Gibberish.
New Zealand rugby was still in a far stronger position than South Africa by 2007, notwithstanding the difference in number of World Cup victories.
Consistency leads to more long term success, no matter the sport. Anywho, Glas mentioned consistency, so that’s where the argument comes from.
Fans of the Geech and Carwyn James would have something to say about that but he is in the pantheon of greats for sure.
It’s all about consistency in rugby.
We’re not talking about “New Zealand rugby” or “South African rugby”.
We’re talking about their senior international teams.
New Zealand would have traded every single one of their Tri-Nations victories in the whole of the 2000s for that 2007 World Cup that South Africa won.
That’s a fact.
Same situation as regards New Zealand’s dominance in the second half of the 1990s. South Africa and Australia produced the goods when it mattered and New Zealand didn’t.
But that fails to see the impact of consistency.
NZ rugby then went and won in 2011 and 2015, back to back tournaments. 10 years of consistency led to that. Those weren’t tournaments won solely on luck or dubious decisions, they were won from a consistent rugby programme that managed retirements and changeovers in coaching.
I’m not sure why Gerry Thornley’s statement that Irish rugby is in a far healthier state than Wales can be construed as wrong.
NZ weren’t dominant in the second half of the 90s. They were excellent from 94-97 and then had an up and down period for the rest of the decade which carried into the early 2000s.
Wales have won four Grand Slams in the last 15 seasons, reached the World Cup semi-final, and won the game they had to win at the next World Cup.
Their World Cup knockout defeats under Gatty have bene by one points and four points.
That’s more consistent than Ireland, and it’s a much better record of winning the games that matter most.
In the three World Cups in that period, Ireland have failed to qualify from the group stage - losing to their two main rivals by 22 points and 15 points, and lost two quarter-finals by 12 points and 23 points.
That’s consistent failure when it matters.
That’s not consistent, that is being selective of data.
International rugby includes all Test match games. That’s why Wales were seeded so poorly in 2015, because they were not consistent.
They won the Tri-Nations in '96, '97 and '99 and won a series in South Africa for the first time in their history. They went on a streak between 1995 and 1998 where they lost one test match in 25.
It’s consistency in the games that matter.
Irish rugby supporters are great at cherry picking out the games which matter, because they consistently fail in them.
Still, at least you’ll always have the jolly up over in Chicago where Ireland beat a New Zealand team playing at 50%.
That isn’t “dominant” as you suggested. They also lost a World Cup and split Bledisloe Cups in that time (98 and 99, losing again in 2000). They were excellent from the 94-97 period, they were still very good from 98-2000 clearly, but FAR from dominant. Dominant NZ has been seen since 2011.
It’s “consistency” when?
Wales didn’t win a Six Nations title between 2013 till this year?
They failed in numerous games vs the SH, including Test match series down under.
I can appreciate someone saying they would prefer to have the Welsh trophy haul and semi final of the last 10-15 years, but that doesn’t mean consistent. The New York Giants won two Super Bowls in the 10 year gap between the Patriots winning Super Bowls, that doesn’t make them more consistent.
You’re really weird.
Imagine getting so offended just because somebody drops a few truth bombs on you.
Here’s another one.
In the last ten competitive matches between Ireland and Wales, Wales have won six while Ireland have only won three.
Wales are consistently better in head to heads than Ireland - and you can’t get a much better comparison of who’s better than head to head matches.
Sid will be digging games up from 70s to try and prove his point.
So you’ve run out of road on your factually incorrect assertions and have come up with a new metric.
I’m not a big Gerry Thornley fan but his statement here is well evidence and well argued;
The Irish clubs have been better than the Welsh clubs for years now, I don’t think its a good indicator of which country is in a better health
Your problem is that you can never accept being wrong and just act like a child when you’re exposed…
Given that you’re wrong about the vast majority of things you post about, I’d have thought you’d have come to terms with such a feeling by now.
It’s an indicator of which country has a more lucrative market.
Portuguese and Belgian clubs are shit in Europe yet Portuguese and Belgian football as a whole are both thriving.
French club rugby has been booming but the French international team has been a joke since 2011.
