England v France

[j.simpson-daniel]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> alrite then sanzar you boys keep winning the meaningless matches for the four years leading up to the world cup and we'll keep winning where it matters then? [/b]

Is that a promise that if you win again you'll make sure to carry on being the worst performing world champions in the history of the cup?
[/b][/quote]

yep you keep winning the freindlies if we win the cup?! [/b][/quote]



Friendlies? This isn't Soccer - games between the World Cup's actually count, it wasn't like the English were holding back for the past 4 years and have been fooling us the whole time, the truth of the matter is that they have been utter cack.



The 6 Nations, Tri Nations, Grand Slam Tours and the Lions Series all count. But hey, what does it matter, we probably won't hear from again after the English bandwagon train crashes next week when you lose to the Boks and normal service is resumed soon enough, you'll just head back to Football and blissfully stick your head in the sand that the past 4 years don't count for anything.

Originally posted by Allez Wasps
Two finals in a row. You are spouting shite.

He's spouting ****? I'm sure than you'll than gladly point out a team that has won the World Cup and has had such a dire 4 years afterwards as the English?

nehow heres my argument for y whoever wins the WC is the best rugby playing nation, whether that is Eng, Arg, or SA....the WC is a snapshot in time, so in the future ppl can look back and c who the 'world champs' r... IMO whoteva happens inbetweenthose 4 years is all good and well with ur argument about consistency, no doubt NZ dominated all round, but my question is does it truely matter? i mean who cares we've been beaten by prob every team i can think of at sum point or other since 2003 (lets not even discuss the **** poor management, injuries and retirements which have f***ed the team up)...fact is the most important matches in any players career IMO is the WC, its what ppl who dont even watch rugby r goin to watch, its got every single rugby nation of a high standard playin and is surely the pinnacle of rugby achievement..surely u can't dispute this? followin on from this...u wont be able to simulate this type of atmosphere and pressure in any other tournament, and its the reason y NZ have failed every WC, how else can u explain NZ losing to a french side (who u put 45 points on last yr) after being 13 points up with like 70 percent possession, playing 26 phases of up the jumper rugby? choking plain and simple. pressure lad, thats wot pressure does to a side, when it really matters, when its all on the line and one team has to say do or die that shows whcih team truely is the greatest rugby nation....[/b]

On the other hand, how can you claim to be the greatest Rugby Nation when you've lost to Argentina, Wales (x2), Ireland (x4), Scotland, France (x3), New Zealand (x4), South Africa and Australia (Both Multiple Times) in the past 4 years, in games which actually matter (like I said above, Rugby isn't Soccer, every test match means something). Sure, they can claim to be World Champions (Which is unlikely as they more likely than not will fall to the Bokke again, although probably a bit closer than 36-0) but not the Greatest Rugby Nation.

And I can explain the AB's loss - a Poor Gameplan, combined with Poor Handling, with a pinch of retarded referring. [/b][/quote]



not 2 mention a poor undercooked team with worryingly little tactical nous ...simple we can claim to be the greatest rugby nation because until next week we r current world champions....we win when it matters, if u cant understand this by now then well just have to agree to disagree because frankly its rather boring to explain soemthing so simple to understand...and yes u r rite, there r no friendlies in soccer but leeme ask u a qn, which would u trade, winning every game between WCs bar the knock out ones in a WC or losing for 4 years and winning the WC? be honest now lol

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotemain'> This reminds me exactly of the fight we get in over in North America when it comes to the NFL. We have a saying over here "Offence Wins Games, Defence Wins Championships" and this statement hold true to what is happening today in rugby. Baltimore Ravens are a prime example of this. They have the shittiest offence in the goddamn league but the end up winning every game 14-7 10-0 etc because nobody gets by their defence. They play boring uneventful football but what they do is effective. KC Chiefs go 15-1 in the reg season "yes friendly matches" with dynamite offence, Priest Holmes was an amazing rushing back and who do they get blown out by the NE Patriots whose blitz defence completely obliterated them. When the Patriots won their first superbowl they were not an amazing team. They were 8-8 in the season much like england were garbage going into the quarterfinals but they ran off pure emotion and played smart, tactically sound football, and they ended up winning.



Whats my point? It doesn't matter how you win it's if you win. I really like and admire the way England is playing. They aren't pretty but they have just beat two of the top teams in the world who supposedly should have walked all over them.



No one will remember how awesome the All Blacks were for four years just like nobody will remember how good the KC Chiefs were that NFL season, the point is the NE Patriots still won the Superbowl and England may yet do the same in this world cup.

[/b]

Patriots were 11-5 and got a home game in Divisional Round of the Play-Off's (and even than, they still needed the tuck rule to get them past Oakland), then shut down Kordell Stewert a week later (hardly a hard task) when they won their First Superbowl... and the Ravens are all fine and dandy, except when it comes to play off time when they actually have to do something with the ball in hand, than they lose to the boot of Adam Vinateri after going 13-3 and getting Home Field.



The Chiefs also never got blown out by the Pats, they lost in a shootout to Peyton Manning the year they went 13-3, with both teams scoring in the 30's.



Analogy Failed

[/b][/quote]



I Knew football would be a poor choice as I don't know enough stats to actually string a decent argument together so I'll stick with Ice Hockey. You can't argue with me though the Ravens are the boringest team in NFL history and they still won an NFL Championship. England Pack = Ravens Defence



Ravens boring = Victory

England boring = Victory



NZ Flair and Romance = No WC

Canadian Hockey = 50 years no olympic gold

 

[j.simpson-daniel]

I think most of you are misunderstanding what we neutrals are saying. We're not dismissing your team, or not giving credit for winning with sheer guts and determination. All we are saying, is that the way your nation is currently playing is putting us to sleep and is not a display of how rugby should be played. We're not disputing that playing 10 man rugby might be the way to win knockout games, we're just saying that it shouldn't be that way. The World Cup final is when you have the greatest world wide audience at anypoint in time. So your game is on display for world to see. We're not talking simply about loyalists and the hardcore rugby fan who will watch the final regardless. We're talking about casual fans and non-fans. To get those people to become fans of the game you need to put on a show. Arial pingpong and players who lack creativity is not how you get people interested. No one wants to see a 15-12 game where the ball is in the air as much as it is on the ground.

[/b]

so wot wud u call that 26 phase up the jumper rugby that nz played against france then....

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotemain'> I think most of you are misunderstanding what we neutrals are saying. We're not dismissing your team, or not giving credit for winning with sheer guts and determination. All we are saying, is that the way your nation is currently playing is putting us to sleep and is not a display of how rugby should be played. We're not disputing that playing 10 man rugby might be the way to win knockout games, we're just saying that it shouldn't be that way. The World Cup final is when you have the greatest world wide audience at anypoint in time. So your game is on display for world to see. We're not talking simply about loyalists and the hardcore rugby fan who will watch the final regardless. We're talking about casual fans and non-fans. To get those people to become fans of the game you need to put on a show. Arial pingpong and players who lack creativity is not how you get people interested. No one wants to see a 15-12 game where the ball is in the air as much as it is on the ground.

[/b]

so wot wud u call that 26 phase up the jumper rugby that nz played against france then....

[/b][/quote]



Yah you know what was funny is after watching that I was like and this is supposed to be the best team in the world. Its ok though will let the NZer's and Aussie's have their fun picking away at England's poor record over the past fews years it won't matter because they still don't have the big hardware.

 

[fcukernaut]

I Knew football would be a poor choice as I don't know enough stats to actually string a decent argument together so I'll stick with Ice Hockey. You can't argue with me though the Ravens are the boringest team in NFL history and they still won an NFL Championship. England Pack = Ravens Defence



Ravens boring = Victory

England boring = Victory



NZ Flair and Romance = No WC

Canadian Hockey = 50 years no olympic gold

[/b]

You have to understand we're not argueing whether 10 man rugby is the way to win knockout games or not. I think that has been answered fairly definitively. What we are saying is that it is utter **** to watch as a neutral and is horrible for a casual or non-fan to get into.



As for you hockey analogy, it makes no difference because hockey has the same problem as rugby. The trap is ruining the game. It should not be there. If you're not as skilled, as athletic or as talented, you should not be able to survive on the ice (or on the pitch when refering to rugby).



It's all about improving the game, that's what we want. We want to see rugby expand and progress. For rugby to get better we need to finally see the end of 10 man rugby. Regardless whether it is an effective winning strategy doesn't matter. It is holding rugby back and needs to go.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

What I like is its not even the French members of this board *****ing in this topic its the bitter Aussies and Kiwis who are minutes away from jumping off the nearest bridge because they can't accept that England are into the final and they aren't. This is the type of **** that is going to get people interested in rugby. Fiji smashing wales, Aussie and NZ getting eliminated, not NZ winning every game 100-0 and the whole world quits playing because they cannot compete.

 

[fcukernaut]

<div class='quotemain'> I think most of you are misunderstanding what we neutrals are saying. We're not dismissing your team, or not giving credit for winning with sheer guts and determination. All we are saying, is that the way your nation is currently playing is putting us to sleep and is not a display of how rugby should be played. We're not disputing that playing 10 man rugby might be the way to win knockout games, we're just saying that it shouldn't be that way. The World Cup final is when you have the greatest world wide audience at anypoint in time. So your game is on display for world to see. We're not talking simply about loyalists and the hardcore rugby fan who will watch the final regardless. We're talking about casual fans and non-fans. To get those people to become fans of the game you need to put on a show. Arial pingpong and players who lack creativity is not how you get people interested. No one wants to see a 15-12 game where the ball is in the air as much as it is on the ground.

[/b]

so wot wud u call that 26 phase up the jumper rugby that nz played against france then....

[/b][/quote]



They forgot that ten man rugby requires you to pick up points in three's with the occasional five pointer. They lost their head and didn't take the three on offer at the end. Not to mention they got sucked into arial pingpong instead of running it back down France's throat.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotemain'>


I Knew football would be a poor choice as I don't know enough stats to actually string a decent argument together so I'll stick with Ice Hockey. You can't argue with me though the Ravens are the boringest team in NFL history and they still won an NFL Championship. England Pack = Ravens Defence



Ravens boring = Victory

England boring = Victory



NZ Flair and Romance = No WC

Canadian Hockey = 50 years no olympic gold

[/b]

You have to understand we're not argueing whether 10 man rugby is the way to win knockout games or not. I think that has been answered fairly definitively. What we are saying is that it is utter **** to watch as a neutral and is horrible for a casual or non-fan to get into.



As for you hockey analogy, it makes no difference because hockey has the same problem as rugby. The trap is ruining the game. It should not be there. If you're not as skilled, as athletic or as talented, you should not be able to survive on the ice (or on the pitch when refering to rugby).



It's all about improving the game, that's what we want. We want to see rugby expand and progress. For rugby to get better we need to finally see the end of 10 man rugby. Regardless whether it is an effective winning strategy doesn't matter. It is holding rugby back and needs to go.

[/b][/quote]



I don't see anything wrong with employing the trap. Oh and the way too beat it has already been figured out. Its called dump and chase hockey. Which in my opinion is some of the most exciting hockey played.

NZ could of easily beaten the French if they had simply fought fire with fire taken their chances at dropping for goal and stopped being so fing arrogant. They tried to bull there way over out of sheer arrogance and it cost them. Sport should not be constricted simply because the rules have been interpreted and executed in such a way that a team cannot use it anymore.



With the argument your using what your basically saying is NZ can't win if England play a game of territory and forward dominance we shouldnn't allow the game to be played like that at all.



In that case I would say well England can't win if NZ employs their backline effectively which they didn't do against the French.



If NZ would of played to their strengths and not played into the hands of the French it could of been different. if th Aussies hadn't played to Englands strengths, maybe fronted up a bit more in the pack they could of whalloped the English.



As a military man I really admire someone who plays to their strengths. Its like lets say I am going to clear a house and its full of enemies. Will I send my Platoon in or will I call in a B1 Bomber to drop a JDAM on the f***ing compound. I am gonna obviously call in the JDAM. Its the same thing in rugby, sometimes things don't happen the way they are supposed to accept it.

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> I think most of you are misunderstanding what we neutrals are saying. We're not dismissing your team, or not giving credit for winning with sheer guts and determination. All we are saying, is that the way your nation is currently playing is putting us to sleep and is not a display of how rugby should be played. We're not disputing that playing 10 man rugby might be the way to win knockout games, we're just saying that it shouldn't be that way. The World Cup final is when you have the greatest world wide audience at anypoint in time. So your game is on display for world to see. We're not talking simply about loyalists and the hardcore rugby fan who will watch the final regardless. We're talking about casual fans and non-fans. To get those people to become fans of the game you need to put on a show. Arial pingpong and players who lack creativity is not how you get people interested. No one wants to see a 15-12 game where the ball is in the air as much as it is on the ground.

[/b]

so wot wud u call that 26 phase up the jumper rugby that nz played against france then....

[/b][/quote]



They forgot that ten man rugby requires you to pick up points in three's with the occasional five pointer. They lost their head and didn't take the three on offer at the end. Not to mention they got sucked into arial pingpong instead of running it back down France's throat.

[/b][/quote]



Exactly NZ rugby revolves around a strong running game with lots of attack. You played right into France's hands and executed poor judgement in the process. You deserved to lose for that.

 

[esoj]

was a fairly boring game to watch. both teams lacked imagination and just restorted going down to the other end and getting a penalty or going for drop kicks. seriously how many did both teams go for as soon as they had a chance down the other end way too many I think, it was like that was their sole aim get down the other end go for the droppie.

well england did win they almost lost the game too. a bit more imagination instead of go for the drop goal at all costs would proabbly have seen more tries for both teams and a bigger wining margin. england suckered france into their game plan and it worked very well. If south africa do make the final I think they will be prepared to show more imagination than france did and this could be englands undoing in the final. on the other hand finals do strange things to teams just like what happened to france. anyway should be a good final well done to england for making it into the final for back to back world cups.

 

[j.simpson-daniel]

<div class='quotemain'>


I Knew football would be a poor choice as I don't know enough stats to actually string a decent argument together so I'll stick with Ice Hockey. You can't argue with me though the Ravens are the boringest team in NFL history and they still won an NFL Championship. England Pack = Ravens Defence



Ravens boring = Victory

England boring = Victory



NZ Flair and Romance = No WC

Canadian Hockey = 50 years no olympic gold

[/b]

You have to understand we're not argueing whether 10 man rugby is the way to win knockout games or not. I think that has been answered fairly definitively. What we are saying is that it is utter **** to watch as a neutral and is horrible for a casual or non-fan to get into.



As for you hockey analogy, it makes no difference because hockey has the same problem as rugby. The trap is ruining the game. It should not be there. If you're not as skilled, as athletic or as talented, you should not be able to survive on the ice (or on the pitch when refering to rugby).



It's all about improving the game, that's what we want. We want to see rugby expand and progress. For rugby to get better we need to finally see the end of 10 man rugby. Regardless whether it is an effective winning strategy doesn't matter. It is holding rugby back and needs to go.

[/b][/quote]



i think ure being rather presumptious...in ur opinion 10 man rugby is boring to watch as a neutral...in mine it isnt....my opinion is intensity and upsets is wot grabs the headlines....arg beating france openign day of the WC thats wot grabs headlines...arg beating ireland thats grabs healdines...wales losing to fiji, eng beating aus... u c my point?...not nz beating rom and portugal 100 nil...imo soccer is not the no 1 sport in the world because it is so simple to play, but because on any given day any team can win whther its through luck, refering decision or the favs just not turning up....i think that at championships winning is wots most important, not how... the great teams win playing good or bad...and i still think the antipodeans here r just being plain sore losers...if u wanna watch teams just throw the ball aorund like sevens then watch sevens lol this is the 15 man game for all shapes and sizes....if u cant find a bunch of the biggest guys u can find kncokin lumps out of each other entertaining in the slightest, then no offense but imo u must not have played rugby to any high standard or u must be one of those backs who finsihes the game with a clean shirt...me personally i played on the wing all my life yet i enjoy rugby because it can be played any way u want...u can choose to smash it up with fowards all day long or u can run it through the backs or u can choose to do both lol....for all the talk of us playing 10 man rugby, its funny that paul sackey is our top scorer......

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>


I Knew football would be a poor choice as I don't know enough stats to actually string a decent argument together so I'll stick with Ice Hockey. You can't argue with me though the Ravens are the boringest team in NFL history and they still won an NFL Championship. England Pack = Ravens Defence



Ravens boring = Victory

England boring = Victory



NZ Flair and Romance = No WC

Canadian Hockey = 50 years no olympic gold

[/b]

You have to understand we're not argueing whether 10 man rugby is the way to win knockout games or not. I think that has been answered fairly definitively. What we are saying is that it is utter **** to watch as a neutral and is horrible for a casual or non-fan to get into.



As for you hockey analogy, it makes no difference because hockey has the same problem as rugby. The trap is ruining the game. It should not be there. If you're not as skilled, as athletic or as talented, you should not be able to survive on the ice (or on the pitch when refering to rugby).



It's all about improving the game, that's what we want. We want to see rugby expand and progress. For rugby to get better we need to finally see the end of 10 man rugby. Regardless whether it is an effective winning strategy doesn't matter. It is holding rugby back and needs to go.

[/b][/quote]



i think ure being rather presumptious...in ur opinion 10 man rugby is boring to watch as a neutral...in mine it isnt....my opinion is intensity and upsets is wot grabs the headlines....arg beating france openign day of the WC thats wot grabs headlines...arg beating ireland thats grabs healdines...wales losing to fiji, eng beating aus... u c my point?...not nz beating rom and portugal 100 nil...imo soccer is not the no 1 sport in the world because it is so simple to play, but because on any given day any team can win whther its through luck, refering decision or the favs just not turning up....i think that at championships winning is wots most important, not how... the great teams win playing good or bad...and i still think the antipodeans here r just being plain sore losers...if u wanna watch teams just throw the ball aorund like sevens then watch sevens lol this is the 15 man game for all shapes and sizes....if u cant find a bunch of the biggest guys u can find kncokin lumps out of each other entertaining in the slightest, then no offense but imo u must not have played rugby to any high standard or u must be one of those backs who finsihes the game with a clean shirt...me personally i played on the wing all my life yet i enjoy rugby because it can be played any way u want...u can choose to smash it up with fowards all day long or u can run it through the backs or u can choose to do both lol....for all the talk of us playing 10 man rugby, its funny that paul sackey is our top scorer......

[/b][/quote]



finally someone who understands. I am a neutral supporter and I feel the exact same way. I was so happy when Fiji beat Wales or when Canada was trouncing them that first half or when Tonga almost put it to South Africa because god rugby would be boring if the scripted game some people on this forum desire were to ever happen.

 

[someblackguy]

The problem with France was that they should have started with Michalak. Beauxis is more of a defensive five-eight who specializes in territory and gaining field position. Michalak would have added a bit more flair and potency to split England open. For mine France were too defensive, they gave away territory and potential attacking opportunities by constantly resort to drop goals. Kicking drop goals doesnt win you games; scoring tries wins you games.
[/b]

totally agree there

france should have stopped trying to play a tight defensive game against england. It works against AB's because they are try scorers but not against kickers like england. They just didnt get the ball out quickly enough from the ruck most of the time and when they had good field position just seemed to chip and chase and give away good chances. Thing about france is they dont mind about playing a game where the opposition might score 20 points, so long as they score 21. Playing close games like that is suicide when your playing wilkinson.

they should have been playing southern hemishpere rugby, and thats to play running rugby that is fast, intense and tests the oppositions defence, and most importantly, puts big points on the board. I guess they can now blame laporte for this, as france were always known for theyre attacking flair which would have worked brilliantly last night.

thing i got from watching france is they played a game of, lets try not to lose this, instead of, lets go out and win this.


i personally was bitter about seeing england win through the boot of wilkinson. very uninspiring rugby to me <_<

 

[Triniquint]

If everybody knows England play this supposed 10-man, boring, rugby, why can't they counter it? If England 'stifle' the opposition, and the opposition can't stop them, then how good are the opposition? The thing about England is that they have played poor, losing matches since they won the World Cup in 2003. Prior to that tournament, they were the No.1 Ranked team, and had beaten virtually all before them, not only at impregnable 'fortress' Twickenham, but also on the other teams home grounds, be that NZ, Australia, or anywhere else. And even then they were called rubbish. Amazing or what?



Since then they have lost more matches than they have won, had become utter bilge, and were laughed at, jeered at, and scorned as the most useless World Champions in history. And the start of their campaign in this RWC looked horrible.



But they have come together, and played to their strengths. But what have been their strengths? First of all, to march on regardless. To regroup, bloodied and battered, square their shoulders, take a deep breathe, and go in again, and again, and again - and that requires resolution and courage. Exemplary. They started to win, and yes, win ugly as it has been called. But if the other teams were so better, why haven't they stopped England?



NZ were, and probably still are, the best team on the planet -- and they lost to France who played no better than England, but had the same testicular fortitude to play NZ in a way which flummoxed the ABs, and not used to being flummoxed, they lost their way and became clueless, perhaps mindless. They got into a situation they hadn't been in before, a hard, physical match with opponents who hit them tactically, who knew rugby and how to stop the ABs, and did so, and the much vaunted ABs imploded, lost their way, and did the unthinkable, but what the French knew, and what we all suspected of the ABS - they choked. They lost.



I'd previously watched the ABs run up 100+ against some team or another and found that SO boring I turned it off. When up against it however, when faced with a fist, they blew it.



England have persevered against the odds, and my respect for them has risen tremendously over this World Cup. I support them, being English, but was half-hearted about them. No longer. The swaggering big-heads of the rugby world have all but gone. Only the Boks remain, and I hope Argentina, SH or not, turn them over similarly.



If you want to watch diet rugby, watch Australian Rules, or League, or dodge ball. Leave the hard graftnig rugby union to those who can quarry out a win against all the odds. Who can do the business.



God I just Love England, and their heart. What a testament to determination and guts.



Keep going lads.......

 

[BathTerrace]

Oi, non English in here. We're through, we could have been the worst team ever to win the world cup, but i garentee you now. Any other side would rather play **** and win rather than play well and not quite make it.

Now will you bloody run along, you're boring the f*** out of me.

"DAWSON BACK TO WILKINSOOOOOOOOOOON! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! HE'S DONE IT! ENGLAND HAVE WON THE WORLD CUP!" ---> to the Australians.

You go on the last world cup, like you do with the last meeting of two teams.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

Congrats England.

We did'nt have a very nice victory against NZ, but at this point you're still far away from us. Whatever, once more he had the hard job to do for another one proffits.

Read Dalaglio comments that says how pride he is to still beeing able to close this kind of match...!!! Beeing pride of the victory, I clearly understand and it's quite logical, but to be it by the manner is clearly not a good answer for the Rugby itself.

So yes, there was plenty of place for us yesterday.
As much as I was recognizing how smart was Laporte's strategy last week, much I'm angry of what he decided last night.
Reconducting the same team is one thing, but trying to reproduce the same game was completely stupid. The big default of the man is that he's not able to see or recognize when he's wrong (what is always possible and understandable).

When he's in the right direction, it might go as planned, but when he's not, he is not able to react, and adapt the situation.
What happended in the second half time is likely what did again Argentina (exept different scoring), and on that way, he didn't even learn of the lesson.

It's now more than 6 years that he'd been repeating that the home event was his priority, and for that had been given all time and meanings he wanted in his plans.
Hope he will present excuses as Graham Henry had the courage to do

 

[polonius]

thing i got from watching france is they played a game of, lets try not to lose this, instead of, lets go out and win this.

i personally was bitter about seeing england win through the boot of wilkinson. very uninspiring rugby to me
[/b]

You're right about the French approach to the game, but your second statement is too limited. You shouldn't be bitter over a kicker who kicks his goals; you should condemn the opposition who give away the penalties.

Deliberately slowing the ball from rucks, coming in from the wrong side, failing to release the ball, offside in the backs, collapsing the scrum, disrupting the lineout ... all these things combine to stop the opposition from getting the ball to their backs and creating try-scoring opportunities. Far from increasing the points for a try (which has been the trend over the decades), the number of points for a penalty should be doubled - that might stop the infringements.

 

[aussie_pride]

The thing that really irks me is the headlines "Wilkinson kicks England to Victory" etc. Yes technically England won because of Wilkinson's goals but its the forwards who won the penalties for him, made the hard yards and kept the opposition out. Personally, I dont think Wilkinson is the goal kicker he once was. 2000-2003 he was the best kicker on the planet. Despite injuries I just dont think he has the control he once had. Mind you at the moment I think England are playing a brand of rugby that everyone called for back in 2003 - a game that doesnt rely so heavily on Johnny.

As for the All Blacks and the French. The All Blacks in my opinion lost not because they were outclassed or because they played considerably poorly but because they were complacent and believed it was their god given right to win the rugby world cup.

France for me need to start Michalak every game, move Damien Traille back to the centres and start Poitrenaud at full back. Chabal needs to play flanker or No. 8. Do that and they are a world class team. They had the tools in the shed to win the RWC, I just think Laport didnt have the confidence to be adventurous....he needed to have faith in his backs.

 

[ikvat]

Wow, i'm so so so sad!

In modern sport, often it's not the most brilliant team that win, but the most realistic one and at this game, England is a master class.
Well done England, your victory is not the century hold up.
We probably don't take the match by the right side or with the right men, and tactically, you have been a bit better than us.
I don't want to spit on BL. He is probably not the most brilliant coach of the century, but he gave to French team strong basis (defense, discipline) which are essential on modern rugby.
We probably have to reinstate some of the French specificity (creativity and flair) in our game. I hope that Philippe Saint-André which will probably be the new french coach, will be the man.
I’m proud of this world cup organization and proud of the French rugby fan which were in fire yesterday night.

It’s very very very hard to say for a French man, but I will be with england for the final. :huh:
Keep the cup in europe.

 

[Hieu]

England to the final again, but can England win the cup twice in a row? I don't know.

England got lucky with the try, but I was hoping Beauxis would miss his penalties but he struck them well enough. After the first half I felt France were going to win and Jonny Wilkinson was having a bad day, but it proved me wrong in the second half. A explosive finish to a competitive match!

England - South Africa final? Maybe..let's hope it won't be another 36-0.

Vive La France? Allez Les Bleus? Couldn't win it on home turf.

 

[Darhf]

England to the final. That's a surprise, to say the least

France did it the way they should have done it : kick over a rush defense. The problem is, every single over-the-defense kick we took was either useless because too far, or countered :blink:

Well done England anyway