A puzzling question about the All Blacks and Rugby World Cups?

Question

I always have wondered as to why the All Blacks have won only just one WC even though they have always fielded simply fantasic teams. Can you guys / gals try and solve this mystery? While you're at it try and point out why France has never won a WC and whether they'll have something special this time around.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, mysteries are what they are because there are no answers. All teams go to the RWC knowing that the All Blacks are the team to beat is you want the cup. They will analyze and dissect the AB's game to find weak points, and then focus on that. Add to that, the business end of the RWC is a knockout, and every time after 87, they met a team that had the trumps for that game.

In 91, they met an Australian side that was probably better than them in general. In 95 they played a weaker team in SA, but the home crowd and Madiba factor undid them. In 99 France had a once in a lifetime game with the ball bouncing blue. In 03 Australia caught them napping. But they are still the team to beat - including 07.

Answer 2

it all comes down to one game. and on that day any one is capable of beating any one.

Answer 3

Oh we (Kiwi's) have an excuse/reason for every single world cup failure... and here they are!!!

1991:  We rested on the glory of the first world cup and sent as many veterans of the 1987 cup as we could find, even though most of them should have retired but held on until the world cup, and they simply were not good enough to beat the top teams.  This is something that we've never done again and we actually consistantly field some of the youngest teams in international rugby... something we'd pay for in a later world cup.

1995:  We learnt from the 1991 debacle and sent the best team we could, and honestly, the best team in the world (and I know this will sound like an excuse but it's not) but immediately after the semi final, the All Blacks were hit very hard by a mysterious food poisoning outbreak.  It supposedly was deliberate as the woman that served the drinks turned out to not even be an employee of the hotel and was never found.  Right or wrong, most of the team didnt practice before the final and some were still ill when the final was played.  Even so, South Africa were a great team and were playing for more than just the trophy, and they won... as any top team can do on any day.

1999:  The infamous France collapse.  Anyone that knows world rugby, knows that a season in France will toughen you up FAST.  They swing wildly between brilliant and abysmal but they are ALWAYS tough up front.  New Zealand had a very young forward pack, particularly the front row and they were, plainly, man handled.  The French used every trick in the book and some outside the book and basically, our young pack was chewed up and spat out.  Everyone knows that if you dont win up front, you dont win at all.

2003:  Basically, Australia went into that game playing only defense.  Everyone knew NZ were an offensive powerhouse and Australia went in with one aim... to stop NZ tries and maybe steal a win with penalties... as it turned out, they grabbed an intercept try as well.  Has to rate as one of the most boring games ever.

A lot of people will say they are chokers, but thats pretty much ridiculous since players and staff are constantly rotated out of the team.  The honest truth behind the chokers tag is that all the other nations want it to be true because they have nothing else to cling to.  If everyone truly believed they would lose, then no one would be paying them any attention... instead, they head into every tournament as a favourite.  Also, if everyone that calls them chokers, was forced to bet their lives on a winner (if they were honest) most would bet on BLACK!!!

Answer 4

Just too cocky. Big heads, not enough humility. If enough people tell you your going to win it for long enough you start to believe it.

Nothing to do with choking. We have never choked. When France knocked us out we were up 24 -10 at half time - we thought the game was all over - Too cocky.

When the Aussies Knocked us out we had earlier thrashed them by 40 point score lines in the tri-nations. - Too cocky

Of course when RSA beat us it was all good - that final went into double overtime If I remember correctly. - we certainly did not choke.

The team has a lot more humility this time around - mainly because all but two players can really be assured of being in the starting 15 for more than one game in succession.

This year will certainly be very different !

Answer 5

Over all history, they are the best team, but that doesn't necessarily translate into world cup wins.  They have been labeled chokers, but that's really unfair.

In 1991, Australia was a better team.  In fact, the previous two Bledisloe Cups had indicated that Australia was at least as good.  It didn't help that they had to play the semifinal without Michael Jones, but he probably wouldn't have made the difference either.

In 1995, everyone was gushing over NZ because they were such a great attacking team.  South Africa wasn't nearly so good in attack, but were a superb defensive team.  With so many people in rugby so consumed with which teams are "boring", it is easy for a defensive team to be underrated.  Throw in the home field advantage, the food poisoning (even if you reject the notion that it was deliberate - as I do - , it never helps when a certain amount of your team falls ill) and a  very good Springbok team playing the game of their lives, and it's not really such an upset, but a fair result.

1999?  Yeah, a choke...blowing a big lead like that against inferior opposition was a choke for the ages.  However, that was the All Blacks' only REAL world cup choke.

Unfortunately, so many people have blindly accepted this "choking" meme that every time they fail to win it will be attributed to a choke.

But calling them chokers is disrespectful to their opponents.  It is saying that the Wallabies of 1991 and 2003 and the Springboks of 1995 weren't actually that good...that they were just lucky to face a team that didn't know how to win.  So, if you are from either of those countries and call the All Blacks chokers, be aware that you are simultaneously saying that YOUR team wasn't really that great.

Answer 6

The choker tag isn't completely wrong, which pains me to say because i love the All Blacks with all my heart.

Whenever we go into a big game, we try to make everything happen to quick, we win a turnover then we throw everything at them to try and score on that phase instead of working along slowly, being sure of everything and getting it done.

Thats why we're always the best team in the world 2 years off from the world cup, all the criticism is finished from losing at the last one and they're not putting the pressure on themselves that they do at world cup time.

As a New Zealander i can say this, New Zealanders are complete jerks to our professional teams. The media lambasts all of our top level players, put ridiculous expectations on them and then sit back and wait for one mistake then dive all over it. Thats the famous Tall Poppy Syndrome that we keep hearing about.

Look at John Mitchell, the most successful All Blacks Coach in decades (Actually, one of the most successful coaches of professional rugby for decades) Dropped out of the world cup after losing to Aussie and got fired before he got backto NZ.

If we can relax into a game, get what needs to be done done, then we'll win a h**l of a lot more than we are.

Answer 7

The All Blacks were firm favourites going into the 03 World Cup.  The Wallabies got on top of them from the whistle.  The All Blacks were rattled and never got back in the game.

They are wiser this time, but I can't see them having it all their own way.  Their dangers are France and South Africa.

Answer 8

They choke.

They are known for it.

This year will be no different.

Answer 9

I thought that NZ would win for sure last time. It was a major upset when Australia beat them in the semis. In the end it comes down to a bit of luck and anyone can win any game.

The other teams also kept the NZ strenghts under cap, by failing to run wide on occasions, with rococoko and howlett controlling the wings and such powerful centres. Instead the forwards tried to combatr them from the ruck.

Answer 10

Its a mystery to me.

In 1991 Rugby World Cup we left out Buck Wayne Shelford.  Zinzan Brooke should never had replaced him, he was hot in 1987 but it took him three years to prove himself on the International Stage.  It takes time to prove yourself at that level and to actually compete and get the respect of your adversaries. He didn't have the time to do that and he shouldn't have been picked.   They should have maintained the status quo.  Wayne Shelford was a better captain than Gary Whetton at Test Level.  Frano Botica should been the No 1 first five eight rather than Grant Fox and Later Little second five eight instead of Bernie McCahill.  We needed a attacking back line with more options and our forward pack was predictable.  The were running the same lines for the last three years so it was no surprise that come the semi finals they were found wanting.

In 1995 Rugby World Cup they were beaten by a better team.

In 1999 Rugby World Cup they under estimated the French Team were out partying a week earlier after the English teat match and thought the game was a for gone conclusion.  France got there tail up and eventually ground them down.  Just simple mistakes cost them that game and arrogance.  

In 2003 Rugby World Cup.  Got beaten by Australia.  Australia got up for this New Zealand didn't.  Australia had an under strength forward pack but still rose to the occasion and maintained parity both back lines cancelled out each other.  Another sad day at the office for the All Blacks