Worst All Black RWC exits
-
@canefan said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@victor-meldrew said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@junior said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@nzzp said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@kiwimurph said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
On the flip side though I found the adulation of Hansen a bit too much post RWC Semi final loss - the 3rd/4th match was like a farewell tour and there was next to no criticism of him/ABs after a stuttering last few years.
He wanted to go in 2017, and I was stoked at the time that he stayed on. In hindsight, it would have been a good break - a dodgily drawn Lions series ravaged by injuries ... but at least not a loss. RWC was a bridge too far, and I think a lot of the people (team and coaches) got stale.
Agreed that in hindsight, Shag should have gone then. We would still have bombed out of the RWC 2019 in the semis (or maybe even earlier), but at least Fozzie's time would have been done and dusted and we'd have a different (and hopefully more competent coach) now
On the other hand, Foster might have picked Cane in the starting XV and we'd have been in the Final with a chance of winning 3 in a row.
Foster would have been nailed on for years...
Winning the RWC would have bought him a lot of capital, and well earned
I wasn't being all that serious
. Apart from 1 or 2 inexplicable selections, I'm prepared to give Foster a chance and see how he does this RC. -
@canefan said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
His team formed the basis of the peerless 1996 tour to SA
That series win in '96 was worth at least 1 or 2 RWC wins in my book.
-
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
That's interesting. I read somewhere that the All Blacks were favourites going into every single RWC except for 1987. This was in the build up to 2011, so at that point it would have meant that the only one you'd won was the only one you weren't expected to win. Sounds like that might have been bollocks.
Edit: oh yeah, as @Rapido points out 2003 England were clear favourites.
Yeah nah. I remember 2003 well, you and England were joint favourites. Lots of anticipation to see the two top teams meet in the final...
England had just won in Wellington not long before, which announced them as serious contenders. Up north we assumed they wouldn't do, and would surely bottle it the way they did with the busted slams of 99/00/01. (A few treacherous celts actually wanted England to win, because that would signal the end of southern hemisphere dominance of the world cup. I wonder where they are now?)
-
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
I was one of those anoraks, but I knew only one other bloke at work or the rugby club who shared my optimism.
My thoughts were based around excitement about the noobs like Osborne, Lomu, Mehrts, Kronfeld ...
Me too. And it had nothing to do with the new guns. That second half against Aus in 1994 was absolutely incredible. It was played at a pace which blew Aus out of the water. If it wasn’t for that miracle Gregan tackle we win. I was then feeling even more optimistic when the new guns came around and when Lomu was selected. I reckon anyone who saw they trials must have realised something special was brewing.
I had a special edition RWC rugby magazine and I remember so well Scottish coach Jim Telfer writing that NZ couldn’t challenge Aus and England anymore. I was sure he was going to be made to look the fool and he certainly was.
At the end of the day it was absolutely bizarre that NZ we’re not fancied. Yes that first up loss against France was horrible but they then beat the Boks twice and were a Gregan tackle away from beating the world champions in Sydney. That’s probably why we’ve been perennial favourites since. The bookies furked up badly in 95.
-
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
That's interesting. I read somewhere that the All Blacks were favourites going into every single RWC except for 1987. This was in the build up to 2011, so at that point it would have meant that the only one you'd won was the only one you weren't expected to win. Sounds like that might have been bollocks.
Edit: oh yeah, as @Rapido points out 2003 England were clear favourites.
Yeah nah. I remember 2003 well, you and England were joint favourites. Lots of anticipation to see the two top teams meet in the final...
England had just won in Wellington not long before, which announced them as serious contenders. Up north we assumed they wouldn't do, and would surely bottle it the way they did with the busted slams of 99/00/01. (A few treacherous celts actually wanted England to win, because that would signal the end of southern hemisphere dominance of the world cup. I wonder where they are now?)
I'm not convinced by the veracity of your alternative facts.
-
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
That's interesting. I read somewhere that the All Blacks were favourites going into every single RWC except for 1987. This was in the build up to 2011, so at that point it would have meant that the only one you'd won was the only one you weren't expected to win. Sounds like that might have been bollocks.
Edit: oh yeah, as @Rapido points out 2003 England were clear favourites.
Yeah nah. I remember 2003 well, you and England were joint favourites. Lots of anticipation to see the two top teams meet in the final...
England had just won in Wellington not long before, which announced them as serious contenders. Up north we assumed they wouldn't do, and would surely bottle it the way they did with the busted slams of 99/00/01. (A few treacherous celts actually wanted England to win, because that would signal the end of southern hemisphere dominance of the world cup. I wonder where they are now?)
I'm not convinced by the veracity of your alternative facts.
Facts don't care about your convictions. It's as indisputably true as the fact that Andy Haden took a dive.
-
My memories of 95 are a bit vague as I was fairly young, but I do remember being absolutely gutted after the final. Probably the first time I was genuinely upset at NZ losing at anything in sport. I remember thinking why the fuck didn't we just give the ball to my new hero Lomu at every play to run in try after try. Even though I was young I think that one hurt the most as there was so much excitement about how the team had played, and it would have been a fairy tale finish to the competition.
03 sucked as I really thought we were going to make mince meat out of Aus and then England with the way the team were playing. I really backed Mitchell's game plan of putting impact players like Meeuws on the bench and unleashing them with 20 to go. I think he was one of the first coaches to genuinely use the bench as a weapon rather than injury cover. I do wonder if we showed our cards too early in the two thrashings we dealt the Boks and Wallabies before the tournament, and gave Aus time to come up with a way to counter us.
07 was more just anger at how utterly screwed we got in the quarter. No penalties in 60 minutes of rugby despite dominating possession is just crazy. The forward pass is just a distraction to that. I still shake my head.
19 was just frustration at the braindead coaches making the same dumb mistakes they made in the lead-up, benching key experienced players like Cane and Ben Smith, and putting a rookie at 10 and moving the veteran out of position. All so stupid. And then on the flipside, awe at the way England played. They just smashed us for the full 80 and managed to nullify us on attack - that was a really superb performance, the best of any team in the tournament for mine. So credit where it was due.
-
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
That's interesting. I read somewhere that the All Blacks were favourites going into every single RWC except for 1987. This was in the build up to 2011, so at that point it would have meant that the only one you'd won was the only one you weren't expected to win. Sounds like that might have been bollocks.
Edit: oh yeah, as @Rapido points out 2003 England were clear favourites.
Yeah nah. I remember 2003 well, you and England were joint favourites. Lots of anticipation to see the two top teams meet in the final...
England had just won in Wellington not long before, which announced them as serious contenders. Up north we assumed they wouldn't do, and would surely bottle it the way they did with the busted slams of 99/00/01. (A few treacherous celts actually wanted England to win, because that would signal the end of southern hemisphere dominance of the world cup. I wonder where they are now?)
I'm not convinced by the veracity of your alternative facts.
Facts don't care about your convictions. It's as indisputably true as the fact that Andy Haden took a dive.
And just as true that Geoff Wheel was penalised
-
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
That's interesting. I read somewhere that the All Blacks were favourites going into every single RWC except for 1987. This was in the build up to 2011, so at that point it would have meant that the only one you'd won was the only one you weren't expected to win. Sounds like that might have been bollocks.
Edit: oh yeah, as @Rapido points out 2003 England were clear favourites.
Yeah nah. I remember 2003 well, you and England were joint favourites. Lots of anticipation to see the two top teams meet in the final...
England had just won in Wellington not long before, which announced them as serious contenders. Up north we assumed they wouldn't do, and would surely bottle it the way they did with the busted slams of 99/00/01. (A few treacherous celts actually wanted England to win, because that would signal the end of southern hemisphere dominance of the world cup. I wonder where they are now?)
I'm not convinced by the veracity of your alternative facts.
Facts don't care about your convictions. It's as indisputably true as the fact that Andy Haden took a dive.
And just as true that Geoff Wheel was penalised
Now we are well and truly in the field of historical revisionism
-
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@booboo said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@gibbonrib said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@dogmeat said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@rotated Other than that we 'd beaten the Boks in SA in 92 and in NZ in 94,beaten the Lions in 93, had a record against Oz of 2-1-2 since the 91 RWC having drawn the last match in Sydney , had lost narrowly to England away with an under strength team and should have drawn the series against France in 04 but for the "try from the ends of the earth"
95 was probably the most even comp (pre the tournament) there's ever been. I still rated OZ the #1 because they'd given us the hardest matches and were reigning champs, SA at home were going to be a threat but I still fancied us. I didn't rate the Poms at all (the year didn't end in a 3). France were France and should have been in the final.
The reality was Lomu came good, Bachop came back and the debutants, Mehrts, Kronfeld and Osborne were the missing components that made for an outstanding team.
We'd lost our last test matches (or drawn in SA case) against every one of the other 1995 favourites. 1994 was the 3rd worst year in NZ rugby history up to that point (probably still is). (Edit: No, 1998 bumps it down to 4th worse)
NZ were a shambles who started to get it right about 1 month before the tournament.
I agree it was an even comp, though. But only the more anorak of NZ fans could have felt an inkling of something good in about April 1995. For most fans and media, it was more revisionist.
That's interesting. I read somewhere that the All Blacks were favourites going into every single RWC except for 1987. This was in the build up to 2011, so at that point it would have meant that the only one you'd won was the only one you weren't expected to win. Sounds like that might have been bollocks.
Edit: oh yeah, as @Rapido points out 2003 England were clear favourites.
Yeah nah. I remember 2003 well, you and England were joint favourites. Lots of anticipation to see the two top teams meet in the final...
England had just won in Wellington not long before, which announced them as serious contenders. Up north we assumed they wouldn't do, and would surely bottle it the way they did with the busted slams of 99/00/01. (A few treacherous celts actually wanted England to win, because that would signal the end of southern hemisphere dominance of the world cup. I wonder where they are now?)
I'm not convinced by the veracity of your alternative facts.
Facts don't care about your convictions. It's as indisputably true as the fact that Andy Haden took a dive.
And just as true that Geoff Wheel was penalised
Now we are well and truly in the field of historical revisionism
Only some of us.
(Haden did dive though.)
-
-
@godder said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
The All Blacks are always a possibility to win a world cup. We're a bit like Brazil in that respect.
Agreed. I honestly can’t think of one RWC where NZ weren’t first or second favourites in anyone’s mind outside of NZ itself!
-
@godder said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
The All Blacks are always a possibility to win a world cup. We're a bit like Brazil in that respect.
Not that similar I hope. I don’t want to get beaten 70-10 the next time we have a home RWC.
-
@catogrande said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@godder said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
The All Blacks are always a possibility to win a world cup. We're a bit like Brazil in that respect.
Agreed. I honestly can’t think of one RWC where NZ weren’t first or second favourites in anyone’s mind outside of NZ itself!
Apart from 1995, you mean, right...
-
@rapido said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@catogrande said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
@godder said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
The All Blacks are always a possibility to win a world cup. We're a bit like Brazil in that respect.
Agreed. I honestly can’t think of one RWC where NZ weren’t first or second favourites in anyone’s mind outside of NZ itself!
Apart from 1995, you mean, right...
I don't actually remember who the pre-event favourites were for that tourney.
Even in 1987, were we the favourites? Our team had been badly affected by the Cavaliers tour, but the Baby Blacks had done okay -
- If ever a squad was destined to win it was that.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Worst All Black RWC exits:
I had a special edition RWC rugby magazine and I remember so well Scottish coach Jim Telfer writing that NZ couldn’t challenge Aus and England anymore. I was sure he was going to be made to look the fool and he certainly was.
I didn't watch much rugby from 92-95, but England beat NZ in 1993 I had call after call from long-lost English acquaintances asking me if I'd seen the rugby.
Though I didn't keep a complete list, after the '95 RWC semi I managed to reciprocate their kindness in reaching out to me.
