The Curse of the Hosts
A couple of comments on here by James has got me thinking. Thanks James – perhaps this blog will get off the ground sometime – I spout some shit; someone makes a semi-relevant comment and together we get there.
But the comment that NZ’s record at RWC reads a miserable 1 from 6 for the supposedly dominant rugby union team on the planet got me into research mode. And first stop is an excellent website I’ve mentioned before – an expat-Pom who keeps records of internationals and Super 14 here.
Scroll to two-thirds down the page and you can see a graph - Riding The Wave - which shows the annual average ranking points of major rugby playing nations over the last 20 years. Apart from the last 3 years and the 3 years following the 1987 RWC, NZ exactly haven't had it all their own way, have they? And the older of us can remember the early-90 Wallabies, the mid-90 Boks and of course the 2002-3 English as teams who were at least our equal, if not better.
Now I want to add in the home ground factor. Don't ignore it - teams that play at home have a significant advantage in any sport, and rugby is no different. Hosts of the RWC have an impressive record, due to the fact that they are a major rugby nation playing at home:
NZ 1987 - winners
England 1991 - runners-up
SAF 1995 - winners
Wales 1999 - OK OK there's an exception to every rule
Australia 2003 - runners-up
France 2007 - ???
Yes we need to qualify this with the fact the Northern Hemisphere editions have more hosts than a timeshare sales evening, but the principle still stands. And here's something that surprised me - in the more-competitive sport of soccer, sorry football - the hosts have won it 5 times out of 14, finished runner-up twice (and won the 3rd/4th playoff 3 times). So 10 out of 14 soccer world cup editions have seen the hosts finish in the top 3.
What's this got to do with the All Blacks? Simple, 3 out of our 5 exits have been at the hands of the host nation - 1995, 2003 and now 2007, although yes, last week we were in Cardiff, but we are talking about the French here who would probably prefer to play us in Cardiff or London than Paris anyday.
Let's look at our record against the Wallabies and French, for they are the ones that have knocked us out twice each, and let's be charitable and forgive the 1995 team for they did actually draw the final.
In the 20 year period from 1987 to 2007, the W/L record for NZ v Australia is 28-17 (1 draw), a win percentage of 61%. But look at the games on Australian soil, and we're behind, 11-12 (1 draw). Leading up to the 2003 "shock" defeat, the Bledisloe Cup games on Australian soil between 1999 and 2003 were shared 2-2. Perhaps we were only a 50/50 chance four years ago despite what the bookies said at the time. Back in 1991, the Aussies had beaten us twice beforehand and with the benefit of hindsight, we see the Aussies were at the beginning of a period where they were top of the tree for 3 years. The point: these two losses were not "upsets".
Our record against the French is more substantial - a 70% win record both overall and away, so the losses to Les Bleus do fall into more of the surprise category. But as any long-term follower of rugby knows, the French do have this infuriating habit to be mediocre or sublime on any given day, and the All Blacks have drawn the short straw twice.
So is 1 from 6 a sub-standard record? Or do we expect too much in that our team is expected to knock over the hosts by just turning up? Never under-estimate home field advantage.
If I may be allowed to indulge for a sec, I backed Italy in the 2006 Soccer World Cup principally beacuse of their draw. Knockout tournaments have a "luck" factor in that who plays who at the business end is just as important as who is the best team. The current Springboks must be laughing. And luck also plays a part allowing supposedly superior teams to get away with a poor peformance and still get through - Italy last year against Australia; the 1991 Wallabies against Ireland and you can possibly throw in the Boks against Fiji in the weekend into that category. The ABs have yet to have that luxury from memory.
Is this just a long-winded post in a vain attempt to search for an excuse? Maybe, or perhaps here in NZ we do not completely understand the concept of knockout tournaments and home field advantage. Whichever it is, I can't wait for 2011 :-)
But the comment that NZ’s record at RWC reads a miserable 1 from 6 for the supposedly dominant rugby union team on the planet got me into research mode. And first stop is an excellent website I’ve mentioned before – an expat-Pom who keeps records of internationals and Super 14 here.
Scroll to two-thirds down the page and you can see a graph - Riding The Wave - which shows the annual average ranking points of major rugby playing nations over the last 20 years. Apart from the last 3 years and the 3 years following the 1987 RWC, NZ exactly haven't had it all their own way, have they? And the older of us can remember the early-90 Wallabies, the mid-90 Boks and of course the 2002-3 English as teams who were at least our equal, if not better.
Now I want to add in the home ground factor. Don't ignore it - teams that play at home have a significant advantage in any sport, and rugby is no different. Hosts of the RWC have an impressive record, due to the fact that they are a major rugby nation playing at home:
NZ 1987 - winners
England 1991 - runners-up
SAF 1995 - winners
Wales 1999 - OK OK there's an exception to every rule
Australia 2003 - runners-up
France 2007 - ???
Yes we need to qualify this with the fact the Northern Hemisphere editions have more hosts than a timeshare sales evening, but the principle still stands. And here's something that surprised me - in the more-competitive sport of soccer, sorry football - the hosts have won it 5 times out of 14, finished runner-up twice (and won the 3rd/4th playoff 3 times). So 10 out of 14 soccer world cup editions have seen the hosts finish in the top 3.
What's this got to do with the All Blacks? Simple, 3 out of our 5 exits have been at the hands of the host nation - 1995, 2003 and now 2007, although yes, last week we were in Cardiff, but we are talking about the French here who would probably prefer to play us in Cardiff or London than Paris anyday.
Let's look at our record against the Wallabies and French, for they are the ones that have knocked us out twice each, and let's be charitable and forgive the 1995 team for they did actually draw the final.
In the 20 year period from 1987 to 2007, the W/L record for NZ v Australia is 28-17 (1 draw), a win percentage of 61%. But look at the games on Australian soil, and we're behind, 11-12 (1 draw). Leading up to the 2003 "shock" defeat, the Bledisloe Cup games on Australian soil between 1999 and 2003 were shared 2-2. Perhaps we were only a 50/50 chance four years ago despite what the bookies said at the time. Back in 1991, the Aussies had beaten us twice beforehand and with the benefit of hindsight, we see the Aussies were at the beginning of a period where they were top of the tree for 3 years. The point: these two losses were not "upsets".
Our record against the French is more substantial - a 70% win record both overall and away, so the losses to Les Bleus do fall into more of the surprise category. But as any long-term follower of rugby knows, the French do have this infuriating habit to be mediocre or sublime on any given day, and the All Blacks have drawn the short straw twice.
So is 1 from 6 a sub-standard record? Or do we expect too much in that our team is expected to knock over the hosts by just turning up? Never under-estimate home field advantage.
If I may be allowed to indulge for a sec, I backed Italy in the 2006 Soccer World Cup principally beacuse of their draw. Knockout tournaments have a "luck" factor in that who plays who at the business end is just as important as who is the best team. The current Springboks must be laughing. And luck also plays a part allowing supposedly superior teams to get away with a poor peformance and still get through - Italy last year against Australia; the 1991 Wallabies against Ireland and you can possibly throw in the Boks against Fiji in the weekend into that category. The ABs have yet to have that luxury from memory.
Is this just a long-winded post in a vain attempt to search for an excuse? Maybe, or perhaps here in NZ we do not completely understand the concept of knockout tournaments and home field advantage. Whichever it is, I can't wait for 2011 :-)
Labels: RWC2007
posted by Rob Crawford at 9:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home