What’s the biggest challenge in world rugby?
By Garth Hamilton, 29 Oct 2010 Garth Hamilton is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, wallabies, world cup rugby
Is there anything more angry and sullen than an angry and sullen New Zealander? I don’t do our Kiwi friends justice, I know, but they can be a dour lot at times. The angry, white south island farmer type comes to mind; chewing over his miserly thoughts as the sleet sets in on his South Pacific isolation.
Such thoughts breed wonderful playmakers and accountants, for every great fly-half in the economy of his play is an accountant; the invested capital of the forwards to be weighed against the speculative expenditure of his outside backs.
In a rundown of his statistics at the end of the game, the numbers of passes, kicks and runs, are revealed the accumulation of little efficiencies, the realisation of little advantages that ultimately demonstrate his ability to sway the result.
Every great team has their great accountant and no world cup has been won without one. Even the great misers of their position, the kickers who rarely let their centres see the ball, have their place.
In a bull market let the bulls run and indeed Argentina did much with this formula in the last world cup. Swamping forwards and rule interpretations that favoured tacklers meant that Juan Martin Hernandez was as much the man for 2007 as Bernie Madoff.
Now there was a year that produced a glut angry and sullen Kiwis. And rightfully so given Wayne Barnes’s outright refusal to blow a whistle in the general direction of a Frenchman in that famous quarter final.
Now I would like to attribute this next thought to a Kiwi acquaintance for it sounds like something one of them would say. However it is a thought that has occurred to me completely independently although I wouldn’t be surprised if I am not the first to think it.
The biggest challenge in international rugby is beating the All Blacks at the World Cup.
Now, being a ‘Kiwi type thought’ it may prove as error strewn as that good nation’s 2003 World Cup hosting bid but I am, for the sake of improved Australo-Kiwio relations, going to try to support it.
Firstly, let’s look at the other big challenges of international rugby.
I don’t know what the recent history of the Lions does to my argument. That the combined weight of four nations hasn’t won a series since 1997 suggests just how hard it would be for a single home nation to beat any SANZAR team.
Against this one must weigh the absolute majesty of the Lion’s last three opponents. Australia in 2001, New Zealand in 2005 and South Africa in 2009 were all teams at the top of their games, almost anomalies in themselves.
Winning the Tri-Nations is pretty damned hard too and it has taken some very special teams from Australia and South Africa to wrest the title away from the shaky isles.
Against this stands the obvious fact that this competition requires upward of three victories against two of the top three nations in the world. In my support it could be argued that winning a series often relies upon the luck of results beyond your control as the two other nations play each other.
The Six Nations is a wonderful competition that I have very quickly developed a great affection for. Having led with an honest compliment let me now finish with an honest truth and say that a top four Super Rugby team could reasonably hope to finish in the top half of that competition’s table.
Hell, the Crusaders would have won a handful of them by now.
Of the trophies contested between only two countries the Calcutta Cup stands out as a perennial David and Goliath brawl that, like Australian rugby league’s State of Origin series, really only comes to life when its scripted underdog (Queensland) wins.
But even this competition only pits Scotland against the relatively underperforming might of England. In the last ten contests Scotland have taken three wins and a draw against England however a World Cup win against New Zealand be the Scots first victory against the All Blacks.
Ever.
Lets now consider the occasions when New Zealand have lost in a World Cup. There are of course only five such occurrences and only three opponents who have inflicted these calamities.
In 1991 it was Australia, on the back of one of the most sublimely ridiculous passes ever to be thrown by the ridiculously sublime David Campese, who took the All Blacks out in a classic semi final. Those wallabies included a band of all-time great players like Campese, John Eales, Tim Horan, Michael Lynagh and Nick Farr-Jones.
The Australians broke the back of the world cup that game and were only left to strangle what life was left in it in a final that saw neither side rise to the same heights.
South Africa did the job in 1995.
Having trudged through a semi final against the French that they could and probably should have lost, the final was undoubtedly their biggest challenge.
The victory required a period of extra time, the wonderful boot of Joel Stransky and the perfect coupling of dogged Afrikaner defence and the inspirational leadership gifted that country at that time.
In 1999 the defeat of New Zealand as a spectacle was perfected. Had it been a Pakistani cricket game we would be reminiscing through knowing looks, such was the turn around that occurred during the game and when Jonah Lomu ran unopposed through seven Frenchmen to score in the first half, the outcome seemed set.
But then something happened.
Christophe Lamaison played one of the most superb games of rugby ever produced in a World Cup to guide his team to an unlikely and spectacular victory. I would argue that not until Dan Carter’s performance in the second test of the 2005 Lions series had a fly half played such a perfect game.
Unfortunately the victory left France spent and Australia easily accounted for them in the final with big Owen Finegan picking up where Jonah had left off, bundling les bleus out of his way with disdain.
2003 gave Australia the win they would regret for another generation, for with their unexpected defeat of New Zealand was ensured the continued career of head coach Eddie Jones.
Think about that.
Beating New Zealand was such an achievement that it covered up the cavernous incompetence of Eddie Jones. It took war in the middle east to get George W Bush re-elected but one Stirling Mortlock intercept and Jones was back in the saddle.
As alluded to earlier, the French victory in 2007 will forever be tainted by the rather nervous performance of referee Barnes but it must be said that the French did exactly what they had to do. No sane man pays more tax than he should and no sane Frenchman strays offside less than the referee lets him.
Had New Zealand won that game there can be little doubt that they would have walked into the semi finals as the tournament favourites.
As it happened a French team again left their best game against the Kiwis and somehow managed to lose to an English side that had only their defiance to cover their otherwise inferior abilities.
Each of those games were classics.
In every game the victor rose above themselves in a way that is seldom seen in international rugby. Only in 1991 and 1995 did those victors then go on to win the final and only once, in 1991, has a team beaten New Zealand and then had to back that win up a week later.
Perhaps these games, with the notable exclusion of 1999, weren’t the most entertaining but then running rugby is not a regular visitor to world cup fields. The best team in the world will not always win the world cup, but beating the best team in the world in a world cup is a hell of an accomplishment.
Is there a bigger challenge in international rugby?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, wallabies, world cup rugby


October 29th 2010 @ 3:25am
Seiran said | October 29th 2010 @ 3:25am | Report comment
I’m in agreement with you. Beating the All Blacks in the WC is the pinnacle of Rugby. My most memorable moments in all the past WC’s have been when the underdog teams knocked over the kiwis.
When people ask me about my wedding day and what date I was married, I often tell them that it was the 2003 semi-final when the Wallabies knocked over the All Blacks……which is also the reason I was 10 minutes late for the ceremony (sorry wifey).
It’s a massively memorable moment and I look forward to the Wallabies doing it again next year
October 29th 2010 @ 5:20am
Darwin Stubbie said | October 29th 2010 @ 5:20am | Report comment
While I agree with the premise of the article it’s a hugh generalisation to label an entire nation based on the game of rugby …
but the pragraph mentions something I’ve been mulling over recently – esp given the ongoing hype of the current wallaby squad and the way Deans is building for the W/cup … “but then running rugby is not a regular visitor to world cup fields” …. ask a kiwi about the Mitchell / Deans era and one of the main facts to emerge was that they didn’t have a side to grind out results and it certainly appears that once again Deans is heading down the exact same path
October 29th 2010 @ 5:21am
allblackfan said | October 29th 2010 @ 5:21am | Report comment
the french would agree; every time they’ve beaten the ABs, it was quickly followed a week later by their abject defeat. Beating the ABs in a WC takes too much out of them
October 29th 2010 @ 5:29am
Ben S said | October 29th 2010 @ 5:29am | Report comment
I think it’s worth noting that in 1999 and 2007 the French were generally pretty poor. In either game there was nothing pre-match to suggest that they deserved within 10 points of New Zealand. The difference is that the 1999 side was capable of some wonderful rugby, as evidenced, whereas the 2007 side was uninspired and badly coached, hence they lost to an England side that was simply better at the French game plan than the French were, i.e. mimicking England. To that extent it is hard to judge whether France were so poor after beating NZ simply because the game was such a peak, or simply because the sides were poor anyhow? Like most things I’d offer that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
October 29th 2010 @ 5:44am
jeremy said | October 29th 2010 @ 5:44am | Report comment
“Is there anything more angry and sullen than an angry and sullen New Zealander?”
Prime Minister John Howard awarding the William Webb-Ellis Trophy to the captain of the English rugby team in 2003.
October 29th 2010 @ 8:28am
Rusty said | October 29th 2010 @ 8:28am | Report comment
booom!
October 29th 2010 @ 10:54am
jiggles said | October 29th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Well Played Sir!
October 29th 2010 @ 12:08pm
p.Tah said | October 29th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
jiggles, completely unrelated but I have to commend the Reds on their membership drive TV commercial. It almost made me want to take Reds membership… almost
http://www.redsrugby.com.au/ – click on the video on the top right
October 29th 2010 @ 1:10pm
Jiggles said | October 29th 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
It has been very good!
one of the great aspects of it has been that they have been sending out emails and Letters from James Horwill ( I doubt it is actually him writing them!) to all junior players from schools and clubs, plus all members asking them to come and sign up again.
Its been the best membership push in years, very encouraging!
October 30th 2010 @ 11:52pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | October 30th 2010 @ 11:52pm | Report comment
Hang on a minute – what’s p.Tah up to, promoting the QLD Reds?
I suspect a cunning plan ….
October 31st 2010 @ 2:59pm
Mark said | October 31st 2010 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
didn’t know how to start a comment so I thought I’d reply to one and start that way!
I’ve never played Rugby (had brain surgery as an infant) but I’ve watched it for a while, so a couple of observations
Is Gordon Bray the AB greatest fan?
All great teams push the letter of the law, but do the AB get away with more than they perhaps should? 50/50 calls going their way more often than not?
Do the AB get a very considerate ride from the governing bodies – imagine telling teams that they MUST repect the Hakka – if it is a traditional thing – fine – but is it that traditional? – why would the ABs have modified it to slitting peoples throats – (although now gone) – unless the Hakka was really used as a motivational tool for them (really?) – as such opposing teams surely reserve the right to respond in kind – if that means turning their backs on the AB or blowing them kisses to negate any affect of the Hakka on ther own preparation – so be it
October 29th 2010 @ 5:44am
GT75 said | October 29th 2010 @ 5:44am | Report comment
I certainly don’t think beating the AB in the world cup is the biggest challenge, they beat themselves, I think it’s the Bledisloe, 4 games against the AB is the biggest challenge.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
October 29th 2010 @ 11:29am
Terry Kidd said | October 29th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Absolutely agree GT. Garth states quite clearly that many sides have beaten the ABs once then failed to back that up with another win, and he asks is their a greater challenge. Well, yes, there most definitely is. Garth, I would say that winning the Bledisloe Cup, especially in an ‘away’ year, is a bigger challenge because you must win at least 3 out of 4 tests against the All Blacks, not simply a one off test.
October 29th 2010 @ 5:56am
Sam Taulelei said | October 29th 2010 @ 5:56am | Report comment
Looking at your premise from the view of a Kiwi Garth, winning another world cup is the biggest challenge in world rugby for the All Blacks.
It is our generation’s Mt Everest after achieving a series win against SA in SA for the first time in 1996. Reading tour diaries and player biographies from previous touring sides to the Republic pre 1996, the themes are remarkably similar to those about previous world cup failures.
Even the four year gap between world cups closely resembles the contact between the two sides in the days when full length tours were in vogue. Only the Lions tours match the world cup for excitement and anticipation in this part of the world, the IRB should think about that.
October 29th 2010 @ 6:46am
Jason Cave said | October 29th 2010 @ 6:46am | Report comment
For the New Zealanders, winning a series against the Springboks on NZ soil was the equal to capturing the Holy Grail, and was never more so than in 1956. My article, ‘The rugby war of 1956′ outlined just how obsessed the NZ public, and the All Blacks were, into defeating South Africa. From North Harbour to Wellington, from Taranaki to Auckland, every New Zealander had one aim (apart from seeing NZ win Olympic Gold in Melbourne that year)- seeing the All Blacks beat the ‘Boks.
October 29th 2010 @ 7:43am
sheek said | October 29th 2010 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Hi Garth,
Beating the All Blacks (on the pitch) any day is the biggest challenge in rugby. Although there are probably mightier challenges for the rugby community off the field (which I thought the title of your post was alluding to). But we’ll leave that for another day.
In 2007, the French paid a backhanded compliment to the ABs by adopting an all navy blue strip, suspiciously looking like the ABs. There was actually nothing subtle in their cheek. They forced the ABs to play in an alternate strip in their quarter-final.
And I notice that this year the rugby league Kiwis are playing in an all black strip that is suspiciously like the ABs strip of the 90s. Again, another team, same country but different code, jumping on the ‘all black’ bandwagon. I think it’s called ‘reflected glory’.
Anyway, I do think for the WC’s credibility, the ABs better win in 2011. You can only deny one of the best teams in international rugby so often. But of course, nature doesn’t always deal fairly in justice…..
October 29th 2010 @ 7:49am
Ben S said | October 29th 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Sheek, I don’t want to burst your bubble, but the France strip used in the Quarter Final was the same one used throughout the tournament, they, or the IRB, just asked NZ to change to their away strip. Also, the NZ league jersey was a historical replica which is why England were playing in red and white hoops.
October 29th 2010 @ 8:50am
mickh said | October 29th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
The original New Zealand league strip was black red and gold I think.
I think it was a bit strange seeing the Kiwis in an All Black strip. I’d be miffed if I was an All Black.
October 29th 2010 @ 9:04am
Mikey said | October 29th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Mick
All (or nearly) NZ teams play in Black (except soccer (who do occasionally)) so i don’t think AB’s would care – if anything they’re be cheering the kiwis on. The only think the AB’s have to themselves is the name “All Blacks”.
October 29th 2010 @ 10:11am
allblackfan said | October 29th 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I think because France were the hosts, they claimed home ground advantage. The rule in this is that usually the visitors must change stripes (although I don’t think Scotland does; I recall seeing the ABs play Scotland in NZ in their white stripes).
Do the Wallabies have an away stripe?
October 29th 2010 @ 11:01am
jiggles said | October 29th 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
I recall the wallabies playing in a “away Stripe” in about ’95, it was green and gold hoops. haven’t seen much since.
No other nation we play regularly is gold or yellow in colour. from memory Romania have a yellow strip, but we have only played them at a world cup at home I think, so they changed strip. I think this match was at Suncorp.
France used to have a traditional Royal Blue jersey so I don’t know why they changed it to a navy one.
October 29th 2010 @ 11:36am
Brett McKay said | October 29th 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
JIggles, that striped number you’re thinking of started out life as a training jumper from memory, but the Wallabies wore it during the ’95 RWC in the game against the yellow of Romania as a one-off “clash strip”.
Agree though, it was a good ‘un, and there used to be lots of them around for a good while too, they were the jersey of choice for several years….
October 29th 2010 @ 11:54am
jiggles said | October 29th 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
The wallabies Strips have been pretty bad for a while.
It all started with that ‘back to the 80′s’ rubbish thing in 96-97 with the triangles of white gold and green.
the Jersey after that with the green arm bands was ok but i didn’t like the southern cross on it.
The ’07 Canterbury Jersey which was just straight gold with green under the arms running down the side was the best of the modern bunch. but then they had to go change it to that White bra thing!
The Koogaa one is an improvement but the gold is more “shine yellow” and I don’t dig the green highlight bits.
Honestly what is wrong with just having a a proper gold (and I mean the gold that was used before 1996, not canary shinny yellow) and Dark green shorts?
The All Blacks and South Africans do not change their strip! and its fantastic!
October 29th 2010 @ 2:10pm
Brett McKay said | October 29th 2010 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Jiggles, that’s not completely true, at the same time the Wallabies had “that White bra thing”, the ‘Boks had the same bra thing in green, and there was also a period in the early 2000s where they were in the skin-tight green and gold Nike rash vest a la England’s white and red RWC-winning strip.
Even the ABs over time have dropped the white collar in recent years.
Small points, I’ll concede, and on the whole I agree with you. But, I do like the current strip, and particularly that you can pop into your sports store of choice and get it as a proper rugby jersey…
October 29th 2010 @ 11:11am
sheek said | October 29th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Thanks Ben, re the Kiwis versus England rugby league.
Re France, I know they had the same strip for the whole tourny (2007), but that was part of their ingeniousness. They knew, or hoped, if they met the ABs at some stage in the tourny, one of them would have to change strips, & as host nations, they would be trying to get the ABs into changing, in which they succeeded.
I’m not suggesting for one moment it had anything to do with the ABs losing the quarter-semi, but merely another irritant they had to deal with.
October 29th 2010 @ 1:04pm
abnutta said | October 29th 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Traditionally the host union wears the changed strip. New Zealand wears white when hosting Scotland and vice versa.
The IRB has recently changed regulations for the away team to wear the changed strip eg. New Zealand wearing white in Marseilles 2009 and should again wear white against Scotland in November this year.
As far as RWC 2007 – New Zealand manager Darren Shand lost a coin toss to determine who would wear the away strip for the QF.
October 29th 2010 @ 3:44pm
sheek said | October 29th 2010 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
The point I was trying to make, is that the French changed to the all navy blue for two reasons.
One, they hoped if they looked like the ABs, some of their magic might rub off.
Two, nuisance value. Somewhere down the track when the two teams met, one of them, hopefully the ABs, would have to change strips.
If the French had retained their traditional royal blue shirts, white shorts & red sox in 2007, there wouldn’t have been any need for the ABs to adopt an alternate strip that day.
Again, not an excuse why the ABs lost, but just reinforcing it was another nuisance they had to deal with. Even the French can play clever mind games…..
October 29th 2010 @ 4:17pm
Jason said | October 29th 2010 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
Was that the French or their sponsor Nike trying to get one over Adidas?
October 29th 2010 @ 7:21pm
Ben S said | October 29th 2010 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
‘Re France, I know they had the same strip for the whole tourny (2007), but that was part of their ingeniousness. They knew, or hoped, if they met the ABs at some stage in the tourny, one of them would have to change strips, & as host nations, they would be trying to get the ABs into changing, in which they succeeded.
I’m not suggesting for one moment it had anything to do with the ABs losing the quarter-semi, but merely another irritant they had to deal with.’
You may well be right, sheek. You maybe right. Enjoy the game tomorrow, btw.
October 29th 2010 @ 7:55am
Jason said | October 29th 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Surely it’s winning a test series in New Zealand?
October 29th 2010 @ 10:11am
jake said | October 29th 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I’d have thought so and not the modern-day two tests and you’re out of there so called test series. Instead, a proper eight week tour with mid-week matches against provincial and combined sides that play way above themselves wanting an international scalp. And then throw in four or five test matches. With respect to the RWC, the big guns get two or three easy pool matches to find a rhythm, somehing touring sides never got.
October 29th 2010 @ 3:58pm
Invictus said | October 29th 2010 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Absolutely, for non-NZ teams the pinnacle is winning a 3 (at least) test series in NZ.
For the AB’s it’s the world cup – it’s the only thinkg they haven’t won recently.