14 in a row!
-
TR - I'm not keen to perpetuate the conversation, but - whichever NZ province has won the most consecutive matches against other NZ provinces holds the record for consecutive provincial victories.
It's probably Auckland in which case everyone will be sort of happy - but, if it's Whanganui (with or without an "h") in the Heartland Championship, then Whanganui it is.
-
-
@Chris-B. said in 16 in a row ...:
TR - I'm not keen to perpetuate the conversation, but - whichever NZ province has won the most consecutive matches against other NZ provinces holds the record for consecutive provincial victories.
It's probably Auckland in which case everyone will be sort of happy - but, if it's Whanganui (with or without an "h") in the Heartland Championship, then Whanganui it is.
Point being there were records, for points scored, tries scored etc in each division, dont think there was often this debate about one division claiming thier record was the 'real' record.
-
@taniwharugby said in 16 in a row ...:
@Chris-B. said in 16 in a row ...:
TR - I'm not keen to perpetuate the conversation, but - whichever NZ province has won the most consecutive matches against other NZ provinces holds the record for consecutive provincial victories.
It's probably Auckland in which case everyone will be sort of happy - but, if it's Whanganui (with or without an "h") in the Heartland Championship, then Whanganui it is.
Point being there were records, for points scored, tries scored etc in each division, dont think there was often this debate about one division claiming thier record was the 'real' record.
Why are you guys continuing to persecute me?
I only stated a (pedantic, thanks Kirwan) fact!!!
It is seriously not an interesting conversation!
-
@Chris-B. said:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 16 in a row ...:
@Chris-B. said in 16 in a row ...:
Ask me a different question - do I give a fuck if we don't beat Cyprus' record?
A. No - I don't. I'm not particularly invested in the Tier 1 record.
This seems to have become one of those odd internet arguments - I'm pretty sure I understand your point and I'm pretty sure you understand mine.
Mate it would help if I actually knew what your original point was.
My original post was in response to suggestions that the AB wouldn't be holding or breaking the real record, because that record that is in fact held by Cyprus. As someone who has witnessed that level of rugby first-hand and (terrifying enough) could have actually played it, I find it ludicrous that these records could be compared in any way shape or form.
Well, here's my original point:
Nonetheless, if the question is, "which rugby team has won the most consecutive international matches?", the answer is "Cyprus". We need to win our next nine matches to take that mantle.To be honest, I can't see how I can make that much clearer. Regardless of how shit Cyprus might be it seems to me to be an indisputable fact. In exactly the same way that Matt Hayden can't claim the highest ever score in cricket, because an Indian kid scored a thousand against some primary school kids.
I fully understand your point - which is why they have created the "Most consecutive victories by Tier 1 countries" and "highest ever score in test cricket".
And as mentioned, it's ridiculous to even mention them in the same breath. I can't recall a test cricketer ever breaking the record for runs or wickets and someone then coming with the caveat that someone at a much much lower level got more runs or wickets.
How absurd would this sound:
"Matt Hayden has broken the all-time test batting record. But of course he will have to score another 600 runs if he wants to break the all-time record set by a school kid on a patch of dirt in India who was dropped over a dozen times."
You say yourself that the Cypriot record is a joke but why then claim that it is some kind of benchmark that the abs have to better?
-
Coz it ain't the record.
And a silly 'caveat record category' has been dreamed up by someone on the Internet when they very belatedly realised the consecutive test wins records held by the Boks and ABs had been broken while they weren't paying attention to tier 3 test rugby.
Should be aiming for the real record, not celebrating while still trailing 20m from the finish line.
-
@Rapido said in 16 in a row ...:
Coz it ain't the record.
And a silly 'caveat record category' has been dreamed up by someone on the Internet when they very belatedly realised the consecutive test wins records held by the Boks and ABs had been broken while they weren't paying attention to tier 3 test rugby.
Should be aiming for the real record, not celebrating while still trailing 20m from the finish line.
So you equate the Cyprus record to the NZ/SA record? Same thing no difference? Not even Chris is arguing that.
-
@taniwharugby said in 16 in a row ...:
@Chris-B. said in 16 in a row ...:
TR - I'm not keen to perpetuate the conversation, but - whichever NZ province has won the most consecutive matches against other NZ provinces holds the record for consecutive provincial victories.
It's probably Auckland in which case everyone will be sort of happy - but, if it's Whanganui (with or without an "h") in the Heartland Championship, then Whanganui it is.
Point being there were records, for points scored, tries scored etc in each division, dont think there was often this debate about one division claiming thier record was the 'real' record.
This record would be the equivalent of a first division record as long as we also include the 3 pre-season games against div 2 and 3 teams.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 16 in a row ...:
@Rapido said in 16 in a row ...:
Coz it ain't the record.
And a silly 'caveat record category' has been dreamed up by someone on the Internet when they very belatedly realised the consecutive test wins records held by the Boks and ABs had been broken while they weren't paying attention to tier 3 test rugby.
Should be aiming for the real record, not celebrating while still trailing 20m from the finish line.
So you equate the Cyprus record to the NZ/SA record? Same thing no difference? Not even Chris is arguing that.
No, not equate, Cyprus's technically better.
This record that NZ are going for, as it stands, is less impressive than the tier 1 90s Bok and 60s AB records they are now nearing IMO. And it's no longer even the official record, so I don't see the point of getting excited about a non record that only is a record if you put caveats in to exclude data you dont like because of the quality of the Rugby. It includes a win v Namibia FFS, tier 3 nation. Midweek tour games not counted on the 67 -69 streak would have been harder that that.
-
@Rapido said in 16 in a row ...:
@taniwharugby said in 16 in a row ...:
@Chris-B. said in 16 in a row ...:
TR - I'm not keen to perpetuate the conversation, but - whichever NZ province has won the most consecutive matches against other NZ provinces holds the record for consecutive provincial victories.
It's probably Auckland in which case everyone will be sort of happy - but, if it's Whanganui (with or without an "h") in the Heartland Championship, then Whanganui it is.
Point being there were records, for points scored, tries scored etc in each division, dont think there was often this debate about one division claiming thier record was the 'real' record.
This record would be the equivalent of a first division record as long as we also include the 3 pre-season games against div 2 and 3 teams.
while the team you are claiming for the record are like a division 6 team....
I think it is perfectly fine for both records to exist, but to claim the amateur teams record should be treated as superior to the professional teams one is rather daft if you ask me (which no one did I know...)
-
I have no problem with discussing this record vs the 90s Books, 60s Abs etc., and you can remove Namibia, Tonga and Georgia (teams that would beat Cyprus by 70+ btw) if you want to. Those would be valid comparisons. But using the Cypriot record as some kind of benchmark is bullshit. The gulf between tier 1 and 2 is big enough, but between them and the teams Cyprus plays it is absolutely farking enormous. It simply is not a valid comparison and it is not taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about rugby.
-
We absolutely need distinctions, to argue otherwise would be ludicrous and lacking any common sense.
And of course, I hope we can go on and win all matches this calendar year, which would put the ABs at 22.I think there should be 3 records:
-
IRB professional rugby member consecutive test win record-Cyprus should be disqualified, since they are not a full IRB member (they are an associate member, see here): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rugby). Lithuania, South Africa, and NZ would be joint holders on 17.
-
Tier 1&2 IRB professional rugby member consecutive test win record, which would be South Africa and NZ on 17.
-
IRB professional member and associate member consecutive test win record-which would be Cyprus, who have the record for most wins between any nations, regardless of tier.
You can see some of their matches on their website:
http://www.cyprus-rugby.com/en/multimedia/match-videos/113-cyprus-70-10-finland -
-
@taniwharugby said in 16 in a row ...:
@Rapido said in 16 in a row ...:
@taniwharugby said in 16 in a row ...:
@Chris-B. said in 16 in a row ...:
TR - I'm not keen to perpetuate the conversation, but - whichever NZ province has won the most consecutive matches against other NZ provinces holds the record for consecutive provincial victories.
It's probably Auckland in which case everyone will be sort of happy - but, if it's Whanganui (with or without an "h") in the Heartland Championship, then Whanganui it is.
Point being there were records, for points scored, tries scored etc in each division, dont think there was often this debate about one division claiming thier record was the 'real' record.
This record would be the equivalent of a first division record as long as we also include the 3 pre-season games against div 2 and 3 teams.
while the team you are claiming for the record are like a division 6 team....
I think it is perfectly fine for both records to exist, but to claim the amateur teams record should be treated as superior to the professional teams one is rather daft if you ask me (which no one did I know...)
Yeah but IRB gave everyone test status, so it's the rest record. (Unlike ICC, but same as FIFA)
Tiers don't even officially exist.
NZ have a chance to break their own national record, but not the test record.
-
@Rapido but they are not an IRB member....so I guess it means this would be an IRB record then?
ABs seem to be taking this fake record seriously:
NEWS: All Blacks Captain Kieran Read has spoken to media on the eve of tomorrow's massive Investec Rugby Championship Test against the Springboks and the possibility of equalling the record of 17 consecutive wins by a tier-one international side. "We want to go and get 17 but you can't be thinking, once you're out on the field, about records and things like that. There is a little bit of motivation with it. This group of men have got us to a position where we have a chance ... what better side to face than the South Africans and a team that's going to put us under alot of pressure."
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 16 in a row ...:
I have no problem with discussing this record vs the 90s Books, 60s Abs etc., and you can remove Namibia, Tonga and Georgia (teams that would beat Cyprus by 70+ btw) if you want to. Those would be valid comparisons. But using the Cypriot record as some kind of benchmark is bullshit. The gulf between tier 1 and 2 is big enough, but between them and the teams Cyprus plays it is absolutely farking enormous. It simply is not a valid comparison and it is not taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about rugby.
Yeah. I see this more in the cricinfo style stats geek articles - where they compare records accross eras etc - and often exclude Zim and Bang (which btw is very unfair to the 90s zimbos and very generous to the 1950s 'blackcaps').
I can accept the streak is good and discussion worthy. Just as long as the words "test", "win" and "record" aren't applied when that is false then I'm all good
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 16 in a row ...:
@Chris-B. said:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 16 in a row ...:
And as mentioned, it's ridiculous to even mention them in the same breath. I can't recall a test cricketer ever breaking the record for runs or wickets and someone then coming with the caveat that someone at a much much lower level got more runs or wickets.
How absurd would this sound:
"Matt Hayden has broken the all-time test batting record. But of course he will have to score another 600 runs if he wants to break the all-time record set by a school kid on a patch of dirt in India who was dropped over a dozen times."
On the contrary, how absurd would this sound?
Matt Hayden: I just scored the highest score in cricket of all time!
Interviewer: Well, not quite Matt, there was an Indian kid who scored more than 1,000.
Matt Hayden: Nah - I got more than him, he doesn't count - mine was a test match.
Interviewer: Well, what about Brian Lara's 501 versus Durham - a first class match?
Hayden: Nah, I got more than him as well - it's not a test match.
Interviewer: Well, what about Brian's 375 against England - that's surely better than your 380 against Zimbabwe?
Hayden: No, no, no, mate - mine's clearly 5 runs better.
Interviewer: Well, thank fuck Brian backed that up with another 400 against England.
Hayden: I'm fucked.
You guys are confusing quality with quantity.
Cyprus are an international team - apparently the teams they've beaten are international teams.
So either, you need to appeal to the IRB to have those matches disallowed as test matches, or you need to appeal to the UN to have them disallowed as countries.
