• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Has this wc really been the best?

Every team put a try on the New Zealanders.[/b]

I would love to have seen this event at Murrayfield on September the 24th, for it was there that Frank Hadden's statements that "this really is the best Scotland XV for this game" were exposed for the nonsense that they were.
 
If they were that good they wouldn't bottle it when it counts. Every. Single. Time.

This free flowing, broken style of play may be superb to watch when in it works, but a the disorganised mess needs a huge element of luck when the pack donesn't front up or the back three choke underneath high balls;

The ABs vs Boks in the 3 Nations this year wasn't taken seriously by SA, so it was a pretty miserable, near 2nd string, side vs a bunch of 15 (highly talented) individuals wearing the same black shirts. Yes, the AB's won that. Hurrah for then.

Come World Cup time, the ABs get one difficult opponant the whole tournament and went into the game with a level of arrogance that they'd simply waltz through the French. The French however regrouped, played as a team and low and behold, the World ranked no. 1 side who everyone expected to win the whole thing didn't even reach the Semi finals. The big upset occoured, that is a great thing for a tournament.

[/b]

:unsure: Now if the AllBlacks didn't respect the French side which in your statement you said they didn't. Then WHY did we field our strongest starting 15 and why did we risk fielding a fly half who was 80% fit?. Thats proof All Blacks pulled out the heavy artilary because they respected the french by a long shot. We may have lost on the score board but we were never beaten in the game

but a the disorganised mess needs a huge element of luck when the pack donesn't front up[/b]

Ive heard this statement far too often on this forum, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT! Because as far as I'm aware and im sure you know this the All Black front row have absolutely inilated every pack they'v faced for the past 2 years. PERIOD..
 
It all depends of what kind of fan you are.

If you like seeing missed tackles, lucky tries and hammerings, then no, this has been a **** world cup. If you like to see teams putting in 100% effort, players playing for pride, passion and country, superb defence and tries that the team has to work to get, then this has been the best RWC.

Argentina will get praise for their play, yet England get criticized. But if Vickery is lifting the cup come Saturday, who gives a toss? Not me.
 
has it been the best world cup?

Ask anyone from the countries of the 4 semi final teams and the answer is yes.

Ask anyone whose country was knocked out earlier than expected and the answer is no.

I can try and justify why I have made my decision, but of course, subconsciously it probably comes down to the above, whether we like it or not. I think its been the best world cup due to the amount of upsets and the massive improvement made by the majority of the minnows. The general standard of rugby outisde the top 15 sides has improved a lot for various reasons and it showed that if you do your homework and the other side is complacent, almost anything can happen. So yes, this is the best world cup so far, with the 2003 tourney 2nd for putting on such a fantastic show in a lovely country and the 1995 world cup a very very close 3rd for the same reasons.
 
As a rugby purist I'd have to say it has been the best world cup ever through the heroics from teams such as Georgia, Fiji and Argentina. Theres nothing more exciting than to see a team triumph against the odds whether is be a win or just to score a try!
 
its not a dig at england in the slightest its a dig at boring unimaginative rugby!!

and sanzar can argue till the cows come home... but new zealand on a good day could stick 40 pts on any team in the world including sa and aus.... id be very shocked if sa or aus could do the same thing.
[/b]

Well, to be perfectly honest the biggest EVER loss on record for the AB's was a whopping....

28-7 loss to Australia in 1999.

So no, no team can or has stuck 40points (or even 30points) on the AB's and walked away the better team.

The point though I guess, is you only have to win by a single point (or 2points in Frances case) to beat anyone. I would argue that attractive rugby does alot more to promote the game, and attract new fans, but its all good to concentrate on glitz and glamour when you have such a good playing record. Most teams are rightfully just happy to win, and no-one has high ground enough to tell others how the game should be played. But the odd dig or two never hurt anyone, right England?? :D

But as I've said, I'd prefer that the AB's continue dominating between cups with attractive rugby, then win every now and again with boring rugby.

As for the tournament, it doesn't quite have the same drama, or memories, (for my mind) as 1995. Thats the first cup I can actually remember and is still the one with the most poignant and dramatic moments. The main examples, that will forever remain burned in rugby folklore, is the emergance of the unparalled Jonah Lomu, and the closely fought Final in front of the very boisterous South African crowd (newly accepted back into the fold of international rugby). This was all capped off by the appearance of Mandela in the Boks jersey handing over the cup to his successful captain.

I think its hard to top the emotional levels achieved when the home nation takes part in the final. So I think this cup will always be struggling to compete now that France is out. The style of rugby has definitely been defense orientated and boring from the point of view of 3rd party fans (those not supporting either of the teams involved in the game). But, the cup has been very enjoyable from the success of some of the minnows. While 3rd party viewers may have been bored to some extent, everyone in sport loves the underdog, and for this reason the tournament has been successful.

Successful, but not the best.

Maybe if the ELV's come into play for 2011, and provided there are a few upsets (apart from NZ getting knocked out early again!!!) then the makings are there for a memorable tournament also.

But all respect to the French people for doing justice to the now rich history of a truely great tournament.
 
France stuck more than that on the ABs in the 99 world cup, they just didn't win by a margin as big as that but they certainly walked away the better team that day. I think they scored over 40 come to think of it, if not at least 30.
 
I'm sure the English team would love to score more tries. Why don't they? Because the opposition continually and persistently infringe to stop them doing so.
[/b]
Or perhaps because thier backs are rubbish and thier tactics involve rumbling it up in the forwards and looking for penalties?

Don't even try to say that England attempt to play in a high try scoring way, it is just not true...
 
I think the Rugby World Cup 2003 was the best so far only because I think the Ozzies set a high standard right from the opening ceremony. Not to say Frances opening ceremony was bad but it just wasn't very memorable like Australia's.

The standard they set in 2003 went right throughout the whole tournament and this years has dragged on for a while. The only thing keeping this tournament interesting was how close the 2nd tier teams have been.

There hasn't really been a standout superstar like there have been in the previous world cups like Campese, Lomu, Wilkinson. This time it seems that Chabal was the most popular player but not quite the superstar.

So 2003 for my vote and to be honest I don't think we've got a hope in hell of hosting a good Rugby World Cup in 2011. Sorry New Zealand but if it was given to us a year and bit ago and we're still talking about how to pay for Mt Eden stadium upgrade and haven't even started the work on it then how the hell are we gonna go when it comes to the other stadiums in New Zealand.
 
I'm a kiwi and I find it embarrassing that we can't accept we just got beaten because we insist on playing frilly fancy rugby, even in tight tough test matches. We'd have all happily taken a win against france with 6 penalties and a drop goal if it meant progressing, why do the management constantly go on about the team expressing themselves on the field. They're not artists, we play to win, not just to entertain.

You get plenty of chances to score magnificent try's against weaker nations, but when your backs against the wall, open flowing rugby very rarely works and the harder you try the worse it gets. No matter how good you are or how much you practice, sometimes that stuff won't stick and you have to grind it out.

I say Bravo to England, they've found a winning formula and it's working for them. If they go home with the prize again you'll hear all sorts of weak cries about boring rugby, but do you think any one from England will care?

It's time we stopped being sooks and give credit where it's due.

BTW It's been the worst world cup from a NZer's point of view, but overall there's been great upsets and quite a few unexpected performances so I guess rugby has been the winner. 1995 will always be best for me but that's just because of watching Jonah.

Dougie
 
<div class='quotemain'>
its not a dig at england in the slightest its a dig at boring unimaginative rugby!!

and sanzar can argue till the cows come home... but new zealand on a good day could stick 40 pts on any team in the world including sa and aus.... id be very shocked if sa or aus could do the same thing.
[/b]

Well, to be perfectly honest the biggest EVER loss on record for the AB's was a whopping....

28-7 loss to Australia in 1999.

So no, no team can or has stuck 40points (or even 30points) on the AB's and walked away the better team.

[/b][/quote]

sorry to burst your bubble, south africa beat the all blacks 46-40 in 2000, and 40 - 26 at ellispark in 2004.

in 1999 semi final france beat the all blacks 43–31, and 33 - 42 in 2000 in marseille
 
If you like aerial ping pong then yes its been a great wc [/b]

*ahem*

155733289_44299089e6.jpg
 
<div class='quotemain'> If you like aerial ping pong then yes its been a great wc [/b]

*ahem*

[/b][/quote]

I predict it being like a game of tennis...
 
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
its not a dig at england in the slightest its a dig at boring unimaginative rugby!!

and sanzar can argue till the cows come home... but new zealand on a good day could stick 40 pts on any team in the world including sa and aus.... id be very shocked if sa or aus could do the same thing.
[/b]

Well, to be perfectly honest the biggest EVER loss on record for the AB's was a whopping....

28-7 loss to Australia in 1999.

So no, no team can or has stuck 40points (or even 30points) on the AB's and walked away the better team.

[/b][/quote]

sorry to burst your bubble, south africa beat the all blacks 46-40 in 2000, and 40 - 26 at ellispark in 2004.

in 1999 semi final france beat the all blacks 43â€"31, and 33 - 42 in 2000 in marseille
[/b][/quote]

I think the original poster is referring to current form. But due to the lower quality of opposition sent to NZ and Aus this year, it's a bit difficult to really assess.
 
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
its not a dig at england in the slightest its a dig at boring unimaginative rugby!!

and sanzar can argue till the cows come home... but new zealand on a good day could stick 40 pts on any team in the world including sa and aus.... id be very shocked if sa or aus could do the same thing.
[/b]

Well, to be perfectly honest the biggest EVER loss on record for the AB's was a whopping....

28-7 loss to Australia in 1999.

So no, no team can or has stuck 40points (or even 30points) on the AB's and walked away the better team.

[/b][/quote]

sorry to burst your bubble, south africa beat the all blacks 46-40 in 2000, and 40 - 26 at ellispark in 2004.

in 1999 semi final france beat the all blacks 43â€"31, and 33 - 42 in 2000 in marseille
[/b][/quote]

I think the original poster is referring to current form. But due to the lower quality of opposition sent to NZ and Aus this year, it's a bit difficult to really assess.
[/b][/quote]

the "has" prompted it... but you're right. RIGHT NOW, even with the AB's losing, i don't think anyone can put 40 points against them. but it's not impossible, just improbable...
 
aus vs eng, and france vs nz was flukes.

sure they played good rugby in those "flukes", but i think on any other day, they would have lost.

[/b]
Maybe that last statement is true. But maybe the fact that both France and England beat Australia and NZ at the most important for the most important reason makes the two games a huge triumph for the respected winners. NZ had 70% possession. France's defense destroyed them. Australia were ridiculous and England attacked well. Sounds like a + for boths sides in my opinion.
 
<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> It's funny how all this debate about it not being a very inspiring world cup has sprung up the very moment us Anglophiles started smiling. [/b]

Nah, it's pretty simple - to neutrals, Tonga's tries, Fiji's tries, Australia's tries, New Zealand's tries, South Africa's tries, France's tries, Wales' tries have been more memorable than England's ... try. How many have England scored?

[/b][/quote]

Ah right....So you were under the impression it would be like 7s rugby. Oh dear.

If anti-English pettiness means you can't get swept away by a much maligned team coming together & defying the odds to triumph through sheer guts and determination then I really do feel sorry for you. ;) :p :)

"Y'gotta know when to hold them. Know when to fold 'em...."
[/b][/quote]

You're still young - you don't remember the mind numbing tedium that used to pass for northern hemisphere rugby in the 1980s. Wales and Scotland were interesting sometimes, but France were the only real exception: the rest of us spent all tournament hoofing the ball downfield or shoving it up our jersies. Typical 5N scores: 6-3, 9-6, 12-9 - believe me, it gets really "trying" after a while.

The big change came in October 1988, when Will Carling's team showed up in Lansdowne Road for the Millennium International - Ireland were thrashed something like 33-03. The ******** had decided to score tries! I was in shock for a decade, until Ireland started to catch up.

My fear is that England's style and tactics in this RWC are going to set the tone for the next four years and send us back to the bad old days. Help! Before you know it, we'll have a comeback tour from Kenny Rogers ... oh ****, the England squad have already guaranteed that. My advice: fold 'em now, before you open the gates of kick-and-clap hell.
 
Top