Rugby World Cup

expected england to beat france to be honest, but RSA shoould be grand so long as they dont get complacent.

Argentina looked tired, still though as piennar said the scoreline did not reflect the match, mistakes made that they normally wouldn't make, either through tiredness or trying too hard, they gifted RSA the game. The first half though they deserved at least ot be ahead ( against Ireland they would have been, as chances would have been taken ). Whats most frustrating is though, Ireland wouldn;t have made as many stupid errors as Argentina did and thats whats annoying about watching the more minnow sides, they are always prone to these things yet they only showed it in this match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Ireland wouldn;t have made as many stupid errors as Argentina did and thats whats annoying about watching the more minnow sides, they are always prone to these things yet they only showed it in this match.

---

We made countless errors against Namibia and Georgia never mind any of the bigger teams, also this more minnow side would that be the same one that beat us 30-15 ?

sorry i shoudl have said the ireland of "old"!

It's going to be a very interesting final. England won't dominate the South African pack like they did the Australian/French packs. South Africa are damned if they do, damned if they don't having already whitewashed the English by 36 points. South Africa do however give up a lot of territory/posession during games and Jonny is running into a bit of form.

Can't wait.

Predict South Africa, but only just, with a bit o genius from Habana to win it.

I'm hoping for a victory for rugby.

If England win again it would be the lowest point in the history of the sport.

Never has a team with so little ambition or skill gone so far. Its a triumph for effort and planning over excitement and ability.

Plus they are English......:(

ya, too true. you have been reading george hook but its true, and it made me think back to how limited they really were in 03 as well. not even 1 try scored in the semi final that year either yet they muster up 27 points. They are the real spoilers of how the game started i.e. running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baileban

I think 4 of them played in 03 final and in Wilkinson they have a matchwinner with balls of steel and no little courage.

---

Try 8. Of those in Saturdays 22, Lewsey, Robinson, Wilkinson, Vickery and D'Allaglio all started the 03 Final, whilse Corry, Moody and Catt all came on as subs. It is a 22 man game after all...unless you're Irish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I'm hoping for a victory for rugby.

If England win again it would be the lowest point in the history of the sport.

Never has a team with so little ambition or skill gone so far. Its a triumph for effort and planning over excitement and ability.

Plus they are English......:(

---

To be fair to England you have to admire the way they went about things ,I mean they must have known if they played free flowing expansive rugby they wouldnt last long so they have a plan of action that plays around their strengths so fair play to them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gustavo

To be fair to England you have to admire the way they went about things ,I mean they must have known if they played free flowing expansive rugby they wouldnt last long so they have a plan of action that plays around their strengths so fair play to them

---

I don't admire it.

You respect how they have stuck to a rigid plan, but in a similar way to any Dermot Keely led side in the EL, in no way do I respect the way they play or indeed want them to succeed, as it is so hard to watch and devoid of any real excitement.

So you had no respect for Ireland during Germany 88, Italia 90 or USA 94 either then ? Nor did you want them to succeed?

ORA i quoted your line about "lowest point in history" and sent it off to an english mate, who defines your typical example of an english supporter. and its ****ing me off, i got this back and the worst part is he is almost 100% right:

"Tell me about it I've predicted 99% of the results all the way through......

Mate, any good team would always play to their strengths. You don't win any cups for entertaining the crowd.
Remember rugby is a team game, and you can't deny England are not playing as a team.

It makes me laugh you going on about the lowest point in the history of the sport.
No one in your country new anything about the sport until a couple of years ago.

Go on Paul, support England on Saturday!!!!!"

Quote:

---

So you had no respect for Ireland during Germany 88, Italia 90 or USA 94 either then ? Nor did you want them to succeed?

---

gimmie that any day and lets deal with the naysayers and protaginsts on this site about jack charlton. Bring him back I say!!! And lets start qualifying and "compete" in championships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

So you had no respect for Ireland during Germany 88, Italia 90 or USA 94 either then ? Nor did you want them to succeed?

---

Funny I was going to bring up that example.

I think our soccer team under Big Jack deserve some leeway for being a small nation and making up for our poor standard of domestic football, limited playing pool, resources etc. The best rugby comparison I can think of is that everyone was heartened by the Georgians performance taking into account similar limitations as mentioned above, but when you analyse it, they play a very boring brand of rugby.

England don't have these excuses. They have the richest domestic League in the world, have one of the biggest player pools and yet, taking this into account have made it an objective to play an extremely limited game. Ergo they get little respect.

Oh and lastly I'm Irish, so, like the England rugby fans I'm hardly objective when it comes to my own country's success in any support.

Plus, to mention again, they are English and lord their achievements over all and sundry, so I am predisposed to them failing miserably.

Quote:

---

Plus, to mention again, they are English and lord their achievements over all and sundry, so I am predisposed to them failing miserably.

---

It took me a good few years and I Just figured it out this morning reading the Metro. The reason for this is, because they no longer have armies conquering the world, they rely on their sportsmen to do it for them, so they can look down and be all supreme. It really has turned me another way to loathe them, the english mentality has not changed at all, just evolved to match current day things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

England don't have these excuses. They have the richest domestic League in the world,.

---

Wrong. The French do...by a country mile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

have one of the biggest player pools and yet, taking this into account have made it an objective to play an extremely limited game. Ergo they get little respect.

---

Their huge player pool is populated by almost 40% foreigners, so its not as big as you think, yet still big enough. And they you use one great word there 'objective'. Being objective has got them to the final. That, and a sense of pride and togetherness sadly lacking in our game at the moment. They play to other teams weaknesses...did it against France, did it against Australia and they'll do it again on Saturday. Its called doing what needs to be done to win. That in my book deserves respect. You can respect the All Blacks or the French for all their attacking and flair. Gets you nowhere. I for one respect and admire good tacticians more so than the hugely talented. I just envy them.

40% of people playing rugby in England are foreigners? Interesting stat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baileban

Joe Soap - spot on, in a nutshell, nuff said, on the button.Nobody would complain if Ireland played like England and got to the final!

---

The proof being that no one complains about Munster's style of play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baileban

Joe Soap - spot on, in a nutshell, nuff said, on the button.Nobody would complain if Ireland played like England and got to the final!

---

Replace "nobody" with "most people".

As I've stated many times in the thread already, a vocal minority of rugby people have been extremely critical of Eddie O'Sullivan over the last 3 years, through our "success period", over his rugby by numbers approach.

Are people that thick that they can't get it into their heads that comparing Ireland getting to the final (when we have never got beyond a QF and have won how many 5/6 nations?!!) to a country with infinitely more players, resources and track record is like comparing apples and oranges?

England are destroying the game, bottom line, and I for one hope they get torn to pieced and absolutely humiliated on Saturday.

Quote:

---

England are destroying the game, bottom line, and I for one hope they get torn to pieced and absolutely humiliated on Saturday.
Reply With Quote

---

surely that will have a detrimental effect and a big let down for a world cup final, given that England have gone against all the odds, got to a final and get hammered. What would it then say about the RWC and the quality of rugby at the moment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

What would it then say about the RWC and the quality of rugby at the moment?

---

It would say that the team that plays an exciting 15 man brand of rugby with a strong pack combined with pace and skill behind the scrum will dominate a slow, ponderous, one-dimensional game-spoiling sloth of a team who succeed through negative tactics.

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties, drop goals and conversions to 2 and 1 points respectively.

Can't help but feel that this is mostly anti-English bias and bitterness on your part ORA. It's just the way it comes across. How England winning the World Cup is going to destroy the game is totally beyond me. What I can see it doing is restoring competitiveness in a flagging 6 Nations, and also providing a huge kick in the arse to the smug and complacent Southern Hemisphere that they aren't the top dogs they think they are and that Northern Hemisphere rugby is very much alive and kicking.

I totally don't take your opinion that people wouldn't like to see Ireland winning ugly. Thats just crap. If Ireland won every game by penalties and drop goals yet got to the World Cup final the entire country would be ecstatic and behind them.

As for reducing points for drop goals and conversions-why? Conversions are a reward for attacking play and should be be accredited as that with the 2 points. Drop goals, particularly late on, make the game more exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties....to 2... points

---

(Edited by me)

Wouldn't doing this just mean teams are more likely to give away penalties, in the knowledge that the other team won't take the points?

This would slow down the game even more, and reward the

Quote:

---

game-spoiling sloth of a team who succeed through negative tactics

---

that you mentioned earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

Can't help but feel that this is mostly anti-English bias and bitterness on your part ORA. It's just the way it comes across. How England winning the World Cup is going to destroy the game is totally beyond me. What I can see it doing is restoring competitiveness in a flagging 6 Nations, and also providing a huge kick in the arse to the smug and complacent Southern Hemisphere that they aren't the top dogs they think they are and that Northern Hemisphere rugby is very much alive and kicking.

I totally don't take your opinion that people wouldn't like to see Ireland winning ugly. Thats just crap. If Ireland won every game by penalties and drop goals yet got to the World Cup final the entire country would be ecstatic and behind them.

As for reducing points for drop goals and conversions-why? Conversions are a reward for attacking play and should be be accredited as that with the 2 points. Drop goals, particularly late on, make the game more exciting.

---

Clearly a difference of opinions. Despite being a forward in my playing days and admiring the odd dour forward battle, give me Du Preez, Habana, Steyn & Co over Gomersall, Catt, Tait etc the other 9 times out of 10.

I have no emotional attachment to the tournament therefore my interest is in seeing entertaining rugby.

There's a fine line between England's 10 man game and the Pacific Islanders 7's type rugby, with neither really being that satisfying, but I believe South Africa manage to straddle to two by combining a strong pack with lively backs.

I have a fear that if England win (again) by playing a limited 10 man game then this will led other teams to follow suit and make the sport into one where very broadly, contact is sought rather than avoided and the objective is to turn each match into trench warfare or a war of attrition.

Its no more complicated than this.

Oh yeah, and they can stick their f'in chariots up their hole....:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

(Edited by me)

Wouldn't doing this just mean teams are more likely to give away penalties, in the knowledge that the other team won't take the points?

This would slow down the game even more, and reward the that you mentioned earlier?

---

The sin bin in theory negates this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties, drop goals and conversions to 2 and 1 points respectively.

---

Have you seen the proposed rule changes? A lof of penalty offences are being replaced with free kicks which should limit the number of goal attempts and the rule about kicking to touch inside your own 22 is being tightened. You can only kick it out on the full if the opposition played it into your 22, you can't pass or run in and then kick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Have you seen the proposed rule changes? A lof of penalty offences are being replaced with free kicks which should limit the number of goal attempts and the rule about kicking to touch inside your own 22 is being tightened. You can only kick it out on the full if the opposition played it into your 22, you can't pass or run in and then kick.

---

I saw that they tried it out at South African Universities level (from memory, may be wrong) but haven't heard how it went or whether its going forward.

The changes sound sensible though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I saw that they tried it out at South African Universities level (from memory, may be wrong) but haven't heard how it went or whether its going forward.

The changes sound sensible though.

---

I watched a video about them on You Tube, I'll try and dig it up later. They were used in Scotish club rugby last year as well and will be in the Super 14s this coming season.

if anything they should increase the value of penalties to maybe 5, which might stop teams offending, especially at the break down therefore speeding the game up and making teams afraid to give away penalties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inexile

if anything they should increase the value of penalties to maybe 5, which might stop teams offending, especially at the break down therefore speeding the game up and making teams afraid to give away penalties

---

Didn't know Wilkinson was a Limerick fan.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

the rule about kicking to touch inside your own 22 is being tightened. You can only kick it out on the full if the opposition played it into your 22, you can't pass or run in and then kick.

---

Sounds like a useful change. You can't run the ball into the 22 and then kick it out on the full now though.

The proposed rules:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055166352

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties, drop goals and conversions to 2 and 1 points respectively.

---

Was reading through previous posts and was going to suggest some of the above.
Wilkinson will sit in the pocket everytime England get inside the RSA 10 mtr line and hope for a drop goal. They'll just keep going through the fazes and sucker the opposition into conceding penalties. Wonder will Schalk Burger finish the game after the English pack try to sort him out. Would love to see an open game but bulk and brawn are winning out over brain. Sad but true. Above suggetion by OAR might help

'Hide the Ball' tactics have always been part of rugby and always will be. Regardless of the fact that it doesn't look flash, it requires an immense amount of skill and technique to scrummage and maul. There also is a little skill involved in dropping goals from 40m when under pressure I might add.

If you want flash, running rugby then go watch the Ba-Ba's the next time you're in town. I can't believe that people here are being critical of a side thats playing to its strengths to try and win the greatest prize in World Rugby. Amazing.

I was at Croker on saturday so didn't see England vs France. Is there any merit in the suggestions that England should have been penalised regularly in the maul on Saturday?

What type of referee is Rolland? Is he likely to be "sympathetic" to either team's style of play over the other's?

I agree that there is substantial merit in England getting to the final just by doing it their way. It's not far off playing for 0-0 and winning a shoot-out but if it works it's hard to knock especially when their "other game" rendered them very beatable.

However I have to admit that I just don't like England in sport! I had no big quarrel with them winning in '03 as they were the stand out team in the world for a long time but seeing this team win would really frustrate me and leave me very envious.

It also bugs me that they used to bang on about our plastic paddies but where would England be without Mike Catt, a South African?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

It also bugs me that they used to bang on about our plastic paddies but where would England be without Mike Catt, a South African?

---

Same place we'd be without Ronan O'Gara, an American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

Same place we'd be without Ronan O'Gara, an American.

---

Very different scenarios, Catt came to England specifically to play rugby due to the political restricitons in SA at the time, similar is true for Matt Stevens who was even capped at university & underage level for SA.

O'Gara just happened to be born in the US while his parents were living there, he grew up in Ireland.

Oh alright then....like Simon Easterby ...my point is that all countries do it. It's not just an English thing.

Isaac Boss too. I was just saying it wound me up them banging on about PPs when the likes of Pietersen and Catt were instrumental in their biggest sporting successes.

Anyway, I'd prefer answers to my other questions. I'm genuinely interested if criticism of England's maul tactics were fair or not.

I noticed in their game against Tonga, in the 2nd half a Tonga player booted the ball upfield, chased after it and tackled Wilkinson who had gathered the ball but was isolated. It seemed Wilkinson was allowed to hang onto to the ball on the ground for an eternity before releasing it when support arrived. No penalty was given, could have been crucial.

I´ll be up for England, Johnny is alright by me.

poor argentina, if only they had got their game together last week they could be half way to some sort of retribution for los malvinas!