Rugby World Cup 2003 - Finals!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Andydog
It just goes to show that whatever form the opposition team is in means diddly squat. It happened in 1991, happened again in 1995, again in 1999, and ladies and gentlemen, it happened again on Saturday. What matters is the here and the now. It also doesn't help when the Aussie media do their best job of motivating the Wallabies all week - by poking a cornered and pissed off tiger with sticks.

So where do you think they go from here? I was only thinking today that the ABs were almost totally recast over the last 18 months or so. It wasn't so long ago that the ABs were essentially the Crusaders, playing a Crusaders style of game. The Mehrtens generation, so to speak. And I know I'm generalising, but they were virtually recast as the Auckland Blues of this season - in style, if not personnel.

PS - How cheeky were those pom supporters with their sing low? ...laughed at that!

Unfortunately, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing it sung badly by tired and emotional England supporters on seemingly every street corner. In a stadium, it's a different matter.

[MikeH]

My point exactly from a long time ago. Whomever wins on Saturday becomes "World Champion", which lasts until the next match. All Saturday will prove is that one team was better on the day. Or night.

I disagree, whoever wins on Saturday becomes World Champion which lasts until 2007.

[Tamerlin]

Havak, remind me to change the FFR logo and replace it with the RFU one after tomorrow's game.

"Swiiiing Looow, Sweeeet Chaaaariot..."

Ouch!...

[Havak]

All Saturday will prove is that one team was better on the day. Or night.

I was never going to admit what you have said many times was right.

Don’t get me wrong – I still trust it will be us who win and the title is a useful millstone in some ways. But whilst I covet the trophy the far more important thing to me would be the fifth victory in a row over the Wallabies. They will really hate that.

Say no more. Stupid system.

Except for number 1 it’s totally wrong. Wales have not benefited from their best displays in years!

Okay, players' kicker of the year.

I left the Apostrophe out just for you!

He's a wonderful goalkicker and a very fine flyhalf. Whether he's the best rugby player running around is a different matter.

I don’t think he necessarily is. He lacks pace for example. But he would still be the first name down for me at fly half in any team. And I would struggle to name a more influential player in a contemporary team?

A purple call to arms worthy of a B Grade 1950s Hollywod sandal and toga epic. Not to put too fine a point on it.

That still represents an improvement on my part!

And while Tindall, et al, are building the human wall around the bub, what are Mortlock, Tuquiri and Sailor doing?

There’s the question – what do Chicken Scratchers (do you know this anti-League insult?) do when other players are competing for ball?

It’s a moot point – Hill and Dallaglio should be driving your looseys out the game line whilst Backy snaffles ball so Tindall we be free to do his ‘flanker in the centres’ thing. About which my jury is still out. What he does he does well – but Catt has a more diverse game for sure.

Yep. He's possibly a player of the future, but this is a big ask. Still, there's no one else.

I recall you saying he had neglected his scrum skills during S12?

I can’t tell you about the alleged illegal acts that may or may not have coincided with my visits to the Guild hall. Not whilst sober anyway.

Unfortunately, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing it sung badly by tired and emotional England supporters on seemingly every street corner. In a stadium, it's a different matter.

It’s a huge difference in culture. Around such a rugby event in any UK country no one would think twice about this. In Ireland or Wales it’s mandatory in fact.

But I think I can sympathise. It was patently obvious to me that some of the stay back mob after the French game were not rugby fraternity at all. There are soccer fans out there for sure Finbar – and certainly some barmy army types -and they may be affecting these things. It will soon be over!

Havak, remind me to change the FFR logo and replace it with the RFU one after tomorrow's game.

"Swiiiing Looow, Sweeeet Chaaaariot..."

Ouch!...

Tamerlin you are truly a Prince amongst men.

I would not dream of asking you to do so – celebrate your victory tomorrow by retaining the FFR logo!.

And just for Finbar should I reproduce here the glowing Interview Eales gave to BBC sport today praising his friend Martin Johnson ? Mybe later whilst Finbar is safe asleep

[Andydog]

Originally posted by finbar
So where do you think they go from here? I was only thinking today that the ABs were almost totally recast over the last 18 months or so. It wasn't so long ago that the ABs were essentially the Crusaders, playing a Crusaders style of game. The Mehrtens generation, so to speak. And I know I'm generalising, but they were virtually recast as the Auckland Blues of this season - in style, if not personnel.

Well I’m optimistic about the future. Over the last couple of seasons John Mitchell and the ABs have introduced and developed this Blues style of expansive running rugby, a brand that is exciting and exhilarating to watch. However, our world cup performances has highlighted that it is a risky style, and a difficult style to win from if there is no solid platform from which to strike. Also, the style needs to answer those teams who are content to win the lazy way of drop goals etc. So there is still a lot work to be done on the new formula, and it somehow has to incorporate a plan B.

I just hope that there aren’t any of the typical knee-jerk reactions of the past and that John Mitchell and his players are able to continue their progress unhindered. Mitchell needs to learn his lessons from this World Cup – the importance of accurate kicking in particular and also how to deal with the media. We have a young and talented team, who having now experienced this world cup can build extensively on this experience.

And although I'm still mourning our loss on Saturday, I've already started saving for France 2007!

[Havak]

'Lazy' is ingoring a fundamental part of the game and being badly exposed for it. 'Lazy' is only being able to play one way when your opponents proved they are resilient and can adapt. 'Lazy' is buying the hype and believing totally in something flawed when people on these very threads pointed out the potential cracks in your game plan that appeared in your home Tri nations games (when it showed that sides had learned rapidly how to better counter the wide ball at all costs blitz).

Me I'll stick with a 'lazy' side that can adapt to different conditions and opponents thanks.

Or do you think the Wallabies beat you with an expansive AB style game?

Mitchell is not stupid. Now he has four years to mould his own team for RWC 2007 rather than have to work with what was there. I expect to see you field a much stronger pack. I look forward to it - I think it will make you a much more formidable side.

Angry with me now? Don't you think it might be better directed at your forwards perchance?

[Andydog]

Swallowed. Hook, line and sinker.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Andydog
Well, I can't say it any other way... Australia thoroughly deserved to win that match, they played like men possessed (funny that, after every one bags the ****e out of them), they pressured the ABs into errors, cut down room, contested every inch of grass, every molecule of air space, and defended like their lives depended on it - not altogether surprising considering their media has bagged them all week. I have to take my hat off to a team that plays with such commitment, and passion.... we were not on the park. We just were not on the friggin park. Simple as that.

I don't think we can blame Mitchell for this one. I don't think we can blame the players for this one. I don't think we should do a '99 and go ape**** either.

Why? We were beaten fair and square. We didn't have a lead that we squandered (which was why I was really pissed off in 1999), we just didn't get into the game. All the players that were good enough to be there, were there. All preparation that was needed to be done, was done. We knew the Wallabies would come out fired up, and we knew they would be smarter than the Springboks. This was always going to be a massive step up from the previous week for all those reasons. The Aussies did their homework, and we just couldn't handle the heat.

I totally agree. I don't blame Mitchell for this at all. Wasn't it Grant Fox who said rugby is 75% psychological? The All Blacks were not mentally tough enough to come back against a fired up aussie side. As far as I'm concerned Mitchell has done a great job because aside from that one game, we have had a very good season.

So...who will you support in the final? I'm supporting England simply because I don't want to have to watch yet another Australian team lift the World Cup.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
Mitchell is not stupid. Now he has four years to mould his own team for RWC 2007 rather than have to work with what was there.

So he's not getting the sack?

BTW...I'll be wearing my England jersey when I watch the final. GO ENGLAND!!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The All Blacks were not mentally tough enough to come back against a fired up aussie side.

Wrong, you had no forwards.

So...who will you support in the final? I'm supporting England simply because I don't want to have to watch yet another Australian team lift the World Cup.

I am supporting England because for the future of the game of Rugby a Northern Hemisphere team must win this World Cup... blah... blaah... blaaaah!

... and because I like my neighbours.








Ouch!...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Andydog
And although I'm still mourning our loss on Saturday, I've already started saving for France 2007!

Some games will be played in Toulouse...

[finbar]

Originally posted by MikeH
I disagree, whoever wins on Saturday becomes World Champion which lasts until 2007.

The right to call yourself world champion does, yes, but I think it can be a bit of a misnomer anyway. The very nature of the WRC - the pool system - means that the eventual winner can't have played a number of the other top teams so they haven't proved they're the best in the world. I'm not suggesting there's a better way of mounting the event, I just think it's what it is - a world rugby carnival with a winner. The only true means of assessing standings, I reckon, is over the course of a season - or seasons - given that the top teams all play each other.

OTOH, currently, England are - rightly - ranked the best team in the world because they've beaten everyone else. An England win on Saturday night would entitle them letitimately to be called world champions. But if Australia were to win, what does that mean? They're world champions? Best team in the world? No, because the evidence is that they aren't. I think it means they won the match on the day.

The WRC, IMHO, is an orgy of rugby, a test of character, a hell of a lot of fun - even more so when it's played in one's own backyard - but, with some possible exceptions, limited in its overall meaning.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I don’t think he necessarily is. He lacks pace for example. But he would still be the first name down for me at fly half in any team. And I would struggle to name a more influential player in a contemporary team?

He also struggles with his passing on one side. I forget which. But, yes, of course he would be first choice in any team. Larkham has to prove his renaissance isn't a one-off. Carlos needs things too much his own way. And Wilko's influence is undeniable. None of which necessarily qualify him as the best rugby player running around.

Anyway, if he's not, I wonder who is?

Chicken Scratchers (do you know this anti-League insult?)

Never heard of it.

It’s a moot point – Hill and Dallaglio should be driving your looseys out the game line whilst Backy snaffles ball so Tindall we be free to do his ‘flanker in the centres’ thing. About which my jury is still out. What he does he does well – but Catt has a more diverse game for sure.

I think Clive was bothered that Mortlock, Tuquiri, et al, would target Catt the same way they targeted Leon McDonald.

I recall you saying he had neglected his scrum skills during S12?

Only at the after-season booze up when he punched his teammate. Look, Eddie has a high opinion of him, said he was the most improved player in S12. But the sum total of his international experience is the match against Namibia. Like Baxter, he's in at the deep end and the best will have to be made of it. I ask again - why was Noreiga persevered with for so long when he was obviously past it? Baxter should have had a season of experience behind him. It wouldn't guarantee success, but in the absence of anyone else, experience is better than no experience.

Oh, and there's some doubt that Ben Darwin will ever play again. Sad.

But I think I can sympathise. It was patently obvious to me that some of the stay back mob after the French game were not rugby fraternity at all. There are soccer fans out there for sure Finbar – and certainly some barmy army types -and they may be affecting these things. It will soon be over!

They're the ones I mean.

Tamerlin you are truly a Prince amongst men.

You mean le sieur Tamerlin?

And just for Finbar should I reproduce here the glowing Interview Eales gave to BBC sport today praising his friend Martin Johnson ? Mybe later whilst Finbar is safe asleep

No need. I saw it. Look, it's one great love-in at the moment. The competition is to praise the oppo the most.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Some games will be played in Toulouse...

Despite that, the event is bound to be a success.

Anyway, I hope to be resident over there by then!

Edit. Serge Betsen copped 6 weeks for kicking Dawson. He was "found not guilty of a deliberate act", but guilty of "imprudence". What on earth does that mean? If it wasn't deliberate, it was accidental? Thus 6 weeks? Very odd.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Anyway, I hope to be resident over there by then!

Remember that there is an umbilical cord to cut before you can come here.

Edit. Serge Betsen copped 6 weeks for kicking Dawson. He was "found not guilty of a deliberate act", but guilty of "imprudence". What on earth does that mean? If it wasn't deliberate, it was accidental? Thus 6 weeks? Very odd.

Very stupid indeed!