FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Is the RWC a different level of rugby?

Is the RWC a different level of rugby?

Started by Mozart21 REPLIES345 VIEWS· 29 Nov 2013, 23:40
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
29 Nov 2013, 23:40
#1
29 Nov 2013, 23:40#1
We know that S15 form doesn't always follow  Currie Cup form. And RWC rugby is even more distinct from competitions like the 6 nations and the RC, because of its knockout format.
WC play is much tighter, and far fewer chances are taken. In this milieu the Boks have been quite succesful....winning two from 5, vs two from 7 like next best Oz and NZ. And unlike the ABs the Boks have won away from home.
This slight advantage over the ABs reverses RC results and does suggest the Boks are more formidable in knockout competition. Some of our SA posters apparently feel the Boks have no chance against the ABs and have to learn from them. These apologists tend to always be negative....eg claiming in 2007 the Boks had no chance.
I wouldn't take them too seriously.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
29 Nov 2013, 23:59
#2
29 Nov 2013, 23:59#2
 Do not forget that the head to head score between SA and NZ in the RWC is SA-2, NZ-0.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Nov 2013, 00:10
#3
30 Nov 2013, 00:10#3

 Mozart


Your analysis is spot on.  I always thought the Springboks had a top chance to win the 2007 WC and went to France to watch the games - and in between matches travelled all over Europe.   Cost me a small fortune - I must say.


Yes - the knock out system made it a very difficult format.   The team normally have two easy matches in the round-robin stage and two more difficult ones.   In the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final there is no easy matches and teams get knocked out unexpectedly - like happened to the English team in 2000 and the All Blacks in 2007 - it often depends on the bounce of the ball to influence the outcome.


I do believe that it never happened that a team won the trophy in successive WC's,  because the winning teams do not renew the team by bringing in new players and largely try and use the WC winners for the next WC.  This often lead to players being played beyond prime and retention of players who should have been replaced.   It was exactly for that reason that I did not go to New Zealand for the 2011 WC - and if present selection trends are maintained, I would not go to England for the next WC either.


In the WC - because of the nature of the competition - you have very little chance to bring in replacement players - and players must have the endurance to last through the competition - which older players have difficulty to cope with.  The core of the team has to play seven tests in seven weeks - very difficult to cope with.   Because of that a person normally finds that older players fade out.   A lot has been written about Thorn in the 2011 WC campaign of the AB's - but he in not one game was above average  in performance - a name on the team sheet at best. 


  

PE
poi-e
Pro1,044 posts
PE
poi-ePro1,044 posts
30 Nov 2013, 01:11
#4
30 Nov 2013, 01:11#4
Ceradyne, wasn't there a match in 2003 you might be forgetting?  
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Nov 2013, 01:20
#5
30 Nov 2013, 01:20#5
 Correct. Make that 2-1. I missed that one. Coincidently that one was also in the SH. When we move away from the SH, you guys normally come second to us.
PO
polyboy
Club Pro601 posts
PO
polyboyClub Pro601 posts
30 Nov 2013, 02:48
#6
30 Nov 2013, 02:48#6

Check the rankings and statistics Ceradyne you have your "normally 2nd to us" mixed up. Whats the significance of RWC 2-1 to SA?

CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Nov 2013, 03:39
#7
30 Nov 2013, 03:39#7
 Was talking about the RWC competition. It is after all what this is about, isn't it? Check the title of the thread.
HA
hakwa
Pro4,146 posts
HA
hakwaPro4,146 posts
30 Nov 2013, 03:49
#8
30 Nov 2013, 03:49#8
 Ceradyne, it is 1-1 plus your 1 is suspect because of Suzie
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
30 Nov 2013, 09:19
#9
30 Nov 2013, 09:19#9
 Correction the abs won one world cup and burgled the recent one. That fact must NEVER be forgotten
DE
Denny
Captain12,893 posts
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
30 Nov 2013, 09:30
#10
30 Nov 2013, 09:30#10

 Simple. The format doesn't suit the AB's, the results are there for all to see, they've only won 2 WC's....one more than England, exactly the same number as the non Rugga nation Australia and the same number as Boks who've played one WC less.

 

 

It could also be a pressure problem.

 

 

 

Den keeping it real.

MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Nov 2013, 11:38
#11
30 Nov 2013, 11:38#11
Denny the Boks have played two RWCs less. Hakwa we also beat you in 99 ....it's 2 to 1 Boks. These are the facts.
JW
Just_win
Captain18,570 posts
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
30 Nov 2013, 13:16
#12
30 Nov 2013, 13:16#12
Well, glad to see posters in such euphoric bliss now the threat of an AB thrashing is not so imminent ! Yup, time to troll through historical records to try & find something to prop up confidence .  Ahhhh, the resilience of the human spirit, it's a joy to behold,
AB fans understand boys, well done , we are behind you (well actually we are ahead of you - no. 1 but don't let me discourage you).
Just_win, supporting delusions in others as usual 
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Nov 2013, 13:46
#13
30 Nov 2013, 13:46#13

Just_win

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1589 RE: Is the RWC a different level of rugby?
November 30, 2013, 11:16:50 Well, glad to see posters in such euphoric bliss now the threat of an AB thrashing is not so imminent ! Yup, time to troll through historical records to try & find something to prop up confidence .  Ahhhh, the resilience of the human spirit, it's a joy to behold,
AB fans understand boys, well done , we are behind you (well actually we are ahead of you - no. 1 but don't let me discourage you).
Just_win, supporting delusions in others as usual 
Wooosh. Straight over his head. Read the title of the thread again. When it comes to the RWC, we own you.

Interesting that for 24 years the kiwis all regarded the RWC as a nothing BS trophy and that being number one was the main thing. For the last two years the RWC has become a major achievement and being the RWC champs has become a massive achievement. Wonder what brought the change.

JW
Just_win
Captain18,570 posts
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
30 Nov 2013, 13:53
#14
30 Nov 2013, 13:53#14
Ceradyne: yup, most bs just wooshes on by. 
But seriously, yes the Rwc presents a different challenge & yes it is hard to win . The points about the format, teams giving it all & the chance of something going wrong, plus the fact that other nations teams are together for a longer spell negates some of theAB dominance . 
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Nov 2013, 14:55
#15
30 Nov 2013, 14:55#15
 Huhh? Other nations' teams together for longer spells? Explain?

You have actually just confirmed what I was trying to get through. When it comes to being the current RWC champs, it is about the AB dominance. When it is about the previous RWCs and the records thereof it is bs? LOL.

Let's face it, whike you were battling to win  it for the first times since '87, it was a bs competition. Now that you at last won it for the second time  after 24 years you guys have suddenly decided that it is indeed a major competition.

SA has won in twice in only twice in half the time it took the "mighty" ABs to do the same.
JW
Just_win
Captain18,570 posts
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
30 Nov 2013, 15:01
#16
30 Nov 2013, 15:01#16
ABs usually together longer than most nation during normal year, eg French. But during Rwc all teams are together for equal time 
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Nov 2013, 15:11
#17
30 Nov 2013, 15:11#17
OK, understood . Don't think that I fully agree though.
PO
polyboy
Club Pro601 posts
PO
polyboyClub Pro601 posts
30 Nov 2013, 16:27
#18
30 Nov 2013, 16:27#18
 Ceradyne, seriously, this thread is just a way to pump up the Boks against the ABs. You really want to go on about who owns who...if you use the RWC (where its 2 vs 2), why not look at other criteria like say how many times have Boks beaten AB's in last 2 years. To beat the AB's regularly you would think the Boks treat EVERY encounter as a RWC match wouldn't you...if they truly owned the AB's.  
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Nov 2013, 21:58
#19
30 Nov 2013, 21:58#19
I doubt this thread is pumping up the Boks....it is, however, a fair question whether the Boks have a game better suited to the RWC 
PO
polyboy
Club Pro601 posts
PO
polyboyClub Pro601 posts
30 Nov 2013, 22:43
#20
30 Nov 2013, 22:43#20

Mozart based on number of RWC both countries have I would say.....doubtful.

MO
moolaa
Pro2,380 posts
MO
moolaaPro2,380 posts
30 Nov 2013, 22:56
#21
30 Nov 2013, 22:56#21
 Ceradyne, I've always said that I'd rather have the ABs winning everything between WCs than winning a WC and immediately losing most of the games in between.Yes, of course it's a great trophy to win, but as all teams don't get to play each other then it's not a true Championship and luck of the draw has a lot to do with it.As soon as a WC winner loses their next game it's almost like they're no longer the champs! Not sure if it's a different level but once the WC reaches the business end, teams seem to throw away their attacking game in favour of defence. There's been very few tries in WC finals from memory.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Nov 2013, 23:17
#22
30 Nov 2013, 23:17#22
Moola, other countries who win the RWC do not fire their successful RWC coaches to appease the political leaders, and then replace them with incompetent idiots who cannot seize the moment.
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news