Chokers. This is the tag that has been applied to the All Blacks at all World Cups since 1991.
In spite of usually being the best team in the world and favourites to win nearly every World Cup, the All Blacks have only won it twice in seven attempts.
Are they chokers? Or are there other reasons the All Blacks struggle to win World Cups?
Choking implies that in spite of being the favourites, a team clams up and plays below their usual level, allowing an inferior side to beat them. Choking means the inferior side still plays at its inferior level, but the better team loses because of their own failings, not because the other team played better.
If we examine each of the All Black World Cup losses, a pattern suggests the All Blacks don’t choke, but instead are just beaten by a team who plays better on the day.
The New Zealand public expects the All Blacks to win every game they play. This expectation is felt so heavily by All Blacks that every Test match is significant and the All Blacks are better motivated than their opponents and usually win.
However, at World Cups it becomes different.
Every other team considers the knock-out games of a World Cup to be significant and they raise their game – particularly when they play New Zealand.
All nations realise that in order to win the World Cup they must beat the All Blacks, therefore in large part they base their plan for winning the cup around beating New Zealand.
To win the title, the All Blacks must play three teams in the knockout rounds who have focused their entire game plan and motivation on beating them. It is no coincidence that after three of the four losses the All Blacks have suffered before the final, the team that beat them went on to lose their next game.
France and Australia had already achieved their aims in those tournaments by beating the All Blacks and didn’t have anything left to actually win the title.
In 1991, the All Blacks were probably joint favourites with Australia, but co-coaches who couldn’t work together, and some complacency in the All Blacks meant Australia were actually the best team in the tournament.
They deservedly beat New Zealand in the semi-final and went on to win the title. The All Blacks did not choke, they were simply not the best team.
In 1995, the All Blacks were clearly the best team at the tournament. Whether you believe conspiracy theories or not, the fact remains that 10 of the 15 All Black starters had been extremely ill in the days prior to the final.
Brian Lochore, the All Black manager on the morning of the final, looked at the state of the players and considered they were going to lose to South Africa by more than 30 points.
The fact they were holding on to a 12-12 draw at full time shows what a great side they were. They did not choke.
In 1999, the All Blacks were again the team to beat. After their semi-final win, Australia were already resigned to coming second, not knowing how they were going to beat the All Blacks in the final. To their amazement, the next day France came up with one of the most incredible halves of rugby ever played to upset the favourites and advance to the final – and duly lose.
For half an hour the French raised their game to a sublime level beyond what the All Blacks were capable of, and even though the All Blacks played well for most of the game, they still lost. The All Blacks did not choke, they lost to a better team on the day.
In 2003, the All Blacks were probably joint favourites with England. Australia had played poorly up to the semi-final and were not expected to offer much resistance to the All Blacks. However, knowing their home World Cup was on the line and with nothing to lose, Australia raised their game to a level beyond the All Black performance on the day.
Of all the World Cup losses, this is probably the closest the All Blacks have come to a choke, as they did not play at their usual high standard. Yet again, the team that beat the All Blacks went on to lose their next game, indicating that the raising of standards was a one-off, simply to play the All Blacks.
In 2007, an otherwise average French team again raised themselves for a one-off performance against the tournament favourites, this time aided by one of the most inept refereeing performances of the professional era.
Wayne Barnes has since become an excellent referee, but at the age of 28, one year after his Test debut, a World Cup quarter-final between the hosts and the favourites was beyond his experience and capabilities.
The All Blacks did not choke, they were beaten by a combination of a team that had raised their game massively, not a single refereeing decision going in their favour in the second half, and the team leadership failing to appreciate the refereeing failures and change the plan to win the game without penalty kicks.
In 2011, the All Blacks could almost be accused of choking in the second half of the final, but on this occasion a more sympathetic referee and an even more average French team allowed them to escape.
So, in essence, at World Cups the All Blacks become victims of their own success.
To win a World Cup they must raise their own game to a level beyond that of each of the teams they play in the knockout rounds, who are guaranteed to be raising their game far beyond their normal capabilities, simply because they are playing the best team.
At the upcoming World Cup, where the top five or six teams are now very close, can the All Blacks raise their game three times to a higher level than a team with nothing to lose?
They won’t choke, as they are not chokers, but their opponents may raise their game.
With less at stake you could bet your house on the All Blacks, but at a World Cup all bets are off.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes and the ABs went to Sydney a few weeks after the WCup final and beat the Wallabies easily. I was at that as well so although they didn't meet in the World Cup they were certainly the better side. Wales beat Aus in the 3rd playoff, where ABs beat Wales 49-6 in the semi?. France also narrowly beat oz in the semi, where the ABs beat them by 20 in the final. Abs were twenty points better than any side in 87.
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
If it was round robin at least 5 and potentially all 7.
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
World cups 1987 favorite - won it 1991 second favorite - knocked out by favorite and winner Australia 1995 favorite - runner up to second favorite and home team South Africa 1999 favorite - shock loss to France in semi final who finished runner up 2003 second favorite - lost to home team Australia who finished runner up to favorite England 2007 favorite - awful loss. terrible reffing and key injuries played a part but we should have overcome this 2011 favorite - won it We have won two tournaments, lost to the favorite in a semi in another, lost to Australia at home and South Africa at home which given those teams home records is not a choke and the losses to France in two neutral venues I would put down as upsets and chokes. Especially given the floggings we dealt them before and after those games. Only 2 of 7 tournaments I would say we have choked at. The French are definitely are bogey team and Australia has had our number at this tournament as well
Disneychilly
Roar Rookie
A lot of good points here, particularly like the one that mentions teams planning to knock off NZ specifically. There are heaps of points that have been made and argued to death over the years, but the one thing that I believe more so than any is this: The All Blacks are not, nor have they ever been, miles ahead of the rest. They are just miles more consistent. They have attributes that are miles ahead, such as ball skills under pressure among others, but test rugby is a game of inches. Out of their 76% win record only a small minority are absolute hidings. Sure, they often have more ways to hurt you on the scorecard than anyone else, and often this coupled with their fitness can cause scoreline blowouts against certain teams, but there are a hell of a lot of nailbilters and come from behind wins in that record. Look at the perfect season in 2013. The first French test and the Bok thriller were examples. I attended the Paris test, where they had a scrum on NZ's line at fulltime only 7 behind, and I was also lucky enough to be at the Dublin comeback. Yet all of those go down as wins, and boy can they stack up. World Cup knockout matches are one off matches after another. You win one, you get another go. Everyone's pumped up for these. NZ's pumped up for every test as they see every test as important, but in WCs they are just another team. Even the 76% record means they're odds on to lose at least once at a Cup. I'm resigned to the fact that s**t happens to NZ at World Cups. They just have to deal with it. Embrace it. I'll be wearing a black straitjacket but hey if NZ don't win and the result makes rugby the better for it, well we just have to suck it up. I'm dirty about not being at our best in 95 but that win meant way more to SA and I just wish we'd have lost healthy. Just gotta enjoy the ride-so good luck to everyone on said ride. Just don't fall off.
atlas
Guest
Talking 1995, article in news today with Jonah Lomu. I was not aware he now needed daily dialysis --------------- Lomu is touring Britain as an ambassador for World Cup sponsor Heineken with the next tournament due to kick off in London on September 19 (NZT). The legendary wing was happy to reminisce about the 1995 tournament and, of course, his colossal four-try effort in the semifinal over England was raised. "People say to me 'that semifinal must have been the best game you ever played'," he said. "And I say 'yeah, maybe'. But imagine what I could have done if I was healthy." Lomu continues to be plagued by kidney problems that cut short his career. He had a kidney transplant in 2004 but his body eventually rejected that in 2011, just as he was starring as a central figure in New Zealand's successful hosting of the 2011 World Cup. He now lives in hope of a second transplant if a suitable donor kidney can be found. Lomu said his speaking engagements in Britain over the ensuing weeks would also involve "a tour of dialysis units". "By the end of it I'll have learnt the ins and outs of every clinic in the country". Lomu's condition sees him spend six hours a day hooked to a machine that cleans his blood. "Yeah, there's only so many movies you can watch, so many emails you can catch up with. But I don't let it get me down. Everybody has their ups and downs. For me, getting up is not a chore," said the ever-positive 40-year-old father of two.
Jokerman
Guest
Ah yes two different matches. But my position stands; the reffing in those two matches and then the response was excessive. The quarter as someone mentioned you missed two kicks. Just one would have won you the game. McCaw stated, I believe in his book that the ref froze a bit and wouldn't make decisions. The tech advisor in the SA camp perhaps could have picked up on this early and made ajustments. That adjustment could have been to be over contest at the ruck since no penalties were being awarded. The penalty count was even so it showed no bias. I believe McCaw was right. The match was still there to be won. No comparison to Barnes in '07. The margins for adjustment were so small and the All Blacks couldn't find the plan to make their moment in the smallest of windows. But you have to accept and move on...
Old Bugger
Guest
Me too but also, Hart's arrogant smirk in '99 also, stuck in my craw. That guy had his head so far up that I'm surprised he still believed, that the sun still shined, upon him.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Lindsay - Eales said they were working out how they would beat the AB's i.e what tactics they would use. Not wondering in the way you wish to take it i.e. how on earth can it be done. Then when the french won they had to devise new tactics since they were not prepared for that eventuality. Get a quote of the interview.
Rugby Realist
Guest
Agree with all of this
ohtani's jacket
Guest
1999 was my least favourite World Cup squad. I have no problem with them losing. If they'd won the World Cup it would have been hollow compared to the great Australian side that took the cup. 2003 was similar. We tried to turn things around in a World Cup year, but England were deserved winners. We should have won in 2007. That's the one that really sticks in the craw. It's actually a good thing that South Africa weren't knocked out by Fiji otherwise that World Cup would have been a total farce.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
It was an interview with eales that I recall. He said something like they were wondering how they were going to beat the all blacks and then the French won and they knew then that they would win the final as they watched the French celebrate and knew that they had already played their final. So my original statement was a bit of a overstrong rendering of his words but the sentiment was certainly there.
zhenry
Guest
Well thought through article, Lindsay Amner, my opinion of course. I agree the ABs are the team most nations want to beat whether they are actually playing well at the time or not, because their general record is so overwhelming. 1999-2003 was the worst period that I can remember for the ABs, one factor; they hung on to Hart year after year when they needed a new coach. There new coach (backs) in 2003 was Deans and he played a Crusaders favourite out of position at centre instead of the fit regular Umuga.(excuse spelling), NZRU never forgave him. 1995: There was definitely poison involved, players were actually sick, even during the game. It was the fault (a NZ fault in general) of the AB management at the time not making a definite statement publicly about it. I believe mass (if I may use the term) sickness has happened against the WBs as well. There is also the English win when the ABs had the flu, well discussed on here at the time. If you don’t make it public at the time these incidents are more susceptible to conspiracy: Which is a ruse also, because conspiracy means without evidence, and there is plenty of evidence for the SA poisoning; well, documented, among others, by yours truly Spiro.
Wal
Roar Guru
What I sort of meant by the tin foil hat stuff is more, that those accusations never sound good coming form a losing team, let others make those sort of conslusions on their own. Luis Luyt was president of the SARFU who even prompt a walk out of the finals dinner, so appalling was his speech. so who knows.
Rugby Realist
Guest
Re Eales, there is no way he would have said that. (for that matter, no captain of the winning WC team would, basically undermining their achievement). I do recall Eales (may have been someone else from that great side) saying they were cheering when the French won the Semi. That is completely different. They have every right to want to play a potentially easier opponent who are spent and played the game of their lives. As Sheek above said, that was a great Australian team that had the measure of the ABs of the same era. In fact, the NZ wins in early 99 were the outliers, as opposed to the perception that the 28-7 Sydney result was a one off.
Jokerman we are talking TWO different matches here. 2011 we were screwed. Bismarck tackled Dan a bit after 2012 The tackle was legitimate, end of debate
wardad
Guest
My understanding of it is it wasnt anything to do with the Saffas but everything to do with an Asian betting ring ?
wardad
Guest
Now then Biltong you know he missed 2 from 4 kicks at goal
ebop
Guest
When all is said and done I'm actually pretty happy with two RWC wins. No other team has more. 2011 was such a relief and alleviated a lot of RWC anxiety. I think the ABs, fans and NZ media are pretty relaxed about this one. We'll just go about our business. All this choke talk is water off a duck's back these days and it's easy to laugh it off. Saying choke used to mean 'one thing' but it's a bit of a hollow taunt these days if I'm honest.
apelu
Guest
You got to be kidding re 1999. The Wallabies had the wood on the ABs in the tri-nation, beating them in Melbourne and Christchurch to claim the Bledisloe. The Wallabies were the best team that tournament; the Boks were probably next favourite.
WQ
Guest
Only two days Bazza, I cried for two days and then started mourning!!!! Unfortunately I have to agree though, regardless of the worst Refereeing display in RWC history the game was still winnable had they had a plan B!