Are new Zealand Chokers?

politicsdude

Ok so they look like they are going to win the tri nations for like the tenth time. But how come they always mess up at the world cup? They are always the favourites and yet they have only won it once? Is there just sooo much pressure on them when it comes to the cup or what? Most of the time they are miles better than the likes of France or England or even Australia or South Africa but all these nations seem to do better than them when it comes to the really big stage .. I mean even England won it a while back and got to the final last time but if they played new zealand ten times in a row in meaningless friendlies you'd put your house on NZ beating them 9 times out of ten ... would you do the same for their next ten world cup clashes?? I don't think so

duckysauce

politicsdude wrote: »

Ok so they look like they are going to win the tri nations for like the tenth time. But how come they always mess up at the world cup? They are always the favourites and yet they have only won it once? Is there just sooo much pressure on them when it comes to the cup or what? Most of the time they are miles better than the likes of France or England or even Australia or South Africa but all these nations seem to do better than them when it comes to the really big stage .. I mean even England won it a while back and got to the final last time but if they played new zealand ten times in a row in meaningless friendlies you'd put your house on NZ beating them 9 times out of ten ... would you do the same for their next ten world cup clashes?? I don't think so

do you watch much rugby ?

siltirocker

duckysauce wrote: »

do you watch much rugby ?

Why come back like that to him? He has made a decent point.
And has stated knowledge of previous fixtures, so ya he probably does watch a bit of rugby.

duckysauce

siltirocker wrote: »

Why come back like that to him? He has made a decent point.
And has stated knowledge of previous fixtures, so ya he probably does watch a bit of rugby.

i think it was the "even england" statement of winning the world cup made me say it !

pappyodaniel

I think their timing is better coming up to the next world cup, they're only starting to peak now.

duckysauce

pappyodaniel wrote: »

I think their timing is better coming up to the next world cup, they're only starting to peak now.

and they have a tougher pool group than the last worldcup . so they should be primed better after the pool games , and no i dont think they are chokers, just beaten by better teams.

I-Shot-Jr

duckysauce wrote: »

and they have a tougher pool group than the last worldcup . so they should be primed better after the pool games , and no i dont think they are chokers, just beaten by better teams.

True enough, every WC match involving NZ was a fantastic match to watch, even the ones where they were beaten. I think its more a case of the other teams rising to the occasion rather than NZ choking.

Kristopherus

How did they fare out v South Africa today? Was 6 - 4 to S.A. when I left it.

duckysauce

sa choked

CJhaughey

duckysauce wrote: »

sa choked

No they didn't they tackled themselves out, They made something like 40% more tackles than NZ did. And NZ had a very good last 5 mins where they punished SA.

duckysauce

= joke

handsomecake

duckysauce wrote: »

and they have a tougher pool group than the last worldcup . so they should be primed better after the pool games , and no i dont think they are chokers, just beaten by better teams.

well well well.

duckysauce

handsomecake wrote: »

well well well.

well well ? that you are sad f@cker for digging up a **** old thread that says nz are are bunch of tools ? how long ago did i post this ?? tell you 're pa to get his jersey :rolleyes:.

toomevara

duckysauce: banned: One Month. Insulting a user, inappropriate language, Grade A trolling and generally being a colossal dick.

KenSwee

I think if you could explain in writing what makes New Zealand choke at every World Cup since the first one and make your point convincing, you'd be on the national coaching staff.

I spoken to experts, friends, NZ'ers, Aussies, French and sheep and they all gave different answers.

My two cents on this are that on different occasions, different factors came into play.

One of the points made was that the opposition raises their game and I have to say I think this is huge factor, particularly in the France case. France always go to their limit to ensure that they rattle the cage of NZ as much as possible and they do it quite well, winning down under when others fall blindly. The trouble is most of the time, the Northern Hemisphere countires are playing NZ in glorified friendlies which is a difficult measuring scale on which to judge: nothing but pride is earned in these fixtures.

I think NZ generally peak too soon, crumble under the expectation and never seem to have a plan B to fall back on when things go pear shaped. Look at the last world cup match between them and France and you will see NZ constantly go for a try when all they really needed was a penalty or two to clinch the game. Coming out of their group, they were used to scoring plenty of tries and I thought they weren't up to top match speed. It certainly wasn't Wayne Barnes fault: Any top team should be able to overcome bad refereeing decisions.

But a number of factors come into play on each occasion and the next one should be theirs but who knows what will happen.

handsomecake

KenSwee wrote: »

I think if you could explain in writing what makes New Zealand choke at every World Cup since the first one and make your point convincing, you'd be on the national coaching staff.

I spoken to experts, friends, NZ'ers, Aussies, French and sheep and they all gave different answers.

My two cents on this are that on different occasions, different factors came into play.

One of the points made was that the opposition raises their game and I have to say I think this is huge factor, particularly in the France case. France always go to their limit to ensure that they rattle the cage of NZ as much as possible and they do it quite well, winning down under when others fall blindly. The trouble is most of the time, the Northern Hemisphere countires are playing NZ in glorified friendlies which is a difficult measuring scale on which to judge: nothing but pride is earned in these fixtures.

I think NZ generally peak too soon, crumble under the expectation and never seem to have a plan B to fall back on when things go pear shaped. Look at the last world cup match between them and France and you will see NZ constantly go for a try when all they really needed was a penalty or two to clinch the game. Coming out of their group, they were used to scoring plenty of tries and I thought they weren't up to top match speed. It certainly wasn't Wayne Barnes fault: Any top team should be able to overcome bad refereeing decisions.

But a number of factors come into play on each occasion and the next one should be theirs but who knows what will happen.

lots of good points raised but i come back at you with this-how do you kick a penalty or two when wayne barnes gives you zero penalties in 40 minutes of international test rugby

KenSwee

Ahh you could write a book on that game and what happened and who's opinion matters most.

Maybe what I should have said was 'drop kick' rather than penalty but anyway, I'm not going into that match as I think it might push the thread off the subject matter: That's another thread.

CatFromHue

there is another way to look at it.

the world cup is in effect very like the FA cup in england. the big teams i.e. sa, nz, oz, eng, fra all make it out of their group and so the real competition begins at the quarters. when it is pure knock out rugby.

now you have the tri nations and six nations which are league formats. at the end of the league if you're at the top you're the best team as league tables dont lie. nz tend to do well in the tri nations as they are a very good team.

teams that do the double in england are so celebrated as winning the league and winning the fa cup are really very hard things to do. sometimes in the fa cup you get teams who go on a great cup run and win it while being fairly poor in the league.

south africa won the last world cup were they beat england, samoa, tonga, and the usa in the groups and then fiji, argentina and england.

samoa, tonga, and fiji while they were pretty good in that tournament aren't exactly the best teams in the world. in the 6 nations in 2006 and 2007 we beat england who came in third and fourth at the end of the tournament.

in effect sa won the world cup by beating the 3/4 th placed team in the six nations, 3 teams always outside the top 8 in world rugby and argentina. yet they are the world champions.

i think its safe to say being the world champions doenst make you the best team in the world

are nz chokers.....not really its cup rugby and anything can happen on the day i.e. the french playing unbeatable rugby (the second half in 1999) or you get unlucky (carter and evans off injured in 2007 and you need a kicker to get a drop goal or a poor decision by the ref in missing a forward pass), and thats without even mentioning 1995!

in saying that i wouldnt like to be in stephen donalds position if he has to come on for dan carter in the world cup final and have to take a kick to win the tournament from out on the left with a gusting wind!!!!

CatFromHue

there is another way to look at it.

the world cup is in effect very like the FA cup in england. the big teams i.e. sa, nz, oz, eng, fra all make it out of their group and so the real competition begins at the quarters. when it is pure knock out rugby.

now you have the tri nations and six nations which are league formats. at the end of the league if you're at the top you're the best team as league tables dont lie. nz tend to do well in the tri nations as they are a very good team.

teams that do the double in england are so celebrated as winning the league and winning the fa cup are really very hard things to do. sometimes in the fa cup you get teams who go on a great cup run and win it while being fairly poor in the league.

south africa won the last world cup were they beat england, samoa, tonga, and the usa in the groups and then fiji, argentina and england.

samoa, tonga, and fiji while they were pretty good in that tournament aren't exactly the best teams in the world. in the 6 nations in 2006 and 2007 we beat england who came in third and fourth at the end of the tournament.

in effect sa won the world cup by beating the 3/4 th placed team in the six nations, 3 teams always outside the top 8 in world rugby and argentina. yet they are the world champions.

i think its safe to say being the world champions doenst make you the best team in the world.

are nz chokers.....not really its cup rugby and anything can happen on the day i.e. the french playing unbeatable rugby (the second half in 1999) or you get unlucky (carter and evans off injured in 2007 and you need a kicker to get a drop goal or a poor decision by the ref in missing a forward pass), and thats without even mentioning 1995!

in saying that i wouldnt like to be in stephen donalds position if he has to come on for dan carter in the world cup final and have to take a kick to win the tournament from out on the left with a gusting wind!!!!

handsomecake

CatFromHue wrote: »

there is another way to look at it.

the world cup is in effect very like the FA cup in england. the big teams i.e. sa, nz, oz, eng, fra all make it out of their group and so the real competition begins at the quarters. when it is pure knock out rugby.

now you have the tri nations and six nations which are league formats. at the end of the league if you're at the top you're the best team as league tables dont lie. nz tend to do well in the tri nations as they are a very good team.

teams that do the double in england are so celebrated as winning the league and winning the fa cup are really very hard things to do. sometimes in the fa cup you get teams who go on a great cup run and win it while being fairly poor in the league.

south africa won the last world cup were they beat england, samoa, tonga, and the usa in the groups and then fiji, argentina and england.

samoa, tonga, and fiji while they were pretty good in that tournament aren't exactly the best teams in the world. in the 6 nations in 2006 and 2007 we beat england who came in third and fourth at the end of the tournament.

in effect sa won the world cup by beating the 3/4 th placed team in the six nations, 3 teams always outside the top 8 in world rugby and argentina. yet they are the world champions.

i think its safe to say being the world champions doenst make you the best team in the world

are nz chokers.....not really its cup rugby and anything can happen on the day i.e. the french playing unbeatable rugby (the second half in 1999) or you get unlucky (carter and evans off injured in 2007 and you need a kicker to get a drop goal or a poor decision by the ref in missing a forward pass), and thats without even mentioning 1995!

in saying that i wouldnt like to be in stephen donalds position if he has to come on for dan carter in the world cup final and have to take a kick to win the tournament from out on the left with a gusting wind!!!!

probably the best post ive read in the rugby forum all year.reasoned,balanced complimentary and critical all in one.

Goodluck2me

I-Shot-Jr wrote: »

True enough, every WC match involving NZ was a fantastic match to watch, even the ones where they were beaten. I think its more a case of the other teams rising to the occasion rather than NZ choking.

/end thread.

twinytwo

duckysauce wrote: »

and they have a tougher pool group than the last worldcup . so they should be primed better after the pool games , and no i dont think they are chokers, just beaten by better teams.

plus they dont ahve to worry about france knocking them out:pac:

irishbucsfan

I will often call New Zealand bottlers to annoy Kiwis, but they're the best team in the world really. The only way I know to deal with that is to deny it and become a tosser

jop

handsomecake wrote: »

lots of good points raised but i come back at you with this-how do you kick a penalty or two when wayne barnes gives you zero penalties in 40 minutes of international test rugby

blame the ref :eek: if the team are good enough they will win :- ps turncoat

Conas

I can understand why people think New Zealand are chokers; I agree they were. But in my eyes that all changed on the 21st of August 2010, when Israel Dagg went in and scored the match winning try against the Boks, in front of 94,000 people in Johannesburg. That's when I knew their choking days were over. There seems to be a ruthless attitude in the All Blacks play that's been missing in the big matches when the pressure comes on. They don't focus on winning a match with skill alone anymore; they win it with skill and brute force (and the latter being added to their gameplan is what won them the Tri-Nations this year). I think this could be the greatest All-Blacks team in history if they continue playing the way they are. They have such talent in young players Israel Dagg, Sam Whitelock, Sonny Bill Williams, Kieran Reid, who have such raw power in their play.

I personally think they should call Jonah Lomu back into the squad for the World Cup, he's currently playing at Number 8 these days, and having him as backrow cover on the bench will only boost the All Blacks, and he's a man with a vast amount of experience too. He'd be better than that headless chicken called Victor Vito. I'd also call on Andrew Mehrtens to cover the fly half position on the bench, because I'm not impressed with young Cruden, and Stephen Donald is crap; he cost them the match last week with his crapness. The All Blacks can be beaten if Dan Carter isn't playing OR if he bottles it on the big stage.

thomond2006

Conas wrote: »

I can understand why people think New Zealand are chokers; I agree they were. But in my eyes that all changed on the 21st of August 2010, when Israel Dagg went in and scored the match winning try against the Boks, in front of 94,000 people in Johannesburg. That's when I knew their choking days were over. There seems to be a ruthless attitude in the All Blacks play that's been missing in the big matches when the pressure comes on. They don't focus on winning a match with skill alone anymore; they win it with skill and brute force (and the latter being added to their gameplan is what won them the Tri-Nations this year). I think this could be the greatest All-Blacks team in history if they continue playing the way they are. They have such talent in young players Israel Dagg, Sam Whitelock, Sonny Bill Williams, Kieran Reid, who have such raw power in their play.

I personally think they should call Jonah Lomu back into the squad for the World Cup, he's currently playing at Number 8 these days, and having him as backrow cover on the bench will only boost the All Blacks, and he's a man with a vast amount of experience too. He'd be better than that headless chicken called Victor Vito. I'd also call on Andrew Mehrtens to cover the fly half position on the bench, because I'm not impressed with young Cruden, and Stephen Donald is crap; he cost them the match last week with his crapness. The All Blacks can be beaten if Dan Carter isn't playing OR if he bottles it on the big stage.

1st paragraph = good post

2nd paragraph = hilarious

Conas

thomond2006 wrote: »

1st paragraph = good post

2nd paragraph = hilarious

So you do agree that Lomu should be brought back into the squad?

I personally hate Donald, and I'd much rather Merthens on the bench. A lovely man and a brilliant Fly-Half, who I personally think has a lot to offer. If I was managing the All Blacks he'd be getting a call up right away.

TheRiddler

Conas wrote: »

I can understand why people think New Zealand are chokers; I agree they were. But in my eyes that all changed on the 21st of August 2010, when Israel Dagg went in and scored the match winning try against the Boks, in front of 94,000 people in Johannesburg. That's when I knew their choking days were over. There seems to be a ruthless attitude in the All Blacks play that's been missing in the big matches when the pressure comes on. They don't focus on winning a match with skill alone anymore; they win it with skill and brute force (and the latter being added to their gameplan is what won them the Tri-Nations this year). I think this could be the greatest All-Blacks team in history if they continue playing the way they are. They have such talent in young players Israel Dagg, Sam Whitelock, Sonny Bill Williams, Kieran Reid, who have such raw power in their play.

I personally think they should call Jonah Lomu back into the squad for the World Cup, he's currently playing at Number 8 these days, and having him as backrow cover on the bench will only boost the All Blacks, and he's a man with a vast amount of experience too. He'd be better than that headless chicken called Victor Vito. I'd also call on Andrew Mehrtens to cover the fly half position on the bench, because I'm not impressed with young Cruden, and Stephen Donald is crap; he cost them the match last week with his crapness. The All Blacks can be beaten if Dan Carter isn't playing OR if he bottles it on the big stage.

?????

Conas

TheRiddler wrote: »

?????

Don't reply to me with question marks Riddler. I'm Batman and Gotham City is my home. You may have opened up Pandoras Box in the city I love, but by jaysus I won't allow you to ask me questions like that....ENOUGH!!!!!!!

Anyway...yes Lomu should be brought into the squad. He's the same age as Brad Thorn for christsake, and a man who can turn a game on it's head.

TheRiddler

Conas wrote: »

Don't reply to me with question marks Riddler. I'm Batman and Gotham City is my home. You may have opened up Pandoras Box in the city I love, but by jaysus I won't allow you to ask me questions like that....ENOUGH!!!!!!!

Anyway...yes Lomu should be brought into the squad. He's the same age as Brad Thorn for christsake, and a man who can turn a game on it's head.

I only have the utmost respect for Jonah Lomu but seriously where is he playing number 8 and who for? He can hardly be expected to be back playing at international level after how many years away from the game. It's not as if they are desperate for players I'm sure that moving Conrad Smith back to centre and playing Sonny at 8 would be a better idea. Might as well bring Keith Wood back to take our lineouts.

Conas

TheRiddler wrote: »

I only have the utmost respect for Jonah Lomu but seriously where is he playing number 8 and who for? He can hardly be expected to be back playing at international level after how many years away from the game. It's not as if they are desperate for players I'm sure that moving Conrad Smith back to centre and playing Sonny at 8 would be a better idea. Might as well bring Keith Wood back to take our lineouts.

He's playing with Marseille Vitrolles Rugby in France and doing very well for himself. He has to be brought back into the team. What do you mean playing Conrad Smith in the centre? Sure he plays there as it is. Sonny Bill could never replace Kieran Reid at 8 who's been awesome this year, well at least not now. You stole my idea of bringing back Keith Wood from another thread, the cheek of you. I think we both agree that it should happen.

Morf

This thread is taking a turn for the weirder, SBW at 8?

TheRiddler

Morf wrote: »

This thread is taking a turn for the weirder, SBW at 8?

Better then Jonah Lomu.

Forget about Sonny what I'm trying to say is that bringing Jonah Lomu back into the All Blacks squad at this stage is ridiculous.

jolley123

CatFromHue wrote: »

there is another way to look at it.

in effect sa won the world cup by beating the 3/4 th placed team in the six nations, 3 teams always outside the top 8 in world rugby and argentina. yet they are the world champions.

i think its safe to say being the world champions doenst make you the best team in the world.


I don't really think that's a fair statement to make. At the end of the day, no matter how easy your opponents are coming up to the final, the winner is still the best. Look at it this way.

Fair enough SA didn't have to play NZ or France, but France beat NZ. Making them the better team. In turn, England beat France, thus making them better than France. Then SA beat England therefore they are better than England(who are better than France (who are better than NZ)). At the end of the day, the tournament winner is the best. Otherwise the tournament wouldn't make sense.

CatFromHue

arghh my brain hurts after that jolley123

we beat england before and after the tournament does that make us deserving of a world cup final place, or better than france and australia who england also beat!

the world cup is just that a cup competition. south africa became the world champions essentially cos they beat england and argentina.

sock puppet

CatFromHue wrote: »

we beat england before and after the tournament does

Ah I see you've had much more success suppressing your memories of the Twickenham game than me.

jolley123

CatFromHue wrote: »

arghh my brain hurts after that jolley123

we beat england before and after the tournament does that make us deserving of a world cup final place, or better than france and australia who england also beat!

the world cup is just that a cup competition. south africa became the world champions essentially cos they beat england and argentina.

Ah come on. You can't look at things that way. When we beat England before the world cup, it was just that - b4 the world cup. The world cup is a competition where all sides step it up and play to be crowned the World Champions.

Obviously your point is valid, but it kind of diminishes the importance of the whole event.

CatFromHue

the football world cup is a lot bigger and has alot more top tier teams who can win it

the rugby world cup is alot smaller.

i cant remember the full details but when england last bid for the world cup they were going to change the format to have 2 sections. one for the lower tier teams and one for the top tier teams. i believe the irb were against this idea and in the end england didnt manage to swing the voting process their way. possibly cos they are english and people dont like them not matter what their intentions are.

the winner of that tournament could have rightly been called the best team in the world as they would have played more games against somewhat equal teams.

as it stands there are 5 teams in a group where two of the teams have no hope, one of the teams will be happy with causing difficulty to the higher ranked teams, one of the teams expected to get second, and the last team expected and will more than likely first in the group.

can you imagine a tournament of just two groups of 5, made up of the top 10 teams in the world. with the top 2 from each group going into a semi final.

it wouldnt be opening the game to new markets or anything like that but the winner of that tournament would be rightly the world champions as they'd have to beat more of the top teams in the world.

to make it interesting you would have the top 4 from the tri nations, the top 4 from the 6 nations

then the june/july before you could have a separate torunament made up of the bottom 2 teams in the 6 nations and then fiji, samoa, tonga, russia, etc battling it out to win this separate tournament and get into the world cup proper.

logistically and for player welfare this could be a nightmare

the rugby world cup as it stands is a bit of an anti climax it promises but doesnt deliver.

i could just be looking at it through irish eyes were we stank at the last one. come next september though i will be getting up at the crack of dawn each day though to watch the games just like in australia in 2003

Nuigforce

Conas wrote: »

He's playing with Marseille Vitrolles Rugby in France and doing very well for himself..

The third division? be realistic?

d'Oracle

TheRiddler wrote: »

Might as well bring Keith Wood back to take our lineouts.

Ridiculous remarks about bringing back lomu aside.
Not the same at all.
Mainly because Woody was (something he readily admits to) a terrible thrower.

twinytwo

jolley123 wrote: »

CatFromHue wrote: »

there is another way to look at it.

in effect sa won the world cup by beating the 3/4 th placed team in the six nations, 3 teams always outside the top 8 in world rugby and argentina. yet they are the world champions.

i think its safe to say being the world champions doenst make you the best team in the world.


I don't really think that's a fair statement to make. At the end of the day, no matter how easy your opponents are coming up to the final, the winner is still the best. Look at it this way.

Fair enough SA didn't have to play NZ or France, but France beat NZ. Making them the better team. In turn, England beat France, thus making them better than France. Then SA beat England therefore they are better than England(who are better than France (who are better than NZ)). At the end of the day, the tournament winner is the best. Otherwise the tournament wouldn't make sense.

That logic dosent make sense... if we beat NZ in 2 weeks time does that make us better than them? no it just means we were lucky

SARZY

NZ have choked at every world cup with the exception of the first one, which was at home.

Away from home they are not the same for some reason, unknown to me but itsa fact.
To be the outstanding team entering 5 huge tournaments and failing at them all is Not what they expect or what the rest of us expect either.

We know where the next one is and my few quid will be following them all the way over the finishing line.

Morf

Is that why they won all their games in the Tri Nations this year? Home and away?

SARZY

Morf wrote: »

Is that why they won all their games in the Tri Nations this year? Home and away?

World Cup is what I was referring to. Let me know if you dont understand.