The Crusaders’ defeat to the Reds in the Super 15 final saw the Kiwi populace feel those cold white hands tighten around their collective throats as their media searched for parallels with every other unsuccessful Rugby World Cup year.
A comprehensive stuffing of the Wallabies in Eden Park saw the New Zealand media revert to type with one particular Welsh-loving Kiwi hack declaring that the World Cup was already in the bag.
It’s easy to understand where people are coming from when they bring up the serial choker tag when describing All Black Rugby World Cup failure.
But the success in recent years of the Crusaders and the Kiwi rugby league side suggests that New Zealand teams aren’t chokers.
Choking in sport is usually associated with tennis players, golfers, or sprinters. Think back through the pantheon of choking greats and the names Greg Norman, Jean Van de Velde, Jana Navotna, and Asafa Powell all come to mind.
While there is no doubt that individuals in a team environment do choke, it is rare that their shortcomings come to the public’s attention unless they play in a specialist position, like flyhalf, hooker, or tight head prop.
Matt Giteau missing an easy penalty at Murrayfield to hand a victory to Scotland in 2009 comes to mind.
Who could forget rugby league commentator Eddie Waring shrieking “he’s a poor lad” as Don Fox lay shattered on the sodden Wembley turf, having missed a last minute conversion which would have given Wakefield victory over Leeds in the 1968 Challenge Cup final.
In the aftermath of Jana Novotna’s capitulation to Steffi Graf in the 1993 Wimbledon ladies singles final her coach, Hana Mandlikova, explained her collapse by saying that sometimes “you can be too intelligent.”
In thinking too much about what she was doing she focused “consciously” on something that she should have been doing “unconsciously.”
Or in Bounce author Matthew Syed’s words, “choking is a neural glitch that occurs when individuals are under pressure when they find themselves explicitly monitoring skills that would be better executed automatically.”
When the Leinster scrum came undone in the first half of this year’s Heineken Cup Final against Northampton all eyes were on Leinster tight head prop, Mike Ross.
Their scrum, which had been rock solid all season, was demolished by the Northampton front row leading to a ripple effect throughout the entire team.
They forced everything, dropped everything, and got nothing as they tried to find a way into the game. Northampton went in at half time 16 points to the good.
40 minutes later Leinster were Heineken Cup champions for the second time in three years after an incredible turnaround which saw their scrum, led by Ross, dominate Northampton.
How was this possible? At half time Greg Feek, Leinster’s scrum coach and former All Black prop, using his iPad, replayed a number of the scrums, showed the Leinster front row what was happening, and told Ross to bind closer to his hooker.
Afterwards Feek said that all that was wrong was that Ross was probably thinking too much and trying too hard instead of doing what he had done all season. This makes some sense as Ross is known to have a bigger brain than the average prop forward.
To right the wrongs of the first half took guts and it’s not pushing it to say that Ross, alongside Brian O’Driscoll and Paul O’Connell, is the most important member of the Ireland World Cup squad. It was an astonishing recovery.
After the match the temptation was to say that Northampton had choked, but in hindsight they were simply over powered by a better side. If any team choked at all that day it was Leinster.
New Zealand’s status as the Brazil of rugby has seen it continually conferred as Rugby World Cup favourites since the inaugural tournament in 1987 and explains why people are always surprised when they are knocked out.
But similar to Brazil, there have been times when their form, or how they have been set up by their coaches hasn’t justified the favouritism.
This may be unfathomable to the typical New Zealander who thinks that the All Blacks have a divine right to win the World Cup but a flashback through every Kiwi World Cup defeat since 1991 shows little choking and a number of instances where they just weren’t the best side in the world at that point and time.
In 1991 New Zealand were beaten at Lansdowne Road by the eventual winners, Australia. The Wallabies had the game in the bag by half time after two fine tries by Tim Horan and David Campese.
It was only their second defeat since winning the final in 1987 but there was a dourness and arrogance about them that led the Irish public to side with the Wallabies who didn’t put a foot wrong off the pitch in the run up to the game.
The memory of John Eales and a number of other Wallabies signing autographs on Dublin’s Grafton Street still sticks in the memory. It was a year too late for that All Black vintage.
If ever a side didn’t get what they deserved, it was the All Blacks in 1995. There’s no doubt that they were the best side in the world.
That they lost to the Springboks in the final at Ellis Park still sticks in the craw, and I’m inclined to give a lot of credence to the food poisoning conspiracy theory. They were simply unlucky.
It’s tempting to say that the second half collapse against France at Twickenham in 1999 was a collective choke but a recent viewing of that match revealed that the sheer power and very questionable aggression of the French forwards simply pulverised the All Black pack in the second half.
After the 1997 tour of South Africa, New Zealand’s forward play declined and didn’t recover until Graham Henry took over.
The All Blacks turned up at Twickenham thinking that superior forward play was enough to get them home, but the fact that the All Blacks weren’t able to look after themselves when things got dirty in the dark and French fingers started to find their way into Kiwi eyes suggested otherwise. They had gone soft.
The 2003 defeat to an average Wallabies side is perhaps the hardest to explain. Carlos Spencer, the Kiwi fly half, was like a rabbit in the headlights and his performance seemed to affect the entire side.
From the time Stirling Mortlock scored an intercept try, courtesy of Spencer’s headless chicken impression, the All Blacks never looked like getting anything out of the game. It was a dead performance and the one failure most deserving of being labelled a “choke.”
The All Black pack were still a long way off where they needed to be as evidenced by a six-man England scrum keeping them at bay in Wellington earlier that season.
England were more than deserving winners of the final against Australia and would have won at a canter if André Watson had allowed them to scrummage.
New Zealand were the best side in the world in 2007 but a combination of bad luck and arrogance did for them in the quarter final against France in Cardiff. Nobody could have foreseen both Dan Carter and his back up, Nick Evans, getting injured.
Wayne Barnes may have missed a forward pass for Yannick Jauzion’s try but the New Zealand public would have been better off asking why first choice lock Chris Jack was a substitute, and what a centre of Aaron Mauger’s experience and nous was doing sitting in the stands wearing a suit when he was possibly the best candidate to knock over a drop goal in the dying moments.
It defies belief that Graham Henry persisted with a rotation system into the knock out stages and didn’t pick his best side against France, a team who have a history of upsetting the All Blacks.
It’s time to stop using the term “choke” as a catch all for the shortcomings of the All Blacks at the World Cup.
Instead, phrases like “weren’t good enough,”… “unfortunate”… “food poisoned” or “set up to fail” will do just fine.
Tacksharp
Guest
Good calls, Douglas. And lots of admiration for making it to those games! Not so sure about your confidence this year though. Other years, I've been quite confident but this year... It's a good team but not as many great players. A few selection issues in the squad, with Henry's love affair with Auckland players in the backs and forwards. A top team is in the squad, but all it needs is a poor selection by Henry for a critical game and we're screwed.
Tacksharp
Guest
Read what he's saying - choking is due to the occasion getting the best of you. The AB's lost RWC games due to inept coaches fielding wrong players and '95.
Tacksharp
Guest
Great article. Agree with everything you said. If only Henry had played NZ's 1st team lin '07, we could be defending the RWC. If only... In '03 - who would play that muppet Carlos Spencer, but that muppet Mitchell?!!! '95 was a travesty. As for the rest, we weren't the best. On the day.
Fiddlers Green
Guest
I agree the AB's are not chokers...simply the best but the sudden death format has not suited them in WC's but that will change with time...in fact if they keep to their high standards the law of averages will start working in their favour into the future...who knows what the record book will show in 20 years time? Also calling them chokers is an insult to those sides that were brilliant enough to beat them. I think this term is both insulting to a rugby playing nation that has contributed so much to the high standards of rugby that they have set for us all and to repeat... also to those victors that managed to beat them in finals and 1/4's. I think most rugby fans are tired of this childish debate that sounds more like a topic out of a womens monthly magazine. Lets get on with the game and stop being wusses.
Jerry
Guest
"And yes, favourites in the ’99 tournament too. They were still playing fantastic rugby leading up to event" If you ignore the fact that they suffered the worst loss in their history immediately prior to the tournament.
ScotandProud
Guest
1999 - Just one of those things. If they'd have been shown the video beforehand or got a chance for a rematch they'd have won. All just came together for France in that second half. And yes, ABs were complacent. 2003. 2nd best team - not going to win the thing - Choked in semi. I thought the wallabies were so limited in both semi and final. As it happens I thought England looked nervous and hesitant in the final. They were more scared of winning than losing. Martin Johnson was crucial for them. 2007 Best team. Unlucky with injuries in the 2nd half (kelleher, carter and evans) but still could have won. They Choked. French played out of their skins. Then promptly went possum in the next game. Like 87.. and 99... (lost to better teams 87/99)
ScotandProud
Guest
The 95 All Blacks were the best team I have ever seen. They were better than anyone else. The 95 WC final was one of the most abject games I have ever seen. Noone understood how the ABs could play that badly. The Springboks were lucky to just be there (see other forum comments). Noone understood why Jeff Wilson had to be helped from the pitch with diarrhoea. Food Poisoning. ALL DAY LONG... AND ALL NIGHT.
ScotandProud
Guest
The 87 All Blacks were awesome efficiency exemplified (French called them 'Terminators' - in fact Jaques Fouroux started picking players based on physique and fitness rather than flair because the ABs had rattled him so much.) The idea of beating that team seemed ridiculous to people in the Northern hemisphere. The 88 Welsh Triple crown winners were Destroyed by 50 pts each test they played in NZ. Then in 89 the first chinks began to appear - Australia lost the Lions series but became stronger for it and Geech said that his Lions needed another month together and they'd beat NZ. then the barbarians ran the ABs close for half a test at Twickenham end of 89. Ian Mcgeechan said give me the baa baa players for a longer period and we'd beat them. both Aussie and NH confidence was growing. The grand slam Scots should have won or at least drawn the 2nd test of their 1990 tour but for a nice bit of offside by Mike Brewer. They lost by 3 points and Buck Shelford said 'that was a test match: she was tough'. such a thing was UNHEARD OF in 87 or 88. Then the Wallabies drew a test with them later that season with players like Lloyd Walker (Skilful? Yes Arnie? No.) making inroads. The aussies had gone from losing all their decent/promising players (Gourley. Papworth, Stuart) to league to building up a team (Kearns et al. Eales, Ofahengahue, Gavin, Horan, Little). Journalists like Don Cameron were writing about the obvious AB weak points. By 91 the NH had the wallabies as overwhelming favourites after Queensland annihilated Wales and then Oz beat them 63-3. Then the Wallabies stuffed England 40-15. That made them favourites with the ABs still cyborgs and the only team near them. That was in the days when any team took a close knockout result at a fired up landsdowne road. When the wallabies had a minute to play and just went back down and scored straight away people were very impressed. Don't give me overconfidence the ABs took the pitch against a better more creative team in every department and lost. End of. The only people going on about the ABs as favorites were the Wallaby players and the Oz press.
SouthernWaratah
Guest
Jerry - touche...
winston
Guest
wallabies = soft
happychap
Roar Rookie
The '95 All Blacks were one of the all time great Kiwi sides, and despite those setbacks were widely expected to take the cup. And were well on their way to doing so, until it al; unravelled in the final. And yes, favourites in the '99 tournament too. They were still playing fantastic rugby leading up to event, and again took apart all and sundry leading up to the ill fated semi final. It takes something truly spectacular for the All Blacks to lose this favoritism. Their worst is often superior to everyone else's best. You know this. Any slumps by NZ are never longterm; they are remedied almost instantly and it's business as usual defeating all comers. The few poor result you mention in the years leading up to those two tournaments don't hold any weight. They were up and running again as usual. They are clearly the best team in the world, and have been for a long time. They are have always been the favourites.
katzilla
Roar Guru
Spain were recognized pretty universally as the best team in the world before that though.
Jerry
Guest
FACT! NZ has never lost a WC in NZ.
Jerry
Guest
When have they actually had the chance to do so though? In 87 only one team was ranked above them & they didn't get the chance. In 91, 99 & 07 they were ranked 1 so it was impossible. In 95 they actually did what you think they've never done - NZ (3) beat England (2) in the semi-final.
Southern Waratah
Guest
FACT! Australia has never lost a world cup where the Captain is a lock... 2011 the year of the Wallaby...
PeterK
Guest
Jerry NZ have never beaten anyone ranked higher than them. Aust beat NZ in 91 and 03 who were ranked higher than them. The point re the AB's being chokers is not the size of the choke BUT how they have done it every time except the first one at home. Even worse during the profesional era. Every country will have had some upsets but no top team as often as AB's.
Steve
Guest
I love that site Jerry, It just goes to show that all this choking stuff is a crock of shit. The Lead in Results and Rankings show them to be a beat up from people who are just looking for something to bag the AB's for. If you even go back and watch each of the games they have actually lost they were game where the opposition were either simply better or played their best game. 1991 Australia Simply had the wood on a declining NZ team 1995 SA tackled like demons and the AB's were crook 1999 The French were outstanding that day and although ranked No.1 this was not a vintage AB's team. 2003 One intercept and some amazing WB defence 2007 The most disciplined French team in history (did give away single penalty in the second half) What amazes me is the number of ex-players who are willing to label the AB's as chokers. This denigrates the performance of the team that beat them. It is as if to say the AB's only lose when they play shit/choke. Credit should be given to the teams and players that have lifted themselves to be able to beat the AB's at past world cups.
Jerry
Guest
Aha, Pickandgo. So - In 87, Aus (1) lost to France (3) & Wales (7) In 95, Aus (1) lost to SA (4) & Engl (2) In 07, Aus (2) lost to Engl (7) Based on that, Aus have 3 chokes that are statistically worse than all but the AB's 99 loss to France, and the Wallabies 07 loss to England matches it.
Jerry
Guest
Where do you get these results from btw, Peter?
Jerry
Guest
I don't think losing to a team 1 or 2 spots below you ranks as a choke automatically. Only 99 could be looked at as a large disparity in ranking. Incidentally, where were France in 87, England in 95 and England in 07?