Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

New Zealand has been the number one rugby team in the world forever. How? Do they have some kind of super secret training system or are New Zealanders just super badass at rugby?

Its the sheep.

It's their most popular sport, doesn't have much competition from other games. Therefore all the good sporty kids end up in rugby instead of a wider variety of other sports.

+ it's not like they're unbeatable. Yes they ussualy are at the top of the world rankings. But they've only won the rugby world cup once out of its twenty years.

Frazzled wrote:Its the sheep.

funnily enough in some parts of New Zealand they do paractice rugby by tackling sheep.

funnily enough in some parts of New Zealand they do paractice rugby by tackling sheep.

Is that what they call it now?

Sheep thought that was bad, guess what came next.

It all lies in the Haka.

What year did the Irish team Munster beat New Zealand at Thomond Park--1980s?
T

I heard that the players are all descendants of dwarves.

They just got lucky in the last game against the Australian Wallabies. The ground was slippery, is all. Jammy bastards.

BrookM wrote:It all lies in the Haka.

I do have to admit, the Haka is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in my life. I would be a little unsettled going into a game against someone who just did the Haka like the all blacks do. It's the most intimidating rugby warcry i've ever seen before. . . You just don't get more badass than that.

Because their extremly badass and their all decended from Dwaren Slayers, thats why they kick ass in rugby

They're good, but not unbelievably so. They actually make quite a few mistakes due to being overly aggressive in the back line.

I think a large part of their renown is simply the mystique that surrounds the Haka, and the bias towards aggressive = good. There's also the obsession with freakishly big wings; Jonah Lomu especially

The French also went through a super-aggressive phase. It is something a clever opponent can exploit.

dogma wrote:They're good, but not unbelievably so. They actually make quite a few mistakes due to being overly aggressive in the back line.

I think a large part of their renown is simply the mystique that surrounds the Haka, and the bias towards aggressive = good. There's also the obsession with freakishly big wings; Jonah Lomu especially

I know it's CRAZY. Jonah Lomu is huge for a wing. ABSOLUTELY HUGE. 6' 5" and 240+ lbs is the size of a good forward.

It is a damned shame that Jonah Lomu got kidney disease and had to stop playing (IIRC he ended up with a transplant).

New Zealand seem to suffer from a bit of stage fright and fall away in the semi finals of the rugby world cup, but are dominant the rest of the time.

I'm amazed Australia can be competative at all when rugby union is now the 4th most played football code.

1: Australian Rules Football. Australia's very own game and far and away the most popular in terms of participation, crowds and TV audience.
Unfortunately to have much idea of what is going on you have to be an Australian...



2: Rugby League (struggling ATM with AFL moving in on it's New South Wales heartland and soccer to soon take over its number 2 ranking)
3: Soccer. This is the only one played during summer, the rest are winter sports. Also primarily a school sport, numbers drop off dramatically in high school.
4: Rugby union. Primarily played by private school boys (We had a huge program at my high school but I played Australian Rules)

rubiksnoob wrote:New Zealand has been the number one rugby team in the world forever. How? Do they have some kind of super secret training system or are New Zealanders just super badass at rugby?

This might have something to do with it...

It's the Mauri. They will F U X U UP !!!

I actually like Austrakian football I used to love to watch it when they showed it on espn in the 80's. I played American football in highscholl and I always felt a little wimpy putting my pads on when I remembered the Australians.

Not impressed by the HAKA by the way. All those guys would be thrown out of an American game for taunting. If they tried that in Miami there would be a bench clearing fight.


GG

I think NZ would relish a good ole fashioned bench clearing. There have been Mauris recruited by the NFL but none of them ever succumbed. Culture is greater than money and all the bells & whistles.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:1: Australian Rules Football. Australia's very own game and far and away the most popular in terms of participation, crowds and TV audience.
Unfortunately to have much idea of what is going on you have to be an Australian...

And you have to West Australian to know West Coast got absolutely screwed by the umpires in that game. The second last Essendon goal, when the umpire's bounce went sideways straight to the Essendon crumber... ridiculous.

Anyhow, enough about Victorian umpiring bias

The mystery to me isn't why New Zealand is good at Rugby Union, it's their biggest game and national obsession, but how Australia is good at Union. No-one here plays Union. I got a ticket to a Australian rugby union game one time as part of a corporate event, and sat in amongst 20,000 odd fans all with similar free tickets, all scratching their heads trying to figure out the rules. How we produce a competitive team from among the dozen amateur players in the country is quite a mystery.

Because you can't bowl underarm to them in Rugby.

Seriously. Every country has one sport they don't suck at.

Well, except maybe England.

When they win, it's because someone from one of the other units from the UK helping out.

Of course when those teams lose, it's also because of those same elements.

It's sad. Britain invented nearly every important modern sport and we are second-rate at all of them.

sebster wrote:How we produce a competitive team from among the dozen amateur players in the country is quite a mystery.

Union rules are pretty basic as long as you don't consider the specifics of penalization. Once you're accustomed to the rigors of a game which focuses on balance over brute force (by far the hardest thing for American players, and I imagine the easiest for Australians) the laws are easy.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's sad. Britain invented nearly every important modern sport and we are second-rate at all of them.

Eh? Hardly.

Rugby, won world cup folowed by best defence of a world cup ever.

Football, have been a top ranked team for an eternity. Not to mention our domestic league is the best in the world.

Cricket, still one of the top bys. Ok south africa are kicking everyone at the moment but we just kicked the west indies for six and a vary good chance against australia this summer.

Then athletics, fourth in the olympics behind three countries, smallest of which had a population four times the size of ours.

How is any of that "second rate"?

Considering the size of the Uk we probably have one of the best sporting records in the world, in that we are either top ranked or at least above average in most sports. (besides those silly american ones no one outside of the us cares about of course)

dogma wrote:Union rules are pretty basic as long as you don't consider the specifics of penalization. Once you're accustomed to the rigors of a game which focuses on balance over brute force (by far the hardest thing for American players, and I imagine the easiest for Australians) the laws are easy.

No, I was saying it was weird that we produce an internationally competitive team, considering that no-one here plays the game. Producing world class athletes is, to a large extent, a numbers game, you need a lot of kids playing as juniors to give yourself good odds of producing enough quality senior players. Hardly anyone here plays Rugby Union.


And yeah, when it came to everyone sitting around trying to figure out what was going on, it was all about the specifics of penalisation. Trying to figure out who infringed who in a scrum remains a mystery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Cricket, still one of the top bys. Ok south africa are kicking everyone at the moment but we just kicked the west indies for six and a vary good chance against australia this summer.

Actually, we beat S Africa in S Africa and we remain the number one ranked test nation.

On the other hand, England is ranked fifth, which doesn't sound too bad but there's only nine test playing nations. The nations below you are Pakistan (who aren't even playing test cricket right now), the West Indies (who don't really want to play test cricket), New Zealand and Bangladesh.

I actually think you've got the core of a good squad, certainly stronger than Sri Lanka, but you shouldn't go pretending that your results have been good, because they haven't. You've really struggled against quality outfits for more than 15 years now.


In general, I think you're probably right, England does a lot better in sport than you all let yourselves believe. But on the other hand your beer is nowhere near as good as you all pretend it is. Just part of the national character, I guess.

sebster wrote:Actually, we beat S Africa in S Africa and we remain the number one ranked test nation.

In the test match series you beat them two one yes, you also got slaughtered by them in the one days and twenty20 games. Whats more the game in the test series SA won, they beat Australia by an innings.

Edit: oh and yeh, they also beat australia at home last decmeber. I don't think theres much doubt over whos's the best cricket team at the moment. Whatever the rankings say.

But 20/20 is still a novelty side show to Australian teams.

Sure give it another 4 or 5 years, and some improvement in the rules and it may be taken more seriously than a money making slog fest.

Which is how the UK treats it, as they have been playing it a few years longer than Oz.

whatwhat wrote:In the test match series you beat them two one yes, you also got slaughtered by them in the one days and twenty20 games. Whats more the game in the test series SA won, they beat Australia by an innings.

Edit: oh and yeh, they also beat australia at home last decmeber. I don't think theres much doubt over whos's the best cricket team at the moment. Whatever the rankings say.

I wasn't try to do a rah rah Australia thing. If you look at the quality in the two squads, particularly talent among the younger players, South Africa is the best unit going around. But it's results that matter, not talent.

Thing is, I picked South Africa to win in Australia (and repeated that prediction when South Africa was facing a record chase in the first test, I said they'd make the runs and go on to win the series). I also picked South Africa to clean sweep Australia in South Africa. I got that one wrong, but the reason I got it wrong is a big reason. South African cricket has a long history of being eratic, whereas Australia since Waugh's time as captain has been far more ruthless, consistently competitive. Results matter, and right now in the results are in Australia's favour. In test cricket, right now, Australia is the number 1 ranked side because we've won more than South Africa has in recent years. South Africa will almost definitely overtake us as they post improved results, but that's not happened yet.

And yeah, South Africa is the best one day outfit, and by quite a margin. After them its probably India, then daylight, the Australia, our batting has fallen away that badly in the last couple of years in the short form.

If you want to talk 20/20, you don't even mention South Africa. Their record is poor, recent success against Australia aside. Not that Australia is that strong a 20/20 side either, we'll probably go into the World 20/20 even money with South Africa, and well behind both Pakistan and India.

sebster wrote:South Africa will almost definitely overtake us as they post improved results, but that's not happened yet.

Actually it has, they overtook you after the december series in australia, then went again after the defeat in Sa.

edit: And to get back to this point...

sebster wrote:On the other hand, England is ranked fifth, which doesn't sound too bad but there's only nine test playing nations. The nations below you are Pakistan (who aren't even playing test cricket right now), the West Indies (who don't really want to play test cricket), New Zealand and Bangladesh.

Yes England have had a recent lull, but before the 06/07 ashes we sat comfortably in the number 2 spot for a long time. And I wont agree that the rankings refelct how good a side we have at the moment. And I wont agree that the english cricket side are a "second rate" team, which was the point I was originally responding to.