Rugby World Cup: And the Winner is...

finbar · October 1, 2007, 09:58

I just re-read R. Andrew's response. In fact, he didn't reply in kind. He didn't even get it. Straight over his head. Unsurprising. He was a fabulously dull player, too.

But you do have to be careful of the media. I saw an article headlined and promoted to the effect that Lote Tuquiri said England had one world class player and it wasn't J. Wilkinson. Shock horror. In fact, according to the article, he said they have one world class back in form. Jason Robinson.

I find the acclamation of Turnip absolutely astonishing. Presumably they couldn't find anyone else for the job. Or maybe Scottish rugby is just plain stupid. I know their team sets new standards in mediocrity every time they take the field.

Eddie O'Sullivan is refusing to budge. The fact that he has a brand new contract in his pocket, signed just before the tournament, probably means he'll stay. A payout would be enormously expensive.

LDiCesare · October 1, 2007, 11:14

Even if O'Sullivan stays there, I think Ireland team willchange face. They can no longer rely on players whose glorious days belong to the past. Horgan, for instance, who was never that fast, should be replaced by some younger winger. Maybe time to mix a few players from somewhere else than Munster in the pack too?
France will have to change coach too, and I suppose a few players will stop their international carreer, but I wonder how the French will handle the defeat to come. Bringing in new players maybe but will we play a game more fluid than the current unimaginative one we play? Or maybe the French will start playing good rugby now and win at least one match, but I doubt it.

finbar · October 1, 2007, 12:30

I'm constantly amazed by the unending supply of French halves. Do you grow them on trees? I like the look of Beauxis, even if his goal kicking is unreliable.

LDiCesare · October 1, 2007, 13:47

Don't underestimate Beauxis' kicking. He was deemed best rugby hope of the world last year after winning the U21 World Cup.
He missed kicks in the second half in part due to the strong, quite unpredictable, wind, and probably in part because he was a bit out of shape (didn't play much recently). He is a very good goal kicker. If only he played more. The thing is he's in club in competition with David Skrela and Juan Martin Hernandez. That's a lot of good fly halves for a single club.

finbar · October 1, 2007, 17:54

Good heavens. What a line up. He'd be better off going to another club.

Barnabas · October 1, 2007, 19:50

So, will Argentina join the european tourny, or the one with Australia, NZ and SA ?

Caligastia · October 1, 2007, 21:24

Probably neither, unfortunately.

Havak · October 2, 2007, 04:02

Then it is time for the IRB to force the issue and impose them in one or the other. My strong belief is that the Tri-nations should accept them (because the NH tournament at “Seven nations” would get a bit unwieldy for all involved). I don’t doubt for a second some of you will hold opposing views on that one.

France haven’t lost yet LdiC. I doubt any of the kiwi lads who contribute here are taking the game for granted.

Ireland have a general (and informal) policy of not selecting players who don’t play domestic rugby in Ireland. Murphy and Easterby are exceptions (with Tigers and Scarlets respectively) but they have had to perform exceptionally with their clubs to get in. Ireland have been playing this last year without the likes of Shane Jennings and Leo Cullen (openside and lock in far better form than the incumbents) though both have now returned to Leinster so should get a look in again.

There are questions for O’Sullivan though. As I understand it he took thirty players but didn’t get close to playing them all. Not a fault in itself but if you then consider Best has been their stand out forward for the last year and didn’t he make the starting line up in any game? And why was Murphy dropped for the France game when he played mere minutes in the debacle against Georgia (but seemed to get the whole blame)? Why did EOS persist with O’Connell and O’Callaghan who were both in shocking form and the latter of which struggled with his discipline too? I don’t think EOS is the genius coach that he might think himself to be?

And then there was BOD. He certainly worked hard but he in terms of leading the side it was very much headless chicken time. Also the overt aggression he showed to Argentina after scoring his try was very out of character – I just have a feeling that something has been badly wrong in the Irish camp for some time – I am sure the various autobiographies will shed light on it.

Havak · October 2, 2007, 04:55

Finbar - check out Alastair Hignell's Blog on the BBC site - "Advance Australia Unfair".

It and the various posts below are actually pretty good reading with afull range of views. It even recycles the old joke about Aussie Passport Control:

Aussie Passport Officer: "Do you have a criminal record?"

Englishman: "So sorry, I didn't realise it was compulsory."

They just don't write them like that anymore do they Finbar?

finbar · October 2, 2007, 05:22

BOD's immediately post-match interview was out of character, too, for its churlishness. He suggested that the Argies were content to kick all day while the Irish tried to play rugby. The truth being that the Argies outkicked and outran and outscored them all day. I think poor old BOD was, justifiably, suffering almighty pressures.

The Argies certainly belong in one of the international comps. The geography problem, however, is a real one. It's a 16 hour flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires, 14 hours from Auckland to Buenos Aires, 7 hours from Cape Town to Buenos Aires. On the other hand, the Boks already have to travel 14 hours between Jo'burg and Sydney. Which they already complain about. The Boks' matches outside South Africa are a road trip, while the Wallabies and All Blacks fly in and out.

The advantage of the Argies joining the 6 Nations is that a lot of the Argies are based in Europe anyway. That solves a travel problem. But I gather the 6 Nations have already said no. That leaves the Tri-Nations. I've seen various calculations and computations in the past that make a Four-Nations roster workable. It's a matter of whether SANZAR has the will.

They just don't write them like that anymore do they Finbar?

No, not since the days of Arthur Askey.

EDIT. Knuckles has called up Morgan Turinui to replace crocked David Lyons. No surprise that they've called up a back to replace a #8. They're well off - fingers crossed - for back rowers, and light on for centres. If B. Barnes goes down, M. Giteau will have to shift to #10. I just wonder why Turinui. He's been tried in the past and found wanting. Fine S14 player, not up to Test standard.

Havak · October 2, 2007, 05:50

Very under rated man that Arthur Askey.

Saw the call up for Turinui. Would love to see him make the 22. And then our best bet is that Barnes, Giteau and Gregan all twist their ankles in pot holes in training so we can have the half backs that stuttered against Canada. And we would still need a big dose of luck even then.

Am I over playing the underdog card?

Good call on O'Sullivan - the Chief Executive of the IRFU has now backed him. Although the mans maths seem shakier than mine as he talks at the disappointment of three poor games when I am sure it was FOUR?

LDiCesare · October 2, 2007, 05:59

The Argies certainly belong in one of the international comps. The geography problem, however, is a real one. It's a 16 hour flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires, 14 hours from Auckland to Buenos Aires, 7 hours from Cape Town to Buenos Aires. On the other hand, the Boks already have to travel 14 hours between Jo'burg and Sydney. Which they already complain about. The Boks' matches outside South Africa are a road trip, while the Wallabies and All Blacks fly in and out.

Might I say that the real problem is probably not geography but money?
Belgium had offered Argentina to play there if they were integrated in the 6N. But 6N becoming 7N would be one more week and a bit too much I'm afraid.
Anyhow, playing far from Argentina doesn't really seem right. Argentina would use real tests however, at the very least. But for a long time noone wanted to tour there, except the French a few times. If they had real tests with at least one country going there for 2 test matches and they touring for 2 matches, I think it would be an improvement over their current situation.

France haven’t lost yet LdiC.

Yes, we're only tuesday. And I'd be more confident if the NZ thought the match would be easily won.

finbar · October 2, 2007, 06:33

I suspect the Argie problem, ultimately, is both geography and money, with geography impacting heavily on the money factor. One of the keys to the Tri-Nations, as with the S14 comp, is financing. SANZAR's main source of income is the TV broadcast rights sold to the dreaded Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. The amount News Corp is willing to pay is dictated - by News Corp - according to the times matches are played, hence broadcast in the various major markets. Which is where time zones rear their head. News Corp aren't interested in broadcasting matches that will, for example, go to air in the early hours of the morning in at least one major market. The price SANZAR have paid for developing both S14 and the Tri-Nations is that they are pretty much held to ransom by News Corp.

The Belgian offer re the 6 Nations is identical to a proposal that the Argies base themselves in South Africa for the purposes of a Four-Nations. It's not a solution.

Havak · October 3, 2007, 03:37

None of that is insurmountable - SANZAR already makes the Boks play fixtures in NZ and Aus (and the antipodeans play reverse fixtures) that screen at extremely anti-social times for their domestic audience.

The broadcast times will be no better in they join the NH tournament.

But what we might be missing is that there may not be a TV audience in Argentina - and if there is not no broadcast company will particularly want them in any competition?

The bottom line is that neither tournament currently seems particularly interested in having the Pumas join for whatever reason. That would become ridiculous if they actually go and win this RWC of course.

Andydog · October 3, 2007, 03:54

I didn't see any rugby this weekend, popped over to Munich instead to sample the Paulaaner and Augustina lagers. Sounds like I timed the trip right - the match reports of the England Samoa game read as if there was only about 20 minutes worth of laughing to be had at the Poms.

Anyway, I see NZ lost the toss. Once again we wear grey, and I have the shits over this, big time. What is it with all these penis jersey designers trotting out their 'creations' for Canterbury, Adidas, Nike etc?? NZ should be all black or all white. Not grey, with splatterings of black, off-cuts of silver, and dashes of white bits. Someone needs to round up all these fashion designer gurus and give them a bloody good slapping. But then again, I suspect most of them would actually enjoy that.

The top qualifier should get to wear their normal strip if there is a clash, they should get something for topping their pool. The tickets say 'Winner Pool C v Runner up Pool D' normally the home team is listed first so they should get home change rooms and normal strip I reckon.

finbar · October 3, 2007, 04:24

I was watching an old World Cup match on Sky Italy the other night. The All Blacks' alternate strip against France was all white. Very simple, very effective. Couldn't agree more that design wankers are ruling the rugby roost.

But what we might be missing is that there may not be a TV audience in Argentina - and if there is not no broadcast company will particularly want them in any competition?

Dunno anything about the Argie viewing audience but the Australian audience for rugby is limited anyway. Relative to L***** and AFL. That's why the Australian Free To Air networks with the FTA rights treat their audience with contempt with very late-night screenings. It's also why SANZAR need Murdoch. He's the only source of sizeable able funding. At least England, with its much bigger potential audiences, benefits from competition between the BBC and Sky. The ABC, Australia's BBC, thanks to ongoing federal government budget cuts, can't afford to cover any more than Sydney club rugby.

The bottom line is that neither tournament currently seems particularly interested in having the Pumas join for whatever reason. That would become ridiculous if they actually go and win this RWC of course.

Bottom line: they're sh*t scared of the Argies' potential.

EDIT. Sorry to see Dougie Howlett miss out this weekend. They've gone for wing power. Big test of K. Robinson's fitness. Not surprised to see M. Muliaina back at #13. C. Smith didn't do enough with his opportunities. His run of injuries seems to have thwarted his potential.

Andydog · October 3, 2007, 05:38

Definitely tough on Doug. He has been the form winger without doubt. But all our winger's strengths are different, and it is now horses for courses, rather than rotation. Doug would be my first winger picked to play against a guy like Habana, but the French seem to struggle when the big chaps run at them.

Robbo's inclusion wasn't much of a surprise. Probably Williams was discussed but it may be more about the workload of the locks and getting the most out of them at this point in the cup. Robbo is our best lineout guy so it may be a bit of insurance if the french attack us here. Also, Robbo would be able to combat any niggle that the french bring to the table.

My biggest worry in Henry's selection is McAlister.

finbar · October 3, 2007, 05:44

Ditto.

Havak · October 3, 2007, 05:51

That must have been good beer Andydog as you lost a week somewhere. England played Tonga last weekend not Samoa.

LDiCesare · October 3, 2007, 07:45

France managed to name yet another surprising selection.
Traille at full back ( why on earth did Laporte pick Poitrenaud as the only fullback to play him only for minor matches? ). He played that at Pau, and sometimes at his current club (Biarritz Olympique), and should be good there. Laporte put him here because of his strong kick.
Beauxis at 10. Strong kick, we said.
This means Jauzion and Marty will play centre. I don't think they often played together. Maybe during the 6 Nations, but I'm not sure.
And then Nallet is not playing but Pelous is, which many French supporters, myself included, find silly. Give me Nallet any time.
Overall, I still like the back line, although Dominici as replacement rather than Rougerie looks like a weird gamble.
And of course Michalak covers both 9 and 10 on the bench, which may be a problem if Elissalde and Beauxis both get hurt (we'd probably have Traille at 10 and Poitrenaud at 15 should this happen).

Havak · October 3, 2007, 08:24

He is probably looking for Pelous's big game experience?

And it isn't as insane as Brian Ashton's selection. Regan and Vickery start meaning Brian must think wiining the tight five battle is a foregone conclusion so he doesn't need to try too hard?

I don't understand it - the Wallabies main weakness is in pressuring their tight five at the set pieces and Chuter and Stevens have done nothing wrong so far in those areas. Regan/Vickery have done very little right - what kind of ******* moron drops the better players to the bench in a QF??

Regan has not featured since the Bok game - even on the bench. Where the hell is the logic in now starting him? I just don't get it .

The selection of Farrell was more obvious and just reflects a lack of options. Dayglo on the bench similarly inevitable after his latest round of self promotion this week.

finbar · October 3, 2007, 08:38

I should think the Wallabies will be tickled not to be facing M. Stevens or G. Chuter. I don't know what either of them has done wrong. Chuter, despite the facial fungus, is a menace in the loose. I think they'll be tickled to be facing A. Farrell, although they'd've been equally tickled to have faced O. Barkley. Neither is up to it. I can see - hopefully - M. Giteau running rings around Farrell. It's one thing to tackle well, it's another thing to catch someone in order to tackle them. I can see S. Mortlock carrying M. Tait along on his back on some of his rampages. L. Moody aside, the Wallaby back row should leave the England lot behind in terms of mobility.

But we shall see.

Caligastia · October 3, 2007, 10:10

Originally posted by Andydog
I didn't see any rugby this weekend, popped over to Munich instead to sample the Paulaaner and Augustina lagers. Sounds like I timed the trip right - the match reports of the England Samoa game read as if there was only about 20 minutes worth of laughing to be had at the Poms.

Anyway, I see NZ lost the toss. Once again we wear grey, and I have the shits over this, big time. What is it with all these penis jersey designers trotting out their 'creations' for Canterbury, Adidas, Nike etc?? NZ should be all black or all white. Not grey, with splatterings of black, off-cuts of silver, and dashes of white bits. Someone needs to round up all these fashion designer gurus and give them a bloody good slapping. But then again, I suspect most of them would actually enjoy that.

The top qualifier should get to wear their normal strip if there is a clash, they should get something for topping their pool. The tickets say 'Winner Pool C v Runner up Pool D' normally the home team is listed first so they should get home change rooms and normal strip I reckon.

Agreed.

I don't think a second strip for France v NZ is necessary anyway...their normal strips are sufficiently different IMO.

Havak · October 3, 2007, 10:23

We shall indeed, although I find it hard to fault any of that.

Then again I'm still in shock from the Aussies first pool game when Miles Harrison described Sharpe as "one of the best locks in world rugby today". He also described him and the former Bok he often plays alongside as one of the best combinations.

You know that isn't a bad French side that has been named. if they can hang on in the game and then release "SeaBass" on the ABs at around 50 mins who knows what might happen? I'm certainly looking forward to seeing Collins and Chabal clash if we get that chance.

Andydog doesn't need to worry about shirts - the NZRFU has already apparently lobbied the IRB after losing that particularly coin toss asking to be allowed to wear their main strip regardless of losing the toss.

finbar · October 3, 2007, 11:30

Originally posted by Havak
Then again I'm still in shock from the Aussies first pool game when Miles Harrison described Sharpe as "one of the best locks in world rugby today". He also described him and the former Bok he often plays alongside as one of the best combinations.

After V. Matfield and his mate, probably not far wrong. Chris Jack is mighty, but he hasn't had a mate to match him.

I don't think a second strip for France v NZ is necessary anyway...their normal strips are sufficiently different IMO.

The French are mixing black with the blue for some unknown reason. But they're still sufficiently different.

Andydog doesn't need to worry about shirts - the NZRFU has already apparently lobbied the IRB after losing that particularly coin toss asking to be allowed to wear their main strip regardless of losing the toss.

Good thing too. In the days of B&W television, there would have been a problem. Not now.

Caligastia · October 3, 2007, 11:51

Originally posted by finbar
The French are mixing black with the blue for some unknown reason. But they're still sufficiently different.

Yup, so any confusion is their fault because they ditched their traditional white shorts.

Look at this picture from 2002...even a color-blind B/W TV watcher could tell them apart:

LDiCesare · October 3, 2007, 11:56

I don't think a second strip for France v NZ is necessary anyway...their normal strips are sufficiently different IMO.

Except the French don't wear a normal strip but a dark blue one which is not as much bad taste as the English shirt, but remains ugly nonetheless.
Now, the second NZ strip is indeed an insult to the eyes. White would be way better than this patchwork.

The French team is probably about the best we can do with the selected players (except Nallet), but I don't think it will be enough.

The English selection is not surprising. Ashton doesn't have a record of selecting the right players, does he?

LDiCesare · October 3, 2007, 12:01

they ditched their traditional white shorts.

Yes, and I miss the red socks, too.
No reason to play all blue in the first place. And it's not like the white shors get dirty faster, at that level they can afford a new pair of shorts for every game (while I've seen brownish gray shorts that used to be white worn by a few players at my level).

Caligastia · October 3, 2007, 12:41

Agreed, and I miss loose-fitting collared jerseys.

Havak · October 4, 2007, 03:38

The IRB are control freaks and seldom change their minds on anything. But if any Union can make them do so it is NZ I suspect. I await the teams running out with interest.

I think it is fair to say Ashton doesn't have a great track record of picking the right players. But his reasoning is astounding here - apparently Vickery and Regan are the best players to bully the Aussies in the scrum (i.e. better than the men they replace).

There is a simple answer to that: Wrong. He can't have seen the same England games that I have in this world cup.

With the shirt business there is a hidden factor. All unions now like to sell lots of replica kit. You don't shift change strips unless the team wears them occasionally. That is certainly the reason England wore the change strip against France in August (there was no clash of colours with the main strip) and I suspect even the NZ Union saw the Scotland game as a chance to hawk a few of those godawful patchwork jobs on unsuspecting Kiwis?

Our game has now been a true business for over a decade and with that come aspects we none of us may like.

I also prefer loose shirts made of heavyweight cotton and with real collars for example - ones that weren't colourfast, that faded with age and that were not redesigned every single year. Unfortunately that makes me a 'dinosaur' of sorts.