Would the Connacht team of today have beaten the 1987 New Zealand team?

sxt

Obviously Connacht wouldn't have the same slick rugby skills as that all black team, but they would completely over power them in every area of the field..would that be enough?

sxt

sxt wrote: »

Obviously Connaught wouldn't have the same slick rugby skills as that all black team, but they would completely over power them in every area of the field..would that be enough?

Not sure but I reckon the Connacht team would have a decent shot at beating them.

Diabhal Beag

Is Craig Ronaldson getting injured in the warm-up?

Trojan

If New Zealand came forward in time and played with a modern ref and rules, definitely a Connacht win. If Connacht went back in time, not guaranteed, and the scrum set would be very interesting

https://youtu.be/WgWdc1ZBPsk?t=6m43s

Podge_irl

It's an interesting question. The point of the changing laws (or interpretation thereof) is a fair one but ultimately I think Connacht of today would simply massively overpower a 1987 NZ team. The backs would be stream rolling their opposite numbers with regularity. Henshaw is a big enough lad in the centre in current terms. I just couldn't see a close to amateur era team being able to cope with the sheer physicality of the backs especially. They'd also struggle massively in the line out id say.

total former

The only fair way to answer it is by assuming both teams are playing to the same rules and have equal experience of those rules.

I'd back NZ to be honest.

Iompair

Comparing "amateur" to professional. New Zealand would be hammered.

It's not a fair comparison though, the game is completely different.

corny

The physical advantages would dictate the game. NZ would finish badly second best.

Teferi

Connacht would batter them. I don't think it would even be a contest tbh. The 1987 All Blacks simply wouldn't be able to stand against a fully professional team who are at peak fitness from the modern era.

sxt

What about against the 1995 South African team? The first pro world cup. Less of a physical advantage than over Nz but still superior strength conditioning and tactical acuteness...

Buer

I think NZ would shade it, upon reflection. Yes, Connacht would have the superior fitness and strength but that NZ side had some of the greatest players of all time.

I don't think there'd be any contest in the backs, to be honest. Someone like Kirwan would have carved the Connacht back line apart and the half backs for NZ are vastly superior for anything Connacht have.

Up front, Connacht would blow away most sides of that time but this NZ team was almost training as professionals at the time. They had some of the toughest and best players the game has ever seen. Michael Jones was a freak. Buck Shelford and Sean Fitzpatrick were borderline psychopaths.

All in all, I'd say NZ to shade it but a pretty close run thing.