Just watched a replay of...

[Knight87]

the 1995 World Cup semi-final between Australia and New Zealand. What a heck of a game that was!!!! Absolutely brilliant. I dunno if any of you remember it, but it was a top quality international game. Australia led 20-6, but then NZ fought back to 20-all and had a conversion at the end to win it. Even deep into stoppage time in the 2nd half, Matthew Ridge attempted a left-footer FG which just went to the left of the uprights. Australia won in extra-time 30-20. The only thing which cast a dark shadow over this game was dubious refereeing all game from Russell Smith.

I was very surprised that they had 'stoppage time' (like in Soccer) back in those days. Nethertheless, the only other time when NZ really gave Australia a run for their money in a major tournament was the 2005 tri-nations series.

 

[jamesgould]

the 1995 World Cup semi-final between Australia and New Zealand. What a heck of a game that was!!!! Absolutely brilliant. I dunno if any of you remember it, but it was a top quality international game.

Remember it? That match is the bane of my life ... second only to the 1999 Tri Nations final.

Nethertheless, the only other time when NZ really gave Australia a run for their money in a major tournament was the 2005 tri-nations series.

1999 and 2006 Tri Nations finals? Led one with five minutes to go (and had a disallowed try after fulltime), and the other went into extra time.

A case could be made for the 2000 World Cup final being a run for their money as well, if the Kiwis had an even share of possession and territory they could well have won. Only trailed by 6 points with 15 minutes remaining.

In fact, that covers every major tournament since 1995 bar the 2004 Tri Nations! I sure hope they can turn it on for the world cup this year.

 

[Knight87]

well, if Ridge's shock left-foot FG attempt in the dying seconds went over and hence NZ made the final, I think NZ would've beat England in the final. England only got there from beating a poor Australian side in the Group match, but they were shown up for what they really were in the final. They were no match for Australia that day.

 

[roughyedspud]

England only got there from beating a poor Australian side in the Group match, but they were shown up for what they really were in the final. They were no match for Australia that day.

the final was a 8 point ball game....hardly "being shown up for what they really are" is it?

 

[shiznit]

i was shocked when i heard england lost that final. i thought they would win that one for sure...

i remember the semi in 2000.... england were pathetic...

 

[NK Arsenal]

i thought you hated league..

 

[Alehana]

can some1 explain to me why the league wc 95-20-08? seems to have a wierd pattern between tournaments, never knew there was a 95 rlwc, i was only 5 at the time so thats why

 

[jamesgould]

well, if Ridge's shock left-foot FG attempt in the dying seconds went over and hence NZ made the final, I think NZ would've beat England in the final. England only got there from beating a poor Australian side in the Group match, but they were shown up for what they really were in the final. They were no match for Australia that day.

Me and my brother were discussing this the other day, and we both concluded that England would have won the final. NZ were extremely lucky to beat tonga in the same tournament, after all. England played well in the 95 final, I thought.

 

[Knight87]

can some1 explain to me why the league wc 95-20-08? seems to have a wierd pattern between tournaments, never knew there was a 95 rlwc, i was only 5 at the time so thats why

League had a World Cup in 1995. I vaguely remember it, as although I was only 8 yrs old, I only had just started following League (and officially obtained Knights membership mid-way in 1996). Before the start of the tournament, everyone was pessimistic about how it would go as the Super League war was starting to brew and Australia (who were favourites) didn't field any players who had affiliated themselves with Super League (including those from the successful Kangaroos tour the year before). Also, SL-affiliated players didn't participate in the State of Origin series earlier in the year. However, it was a resounding success. Some very healthy crowds at the World Cup. Over 66,000 ppl for the final at Wembley (the last true test match ever played there, not including the SL test there in 1997), a thrilling semi-final that went into extra time. And also some relatively healthy crowds between games involving other nations. For more info, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Rugby_League_World_Cup

The 2000 RLWC was a flop though. Absolutely zero promotion, crap weather, high ticket prices and cricket-like scorelines in matches was the reason why the next World Cup wouldn't be played till 8 years later. THE RLIF racked up a huge debt, and it took a few years to recover from that. So, in the meantime, they reintroduced the tri-nations concept for 2004 and 2005 in the UK to recover those debts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Rugby_League_World_Cup

This years World Cup though will be a very big success, and should set as a very good precedent for the next one in England in 2013.

 

[Knight87]

Me and my brother were discussing this the other day, and we both concluded that England would have won the final. NZ were extremely lucky to beat tonga in the same tournament, after all. England played well in the 95 final, I thought.

Ok, if you take it in the context of that NZ/Tonga match, then you're right. NZ only just got out of jail in that game, won 25-24. Had they lost it, they would've been out of the comp. I only vaguely remember this game, as I don't think this game was televised in Australia (Australian viewers only got the matches involving Australia, the semis and the final).

Either way or other, I look forward to this years World Cup. It will be just as successful as the 1995 one, if not, even better!

 

[Alehana]

ur only 4 yrs older than me knight87, i must be youngest in this forum.

why isn't world cups in league every 4 years, like all other sporting events, is it to do with debts?

 

[Knight87]

Me and my brother were discussing this the other day, and we both concluded that England would have won the final. NZ were extremely lucky to beat tonga in the same tournament, after all. England played well in the 95 final, I thought.

England did play well in the final, but they were never seriously going to trouble Australia. Australia made a lot of mistakes in that match, but once they got their head down and started concentrating, they had that X-factor over the Poms. Whereas in the 1992 RLWC, both sides were evenly poised and it was a fairly even game with a Steve Renouf try (being the only try in the game) being the difference.

 

[Knight87]

ur only 4 yrs older than me knight87, i must be youngest in this forum.

why isn't world cups in league every 4 years, like all other sporting events, is it to do with debts?

Well, you're mostly right. The recent gap (2000-2008) is due to debts. The previous one (1995-2000) was due to Super League. The International game was big, but SL did a lot of damage to it. The International game became so crap in Australia, that the Aussies wanted to take games to NZ as they knew they'd make a decent profit and also NZ was getting decent crowds there. I know tests at Suncorp in recent years have got well over 40,000, but when the Poms played in Australia in 1999, only 12,000 ppl turned out. The 1999 tri-nations final got moved to Auckland as a result of this, as they feared of losing a lot money had they persisted playing matches in Australia

The International game now is slowly starting to get back to the levels it use to be (the recent test in Sydney was the largest attendance in Sydney since 1992).

1995 RLWC final was a great game. But, for me, one of the best ever internationals (pre-SL) in regards to the quality of the game was the 1992 RLWC final. The atmosphere in that game was superb (not to mention there was a World Record attendance of over 73,000 for a test in that game), just listen to how loud the crowd gets:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7udsO3tPR54
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mc3eeacjKHk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aZ41hLlbjwY

 

[roughyedspud]

:lol:

 

[deluded pom?]

England only got there from beating a poor Australian side in the Group match, but they were shown up for what they really were in the final. They were no match for Australia that day.

I never realised that a country could send TWO teams to the WC. A pi$$ poor one (the one that loses to England) and a team of Supermen, honed in all Rugby League skills and trained to perfection (the one that beats England). :sarcasm:

 

[deluded pom?]

.

I was very surprised that they had 'stoppage time' (like in Soccer) back in those days.

They never had stoppage time. You were probably watching a BBC covered game. The BBC struggled with the concept of stopping the clock during play and the clock timing the game that they had on screen would often show 40+ minutes when the hooter sounded.

 

[shiznit]

i thought you hated league..

WTF??? ive been watching league since 1989...

 

[Knight87]

yeah, there was definitely stoppage time. Ch9 (here in Australia) provided their own commentary, but took the tv coverage from BBC (with all their graphics, replays, fonts etc.), but Ch9 had their own clock/scoreline on the top left of the screen and it went over 80 mins. Dunno why sports use stoppage time (like soccer), its just stupid.