Statistic of the Day

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Non-international season has 16 games plus up to 3 knock out matches plus up to 3 knock out games. It runs from February to July. At the other extreme is the T14 which has 26 plus 3 knockouts plus 6 HC matches and up to 3 knock outs. So up to 38 club games running from August to June.

One of those can reasonably be described as long and arduous. The other is half as long.

Yeah but in the NH most of the time players in club teams spend their time waiting for the scrum half to pass it to the 10 so he can kick it out and everyone can amble slowly to the next set piece. SH rugby is a lot more tiring due to all the running and hard tackling and stuff.

Running repeatedly into the nearest defender/tackling the nearest man repeatedly takes much more than all this namby pamby passing and running around peple nonsense you lot seem to have got yourselves locked into.

[canta_brian]

Non-international season has 16 games plus up to 3 knock out matches plus up to 3 knock out games. It runs from February to July. At the other extreme is the T14 which has 26 plus 3 knockouts plus 6 HC matches and up to 3 knock outs. So up to 38 club games running from August to June.

One of those can reasonably be described as long and arduous. The other is half as long.

Yeah but in the NH most of the time players in club teams spend their time waiting for the scrum half to pass it to the 10 so he can kick it out and everyone can amble slowly to the next set piece. SH rugby is a lot more tiring due to all the running and hard tackling and stuff.

Running repeatedly into the nearest defender/tackling the nearest man repeatedly takes much more than all this namby pamby passing and running around peple nonsense you lot seem to have got yourselves locked into.

Man has a point. SH teams get a lot more rest time whilst conversions are being taken.

On the other hand haka-ing is fukin knackering

[Lizard]

England peaking in between World Cups as usual then... Of course, they had a good season, but I'm surprised they didn't manage an unbeaten season in the early 2000s at some stage.

They got close...

England in the early 2000s:
2000: Played 10, lost 2 (Scotland 6N, SA Summer tour)
2001: Played 11, lost 1 (Ireland 6N)
2002: Played 9, lost 1 (France 6N)
2003: Played 17, lost 1 (France, RWC warm-up)
2004: Fell off a cliff (played 11, lost 6)

[rowan]

"2004: Fell off a cliff (played 11, lost 6)"

Which the British rugby scribes blamed on a 'World Cup hangover.' Funny how the All Blacks never had one of those after winning any of their World Cups. Not sure that SA or Australia did either. What's that supposed to mean anyway - a 'World Cup hangover?'

[cashead]

Actually, South Africa in 1996 and 1997 weren't exactly great, and 2008 wasn't exactly a banner year for them either.

[rowan]

96 was the first ever home-series loss to the All Blacks, 1-3, but overall they finished 8 W 5 L, including an unbeaten Autumn tour.
97 it was almost exactly the same, a 1-2 series loss to the Lions, but an 8 W 4 L record overall, an another unbeaten Autumn tour.
08 they had a 9 W 4 L record, belted Argentina 63-7, Australia 53-8, and England 42 - 6 - on yet another unbeaten Autumn tour.

Make of that what you will, I'd say no disaster, and 2008 was actually quite decent. But certainly we didn't hear them wheeling out 'World Cup hangover' excuses...

NZ, meanwhile, have embarked on lengthy unbeaten tenures after each of the RWC victories.

[cashead]

96 was the first ever home-series loss to the All Blacks, 1-3, but overall they finished 8 W 5 L, including an unbeaten Autumn tour.
97 it was almost exactly the same, a 1-2 series loss to the Lions, but an 8 W 4 L record overall, an another unbeaten Autumn tour.
08 they had a 9 W 4 L record, belted Argentina 63-7, Australia 53-8, and England 42 - 6 - on yet another unbeaten Autumn tour.

Make of that what you will, I'd say no disaster, and 2008 was actually quite decent. But certainly we didn't hear them wheeling out 'World Cup hangover' excuses...

NZ, meanwhile, have embarked on lengthy unbeaten tenures after each of the RWC victories.

Yeah, an unbeaten mid-year test series in 1996 which included 2 tests against Argentina in the 90s, when they were a dumpsterfire. Meanwhile, they went 1 from 4 in the Tri Nations, and there was a home test series loss. Not exactly inspiring stuff.
The first half of 1997 was also a turbulent time, where they went through multiple coaches, and the season was only salvaged when Mallett took charge in the latter half of the season.

Both years had results that would be considered unacceptable by what you would expect their standards to be (and the Lions series loss did lead to the coach being given the chop despite the consolation win in the 3rd test). At least the Wallabies followed up their World Cup win in 1999 by retaining the Bledisloe, winning the 2001 Lions series and winning back-to-back Tri Nations titles.

In 2008, they played Wales, who continuously shit the bed against Southern Hemisphere teams, and Italy who suck. They came last in the Tri Nations with no silverware to speak of (overall title and Freedom Cup went to the ABs, Mandela Plate went to the Wallabies), and despite a historic first-ever win in Dunedin, they were humbled at home by being nilled at Cape Town by the ABs and lost to the Wallabies on the High Veldt for the first time in literal decades. Their 50+ point win against the Wallabies came when it mattered little. The only time in their campaigns between the 2007 and 2011 RWCs where they actually looked like a team that were legitimately world champions was in the first half of 2009, after which point their results fell off a cliff.

[rowan]

No argument with any of that. But as I said when the Wallabies were being criticized earlier in the year, every team on the planet looks bad when based primarily against the All Blacks. I mean, NZ have a 59% winning record agains the Boks, 69% against the Wallabies, 76% against the Lions, 77% against France, 80% against England, 91% against Wales, 93% against both Ireland & Scotland, 96% against Argentina, & 100% against everyone else. Anyway, let's be clear, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of England blaming their poor form in 2004 on a "World Cup hangover." As you've pointed out yourself, the Springboks responded to their dip in form by sacking coaches amid rising discontent from both scribes and fans.

[Lizard]

Warren is trying his hand at Eddie Jones-style baiting by claiming (in the middle of the off-season) that the Lions have the choice of 3 or 4 goalkickers who are better, percentage-wise, than anyone available to the All Blacks.

That's probably true. As are the following figures for all of 2016:

Tries scored by team:
NZ: 80 (average 5.7/match)
Eng: 46 (3.5)
Ire: 36 (3.0)
Wal: 31 (2.4)
Sco: 23 (2.3)

Individual tries scored
6 New Zealander players scored 5 or more tries. Only two Home Nations players managed this.

[Mr Mwenda]

But if we misunderstand what you've done and add the lions nations' tries together and so the lions collective scores 11.2 tries per match. Take that. This methodology doesn't work for tries conceded because of gatland's teddy bear look.

[scuzzaman]

Warren is trying his hand at Eddie Jones-style baiting by claiming (in the middle of the off-season) that the Lions have the choice of 3 or 4 goalkickers who are better, percentage-wise, than anyone available to the All Blacks.

That's probably true. As are the following figures for all of 2016:

Tries scored by team:
NZ: 80 (average 5.7/match)
Eng: 46 (3.5)
Ire: 36 (3.0)
Wal: 31 (2.4)
Sco: 23 (2.3)

Individual tries scored
6 New Zealander players scored 5 or more tries. Only two Home Nations players managed this.

All Blacks provide a handy graphic.

https://t.co/8ph9OOWDid

[J Dory]

Israel Dagg really did have a hell of a year.

[Puja]

No argument with any of that. But as I said when the Wallabies were being criticized earlier in the year, every team on the planet looks bad when based primarily against the All Blacks. I mean, NZ have a 59% winning record agains the Boks, 69% against the Wallabies, 76% against the Lions, 77% against France, 80% against England, 91% against Wales, 93% against both Ireland & Scotland, 96% against Argentina, & 100% against everyone else. Anyway, let's be clear, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of England blaming their poor form in 2004 on a "World Cup hangover." As you've pointed out yourself, the Springboks responded to their dip in form by sacking coaches amid rising discontent from both scribes and fans.

I think you're misunderstanding the expression "World Cup hangover." It's not an excuse; it's another way of saying we were shit. We built everything up to RWC 2003 and utterly failed to have any kind of plan beyond that. Coupled with a major failure of our talent supply line and Woodward jumping ship upon realising that everything was headed downwards, leaving us with Robinson, and it all went horribly wrong.

Puja

[rowan]

No argument with any of that. But as I said when the Wallabies were being criticized earlier in the year, every team on the planet looks bad when based primarily against the All Blacks. I mean, NZ have a 59% winning record agains the Boks, 69% against the Wallabies, 76% against the Lions, 77% against France, 80% against England, 91% against Wales, 93% against both Ireland & Scotland, 96% against Argentina, & 100% against everyone else. Anyway, let's be clear, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of England blaming their poor form in 2004 on a "World Cup hangover." As you've pointed out yourself, the Springboks responded to their dip in form by sacking coaches amid rising discontent from both scribes and fans.

I think you're misunderstanding the expression "World Cup hangover." It's not an excuse; it's another way of saying we were shit. We built everything up to RWC 2003 and utterly failed to have any kind of plan beyond that. Coupled with a major failure of our talent supply line and Woodward jumping ship upon realising that everything was headed downwards, leaving us with Robinson, and it all went horribly wrong.

Puja

Fair enough. I didn't view it in that context, admittedly, but more as an excuse from some blatantly one-eyed journalists on the Planet Rugby web site - who repeated the 'hangover' phrase ad nauseam.

[rowan]

Number of teams in each European nation's first division:

Wales 16
Germany 16 (8 + 8)
France 14
Spain 12
England 12
Netherlands 12
Italy 10
Scotland 10
Ireland 10
Portugal 10
Belgium 8
Poland 8
Switzerland 8
Israël 8
Romania 7
Czechia 7
Denmark 6
Finland 6
Hungary 6
Russia 6/8
Cyprus 6
Ukraine 6
Bulgaria 6
Croatia 6 (with one slovenian club)
Austria 5 (with two slovenian clubs)
Sweden 5
Malta 5
Latvia 5
Norway 4
Slovenia 4
Lithuania 4
Turkey 4
Slovakia 3
Serbia 3
Belarus 3
Luxembourg 2 (french and german championships)
Bosnia 2
Liechtenstein 1 (swiss championship)
San Marino 1 (italian championship)
Andorra 1 (french championship)

[Lizard]

Winning Streaks

England currently sits on 17 consecutive wins, one behind the All Blacks claimed “Tier 1” record of 18. I’m sure I posted about this at the time, and the rather overblown coverage of that feat. My main issue with it was that even though (arbitrarily defined) non “Tier 1” nations were excluded as possible record holders, they were included as defeated opponents (e.g. Tonga, Namibia & Georgia). By this logic, 19 wins over 2nd division European Nations Cup teams would give, say, Scotland the record.

It’s difficult to compare but I still maintain that the All Blacks’ greatest streak is the 17 wins over 4 years, 1965-69, against only other top sides (Aust, Eng, Fra, Lions, Sco, SA & Wales).

England’s current run also includes the likes of Fiji, Uruguay and Italy. So how do we best compare it with NZ’s “record”?

We could arbitrarily classify the opponents in each streak more finely than simply “Tier 1” and others. I would categorise teams as “A” (Aust, NZ & SA), “B” (Arg, Eng, Fra, Ire, Lions, Sco, Wales)*, “C” (Georgia, Italy, Fiji, Tonga)** and “D” (Nam, Uru)***. Under this system we see the following:

NZ (1965-69): 4xA, 13xB
NZ (2015-16): 7xA, 8xB, 2xC, 1xD
Eng (2016-17): 5xA, 8xB, 3xC, 1xD

The two modern records are pretty similar although NZ 2015-16 is perhaps slightly more impressive. NZ 1965-69 included no easybeats but illustrates how relatively rarely we played our co-hemispherists.

Another approach is to compare what the records would be if you excluded the weaker opponents (i.e. groups C and D above) and included only those that have beaten or drawn against NZ or England in a test (i.e. groups A and B, plus NZ)**** meaning that you only count opposition you might realistically lose to. Below is every streak of 12 or more (being England’s previous best) plus the best for other "A" and "B" teams for comparison*****. This provides some helpful context, I think:

NZ (1965-69): 17
SA (1997-98): 16
NZ (2013-14): 16
NZ (2005-06): 15
NZ (2015-16): 15
NZ (2009-2010): 14
NZ (2011-2013): 13
Eng (2016-17): 13+?
NZ (1988-1990): 12*****
Eng (2002-03): 12

Wales (1907-10): 11
Aust (1991-92): 9
Fra (1976-77): 8
Ire (2014-15): 7
Lions (1891-96): 6
Sco (1926-26): 6
Arg (2007): 3



*These are non-A teams that have won or drawn at least once in their history against NZ or England (it’s the same list for both countries except England haven’t played themselves or the Lions)
**Recognised rugby nations that have never beaten or drawn with NZ or Eng (some might argue Georgia is being overrated here. I would disagree)
***Proper minnows
****Technically, NZ has also been beaten by a World XV in a test, and England by a Presidents XV. Including these wouldn’t change the results.
*****Bearing in mind that SA, Aust and the others have all lost to teams that Eng and NZ have not. None of those embarrassing defeats are counted in the streaks listed.
*****Part of a 20 test unbeaten run including 1 draw

[rowan]

Cyprus still has the record for all international teams at 24, of course (2008-2014).
NZ is second in terms of unbeaten runs on 23 between 1987-1990.
Singapore holds the record for consecutive losses on 27 (1986-1997).
France is 2nd with 18 between 1911-1920 (tied with Azerbaijan, which folded a few years ago).
Scotland were winless in 17 games from 1951-1955.
Samoa also had a winless run of 20 games from 1955-1975 (they were still a minnow in the early 80s).

[rowan]

So the Canes have scored 154 point in their first 2 games of the Super Rugby season, the Rebels have conceded 127 and the Sunwolves 120. Meanwhile, South African teams have won 5/6 of their games against foreign opponents, including 3 on the road, with the only blemish being the Kings' defeat by the Jaguares. The Saffas have yet to face the Kiwi sides, however.

[rowan]

An amazing weekend of rugby, in fact, particularly in terms of upsets and crucial late scores. Brazil beat Canada with a late converted try, the USA clinched the ARC title with a late converted try (to draw in Argentina), Crusaders sealed their remarkable comeback win over Otago with a late try, I believe, and something similar happened with the Sharks in Canberra

Any others...?

[rowan]

Today's loss was the first for the Hurricanes in 10 months. They also lost to the Chiefs during the regular season last year, but avenged it with a 25-9 win in the semis. The only team to ever have a perfect season was the 2002 Crusaders in what was then the Super 12. The only other team to have an unbeaten season was the 1997 Blues, though they were held to an astonishing 40-40 draw in their opening game in Pretoria.

[Lizard]

So following my attempt to jinx it with my previous post, England has drawn level with NZ's dubious "record." They will try to gain outright second place (behind Cyprus) against Ireland this weekend. Ireland were looking pretty good until the shambles against Wales. England have had the wood on Ireland of late but lost in their last outing in Dublin (2015).

If England are to take the outright record, they will need to win the following fixtures:

2017 6 Nations
19. Ireland 18.03.2017

Tour to Argentina
20. Argentina 10.06.2017 (Engand easily accounted for the Pumas at home in 2013. The Lions will weaken England though)
21. Argentina 17.06.2017

2017 November tours
22. Argentina 11.11.2017 (Argentina'as only win at Twickenham was in 2009.)
23. Australia 18.11.2017 (Eng are on a 4-match winning streak v Aust)
24. Samoa 25.11.18 (Samoa have never beaten England in 7 attempts)

2018 6 Nations
25. Not yet scheduled as far as I know...

If the All Blacks (currently on 3 in a row) are to have another tilt, the path looks like this:

2017 Lions
4. Lions 24.06.2017 (The Lions were whitewashed in NZ in 2005 and fell to NZ Maori)
5. Lions 1.07.2017 (The Lions lost 2 of 3 tests in '93 as well as to Otago, Auckland, Hawke's Bay and Waikato)
6. Lions 8.07.2017 (The Lions lost all 4 tests in 1983 as well as to Auckland & Canterbury)

2017 Rugby Championship
7. Australia 19.08.2017 (Aussie have lost their last 5 in a row v NZ)
8. Australia 26.08.2017 (in NZ, the losing streak is 20 going back to 2001)
9. Argentina 9.09.2017 (Argentina have never beaten NZ)
10. South Africa 16.09.2017 (SA haven't beaten NZ in NZ since 2009)
11. Argentina 30.09.2017 (NZ's worst result in Arg was a draw in 1985)
12. South Africa 7.10.2017 (NZ haven't lost in SA since 2014)

2017 Bledisloe III
13. Australia 28.10.2017 (Aussie last won the Bled in 2002)

2017 November tour
14. France 11.11.2017 (NZ has not lost in France since 2000)
15. Scotland 18.11.2017 (NZ has never lost to Scotland)
16. Wales 25.11.2017 (1953 and all that)
A fourth test outide the WR window is somethine scheduled - I've heard no rumours

2018 France tour
17-19. France x3 (I presume it will be a 3 test tour)

2018 Rugby Championship
20-25. Arg x2, Aus x2, SA x2 (not yet scheduled)

2018 Bledisloe III
26. Australia (probably on Mars or something)

2018 November Tour
27-29 or 30. Fuck knows, Probably England at long last at some point.

[Lizard]

I saw a mention in another thread that the Eng v NZ match proposed for November might “introduce Itoje to the concept of defeat.” Itoje is on 11 caps (1 as sub*) for 11 wins but the record (for current players of all nations) is actually Itoje’s team mate Elliot Daly on 12 (5 as sub). Anglo-Australian Jack Clifford is chasing hard on 10 (but with only 2 starts).

Other current** English team members yet to taste defeat are the Fijian Nathan Hughes (7 caps), Kyle Sinckler (7), the Kiwi Ben Te’o (7) and Henry Slade (5).

The list for NZ*** is Anton Lienert-Brown (9), Matt Todd (8), Lima Sopoaga (6), Nathan Harris (4) Elliot Dixon (3), Fijii-born Seta Tamanivalu (3), Reiko Ioane (2), Damian McKenzie (2), James Parsons (2), Liam Coltman (1), Kane Hames (1)


The record for most matches without a loss over a completed test career is 17, by Charles Piutau (10 starts). Corey Flynn is second place. Famously being trusted in a Black shirt only to close out games already beyond doubt, he has 15 caps without a loss of which 13 were off the bench and his two starts being against Tonga and Italy.

The shock 2016 win by Ireland over the All Blacks is the only failure to win experienced (so far) by:
Waisake Naholo (12)
Ardie Savea (12)
Patrick Tuipulotu (12)
Liam Squire (8)
Scott Barrett (4)
George Moala (4)
Ofa Tu’ungafasi (4)

The record for most matches with only one defeat is held by Wyatt Crockett (58, including 1 draw). Next on that list is TKB way back on 25.

*Sorry, as “finisher”
**Capped in 2017
***Capped in 2016

[cashead]

Beauden Barrett went some time before losing as well, didn't he?

[zer0]

Beauden Barrett went some time before losing as well, didn't he?

19 straight test wins and 24 undefeated tests before his first loss vs SA in Johannesburg, 2014.

[rowan]

I seem to recall Sean Futzputruck was in the All Blacks for an awfully long time before they lost to anyone...