Just to add to the above, I resent the fact that you go as low as to call me racist just because my opinion doesn't sit well with you. Perhaps it is you who are racist, I mean for you to judge my post purely because of my nationality is racist is it not?
Perhaps my use of the word good was wrong! I should have said great - In my opinion England and Australia are not up there with NZ, France, SA and Argentina.
[/b]
I never judged your post on the basis of your nationality. I judged it on the comments you made regarding England. You clearly appear to dislike them, and their rugby.
All the pundits prior to this world cup be it in the newspapers, internet, TV, radio, magazines - whatever - had Australia and NZ as
the form teams for this RWC. The idea was that SH rugby was superior in its running backs oriented 'champagne' or 'diet' rugby. But Union rugby has scrums. This is part of the Union game and what differentiates it from other similar ball games. This is what gives tactical use of the different aspects of the game which, incidentally, the Australians are desperate to change with new rules i.e. if we can't beat them in the scrums, we'll legislate them away.
Given this, and England's **** poor performances over the last 4 years, it was expected they would roll over and die. But they never. Whether you liked the style or not, they rose from the grave of their past performances and gave a very worthy performance, one of bite, power and resolution. Yet in some areas it has been rubbished as irrelevent because now, all of a sudden, Australia were actually poor, if the truth be known, and so this win of England's was nothing much to write home about, etc.
Well, I don't buy into that so much.
For your information, in the tri-nations in June/July, Australia beat NZ 20-15 on June 30th this year, and SAfrica 25-17 on July 7. They came 2nd to NZ in the table.
All these stats, and more, flew ahead of the meeting with a poor England. A laughably poor England, and Australia were meant only to turn up, as the ABs were.
But they got beat. And it irks me to see this effort rubbished purely purely because they are England.
That's the impression I got from your posts, and if I was wrong, I apologise. I actually think France won because NZ choked. I thought France did wonderfully well, and was delighted at their jubilation. I think England's forwards were far more ferocious than France's. However, this will be resolved next week. I believe that if England win again, this will lend them LESS merit than more, as they'll once again be accused of ugly rugby etc. And if they lose, then everybody will say they saw it coming, and it is a good thing for clean rugby etc - so win or lose, they can't win. And that's what I rail against.