Rugby World Cup: And the Winner is...

[Caligastia]

Wouldn't you say that the damage is limited to the year of the RWC Finbar?

[finbar]

I don't think it's only the year of the event, but even if it were, that's still a lot of compromised Test matches.

[Caligastia]

In what way does it affect other years? I've only noticed the sheltering of players in the actual year of the RWC.

[MikeH]

The RWC is absolutely brilliant it brings Rugby to millions of people who'd otherwise never watch it. I've had loads of people watching rugby with me in the pub who I've had to explain most of the rules to but who've come to enjoy it. People who didn't even watch last time ('cause of time difference) and definitely the best two teams in World Rugby reach the final. -FACT!

[MikeH]

And that's even watching allegedly boring old England.

I reckon some of the matches in this WC have been among the most entertaining games of international rugby I've watched. I love it and the atmosphere at games has been wonderful. Planning on going to NZ for 2011

[Havak]

I just wish the part time rugby supporter would appreciate that it's extremely possible for the best team at the tournament to not win it.

Well MikeH has put it stronger than I would have but I do agree that this is a little counter intuitive as by the end of tomorrow the winner will top the world rankings.

And Mike your FACT can be argued to actually be a subjective opinion to a certain extent because the only performance based measure we have (flawed as they may be) is that same one – the IRB world rankings – and they disagree with you.

But how else do you judge ‘best’ if not on the results in the tournament? We enter the world of subjective opinion then don’t we? And part time fans don’t give a hoot about the subjective opinions of we ‘dedicated’ fans? And in all honesty why should they?

The statement could however still be true of course. If South Africa somehow manage to contrive to lose tomorrow. Because they have been the side of the tournament I believe? Consistently stronger opposition than anyone else and no lost games?

I personally don’t think for a moment that England are one of the top two sides in the world (I would make that SA and NZ myself). It would be rather silly to think so. What we have done is play superbly to our strengths in the knock out games. It’s mainly been choking the life out of the opposition (or letting them kick themselves to their doom before Finbar corrects me) but as an old grunter I really enjoy seeing that.

I just wish that those same part time rugby fans could understand that England’s win over Australia was a far more discerning game of rugby for those in the know than the Aussie demolition of Wales for example. Rugby isn’t just about fast flowing try fests. Good rugby thrives on the competition at the contact and the breakdown and I pray that Paddy’s Stellenbosch rubbish doesn’t kill the game stone dead.

I’ve never seen such a stupid justification as “some teams found it hard to obey this law so we are scrapping it” (regarding the collapsing of rolling mauls). Surely now if you want a law scrapped then you need to simply fail to observe it?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I just wish that those same part time rugby fans could understand that England’s win over Australia was a far more discerning game of rugby for those in the know than the Aussie demolition of Wales for example. Rugby isn’t just about fast flowing try fests. Good rugby thrives on the competition at the contact and the breakdown and I pray that Paddy’s Stellenbosch rubbish doesn’t kill the game stone dead.

Couldn't agree more, especially about much of Paddy Prat's rubbish. Perverse peckerhead that I am, I thoroughly enjoyed the England demolition of the Wallabies at contact and breakdown. You don't see it much anymore, especially against a supposedly top team. Pity for the part-time rugby fan, though, that nothing flowed from the demolition job. Normally, such superiority in contact and at the breakdown should result in demolition on the score sheet too.

But I might have mentioned that before. Thought I'd just mention it. In case I hadn't. Mentioned it before. My memory isn't all that flash until I've had my second cappuccino for the day.

EDIT. Just licked the last of the froth out of the bottom of my second cappuccino for the day. I recall now that I had mentioned it before. Sorry.

I’ve never seen such a stupid justification as “some teams found it hard to obey this law so we are scrapping it” (regarding the collapsing of rolling mauls). Surely now if you want a law scrapped then you need to simply fail to observe it?

Don't get me started! I might be wrong, but from my observation, the maul hasn't been as effective in this tournament as it has in the past. Yes, there have been some corkers, but defences seem finally to have realised that the only counter is to shift the maul sideways.

[Havak]

Sorry what was that you had mentioned? My memory is about as good as England's try scoring ability.

And yes shift it sideways - or fall underneath it with those refs that don't penalise such.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Havak

And Mike your FACT can be argued to actually be a subjective opinion to a certain extent because the only performance based measure we have (flawed as they may be) is that same one � the IRB world rankings � and they disagree with you.

There may have been a teeny tiny troll at the end of my post...

All my non-Rugby watching friends appreciate fully that the best team in a knockout tournament doesn't always win. It's the same in football and any other sport. That's not really the point though, you do have to beat everyone in front of you, and if you can't do that you don't deserve to be champions or to be known as the best team in the world. IMO.

Who have South Africa actually played? New Zealand? Australia? France? Nope. They've thrashed an England side playing some of the worst rugby I've ever seen from them, beaten a decent Fijian side and taken advantage of a sub-par Argentinian performance where they almost literally threw the game away.

So how good are they really? They appear to be very good, but I'm not sure we'll find out for sure even if they win tomorrow.

I'd like to second what Havak said about England vs Australia too. I thoroughly enjoyed the English performance in that game, we didn't run in many tries, but seeing forwards so dominant was beautiful in itself.

[Havak]

teeny tiny? Like an elephant you mean?

How good are the Boks? I take your points above but they are still pretty good. Solid scrum, superb line out, best scrum half of the tournament, a pair of superb on the deck scavengers, a functional stand off, talented centres, superstar winger and another who knows how to finish plus a fullback who kicks with considerable accuracy unless you can rattle him.

So not too shabby.

Which is not to say we have no chance - IF we can rattle James, Montgomery and Du Preez we have a good chance. James may slip back to the biff style he prefers, Monty can go to pieces (how many times did we see that when he played in welsh club sides that couldn't protect him?) and if the scrum and Gomersall can apply pressure to Du Preez then all to the good.

It's a long shot - but I'll not rule us out.

*edit* We probably need to keep the ball away from that chap Habana too....

[MikeH]

Yeah, I think they are very good but I'm sure if they beat us by 36 points again the Kiwis will still say they are the best team in the world.

And on Habana... why Cueto?! ARGH.

[finbar]

I'd've said a scrum half capable of greatness who has really only produced it once in the event. I think Senor Pichot produced more often until everything caught up with him and them. The Bok pack bothers me. They're not the rock they once were, at least they haven't been in this event. If A. Sheridan scoffs his Mars Bars before the match he will upset them. The mobility of the Bok back row will help. Though I think I recall saying that about another mob who ran into England during the event.

Oh, and Forza Francia stasera.

[Havak]

Does that mean you want France to win or that you believe they will (or both)?

*edit* I should point out that I am aware the Pumas are using the game to give the squads fringe players a game.

The selection of Cueto is quite inexplicable MikeH. Officially he wasn't dropped at all but had a hamstring tweak (despite Ashton saying before the France game that the whole squad was fit and available for selection).

The option many had called for - including myself - was Hipkiss to 13 and Tait to the wing. Cueto is a gamble - and he now faces the ultimate test (if you will forgive the cliche) as he hasn't shown a sniff of form since the 6N (and arguably not even then).

[MikeH]

Totally agree. Apparently Ashton said it was because they expected to deal with a lot of aerial ball and Cueto was more experienced on the wing, but as you say he hasn't even been playing that well and he probably couldn't beat Habana's granny in a sprint.

Ah, here's the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/7046466.stm

Then again, before the last game chatting in the pub I wasn't exactly complimentary about Lewsey's form, and he scored almost immediately, much to the amusement of my friends.

[finbar]

Both.

Forza [INSERT WHATEVER OR WHOMEVER YOU WANT TO SUCCEED] is such a lovely Italian expression. The tragedy is that the appalling S. Berlusconi appropriated it for his ugly coalition of cheats, thieves and conmen.