Rugby world cup 2007

[PKFFW]

What a boring couple of games though.........

England V Tonga was England's basic game plan at its finest......hold on till Wilkinson can kick a goal. What is with leading by 20 and Wilkonson pops over a field goal??

Then there was the Aussies V Canada......with an English ref wanting to keep it as boring as possible blowing the whistle every 2 mins! The rain didn't help either. We could not get into a rythm for much of the game and there were far too many turn overs considering it really should have been like a good training run. Still, we will likely have to overcome those kinds of things later on anyway so we really need to find a way to lift. It was not a convincing display in my opinion.

I'm still confident we will beat England though. We just need to play in their half and be disciplined. If the Tongan's kicking game had been better it might have been a different story. With Latham, Giteau and Barnes all being good kickers we should be able to dominate field position and nullify to some extent the threat of Wilkinson.

Looking forward to it.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[yacarob1]

England will never be an attractive side to watch. Any side has to play to its strengths and attacking flair is not one of England's strengths.

One of the commentators made the comment that in order to beat Australia you have to beat George Smith.

Is that a fair comment ?

 

[chump]

Against Tonga England played smart to win.... issue one was possession so we dominated them in set pieces and did well enough in the loose...issue two was to keep turning them around and play with their possession in theirown half...these were the tactics and it worked well...you only had to see the tongans run with ball a in hand to realise why these tactics were a winning gameplan....the conditions also favoured that type of approach. No doubt helped by the tongans inability to kick, particularly from hand.
Ozzies made a 'meal' out of Canada..6 tries ,or not they were has bad as England were against the US.
However, it's styles that make games as we know and the ozzies have a great kicking game from hand and we can't expect much advantage from that.
On balance Oz playing well are still very much the favourites ,BUT they will have to keep their discipline in their half and their front 8 will have to raise their game ,or their backs will have to make capital from the lesser half of possession . A few years ago Englands all powerful pack weree enough to ensure the outcome of such a contest ,but today we don't have that scale of dominance so I hink the scales tilt just far enough in favour of OZ.

The game to see yesterday was Wales v Fiji ...you've got to love it..those fijians put 15 guys on the park ,but play rugby like it was 7's ...the forwards are just called forwards because they're slighlty rounder than the backs...LOL...you'll never get bored watching them that is for sure.

 

[PKFFW]

Couldn't agree more about the Fijians.....what a great game to watch.

We did make a bit of a meal of Canada. Wasn't impressed but I don't think we were as bad as England V USA.

England V Tonga.......they did play smart football to their strengths I wont argue there. It was actually good in a way because I think Englands 2 main strengths wont be such a huge advantage to them against Australia.

1: Our front 8 has really improved. We're still behind a bit in the set pieces but I think the can match any team(maybe bar the AB's) when it comes to ball running and ball skills. George Smith is probably one of if not the best flanker in the world. He can steal ball in just about any ruck. Elsom and Palu both run hard and can offload even in traffic. I admit over all England has the advantage here though.
2: Our backs, if they click, are world class in most respects. Barnes has really stepped up and what he lacks in experience he has thus far made up for in a "no fear" and daring attitude. He's pretty handy with a the old drop kick too. Mitchell has speed and can finish.....he's got 7 tries so far. Giteau is a world class centre. Latham was the best fullback in the world for at least 12 months before his knee injury and now he is really coming back into form. Gregan isn't as good as he once was but is still formidable and really lifts for the big occassions and his leadership is a huge factor even if he isn't captain. Then there's Tiquiri and Ashley-Cooper both fast and strong. I say we definitely have the edge here.
3: As mentioned earlier, our kicking game is pretty good these days so we should be able to match England in the territory stakes. Hopefully we can even gain an edge here.
4: We are much more disciplined than most of the teams England have faced thus far. They wont be getting 15-20 free points from penalties I shouldn't think.

Should hopefully be a good game anyways.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[yacarob1]

It beats me how they can call it a World Cup really when the serious contenders in every single tournament played so far ( and to be played in the future ) can be counted on the fingers of just over half a hand.

It is not far off the ludicrousness ( if that is a word ) of the World Series of Baseball ( rounders to most people ).

The so called Rugby World Cup is nothing more than a triangular tournament of major Southern Hemisphere teams where an imposter country might occasionally break up the party.....England in 2003 for example,
but probably never again.

Having said that I hope England stuff the Aussies in whatever manner is necessary ( kick George Smith in the b****cks ? ), but I cannot seriously see it coming to fruition.

There is a real world out there unfortunately.

Good to see Fiji beat the Taffs though.

 

[PKFFW]

I wont try to put the RWC on a par with the Soccer but the idea that it isn't a world cup cause only 4-5 teams have a realistic chance of winning is a bit disengenious if you ask me.

Every sport with a "world cup" has to start somewhere. The soccer world cup has been going on 77 years and only 7 countries have ever won it. Of those seven, two have only won it once. In the first five RWC's 4 teams have already won it. In the first 5 SWC's only 3 teams had won it. These days 32 teams make the finals in the SWC and realistically maybe 5 and probably less have a chance of winning. In the RWC the top 4 out of 20 could all win it on the day. That's a better % of teams having a realistic chance of winning than at the SWC where 4-5 out of 32 could do it.

As for the lopsided results which look really bad.......there were a number of 6-0, 5-0, 4-0, 3-0 scores in the SWC last year. Scores like that equate to about 70 or 80 nil in rugby. It only looks like a more competitive score line because you only get one point for a goal. On top of that, not being able to use your hands does of course make it harder to score goals. That makes things seem more competative than they really are because alot more opportunities are missed in soccer. Some of those score lines would have been more like 12-15 nil if easy opportunities hadn't been missed.

Soccer is truly the world game, I admit that. However as things stand now Rugby is actually doing better than Soccer was after it's first 20 years of a playing a "world cup". It probably wont ever become a truly global game like soccer but it's growing and who knows where it could be in another 50 years when it's been going as long as the SWC. If we do as good as soccer maybe the top 5 instead of the top 4 will have a chance of winning!

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[yacarob1]

I don't think it matters what you call it...World Cup, Southern Hemisphere Bash or whatever.

There are a few great games going on and it's good to watch.

I personally don't give a stuff who wins the "World Cup" . I just love to watch some of these encounters...Argentina vs Ireland, Wales vs Fiji.

It will now get better as we approach the final stages.

 

[yacarob1]

the idea that it isn't a world cup cause only 4-5 teams have a realistic chance of winning is a bit disengenious if you ask me.

It's funny how people look at things in different ways.

I believe disingenuous is the word that you are looking for and I would quite honestly say that it is disingenuous to call it a World Cup bearing in mind the almost certain inevitability of the final outcome.

However, as I said before there have been and will be more great games and who cares about that meaningless trophy anyway.

 

[JTrader]

I can't believe how dirty some of the play has been in the past few games - late tackles, high tackles, tackling a player who is in the air, trips etc . with a few players lucky to escape serious injuries. A professional rugby player should be bright enough to realise that what goes around, comes around.....

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

It's funny how people look at things in different ways.

I believe disingenuous is the word that you are looking for and I would quite honestly say that it is disingenuous to call it a World Cup bearing in mind the almost certain inevitability of the final outcome.

However, as I said before there have been and will be more great games and who cares about that meaningless trophy anyway.

Is the FIFA World Cup any less disingenous, given that only seven countries have won it since its inception? Is there really any point in allowing Saudi Arabia or Trinidad and Tobago access to the big stage, when they're never going to qualify past the pool stages?

I think your argument is less valid this time round, given that for the first time the minnows have played some great rugby and been close to creating upsets. Given their development curve, denying them the chance to play at this level would basically write off their chances of this ever developing into a more meaningful 'world' competition. With another four years of development and some resources pumped their way, would you bet against Georgia or Tonga, or even the USA, really causing an upset or two at the next tournament?

Something I have got irritated by (not directed at you Yacarob, just in general), is the England play boring rugby argument. Right, so 3-0 down with a penalty against Tonga, does Wilkinson kick the safe three points, or go for an incredibly risky kick into the corner, expertly caught for a try by Sackey? To me the worst team of the tournament has to be Scotland. Fielding a second XV against NZ when they'd managed to twist the authorities arm to allow them to play at Murrayfield, was a disgrace. If I was a Scottish fan who'd paid good money to see that game, I'd be furious and ashamed. By Frank Hadden's own admission, they'd spent two years preparing for the Italy game - what? to win by 2-points and not even attempt to score a single try? Scotland are entirely reliant on Patterson's boot, and the rest of the team don't do anything more than try and get into range and then win a penalty. Did they even get inside Italy's 22-yard line on Saturday? That was probably the worst game of international rugby I've seen - I hope Argentina absolutely demolish them next weekend to teach them a lesson about how the game should be played.

 

[JTrader]

I agree to some extent. Rugby isn't a huge game world-wide. 11 of the participating countries don't play in any major international tournaments besides the WC - so they lack experience, and any sort of edge, anda they also lack a good domestic set-up. Therefore they make up the numbers in what is essentially a festival of rugby, aimed at promoting the game and increasing its popularity.

Argentina will have to be allowed into the tri-nations tournament IMO. Tri-nations - what a load of bollo*** anyway - 3 teams - how exciting - NOT!

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

While I'm at it...

How the hell, in a French World Cup, do Scotland and Wales get to play important games in their home stadiums but England weren't allowed to play at Twickenham? I'd imagine the Irish are similarly unimpressed...

 

[JTrader]

While I'm at it...

How the hell, in a French World Cup, do Scotland and Wales get to play important games in their home stadiums but England weren't allowed to play at Twickenham? I'd imagine the Irish are similarly unimpressed...

Rather makes a mockery of it doesn't it. Its all a bit random really - either the WC is all in France, or is co-hosted between the hosting nations .

 

[yacarob1]

I hope Argentina absolutely demolish them next weekend to teach them a lesson about how the game should be played.

Me too a hundred times over.

It would actually do world rugby union a hell of a lot of good if Argentina could actually reach the final or even go on to win it. I don't think they are quite there yet but not far off.

As for the soccer world cup, it is too big and unwieldy a tournament. It should be cut back to 16 teams and then we would have a fabulous tournament with almost every game being a humdinger.

Nobody has mentioned cricket. Cricket now has 2 world cups...smirk.

There are even less serious cricket playing nations than there are rugby nations.

Bit of a joke really but then again you do get to see some great games which is the only thing that is important, not the name of the tournament or where it's played.

 

[PKFFW]

It's funny how people look at things in different ways.

I believe disingenuous is the word that you are looking for and I would quite honestly say that it is disingenuous to call it a World Cup bearing in mind the almost certain inevitability of the final outcome.

However, as I said before there have been and will be more great games and who cares about that meaningless trophy anyway.

Yes my spelling was a bit off on that one! Disingenuous indeed.

It is just as inevitable that one of about 4 or 5 teams will win the Soccer world cup but no one claims that isn't a world cup.

I reckon the players and fans of Rugby who watch it to support their national team but also because they genuinely enjoy rugby care about the trophy. Just as those who watch the SWC care about that trophy.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[jacinto]

While I'm at it...

How the hell, in a French World Cup, do Scotland and Wales get to play important games in their home stadiums but England weren't allowed to play at Twickenham? I'd imagine the Irish are similarly unimpressed...

mmm.... revenge on :cheesy: La Perfide Albion

 

[JTrader]

I think 32 for the soccer WC is about right. It is too popular a sport/tournament to be reduced to 16. Also, the soccer WC is MUCH more open than rugby or crickets WC's, not to mention the RL WC - LOL!

 

[yacarob1]

You may be correct JTrader but it is a pity that we need to have 32 teams in the SWC because it is such a god-awful boring tournament until you get down to the last 8.

 

[JTrader]

You may be correct JTrader but it is a pity that we need to have 32 teams in the SWC because it is such a god-awful boring tournament until you get down to the last 8.

...........& its still pretty lame then

 

[yacarob1]

That's the nature of the game though isn't it ?

It's a game for bitchy little nancy boys.

Give me rugby any day of the week.