see the IRB have a rotation policy in regards to hosting the RWC.

If you consider firstly sole hosting nations, or alternatively collective hosting for nations who believe they can pull of a better world cup due to infrastructure etc as a collective, then you have a list of those who can.

Let's just for argument sake say you have 12 countries capable of hosting a RWC, but two of those countries decide they will group as a collective, then it means there are 11 hosting nations (collectives)

Every 44 years that nation gets a turn.

Isn't one major point and factor of a WC to bring other nations into the game- so in 44 years time shouldn't we be hoping there are 20 teams capable of running a wc and also competing on a rugby level?

Off course the way things are going the money that will be made in England(surely the most profitable venue as it stands anyway) will be just going into the unions coffers(we'll be seeing the ceceltications demand more of the pool shortly, NZ have already played the game last year to get more of it!!)

Its sad!

Don't the IRB get it all biltong, except ticket sales I believe, hence why NZ didn't do so well (apparently). Think the country itself did ok with money spent etc on expensive food and beer that Peter Bills cried about in his column (bought on the pound no doubt).

Anyways, I'm excited about the RWC in England but not so pumped about the one in Japan which isn't really a rugby nation and will probably lack on the vibe front. Gotta grow the game though we.

I think they do get it all ebop.

tigerleghorn wrote:

ebop wrote:fa, I think the host nation only gets revenue from ticket sales so your math is a tad off, that's $30 million off to start.

The IRB require a $150 million rights fee and they get all sponsorship, broadcast and merchandise revenue. So I doubt they're substantially out of pocket after 2011.

The NZRU were out of pocket though and were the first union to be so and that was thanks to our pokey little stadiums that foreign teams seem to struggle winning in and greed associated with the IRB model.

If it was just about greed  the last World Cup would have been hosted in Japan?

They trailed international games in Japan...didn't work.

Interesting how Cardiff is part of England and France. No doubt it will be part of Ireland in the future. On that note I'd like to see a world cup hosted in Ireland.

Since 1903 the All Blacks have played 508 games losing 104,37 of those at Home.
AUSTRALIA 16
SOUTH AFRICA 9
FRANCE 4
LIONS 6
ENGLAND 2
REST OF WORLD 1
only WALES 3[at home]
a 79.63% win rate
for the stats nerds

Losing 10,437 home games?!!!

Just had a look at your maths emack, was the world XV loss not counted as a real test loss?

Happy to sweep that one under the carpet

Nice one EBOP for clarity played 508
lost 104
lost 37 at home
for Rest of the World equalsWorld XV
ALL away losses included that one
as above. 

Good stuff emack. Knew what you meant, just an awkward string of numbers that 10437. Keep up the historical stats, always of interest.

Wonder what style of game the next team that beats the ABs will play? Reckon it'll be an expansive one.

GloriousEmpire wrote:An amazing and intimidating record. No wonder the rest of the IRB constituents don want the World Cup to go back to NZ. For "economic" reasons....yeah right.

You ain't got the ground for such a tournament anymore. You bolloxed Eden Park up when you had the chance to make a world class stadium, the tax payers in Dunedin do not want your greenhouse. The world cup will never be in NZ again.

blackcanelion wrote:Interesting how Cardiff is part of England and France. No doubt it will be part of Ireland in the future. On that note I'd like to see a world cup hosted in Ireland.

They want games at the best stadium in the world for Rugby Union thats why.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Interesting how Cardiff is part of England and France. No doubt it will be part of Ireland in the future. On that note I'd like to see a world cup hosted in Ireland.

They want games at the best stadium in the world for Rugby Union thats why.

True, brilliant stadium, trouble is the playing surface iscrap, and unfortunately this is reflected in the rugby.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Interesting how Cardiff is part of England and France. No doubt it will be part of Ireland in the future. On that note I'd like to see a world cup hosted in Ireland.

They want games at the best stadium in the world for Rugby Union thats why.

 True, brilliant stadium, trouble is the playing surface iscrap, and unfortunately this is reflected in the rugby.

True the 2007 Q/F was noted

rainbow-warrior wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Interesting how Cardiff is part of England and France. No doubt it will be part of Ireland in the future. On that note I'd like to see a world cup hosted in Ireland.

They want games at the best stadium in the world for Rugby Union thats why.

 True, brilliant stadium, trouble is the playing surface iscrap, and unfortunately this is reflected in the rugby.

True the 2007 Q/F was noted

Jeez rainbow you might be onto something there, I hadnt thought of that excuse.

The wonders of corporate thinking a multi-million £ stadium,all the bells and whistles.
With the most important thing the pitch,a 3 rd rate Club side in the 1950`s would
have rejected.Still they played Rugby UNION then not some half a******d Hybrid
we have today.