Womens World Cup

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't mean to be a jerk, but what on earth were you watching? The score was 10-3 for a while, England only scored a try in the last twenty minutes, New Zealand were completely dominating them. The score just doesn't reflect that. I mean, you have to be dominant to play 13 vs 15 and not concede points, then score a try with 14 vs 15. This game was not close at all, I remember the first 30 minutes, the territory was 98% on England's side and 2% on New Zealands.

I just meant it was 10 - 10 at some point,
I just meant to point out that it wasn't 13 - 0 and England made a comeback, or vice versa
and if it wasn't close why wasn't it 30 - 0?

 

[ranger]

I was really impressed by the few parts of the cup i watched. Englands defense against Australia in particular was brutal, really attacking the ribcage. Two players in the black ferns stuck out for me though, the 2nd five that looked and played like Ma'a Nonu and the young Maori winger Whitcliffe, she had a better step on her than most international mens wingers! it was phenomenal to watch really.
Too bad the NZRU has been systematically culling off womens rugby though

 

[Iron Mike]

I just meant it was 10 - 10 at some point,
I just meant to point out that it wasn't 13 - 0 and England made a comeback, or vice versa
and if it wasn't close why wasn't it 30 - 0?

It wasn't 30-0 because this is womens rugby, and it was also a final. Me and my brother were laughing saying we knew some fool would say something like ''It was a very close contest and England just lost it''. Score line doesn't reflect performance at all.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It wasn't 30-0 because this is womens rugby, and it was also a final. Me and my brother were laughing saying we knew some fool would say something like ''It was a very close contest and England just lost it''. Score line doesn't reflect performance at all.

http://www.rwcwomens.com/home/fixtures/index.html


I'm not going to argue with you, i know what i watched.

 

[Iron Mike]

http://www.rwcwomens.com/home/fixtures/index.html


I'm not going to argue with you, i know what i watched.

Ahwell, believe what you want, 3 yellow cards and still getting a world cup says you're wrong.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Surely 3 yellow cards show that NZ were ill-disiciplined and therefore not that dominant?

 

[Sam Owen]

Surely 3 yellow cards show that NZ were ill-disiciplined and therefore not that dominant?

Yeah but you could say that NZ didnt need a full team on the field to win the world cup final. Actually you should read Iron Mikes post the page before this one and you'll understand.

 

[Larksea]

yeah heck, I think it's very impressive that they won even though they were down a player for ~30 min and even down by two players for a short time. Hard to comment without seeing the game.

It's a real shame TV in NZ didn't do this WC justice. It should have been a flagship event on sky or something similar.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Yeah but you could say that NZ didnt need a full team on the field to win the world cup final. Actually you should read Iron Mikes post the page before this one and you'll understand.

I read it. All your post does is make you seem like a condescending git. New Zealand deserved to win, but only by two. If they had any discipline, an integral part of rugby union, they would have won by more, but they didn't.

 

[Sam Owen]

I read it. All your post does is make you seem like a condescending git. New Zealand deserved to win, but only by two. If they had any discipline, an integral part of rugby union, they would have won by more, but they didn't.

Why do you have to insult people for Sinn?..Did I stoop down to your level and insult you?
Why dont you have anything to say to Iron Mike I was just sort of reiterating what he SAW.

Did you watch the game?...

I noticed you aint got nothing to say about SBW now that hes ended up doing better than you said lol.
Here this is Iron Mikes post he watched the game...

I don't mean to be a jerk, but what on earth were you watching? The score was 10-3 for a while, England only scored a try in the last twenty minutes, New Zealand were completely dominating them. The score just doesn't reflect that. I mean, you have to be dominant to play 13 vs 15 and not concede points, then score a try with 14 vs 15. This game was not close at all, I remember the first 30 minutes, the territory was 98% on England's side and 2% on New Zealands.

See thats all I was saying sort of lol.

 

[polonius]

I don't mean to be a jerk, but what on earth were you watching? The score was 10-3 for a while, England only scored a try in the last twenty minutes, New Zealand were completely dominating them. The score just doesn't reflect that. I mean, you have to be dominant to play 13 vs 15 and not concede points, then score a try with 14 vs 15. This game was not close at all, I remember the first 30 minutes, the territory was 98% on England's side and 2% on New Zealands.

Whilst I agree the Black Ferns were clearly the more dominant side, to say the 'game was not close at all' when the final score was 13-10 is puzzling. If the game wasn't close, how come the Black Ferns didn't rack up a cricket score? Their try-count was the same as England's - why so, given their dominance?

Look at it this way ... the Black Ferns were just an interception away from defeat. Had this happened, such a defeat would have been thoroughly undeserved and it is a testament to the Black Ferns' skill and tactical nous that such an opportunity never presented itself to the English side. However, the margin of victory (just three points because, for all their undoubted dominance, the Black Ferns couldn't crack the resolute English defence) was very tight.

And remember, the English kicker hit the post on the stroke of half-time. An English fan might reasonably say they were as close as the thickness of a rugby post to taking the game into extra-time.

Overall a very fine tournament with some excellent play and a real treat to watch. For those that didn't get to see much of the event, here is a snippet of what you missed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlifVfi0Kvo

Ouch!

 

[polonius]

It wasn't 30-0 because this is womens rugby, and it was also a final. Me and my brother were laughing saying we knew some fool would say something like ''It was a very close contest and England just lost it''. Score line doesn't reflect performance at all.

"It wasn't 30-0 because this is womens rugby"

You seem to be suggesting that women aren't capable of racking up big scores. Yet the facts suggest otherwise. New Zealand thumped South Africa 55-3 and Wales 41-8, the English walloped Kazakstan 82-0 and Canada beat Scotland 41-0. Why were these victories so large? Because one side was significantly better than the other.

Why was the margin of victory so small in the final? Because both sides were fairly evenly matched.

http://www.rwcwomens.com/home/fixtures/index.html

 

[Shaggy]

Why was the margin of victory so small in the final? Because both sides were fairly evenly matched.

Exactly, these two teams were always the tournament favourites, and were much better than any of the other teams ... although the other teams are getting better

While I enjoyed the games with lots of tries scored, the final was a real test match, and regardless of whether one team was dominant or not, the fact that the final score was so close, indicates that either team could have won it