Todays Irish team against previous world cup winners...

sxt

1987 New Zealand
1991 Australia
1995 South Africa
1999 Australia
2003 England

Using these past sides as a guage for how the game has "progressed"...
How would they have done against these teams, I know the first two eras were amateur and is alot unfair...but still:P

Blut2

the '95 and '99 teams were both heavily influenced by the amatuer era too. I'd say the only fair comparisons would be from 2003 onwards. The 2003 English team with Wilkos boot would beat the current Irish team (or the Grand Slam winning team at their best) in my opinion. The 2007 Saffer team might be a closer game though, they had a relatively easy run to the final that year from what I remember, they played England twice (and Argentina once) but managed to avoid any other 6N/Tri-Nations team iirc.

Clareman

sxt wrote: »

1987 New Zealand
1991 Australia
1995 South Africa
1999 Australia
2003 England

Using these past sides as a guage for how the game has "progressed"...
How would they have done against these teams, I know the first two eras were amateur and is alot unfair...but still:P

87 - New Zealand won thanks in no small factor to the rolling maul, this would be nullified by the bigger packs of now.
91 - Australia won by having some of the best backs ever along with winding Will Carling up Irish backs would run rings about them, so much faster now
95 - South Africa won thanks to poisoningkicking everything they got in the final dead to get a 22 drop out.
99 - Matt Burke won the final for Australia, I remember nothing about this final to be honest.
03 - Martin Johnson et all were being groomed for 4 years to win this, I don't think we'd beat this team with our team now.
07 - Argentina were the third best team in this, England the second best, teh Irish team of 07 could have won it.

All the RWC have led to an evolution of the game, from the mail rules, to lifting in line outs, to teams giving away possession when they kick the ball dead, I don't think 1 era (even 4 years) can be compared to another.

its_phil

Clareman wrote: »

87 - New Zealand won thanks in no small factor to the rolling maul, this would be nullified by the bigger packs of now.

Probably still couldn't beat these all-blacks!:p

corny

Blut2 wrote: »

The 2007 Saffer team might be a closer game though, they had a relatively easy run to the final that year from what I remember, they played England twice (and Argentina once) but managed to avoid any other 6N/Tri-Nations team iirc.

They can only play whats in front of them. They went through the entire tournament in second gear for me and if they needed to they could have stepped up and blitzed every side in the world bar the NZ'ers. They were a strong side with a good coach. Now they're not as good as they were then. Missing key players with a terrible coach and still they're too good for us. The 07 Boks at their best would mop the floor with the current Irish side. The 03 England side would probably do to this Irish side what they did to the 03 side in the 6N's.

We had our chance in 07 and failed miserably. Have we improved since? I'd say we've regressed. In fact i'd argue we were a better side in the couple of years prior to 07 then we ever were in the last 10 years, just didn't get the rub of the green at times.

duckysauce

its_phil wrote: »

Probably still couldn't beat these all-blacks!:p

nope but it wasn't a world cup , where they will choke

Digifriendly

Clareman wrote: »

99 - Matt Burke won the final for Australia, I remember nothing about this final to be honest.

Interesting that looking back on '99 the 2 semis were much more memorable than the final - Australia edging out S. Africa IIRC in extra time and France's never to be forgotten second half blitz of NZ. Think France thought they had the cup won after that and they seriously underperformed in the final. Having said that Australia had a very strong pack and thoroughly deserved to win although the final was a poor spectacle compared to what had happened the weekend before. Also regarding '91 was it not the Australia forwards who won the day in the final plus their water tight defence?

JustinDee

I remember the '99 final well.
Three Australian players lucky to come off field with their eyes still intact. John Eales threatened to take players off if nothing was done about the ruck tactics by the French.
France abandoned almost all rugby and played muck and deservedly beaten by an excellent Aussie team.

JustinDee

Clareman wrote: »

87 - New Zealand won thanks in no small factor to the rolling maul, this would be nullified by the bigger packs of now

New Zealand had a vastly superior team to others. There was no team with such a setup and excellence in execution at the time. They were years ahead. Their backs were lightning quick as was their backrow. They had an excellent halfback and 10, Little, Bunce and Stanley in the centres, Gallagher and Kirwan in the back three (cant remember other winger. Terry Wright maybe?).
They won in almost facet of the game.

Clareman wrote: »

All the RWC have led to an evolution of the game, from the mail rules, to lifting in line outs, to teams giving away possession when they kick the ball dead, I don't think 1 era (even 4 years) can be compared to another.

Yep. Impossible to compare. Situations, squads, management and the game tend to change between RWCs.

BoarHunter

Clareman wrote: »

07 - Argentina were the third best team in this, England the second best, teh Irish team of 07 could have won it.

The irish team of 07 ???? the one who almost lost to Georgia ? is that the one you're talking about ?

tolosenc

BoarHunter wrote: »

The irish team of 07 ???? the one who almost lost to Georgia ? is that the one you're talking about ?

In fairness, they had the players. They just about did the Grand Slam a few months prior. Something went horribly wrong.

LostinBlanch

Clareman wrote: »

91 - Australia won by having some of the best backs ever along with winding Will Carling up Irish backs would run rings about them, so much

Australia only beat us because of a terrible refereeing decision. We were attacking their 22 going forward with ball in hand - no knock on. The ref blows up and gives a scrum to the Aussies to everyone's surprise and they made their way down the other end of the pitch to score (Farr Jones I think) and that was that.

twinytwo

Clareman wrote: »

87 - New Zealand won thanks in no small factor to the rolling maul, this would be nullified by the bigger packs of now.
91 - Australia won by having some of the best backs ever along with winding Will Carling up Irish backs would run rings about them, so much faster now
95 - South Africa won thanks to poisoningkicking everything they got in the final dead to get a 22 drop out.
99 - Matt Burke won the final for Australia, I remember nothing about this final to be honest.
03 - Martin Johnson et all were being groomed for 4 years to win this, I don't think we'd beat this team with our team now.
07 - Argentina were the third best team in this, England the second best, teh Irish team of 07 could have won it.

All the RWC have led to an evolution of the game, from the mail rules, to lifting in line outs, to teams giving away possession when they kick the ball dead, I don't think 1 era (even 4 years) can be compared to another.

The ABs in 87 were pro in all but name.. years ahead of anyone.

The english team of 03 was immense.. the only english team to be number 1 in the world and beat the abs twice on the trot in new zealand. would we beat them? no i dont think so. Greenwood,robinson, catt, johnson,dallagio and of corse wilko who was untouchable back then. If he had never gotten injured as bad as he did he would have prob scored 2000+ points at this stage

twinytwo

tolosenc wrote: »

In fairness, they had the players. They just about did the Grand Slam a few months prior. Something went horribly wrong.

what happened in 07 is just what happens in england every time the wc roles around the press blow it out of proportion going nuts about how they are going to win. to much pressure gets put on the players and everything goes balls up.

BoarHunter

twinytwo wrote: »

what happened in 07 is just what happens in england every time the wc roles around the press blow it out of proportion going nuts about how they are going to win. to much pressure gets put on the players and everything goes balls up.

I think they had much more pressure for the grand Slam and dealt with it.

The problem was the physical preparation and the fact that every teams were coming on the same level of fitness which doesn't happen during the 6 nations... NT from the magners league are always fitter than English and French for the 6 nations. They also have a better preparation for it.

So you just notice than at the world cup the welsh who were stacking grand slam were beaten by the Fidji and Ireland almost lost it to Georgia