Waratahs pave the way for Bledisloe Cup glory

By niwdEyaJ / Roar Guru

A Waratahs win this weekend will go a long way towards a strong Wallaby performance in the Rugby Championship. It could even lay the platform for an elusive Bledisloe Cup victory.

History shows a strong correlation between Super Rugby and Rugby Championship success, with 13 out of 18 Super Rugby winners since 1996 being from the same country as the Rugby Championship winners that year.

The anomalies?

1998
Crusaders won the first of three consecutive Super Rugby titles, yet the All Blacks finished third in the Tri-Nations, losing all their games to both Australia and South Africa.

This is a genuine anomaly as New Zealand had three teams in the top four that year while winners South Africa’s best team were the third placed Sharks, followed by ninth placed Stormers, 11th placed Bulls and 12th placed Cats.

The Springboks will need another 1998 to win the Rugby Championship this year with a similarly poor performance from their Super Rugby teams.

2000
Crusaders completed the triple-crown, but the All Blacks finished second behind Australia in the Tri-Nations. Hard to claim this was a genuine anomaly though as the Kiwis were only second by two points after securing four bonus points to Australia’s two.

The title was in New Zealand’s bag until Australia snatched it with an 18-19 win against the Springboks in Durban during the last game of the series.

2004
Brumbies win their second title but the Springboks take away the Tri-Nations crown. Again hard to claim this was a genuine anomaly as Australia finished second in the Tri-Nations by a single bonus point.

2007
Bulls win the first of their three titles, but South Africa finished third in the Tri-Nations, winning only one game out of 4. This is another one that can’t be classified as a genuine anomaly as South African officials fielded a “B” team for most of the Tri-Nations in order to preserve their “A” team for the World Cup.

Fortunately this strategy paid off (with the help of some food poisoning) and the Springboks walked away 2007 World Cup champions despite their poor results in the Tri-Nations.

2010: Bulls win their third title, but South Africa again finished third in the Tri-Nations, this time winning only one game out of six. No World Cup excuses this time, 2010 was a genuine anomaly. They had two Super teams in the final yet struggled in the Tri-Nations.

So, in 18 years of Super Rugby there have only been two genuine anomalies – 1998 and 2010 – where the winners’ success hasn’t translated into strong performances by the national team.

A similar correlation exists between Super Rugby and Bledisloe Cup success. If we attribute the Bulls’ three titles to the next best performing Australian on New Zealand side, we have 12 out of 18 Super Rugby winners since 1996 being from the same country as the Bledisloe Cup winners that year.

1998
Crusaders won the Super Rugby title and New Zealand also had the Blues and Highlanders in the finals, but went down 3-0 to Australia in the Bledisloe. This is a genuine anomaly and the only reason I think of to explain the All Blacks’ poor Bledisloe performance is that they had no gas left in the tank after giving it their all in Super Rugby.

1999, 2000 and 2002
Crusaders won their second and third Super Rugby titles in succession, and their fourth in 2002, but the All Blacks were unable to win back the Bledisloe during this time.

To be fair, the Bledisloe was reduced to a two match series during this period and in all the Crusaders’ title-winning years, the Wallabies “held on” rather than “won” the Bledisloe by winning just one of the two-game series. Note: The Wallabies did win two out of two in 2001 when the Brumbies won the Super Rugby title.

2004
Brumbies win their second title, but the Wallabies were unable to secure the Bledisloe. In a reverse of fortunes, the All Blacks hold on to the Bledisloe winning one of their two fixtures against the Wallabies. Note: in 2003 the Blues won the Super Rugby title, propelling the All Blacks to two out of two in the Bledisloe, ending its five year reign in Australia.

2011
Reds win their first title, but the Wallabies fail to follow-up with Bledisloe success. Again, this was a two-game series due to the World Cup that year, and the All Blacks held on rather than won the Bledisloe by winning just one of the two fixtures.

So, remarkably, in the last 18 years of Bledisloe Cup history, there has only been one genuine anomaly – 1998 – where Super Rugby success between Australia and New Zealand hasn’t translated into strong performances at Test Level.

The Crowd Says:

2014-08-04T05:22:50+00:00

Quibble

Guest


5 points is not comprehensive

2014-07-29T20:26:50+00:00

Firstxv

Guest


exactly...doh! (especially when it aint even been won yet)...

2014-07-29T05:48:15+00:00

Common Sense

Guest


Unless Dagg is injured, Hansen will start him. Guaranteed.

2014-07-29T05:27:20+00:00

Common Sense

Guest


Don't include New Zealand teams Super Rugby and Bledisloe success into your reasoning. It's dumb to use the oppositions positive records to boost your own teams chances.

2014-07-29T02:41:03+00:00

Jak

Guest


Tahs by 20+ in a canter. crusaders are old, over rated and the beneficiaries of a weak conference and favourable referee's. If the wind is onshore over the weekend we'll be able to hear the bleating well into Sunday night.

2014-07-28T21:48:11+00:00

Firstxv

Guest


Last years losses were significant. It reflected a massive downturn in Oz rugby, and you treat it as a blip? A hiccup where normal transmission will resume?

2014-07-28T21:26:45+00:00

Kane

Roar Guru


All the emphasis on Link knowing how to beat kiwi teams we then forget that he doesn't know how to beat the Springboks?

AUTHOR

2014-07-28T19:01:12+00:00

niwdEyaJ

Roar Guru


Hi Harry, what exactly do you mean by "OZ is built to try to beat NZ, but not to beat SA"? Have you forgotten that aside from last year, the Wallabies have dominated SA for the past 3-4 years? We've been consistently beating the Boks for the best part of Robbie Deans' career so I'm curious as to why you think we're now capable of beating the All Blacks but somehow not SA?

2014-07-28T18:59:35+00:00

Firstxv

Guest


havnt looked at the actual comparisons but I think the 70% comes from the fact that NZ win most of the sxv tourneys and NZ win most of the RC's. If not for NZs consistency in both, you wouldnt have this correlation. So just because an oz or SA side win the sxv, its probably more likely to produce another of your anomolies because I think you'll find and oz or SA double is rare...but as I say, I havnt checked...it just feels that way.

2014-07-28T16:06:42+00:00

Paul

Guest


The Australian 7s team sent out emails saying the 'AB 7s lost thier aura during the finals day of the commonwealth 7s...next minute they get knocked out in thet game by NZ. Talk about having ammunition

2014-07-28T15:40:50+00:00

Magic Sponge

Guest


Talk it up , of course the tahs will win, great chance. They have succeeded even if they somehow lose. Stopping being politically correct and enjoy the success. Stuff the other provinces. Its the year of the Feb premiers winners. Go the Tahs even the Bookies think we will win. Our defence will destroy the ageing Saders.

AUTHOR

2014-07-28T13:45:00+00:00

niwdEyaJ

Roar Guru


Nek, if its irrelevant then its one heck of a coincidence that 70%+ titles are won by the same country that produced that years' Super champions...

2014-07-28T12:24:54+00:00

Jimmy from Dunedin

Guest


keep conrad smith. He's one of the best defensive centres in the world and he always performs well. Need balance in the centres, SBW, Nonu and Fekitoa are pretty similar

2014-07-28T12:15:11+00:00

Jerry

Guest


"They were talking about....how it would be almost better than 1st choice team. " No they weren't.

2014-07-28T12:05:30+00:00

Jagman

Guest


That is not what nzers were saying that week OJ. They were talking about how good that side was that they sent SA and how it would be almost better than 1st choice team. Australia could only play what was given to them and they only played one second choice SA team in Sydney just as NZ only played one in NZ. Assuming you would have beaten the boks is only an assumption. I assume you assumed the allblacks would have won in Brisbane too.

2014-07-28T12:04:57+00:00

wardad

Guest


5 points is a comprehensive win ? and what about the RWC win over the wobs by NZ ?

2014-07-28T12:03:58+00:00

Buzzard

Guest


Fans and media as usual. If the Tahs beat the Saders Beale & AAC will be their usual selves and rave on about beating the ABs. Thats the problem with Aussie rugby....obsessed with beating the ABs.

2014-07-28T11:41:29+00:00

Harry Jones

Guest


2013 OZ v 2014 OZ in context of RC: So far, all we have is how the EOYT looked, the France series and the RC squad composition; and a look at SA's sweep of Wales/Scotland, and NZ's sweep of England, with a few individual form assessments. OZ looked decent on EOYT, solid versus France with moments of explosive brilliance, and definitely compared well with NZ/SA in the June tests. I think Link's team will play better in the Bledisloe, and also make it harder on SA when the sides play in OZ (last year's Brisbane test was abysmally bad by OZ). But the substitutes for Genia (White-Phipps) and Cooper (Foley-Toomua) don't have the look of being able to singlehandedly or in duo wrestling a match away from SA or NZ. Also, OZ's tight five still have issues. Moore, OZ's best forward over the last 2 seasons, is gone. Skelton solves the mongrel-size issue, but then creates a lineout/tackling issue. And OZ's loose trio has not shown signs it can beat a Read-Kaino-McCaw or Vermeuelen-Alberts-Louw combo yet. I think OZ might beat NZ in OZ. But not take the Bledisloe. I think OZ is built to try to beat NZ, but not to beat SA.

2014-07-28T11:33:51+00:00

Billy Bob

Guest


Chasmac - spot on. Some folk need to read things that are not there. Prejudice against Aussies fills the gaps.

2014-07-28T11:25:16+00:00

Billy Bod

Guest


Well to be fair Buzzard, not a peep has come out of the mouth of a wallaby on this thread. WB's are not talking up chances. Nor is anyone else really. But the usual hundred straw men being knocked out of ring by the usual suspects here.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar