• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The importance of World Cup wins?

James

Cricket Web Owner
Arguably most people would say the All Blacks were the best side through the 90s and 00s, but they don't have any World Cup titles to show for their dominance during this period.

How important is winning the World Cup to being remembered as one of the great sides?

As years go by, will people remember how good some of the All Blacks teams were, or will the focus be drawn more towards World Cup wins which show Australia, South Africa and England ahead?
 

Howe_zat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think the best side not winning is memorable in itself in World Cups. All I hear about the '95 World Cup is how absurdly good the All Blacks were supposed to be, and that just adds to the story. It's the same in football - people remember how good the Dutch were in the early 1970s, and how they didn't win.
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
It goes without question that the lack of World Cup victories are a blight on New Zealand's otherwise excellent record over the last 20 years, and theres no doubt that the tournament's of vital importance to test how teams play under pressure, usually without a home crowd as support, and against other sides that can rise to the occasion (of which the French are a perfect example). In saying that, even if we don't win this year's tournament, I'd much rather take our domination over the Six Nations and Tri Nations sides for 90% of the matches between RWCs than the 10% of rugby matches which make up the World Cup.

I can see the perspective of those that consider the RWC to be all encompassing as to the who the best sides in the world is. However, I tend to argue that one loss in a particular tournament shouldn't define how good a team is, or even how well they play under pressure. Even the greatest sides lose, and from a NZ perspective its just unfortunate that we've timed those loses to coincide with World Cup knockout matches over the last 20 years. Our record, especially since the last World Cup, is tremendous and I'd much rather take a longer period of success against sides all over the world and use that to base the ability of the All Blacks than a tournament once every four years.
 

ripper868

Cricketer Of The Year
3.5 years of mediocrity and a World Cup win>sustained period of dominance and a loss in the Semi's of World Cup.

IMO
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
3.5 years of mediocrity and a World Cup win>sustained period of dominance and a loss in the Semi's of World Cup.

IMO
To be fair, I guess most of the teams that win World Cups haven't really been mediocre pre-tournament (England 2003 were favourites, South Africa had a good run-in to the 2007 tournament). In saying that, how does being consistently poor for 90% of the time and turning up well for a tournament for a month and a half constitute a better overall performance than a team with an outstanding record between World Cups (NZs win/loss sits at about 80% since 2007) and a one-off loss in the tournament? The funny thing is, if New Zealand do happen to lose this time, I think a lot of other New Zealanders would actually agree with your viewpoint; but its one I don't really subscribe to.
 

Quaggas

State Captain
To be fair, I guess most of the teams that win World Cups haven't really been mediocre pre-tournament (England 2003 were favourites, South Africa had a good run-in to the 2007 tournament). In saying that, how does being consistently poor for 90% of the time and turning up well for a tournament for a month and a half constitute a better overall performance than a team with an outstanding record between World Cups (NZs win/loss sits at about 80% since 2007) and a one-off loss in the tournament? The funny thing is, if New Zealand do happen to lose this time, I think a lot of other New Zealanders would actually agree with your viewpoint; but its one I don't really subscribe to.
But NZ were by far the tournament favorites.

Tough one: Ama Bokke, or Stokke Bokke?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
A theory I've been working on is that, because NZ know only very few teams can beat them (realistically Wallabies, Boks, England and Les Bleus), they operate in clinical autopilot a lot of the time and aren't given serious workouts until they play one of those four teams.

When they find themselves in a game the weight of expectation weighs heavy and they get a little chokey. CBA to look it up, but I'm guessing the ABs won their group games in 2007 by an average of 50+ points per test and hadn't had a proper hit-out until the French in the quarters & we all know how that ended up. The French meanwhile had lost to Argentina and had to put an always-dangerous Mick to bed.

The other potential winners know then that other teams can and have upset them (Samoa beating the Wobblies and Scotland the Bok in the past 12 months) they become more tournament-hardened and raise their games for the ABs, the once and forever favourites.

I'd guess only twice (91 & 03) the ABs haven't gone in as favs.

A sliver of light for New Zealand tho: between 1970 & 1994 Brazil managed to convince themselves they were never once the best association football team in the world. How many years since NZ won Bill?
 

Retox

State Vice-Captain
Regardless of the sport (football,cricket,rugby,etc,etc) winning the world cup is the benchmark of how good the team is.


3.5 years of mediocrity and a World Cup win>sustained period of dominance and a loss in the Semi's of World Cup.

IMO
Anyone who doesn't think this is true supports a team that won the world cup in 1987 and is trying to make up for how much of a nation of chokers we are
 

Quaggas

State Captain
Regardless of the sport (football,cricket,rugby,etc,etc) winning the world cup is the benchmark of how good the team is.




Anyone who doesn't think this is true supports a team that won the world cup in 1987 and is trying to make up for how much of a nation of chokers we are
You still have the best rugby team in the world, and have had (practically always) since 87 (that's 34 years ffs), WC or no.
 

Retox

State Vice-Captain
You still have the best rugby team in the world, and have had (practically always) since 87 (that's 34 years ffs), WC or no.
You can't be the best if you don't win the major comps



(Not saying we have to win each one)
 

Retox

State Vice-Captain
I guess my point is a few years ago:

Liverpool had more league titles then Man Utd - Didn't make Liverpool the best team in England the best team is the team who wins more of the major titles/comps not the team that last won in 1989–90. NZ is not the best in the world for winning something in 1987 I mean our current only major trophy is the bledisloe cup
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
if we dont win, i'll stop watching rugby
:wacko: Thats a bit of an over-reaction I'd say! I mean, its not as if its New Zealand's right to win the tournament, they still need to earn it; and in a tournament which essentially relies on three knockout matches and is prone to upsets, nothings certain...
 

centurymaker

International Captain
i can't imagine how 'hurt' i will be if we lose again. if we cant win at home we cant win anywhere.


lets not get negative. I believe in black. come on we've got this in the bag.
BTW I'll take a world win over 3.5 year dominance anyday.
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
i can't imagine how 'hurt' i will be if we lose again. if we cant win at home we cant win anywhere.
Umm again I have to disagree; even if the All Blacks don't win the World Cup this year it wouldn't at all surprise me if they're the most fancied team for the 2015 tournament in England, given the quality of the side and the ages of many of the players. In fact you'd have less pressure without home crowds so I would imagine their chances would be just as great.
lets not get negative. I believe in black. come on we've got this in the bag.
BTW I'll take a world win over 3.5 year dominance anyday.
I think the most negative view to take is a stance of threatening to stop supporting the team if they don't win! :laugh: I certainly believe in the side but hardly think its in the bag - you can have one bad 20-30 minute period in a knockout match and thats your tournament done. Theres bound to be upsets, just fingers crossed they don't involve the ABs this time!
 

centurymaker

International Captain
Umm again I have to disagree; even if the All Blacks don't win the World Cup this year it wouldn't at all surprise me if they're the most fancied team for the 2015 tournament in England, given the quality of the side and the ages of many of the players. In fact you'd have less pressure without home crowds so I would imagine their chances would be just as great.

I think the most negative view to take is a stance of threatening to stop supporting the team if they don't win! :laugh: I certainly believe in the side but hardly think its in the bag - you can have one bad 20-30 minute period in a knockout match and thats your tournament done. Theres bound to be upsets, just fingers crossed they don't involve the ABs this time!
we are going to win it thats why im making outrageous statements. :laugh:

let's not be rational about it.

i'd imagine there wouldn't be any less pressure as people would be even more eager/desperate for a win. Plus the crowd support can really urge you on.
 

Top