Rwc 2007

[Bruce]

I'll leave the tipping thread for tipping issues.

Well done to the Pumas by crashing the big French party. I bet the coaching staff are feeling pretty nervous about their fates now.

The All-Blacks demolished the Italians exactly as they should have. The same with the Wallabies over the Japanese. Nothing really to be learned about how either will go against the real contenders.

The real contenders list should not contain England. Watched the replay of that this morning and they barely held off the Yanks. The Poms should have been down to 14 men from about the 15 minute mark. That was the most blatant kick I've seen on a footy field and the ref not only missed it but penalised him for holding on to the ball as he lay on the ground holding the knee that had just been hacked. The 3 men in charge were the only ones who didn't see it as you can hear the crowd booing for a full 5 mins after the incident. I haven't heard if he's been cited for anything yet - none of the newswires has much that wasn't written by a relieved pom reporter.

[Moe Norman]

poms aren't a contender, I'd sooner have both Ireland and Wales well ahead of them.

[PeteyD]

I wouldn't write France off yet. Ireland are the smokeys though.

[Grunt]

Watching Canada V Wales at the moment and Moe you comment about Wales is way off the mark. Canada are looking the experienced team.

[Grunt]

Wales decide to play. Are scoring at will now. Canada tried so hard for almost 50 min.

[Moe Norman]

they played a half strength side, realised it was a mistake, brought on their good players and gave them a pasting.

[PeteyD]

Saturday night should be a good match.

[Bruce]

Hmm.. Vickery got 2 matches for his kick and a Jarpie got 4 for an ugly dangerous tackle. This may be the best tribunal going around at the moment.

[Grunt]

That head high by the Jarpie was pretty bad. Nearly ripped his head off.

[Fishman Dan]

....and a Jarpie got 4 for an ugly dangerous tackle.

Was that the head-high tackle of a player in the air (which means it was a REALLY high tackle!)?

He didn't even get yellow-carded for that effort.

[Grunt]

Yep Dan that was the one. Was a beauty bet the poor bloke is sore too he was totally blind sided.

[kpac]

ooo you blokes are keen - just wait untill Just tracks this down and reads your[-X South African slang.....

[Jarro]

Little jonny yet again spoils the party for the Wannabies :roll: Was it even a good game ? I haven't seen it yet. All i heard was that the Poms never crossed the Aussies try line.

It sure was good to be at work this morning and see all the cocky Kiwis dumping shit on the Aussies getting knocked out, only later on to be seen crying in their hands as the frogs handed them another WC final loss :mrgreen:

[goughy]

I heard that Johnny missed plenty of kicks too. And the aussie guy only kicked 2 from 5. 3 from 5 and the game was ours I guess.

[Jarro]

Either way, it was gonna be decided by goals.

They always are in rugby :roll:

[Moe Norman]

we were disgraceful, the scoreline flattered us

[PeteyD]

It did. England played well. Kiwis were outgunned by an inspired France.

[3oneday]

Lot's of false dawns playing Canada, Fiji and Japan ;) but hey, at least Lote scored :lol:

[goughy]

New Rugby world rankings are out. Aussies have dropped to No.5 in the world, behind NZ, SA, I think it was England, and at No.4.......................... Argentina.

Yes, we rank behind Argentina now!!!! I think it's time to sack the whole sport, not just the coach and team!!!!

That is deplorable. Although I wonder about the rankings system. Have we done that bad and argentina that good lately to now rank ahead of us??

[Grunt]

I really think we have done that bad, good on the Puma's remember they knocked off France in the early rounds of this World Cup.

[PeteyD]

The pumas win a lot of test matches Goughy, particularly at home, so the ranking does not surprise me. They are yet to lose at the World Cup, and have knocked over 3 of the 6 nations teams.

And we have done that bad? A team that 2 years ago got smashed to pieces all over the world? Not really. Our pack is still weak, a product of competing codes and the Super 14 concentration on tries etc thanks to the TV ratings mentality and the bonus point systems. This was shown up by England, particularly at the breakdown. As much as Eddie Jones is going to say Knuckles stuffed up, it is a direct product of his era where they neglected the forwards.

I also think there are unrealistic expectations placed on Australian sports where the public thinks if we don't win a competition it is a disaster. But that is for another discussion.

[Moe Norman]

PUMA's have been good for about 2 years now.

Have beaten France several times in the past 18 months, lost to SA in SA by 1 point - their ranking is deserved.

Our #2 position was grossly artificial.

[goughy]

And I remember, it was france ahead of us in the rankings, not england...

[Moe Norman]

England, despite beating us - should be nowhere near us in the rankings.

They have been consistently beaten by 2nd tier nations, and belted by top nations for the past 3 years. We just caught them on a bad day for us and a good day for them.

[AndyP]

One wonders why the rankings have been updated at least twice now in the middle of the World Cup.

[Grunt]

Maybe it goes off a set number of international games, there have been a few in the past few weeks. Probably not this many each year for many teams.

[PeteyD]

England are 6 behind us

1. NZ
2. France
3. SA
4. Argies
5. Aus
6. Smelly Poms

[just]

One wonders why the rankings have been updated at least twice now in the middle of the World Cup.


Maybe it goes off a set number of international games, there have been a few in the past few weeks. Probably not this many each year for many teams.

I found this helpful:

The world rankings are calculated using a "points exchange" system, in which sides take points off each other based on the match result. Whatever one side gains, the other loses.
The exchanges are based on the match result, the relative strength of each team, and the margin of victory, and there is an allowance for home advantage.
Points exchanges are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the unique importance of this event, but all other full international matches are treated the same, to be as fair as possible to countries playing a different mix of friendly and competitive matches across the world.
Any match that is not a full international between two member countries does not count at all.


Taken from here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4231431a1823.html

[PeteyD]

Nice find just. The exchange system is an interesting idea.

[Moe Norman]

with larkham out for barnes, our 'relative strength' would have been affected a bit also.

[AndyP]

Doesn't explain the updates. It should be left until the end of the tournament.

[Moe Norman]

that system suggests it updates after EVERY game, so it kinda does explain it.

[AndyP]

I didn't bother clicking on the link. I don't care that much. If it's real time rankings then it's not too bad, I suppose.

[PeteyD]

with larkham out for barnes, our 'relative strength' would have been affected a bit also.

Yes a lack of timing and experience there contributed. One thing I agree with Eddie Jones in that Gregan should have been captain, I think the team lacked leadership in tight where he could have made a difference.

Mind you ruck turnovers where you get pushed off the ball are not how you win rugby matches.

[Jarro]

Well the Poms are once again climbing the ranking's ladder after beating the Frogs this morning.

Wilkinsopn once again was the destroyer landing a couple of well-timed penalty goals and a drop goal with 10 minutes to goto give them a 2 point lead.

[Moe Norman]

unlike the Wallabies, the French deserved to win that game. Just couldn't get it done, despite dominating!

[PeteyD]

Just watched the replay. How did England win it?

[Fishman Dan]

Put everything on a Sth African win by the widest possible margin.

[3oneday]

Put everything on a Sth African win by the widest possible margin.should be a real tryfest huh :roll:

Acknowledging of course that they are in the final, how many tries have England actually scored in this tourny ?

Talk about winning ugly, I wonder if they will trial the new rule changes for opening up the game in England :lol:

[PeteyD]

The try Lucy scored was a ripper. It's rugby, it's not about tries ;) How good is Argentina's pack. Can we adopt them to Aus? I think we might have done that before ...

[3oneday]

It's rugby, it's not about tries ;) yep, 3 points for a dropgoal, why would you try and score tries !

[Bruce]

This is disastrous. Either England or South Africa will hold the world cup.

I hate Rugby now. In fact, I hate all low scoring types of football. Anything that allows teams to be dominated for most of the match and somehow squeak out a win is deplorable.

[just]

This is disastrous. Either England or South Africa will hold the world cup.

I hate Rugby now. In fact, I hate all low scoring types of football. Anything that allows teams to be dominated for most of the match and somehow squeak out a win is deplorable.

Did you watch the Puma's/Boks game? Low Scoring???? I would have loved the Wallabies to win but SA winning is the next best thing!!!

[PeteyD]

The only good thing about SA winning will be that they beat England to do it.

[Jarro]

Agreed Pedro :smt023

[3oneday]

Didn't realise we had a seth efrikaan amongst us :confused:

[Jarro]

Congrats South Africa

.. anyone else but the Poms :p

[3oneday]

Did you hear ???? there's been 5 tries scored in the last 5 World Cup finals !!! and two of them had none ! :lol:

[Jarro]

That's ridiculous.

[PeteyD]

Why? The obsession with Tries is a league thing.

[scarfie1]

It just shows what a tight match up it was, and how good the defense is these days.

[3oneday]

Why? The obsession with Tries is a league thing.Pete, the rugby guys are looking at ways to open up the game as well, something about crowd enjoyment maybe ??? :)

[Fishman Dan]

Why? The obsession with Tries is a league thing.

And a crowd thing. Face it PD, that was crap.

That was boring in fast-forward. 2 phases then kick the ball. I don't care so much about the lack of tries (I'm just saying that....), but neither team even tried to run at other. When they didn't kick it away, they looked lost.

[goughy]

It's one of the reasons I can't get into soccer. And it bores me to tears.

[PeteyD]

Yea, problem with rugby is only people weened on it understand it. Lets open it up by removing 2 players, stop the opposition from having an attack on the ball ... oh that has been done before!

I enjoyed the game and didn't think it was crap. Although I prefered the Argentina France game. Mind you it might have been better if the camera had of inflicted some damage to Perci's perfect hairdo.

[3oneday]

Yea, problem with rugby is only people weened on it understand it. Lets open it up by removing 2 players, stop the opposition from having an attack on the ball ... oh that has been done before! You may be right, but understanding the technical side and enjoying running rugby are two different animals, in my opinion anyway.

Anyway, some may appreciate it but here is an article from March 06, where the IRB are looking at changes http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_union/article350299.ece

[PeteyD]

True. I am sure it will swing around to a more open game again though. Things tend to go in cycles.

[3oneday]

True. I am sure it will swing around to a more open game again though. Things tend to go in cycles.I went looking for something that would prove to myself that the Cup Final was once a spectacle, or that maybe just recently it had become more defence orientated... Australia won 12-6 in 91, must have been the other tryless one :shock:

[Moe Norman]

Daly scored a try in the 91 final, it was a beauty!

The 1995 and 1999 World Cups were great. Despite 95 having a tryless final, it was a ripper of a tournament, and so was 1999, when we belted the frogs in the final with 3 tries.

[PeteyD]

I can't see a cup final being anything but defence oriented. And the nature of that sort of tournament lends itself to grinding out wins.

Unfortunately the World Cup takes the emphasis off other test matches. There have been some great Bledisloe matches over the years.

[Moe Norman]

I can't see a cup final being anything but defence oriented. And the nature of that sort of tournament lends itself to grinding out wins.

Unfortunately the World Cup takes the emphasis off other test matches. There have been some great Bledisloe matches over the years.

Yes indeed. 3 years of talking about preparations for the next World Cup becomes quite tedious.

[PeteyD]

Yes indeed. 3 years of talking about preparations for the next World Cup becomes quite tedious.

Particularly when it starts the day after a 1/4 final loss ...

[Fishman Dan]

Yea, problem with rugby is only people weened on it understand it.

Rubbish.


I enjoyed the game and didn't think it was crap. Although I prefered the Argentina France game. Mind you it might have been better if the camera had of inflicted some damage to Perci's perfect hairdo.

I understand the tactical side of a kicking game, but these guys were kicking the ball away with 1- and 2-man overlaps.

It was a game brought about by 2 of the best kickers in the game, in Montgomery and Wilkinson. Unfortunately the Sth Africans had a better forward pack and backline, but pretty much refused to use them to any effect.

[PeteyD]

The overlaps were not generally there as you can't see the cover defence on the tv, particularly the 3 or 4 players that are dropped back to cover the kicks. The wingers did get the ball and were bundled into touch or tackled, or had a try disallowed.

Unfortunately the way the game is played is for field position and then get a penalty because the defending side prefers to concede 3 points instead of 7. The game seems to be lacking a Tim Horan or David Campese to do something incredible in the back line. Mind you with Eddie Jones, mr Play to patterns and plans on the SA side, this is not really a surprise ;)

The South African lineout dominated, they managed to neutralise the English scrum which was suprising. SA also avoided the embarassing counter rucking turnovers that England used so well against the Wobblies.

[3oneday]

Would it be fair to say that no one likes to lose a World Cup through showing too much flair, or taking unnecssary risks ? Maybe the importance of the game is shackling the ability to attack and potentially cost your team the game.

Be interesting to hear how it rated on telly, whilst I like to see tries scored I doubt many would have switched it off.

[PeteyD]

Yea Pete. That seems to be the mentality of the current teams.

[Fishman Dan]

Unfortunately the way the game is played is for field position and then get a penalty because the defending side prefers to concede 3 points instead of 7. The game seems to be lacking a Tim Horan or David Campese to do something incredible in the back line. Mind you with Eddie Jones, mr Play to patterns and plans on the SA side, this is not really a surprise ;)

The Poms had Robinson, the 'Boks have two electrifying wingers and players like Butch James. There was no lack of Horans or Campese's on the field, there was a reluctance to try and exploit something. It doesn't surprise me the Poms played that way, but I though the 'Boks would try something up-tempo.

For the reasons highlighted in your first sentence, the game was dull. I also found (from my untrained eye) that the rucks were a complete shamozzle, with players piling in from the sides frequently and getting away with it, which prevented quick ball being produced. This happened throughout the tournament, it wasn't policed anything like it is during the Super 14's.


whilst I like to see tries scored I doubt many would have switched it off.

It was the sense that "something has to happen any minute now - SURELY!!??!!"

[3oneday]

One question.... was Bill Harrigan in the Video ref box ?

[scarfie1]

I've never seen so many midfield bombs in all my life as in the Final. In my opinion England played too conservatively and kicked the ball way too much, just like PeteyS said they played for field position and penalties. England played much differently against the Wallabies, running out of their 22 etc, with much more flair. It was like they had conseeded that they couldn't score against SA and were just going to have to go for penalties or drop goals

[Grunt]

Thing to me is, didn't they have a great game a few years ago. Teams seemed to throw the ball around and score tries out wide. Goal Kickers have always been better at longer range in Union, so that is not the reason. It may have something to the fact that the defensive coaches have come into the game from League, eg. John Muggleton. They have made the defense better, therefore the running around them of previous times is gone. So if defense is better, the only way forward is to kick it and then when you are in range, you take the 3 point option be it Penalty or Field goal

[Bruce]

One thing I saw more of in this world cup was counter rucking. I don't think I've ever seen as much defensive effort shoving blokes off the ball to take possession especially England against us and the Argies generally.

Perhaps that is a match for the territory game that all that kicking is supposed to win. Get it down their end of the park and then try and take it off them.

[Moe Norman]

Rubbish.



I understand the tactical side of a kicking game, but these guys were kicking the ball away with 1- and 2-man overlaps.

It was a game brought about by 2 of the best kickers in the game, in Montgomery and Wilkinson. Unfortunately the Sth Africans had a better forward pack and backline, but pretty much refused to use them to any effect.

Nobody was kicking with 1/2 man overlaps, maybe a few kicks went in when there was an attacking opportunity, but never with multiple man overlaps.

They used their better forward pack and better backline pretty effectively I thought, effectively enough to be World Champions in fact. The English played a very simple style that strangles the opposition, they probably learnt their lesson when SA beat them 36-0 in the Pool stage that they couldn't compete with them in broken play.

Steyn was a major factor as to why SA won the game with his superb play in midfield. He is a 20 year old player with plenty of flair, and together with Matfield, was the reason SA won the game.


Would it be fair to say that no one likes to lose a World Cup through showing too much flair, or taking unnecssary risks ? Maybe the importance of the game is shackling the ability to attack and potentially cost your team the game.

Be interesting to hear how it rated on telly, whilst I like to see tries scored I doubt many would have switched it off.The 1999 World Cup Final was between the two most flamoyant sides. The French side were wonderful to watch, while the 99 Wallabies had a great mix of incredible defence and outstanding attacking flair. The 99 Wallabies are about as good as it gets. Conceded only one try in the entire tournament and scored more than anyone else - quite a potent mix.


The Poms had Robinson, the 'Boks have two electrifying wingers and players like Butch James. There was no lack of Horans or Campese's on the field, there was a reluctance to try and exploit something. It doesn't surprise me the Poms played that way, but I though the 'Boks would try something up-tempo.

For the reasons highlighted in your first sentence, the game was dull. I also found (from my untrained eye) that the rucks were a complete shamozzle, with players piling in from the sides frequently and getting away with it, which prevented quick ball being produced. This happened throughout the tournament, it wasn't policed anything like it is during the Super 14's.



It was the sense that "something has to happen any minute now - SURELY!!??!!"Highlighting Butch 'offside rush' James has an electrifying or flamboyant player merely exposes you as someone who doesn't follow the game to closely. He is the Nathan Grey of South African Rugby. Boring as batshit.

Didn't see much wrong with the policing of the rucks, perhaps you have them confused with the mauls? (don't have to come through the imaginary gate in a maul)


Thing to me is, didn't they have a great game a few years ago. Teams seemed to throw the ball around and score tries out wide. Goal Kickers have always been better at longer range in Union, so that is not the reason. It may have something to the fact that the defensive coaches have come into the game from League, eg. John Muggleton. They have made the defense better, therefore the running around them of previous times is gone. So if defense is better, the only way forward is to kick it and then when you are in range, you take the 3 point option be it Penalty or Field goalMuggs has been the defensive coach at the ARU for just over 10 years now, so not really a recent addition.

[Moe Norman]

To me the greatest problems in the game are minimal.

1. The variance in rules interpretations between the nothern and southern hemisphere.
2. The reluctance to penalise foul play with yellow cards. If professional fouls were more frequently penalised with more than just a chance of 3 points, they might subside a tad, hence more tries.

[PeteyD]

To me the greatest problems in the game are minimal.

1. The variance in rules interpretations between the nothern and southern hemisphere.
2. The reluctance to penalise foul play with yellow cards. If professional fouls were more frequently penalised with more than just a chance of 3 points, they might subside a tad, hence more tries.


And less field time for Richie McCaw ... hehe

and do not forget the stupid way they pack the scrums at the moment (again a Northern Hemisphere thing, what we had worked well). I was watching a show on SBS about Rugby in Australia in the 70's when we sucked big time, and Wales had about 10 of the world 15 in their team. Man they used to pack scrums in those days, line up 2 metres apart and bang!!

[Fishman Dan]

Nobody was kicking with 1/2 man overlaps, maybe a few kicks went in when there was an attacking opportunity, but never with multiple man overlaps.

Watch the game again....

Just one example - kick was from a forward.. and although it was one of the better kicks forcing the Poms to field the ball and cross the sideline 15m from goal, if you look outside him there was a catch-and-pass overlap that could have seen the 'Boks in the corner.

And no, I haven't read the rest of your post ;)

[PeteyD]

Victor matfield can't pass to his right.

[3oneday]

Fish and chip wrappers anyway, go the Tahqiris 8)

[Moe Norman]

And less field time for Richie McCaw ... hehe

and do not forget the stupid way they pack the scrums at the moment (again a Northern Hemisphere thing, what we had worked well). I was watching a show on SBS about Rugby in Australia in the 70's when we sucked big time, and Wales had about 10 of the world 15 in their team. Man they used to pack scrums in those days, line up 2 metres apart and bang!!

crouch, touch, pause, sing the anthem, solve the theory of relativity, calculate your bmi, ENGAGE!


Watch the game again....

Just one example - kick was from a forward.. and although it was one of the better kicks forcing the Poms to field the ball and cross the sideline 15m from goal, if you look outside him there was a catch-and-pass overlap that could have seen the 'Boks in the corner.


cover defence tends to 'cover' this sort of thing, especially when its a lock with ball in hand. it's only an overlap if there is a single defensive line.

[Fishman Dan]

cover defence tends to 'cover' this sort of thing, especially when its a lock with ball in hand. it's only an overlap if there is a single defensive line.

Gee, thanks. Next post - umbrella defence?

[Moe Norman]

just watch out for that creative playmaker Butch James - he's the next Serevi that bloke!

[poidda]

This "world cup" is over right?!?! :roll: