Re: RWC inportant?
- From: kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 25 May 2006 17:00:04 -0700
Myk Cameron wrote:
On 22 May 2006 22:03:44 -0700, "rick boyd" <boyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Walter Mitty wrote:
Most of the English acknowledged that its not all there is : and we have
been screaming for concistent team picks and playing the best teams -
theres nothing wrong with wanting to win everything. Its just that some
of us believe that form, commitment and strategy (on and off field)
contribute to a RWC win and that its not just a "lottery". And for the
joy and pride it brings to nations and supporters, it is second to none
as far as tournaments go : all teams get a level playing field and lots
of advance notice.
But the results do not bear out the "form, commitment and strategy"
theory, except in the rosy glow of 20-20 hindsight.
In 1987 Australia were the form team, the All Blacks in disarray. The
team in disarray won.
Top three teams by AQB rating prior to the 1987 World Cup:
France 1405.72
Australia 1393.53
New Zealand 1386.91
In 1991 New Zealand were the form team, Australia up and coming, and
the up and coming team won it, although their form, commitment and
strategy included an unlikely and somewhat fortunate escape form
Ireland in the quarter final.
Top three teams by AQB rating prior to the 1991 World Cup:
New Zealand 1500.53
Australia 1373.60
England 1364.38
In 1995 Australia were the form team again but fell into a hole and
were never seen again, New Zealand were the up and coming team, South
Africa won nothing before or after but scraped home in the final on a
wobbly dropped goal against a nobbled All Black team. The Boks'
commitment was faultless but if that was their strategy, then I'm
Nelson Mandela.
Top four teams by AQB rating prior to the 1995 World Cup:
Australia 1480.63
England 1434.86
New Zealand 1408.63
South Africa 1375.18
In 1999 there wasn't a lot of form on offer, tri nations winners New
Zealand surrendered gutlessly to an onslaught of eye gouging from
France, Australia (the team with the worst credentials of the three),
squeaked home against a South African team unbeaten throughout 1998,
and went on to win comfortably against France.
Top three teams by AQB rating prior to the 1999 World Cup:
New Zealand 1526.34
Australia 1515.99
South Africa 1479.50
France (6th) 1292.42
In 2003, England became the first favourites and world number ones to
win the world cup but it wasn't so much form and strategy that got them
home but a last minute drop goal.
Top three teams by AQB rating prior to the 2003 World Cup:
England 1571.54
New Zealand 1569.40
Australia 1442.04
The lottery theory looks pretty good overall.
Does it?
Probably. Being top of the ratings prior to the World Cup looks like a
bit of a curse. 3/5 didn't even make the final, one (France 1987) made
the final and lost, before England won in 2003.
There have been no 'out of left fielders'.
All the teams who've won have been in the top 3 ranked except for 95,
when SA were 4th (but home team), as have all the beaten finalists,
except in 99 when France were 6th (and again home team).
If it were a lottery, surely you'd get some rather unexpected winners,
or even losing finalists (like Wales, or Samoa) , yet I can't say any
winner has been totally unexpected. All the above shows is that being
ranked #1 is no guarantee of success.
Home advantage plays a part too, hence Aus making the final in 2003.
Higgs
Myk
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: rick boyd
- Re: RWC inportant?
- References:
- RWC inportant?
- From: Mike Thompson
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: Dave
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: Uncle Bully
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: rick boyd
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: Sean Byrne
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: Walter Mitty
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: rick boyd
- Re: RWC inportant?
- From: Myk Cameron
- RWC inportant?
- Prev by Date: Re: SEMI-OT: WTF IS GOING ON IN OZ?
- Next by Date: Kiwi Posters
- Previous by thread: Re: RWC inportant?
- Next by thread: Re: RWC inportant?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
