As the Southern Hemisphere season begins, New Zealand rugby fans are talking up their teams, while other fans like to point to a possible fall from grace.
It presents the basic question: why do New Zealand rugby fans always gloat about their chances for the Super 14, and the subsequent Tri-Nations? Is it arrogance?
It is because they have become accustomed to success.
The two national opponents in these tournaments – South Africa and Australia – are quick to point out what is a hard, unyielding fact: “How many World Cups do you hold?”
But I think it is important to qualify the words “World Cup”. Do you have to beat the world to win it? And like the majority of world titles, do you need to put it up for title defence?
The answer to both is no.
In fact, history is showing that a World Cup can be quite easy to win, which in itself could be interpreted as a damning statement on the pride of the All Blacks.
Because, how many of the top-nine nations of the world do you need to defeat to win it (for arguments sake, the Tri and Six Nations sides).
In 2007 South Africa played just the one – England, twice.
The preceding tournament in 2003 was a lot harder to win, with the English needing to defeat South Africa, Wales, France and then Australia. Australia also needed to beat four of the “Top 9” to win in 1999 – but both of these triumphs occurred without having to cross the paths of New Zealand.
Surely John Eales, Martin Johnson and John Smit could not contain their glee when other nations knocked out the All Blacks?
But, past is past, and despite all good theory, New Zealand has only won the solitary title.
Is it all important? Absolutely not, simply because the Tri Nations and Six Nations titles are multi-team international Test tournaments that are far harder to win than a World Cup. The latter has a history that can be traced back nearly 100 years before the inaugural World Cup tournament.
If you honestly asked South Africa or Australia would they prefer to play a World Cup to try and win, or play each other and the All Blacks three times to win a trophy, it would be an obvious answer.
Maybe the answer would be the more obvious because they could assume that World Cups are the All Blacks bogey championship.
So, it is fair to say that World Cups, Tri Nations and Six Nations are indicative are of a nations’ world standing – in no particular order. They are the pre-eminent championships involving more than two nations.
It is also prudent to add the Heineken Cup and the Super 14 – because these “domestic or provincial” championships are, in effect, international competitions in their own right.
So from 1987, there have been six World Cups, 22 Six Nations, 13 Tri Nations, 13 Heineken Cups and 13 Super 14 titles.
In the Northern Hemisphere, England and France has won 14 of these titles. On paper, this would be a fair indication of European ascendency, as these nations have been dominant in the modern era. It is a difficult quarrel to say the English have been the supreme nation by virtue of their World Cup win – certainly this has no bearing based on their recent form.
Wales have 4 (all Six Nations), Ireland has 3 (all Heineken Cups) and Scotland has 2 (1990 and 1999 Six Nations titles).
In the South, the three great powers tell a far different tale. The current World Champions South Africa has won five of these titles. The Wallabies have won six titles. Two of these are World Cup trophies each, but does it amount for world supremacy?
Perhaps, but that is hard to say when New Zealand wields 20 titles. Only one World Cup maybe, but is it only such a dismal statistic when considering that they were expected to win many more?
Comparisons abound regarding the Tri Nations/Super 14 versus the Six Nations/Heineken Cup. There is no easy games in the Tri Nations, and very few in the Super 14. Some editions of the northern championships have seen games where a result is all but guaranteed.
But when we think that New Zealand, South Africa and Australia have consistently been the three superpowers of world rugby, it is a lopsided to think that in major championships New Zealand teams have won more than three times more titles than their SANZAR antagonists.
This fact again indicates that the All Blacks should have won far more World Cups. But it also designates that it is a heavily flawed assertions that South Africa or Australia are better nations based on their double Webb Ellis trophies.
No doubt All Black fans would follow their team to the fiery depths of hell itself if so required, as much as opposing supporters would happily damn the team to such a place if it meant avoiding their path.
But even if you must carry such odium toward New Zealand teams, even the most stringent must grudgingly pay their respects.
Jerry
Guest
NIck - I didn't include 91 or 95 as the comment was in response to TT's post about Kiwis claiming a WC win isn't worthy if the winner didn't beat the ABs. In those two tournaments the WC winner also beat the All Blacks (I omitted 87 for obvious reasons). For the record, I agree that the 91 Wallabies was far and away the best team in the world. I don't doubt a Kiwi living in Aus would rub the local's nose in it after any Aussie loss or Kiwi win in most sports - it's an expat thing and it's not unique to Kiwis. The WC is a bit of a different story though - if the AB's haven't won it, I don't think there's much chance of a Kiwi gloating about a final or a semi-final spot.
NickF
Guest
Jerry, You seemed to omit 1991 WC, when, I feel, Aust was also the best squad in the tournament. The semi final against NZ was one of the finest games I have seen. And add NZ in '87. They were simply the best (to quote Tina). As to noses being rubber, I use to work for a Kiwi firm in Sydney, the boss, and any other kiwi (and they were many), made it their job to point out, with gusto, any time a NZ sporting had beaten an Australian team, or even, for that matter, any Australian loss. His mantra was "if you want a job done well. get a kiwi to do it". I don't work there anymore. This is of course not to suggest that all Kiwis are like this. I would also like to add, the performance of Argentina and Fiji in the last WC made it a memorable one, putting the "world" back in World Cup. Australia's and New Zealand's loss is sometimes the worlds gain. This element of the underdogs performing well on the world stage is what the Tri Nations and Six Nations cannot compare with.
True Tah
Guest
Jerry when Ireland can actually make the semi finals of a world cup then they can talk...and speaking of that, its been some time since the Welsh have graced the final fourt either.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
True Tah, I don't think you have to beat the All Blacks to be a great WC champion. Considering the All Blacks have lost at the last five WCs, it's pretty much irrelevant. Still I think you can critique the champions. It happens in other sports, so I don't see what makes rugby any different. Beating what's in front of you doesn't mean you're a great team. Not all tournaments are equal and not all champions are equal.
Jerry
Guest
TT - I'd never claim a WC winner isn't worthy cause they didn't beat the AB's. There's no doubt in my mind that the last 3 winners were the best team in the tournament. I'd say Aus in 99 and Eng in 03 were clearly the best squads in the tournament and, while I think the ABs of 07 were more talented than the Boks the simple fact is the Boks were the best performed squad in Oct & Nov when it counted. However, I'd have to say I disagree that AB's would have rubbed Aussie fans noses in it for losing to Eng in the 1/4. As an AB fan the measure of a successful campaign would be winning the tournament. If that doesn't happen, we don't feel we've got bragging rights over anyone (though it does make me laugh when you hear Irish or Welsh fans trying to disparage the ABs based on WC results). For instance, in 95 it didn't really make losing the final any easier to bear just cause we went further than Aus.
True Tah
Guest
OJ, there is no doubt that the All Blacks record demands respect, but Im fed up of Kiwis saying that the likes of Australia/South Africa/England are not worthy WC winners because they didn't beat the ABs...these sides beat what was in front of them, which the ABs quite plainly didn't on the day... Put it this way, you lot would have loved to have rubbed our noses in it at the last WC if you hadn't done as bad as Australia did and choked against les Bleus. Having said that, I would argue that Ireland and France are perhaps the biggest underachievers at world cups.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Well it gets a bit boring. You haven't won a WC for twenty years. So what? We'll win one when we're good enough. Just because we haven't won a WC in twenty years doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on the teams who did win them. And Australia and South Africa winning that whopping extra Cup, what does that mean exactly? It's about as meaningless as bragging over how many Tri-Nation or Super 14 titles NZ has won. No offence to James, but I don't think anyone needs to pay respect to the All Blacks. That's a bit precious in my view.
Laurens K
Guest
Good morning again from the island man! I actually manage a resort, with my beautiful 27 year old fiancee, on an island called Pemba, which is just north of Zanzibar, so well done pothole! Pemba and Uguja(which you call zanzibar), actually forms Zanzibar together. Good thing is that we should have our satellite tv working soon, and then it's SUPER 14 time. Sad thing is that I am a Cheetah supporter!
Jerry
Guest
Nick - "This attitude that some (not all) New Zealand fans have is why South African and Australian fans are quick to point out how many World Cup NZ have won" There's a bit of a chicken/egg equation in there too - I've really only noticed NZ fans exhibiting this attitude (in any meaningful numbers) since 2002 or so. I think a lot of it is a reaction to constantly being told the AB's are chokers and haven't won a WC for 20 odd years.
NickF
Guest
There is a bit of selective use of history here. NZ didn't play Aust in '99, Eng in '03 or SA in '07. But they did play Aust in '91 and SA in '95, and were beaten by both winners. Australia's in '99, England's in '03 and South Africa's in '07, WC victories should not be trivialised because of New Zealand's inability to win in these three world cups. Also, if the WC is not an important tournament, why does every rugby nation spend every other year between the world cups getting ready for the next tournament. Putting in large amounts of money and effort, including pulling players from other "less important" events. James, I disagree, I don't think you need to qualify the words "World Cup". I think they speak for themselves. When Australia and New Zealand lost in the quarter finals last world cup, both teams were more devasted about the lost, more than nearly any other game they have played, the fans more so. The only redeeming feature that went with Australia's loss that weekend was the fact that NZ couldn't poke jibes at us. As to defending the cup, after winning the 2007 World Cup, South Africa has not been defending the Webb Ellis Trophy, but they have been defending the tittle every single game they play, as England did after they won and Australia before that. There is an added element in every game against the South Africans, in trying to beat the world champions. I don't think that the Tri Nation is any harder to win than the World Cup, I think they are both hard. Belittling the World Cup and its winners show a certain arrogance from NZ supporters. That they expect to win this tournament, that it is their right, and when they don't, there must be something wrong with the system, and not the team. If another country's team wins, it's cannot be because they are just simply better. This attitude that some (not all) New Zealand fans have is why South African and Australian fans are quick to point out how many World Cup NZ have won.
Derm
Roar Guru
I'm sure you're right. Now all you have to do is find Larry the Girl on one of them.....
True Tah
Guest
Pothale personally I think Madagascar should be its own continent - its wildlife are nothing like that found in Africa, and the culture of the island is nothing like that in Africa...indeed the Malagasy do not view themselves as being African either.
Derm
Roar Guru
Or Comoros or Mayotte or even the Glorioso islands. I'd hardly call Madagascar an little ole island, would ya?
Derm
Roar Guru
oh.....oh.....eh, back in a minute. ....furious scrabbling....em I meant Zanzibar. It has the letter Z as well, always mixing the two of them up.
True Tah
Guest
pothale Mozambique isn't an island.
Derm
Roar Guru
Mozambique obviously. It's where all the saffa fans hide out until the next WC.
True Tah
Guest
Laurens K which island off east africa is that?
Laurens K
Guest
I probably do! Been working on an island of east africa since October, and only getting satellite tv next week, which means I have been following the cricket etc on the net. Switched to the roar from the south african websites, due to the fact that we are 10 times more negative and critical than you blokes down under! Good luck with the ragga season to all of us!
Andystath
Guest
Well thank god for all the turmoil in South African Rugby,your sounding a wee bit Kitch Chirstieish Lozza.
Laurens K
Guest
Ha ha ha, This whole discussion sounded like excuses, or like the aussie's cricket captain says, what ifs after losing yet again. Both NZ and Aus and thank the stars every day that there are so many issues in south african rugby. If not, you blokes would not stand a chance against us! Bring it on my friends....