When RNZ mentioned the match on 4th November, I knew Ireland were going to choke. I felt the same way on the 8th too.
When I heard on the 9th they indeed choked, I wasn't surprised.
Anyone with a perspective that take into account all contributing factors knows it comes down to the day. I did not know Ireland's ranking but it doesn't matter. But I'll humour those who count it. It actually reinforces my point.
On 28th October and 4th November, Ireland were ranked 1st and New Zealand were 3rd.
And they lost. Not only did they lose, they lost by 10 points. At home.
What was that? They were ranked 1st going into the Rugby World Cup 2023? Which they unsurprisingly and predictably choked in when they got to the quarter-finals? And didn't many believe and say that was the time for them to win?
The All Blacks have what it requires psychologically. As in, they can actually deliver. That is why they are one of the best teams in the World if not the best. This is about Ireland and the All Blacks, but France and South Africa have it psychologically too, which is why they're always New Zealand's counterparts. Les Bleus can thrive under pressure and stress, it's part of the French identity.
Choking and being weak mentally is in Ireland's DNA. Not only is why important but what's more important is strenghtening that deficit, and yes it is a deficit when it is a barrier to winning, achieving, whatever you want to call it.
I was looking up Ireland's nickname and it's "Wolfhounds". Never in my life have I heard them referred to as that and that does show the lack of familiarity and impact they have in rugby union in my eyes. What is hilarious is Ireland are babies: they were ranked 1st for the first time ever in 2019, then a second time on 18th July 2022 until 2nd October 2023 when they lost it.
Apart from choking, no wonder I don't see them as a threat to the All Blacks, France and South Africa. Their rise might have been gradual instead of overnight which is easier to adjust to, but they're like the guest at the party who invited themself who no one likes but they have to be civil to otherwise there are repercussions. They're outranked and closer to and/or are British culture and probably always will be. One aspect of British culture is being reserved and polite and colonization was a long time ago, so they've been sitting on their white superior asses for years, no, generations. Yes, no shit, New Zealand was a British Colony, but geographically they're far away.
The All Blacks are white, Māori and Pacific Islander men and genetically some of them are physically built like warriors which can help in rugby. Example: Nonu. Aotearoa is rugby and their cultural impact at home and internationally is ubiquitous. Jonah Lomu, Tana Umaga, Richie McCaw, Dan Carter, to name.
Les Bleus are (small and) speedy, unpredictable, good under stress and pressure and, aesthetically, sexy. No one can play rugby like les Bleus. They're classy too. Who is the best player in rugby union? Antoine Dupont, brains, body and sexy. Triple threat.
South Africa have physically big players, but they're controversial and seem to have more antagonistic relationships with the All Blacks and les Bleus. Less or no respect. The All Blacks and les Bleus are opponents but they ooze respect for each other. South Africa are the heavyweights in all aspects. They also are a representation of hope and unity for their country I think, but that's a double-edged knife.
I know I said this wasn't about South Africa and France, but it came from Ireland being babies. You gotta crawl first before you can walk and then run. Maybe they'll always be at walking phase, too scared and mentally incapable of running.
-A.M.
No comments:
Post a Comment