A Golfer's view of the Rugby World Cup

First topic message reminder :

With the group stages of the Rugby world cup drawing to a close and we approach the sharp end of the tournament, I wonder how many people here are avidly following it

I know we have a rugby section here on V2 and it's pretty lively at the moment but I've noticed many golfers also seem to be keen on Rugby. I know at my club there are an awful lot of rugby fans and the big games get a large crowd to watch at the club - we even have a four nations weekend with matches between England Ireland Scotland and Wales

So who here is watching the RWC and who are we supporting?

I'm trying to work out my schedule for Saturday morning with the England/Scotland group decider at 8:30am and a tee-time at 11:10 - debating with myself whether I should watch the game at home, down the pub for breakfast or even have the (superior) breakfast at the club but then have perhaps an hour to kill before my tee-time!

Aye D4S~ We really know how to lose in style.

Mind you for a country with only two professional teams we must win the punching above our weight title. England I would place second last last in that race, behind France.

Doon, you've just gone home from the group stages (almost certainly anyway). If you think that's punching above your weight then you really must have low expectations.

We were ranked third in the group to begin with. We've pushed the two teams above close, leading for 90% of the time against them and running them close.

Whilst I'm disappointed we're going home, I'm neither annoyed or angry. They gave a creditable account of ourselves.

Don't Scotland have by far the smallest playing staff available out of most of the top 10 nations?

Not a good day, golf went the same way as the rugby...downhill after a promising start. Level par (14 points) through 6 then only 1 more point to the turn (when the result was conveyed with the expected amount of smug glee, and then they wonder why others find it so hard to love them!!). A flat back 9 and another measly 15 points to cap a miserable day. Having said that the misery lasted about 2 sips into the lager shandy on the clubhouse patio, basking in 28 deg sunshine...are we sure it's really October??

Anyway here endeth any remote interest I'd had in the RWC.

Doon, we didn't punch above our weight...infact we didn't punch. We should be top 8 and expect to be top 8...we actually need a bit of the arrogance that we find so loathsome in our southern friends.

Scotland have never failed to make the quarters before as far as I know, so in terms of previous achievements they were poor and although they got up for the big games they were truly awful against the other teams in the group.
Let's be honest they had a good first 40 today but England were bossing the second half and really should have scored more....and England were poor.

Diggs
There are more rugby clubs in Devon and Cornwall than the whole of Scotland.

And................We recently beat the world Champions

And................The mighty England with all it's resources struggled to beat us.

And yet we did beat you and you are going home. I'm happy to accept England were poor but I'm sorry, Scotkand are a rank ordinary rugby side and unbelievably poor to watch. The RWC is better off without them.

Diggers,
That is the kind of arrogance that makes England so disliked on the Worlds sporting playing fields.
Not to mention the cheating.

Haven't watched all the matches this World Cup, but have watched France/NZ, end of France/Tonga and England/Scotland.

From what I have seen, NZ should have beaten, what I thought was a scheming France, by a great deal more. But after seeing Tonga (Tonga for goodness sake) destroy a very inferior French side, I realsie that France were not scheming, they are just poor.

There was for me, a certain amount of releif that England finally decided to come out and play in the second half against Scotland and they should be able to put one over a France in disarray in the next round. But if they are to go any further, they need to play to their strengths and the scrum halves have to deliver much quicker ball.

For me, NZ have been overhyped and South Africa will take the honours.

Any chance the mods could move this to the gay sports section?

Doon the Water wrote:Diggers,
That is the kind of arrogance that makes England so disliked on the Worlds sporting playing fields.
Not to mention the cheating.

Hilarious. I'm not the one talking up my team, you are. Notice Ive said England are poor, but Scotland are very poor. Jock with chip on shoulder yet again. Which is why I'm happy to admit I'm glad you are going home and the fact it looked like you might pull off the win you needed and didn't only serves to make it all the sweeter.

Got to agree diggers, there's nothing more embarrassing than Scots trying to justify how poor they are.

Bugs me a bit Super. England are meant to be arrogant apparently in all things but are also constantly seen to be knocking our players and performances, even (especially) the successful ones. The two things don't really go together.
For what it's worth I think the Welsh could derail England's route to the final.....but I'd be delighted to be wrong.

('')

I played golf almost immediately after the rugby game today with two passionate scotland fans.

Banter aside, both agreed that Scotland aren't out of the RWC because of England but because they couldn't beat Argentina.

On the basis of today's 90 minutes, neither side really deserved to progress, but one had to.

I'd have been more embarrassed by it all if England had lost by 3 or 6 points, but they didn't. They scored the only try of the game and knocked Scotland out - end of story.

The phrase "win ugly" springs to mind. South Africa were praised for "winning ugly" against Wales. England did the same against Scotland. On the rugby subsection towards the end of the match I posted a comment along the lines of "this is about to be the first time in rugby history that a loss by three counts as 'winning ugly'". Then Ashton did the business.

To anyone who says that England didn't deserve to top the group, I'd counter with "Scotland didn't deserve to get second place".

They lost to a poor England and an average Argentina. I'm sad to see Scotland on the way home as I will always support them after England, but this RWC they haven't been good enough.

BTW the jocks got the last laugh on the golf course when I three putted the last when a simple two-putt would have halved the match

Davie
Is there an English equivelant of 'Jock'?

I'm sure you have plenty of alternatives at your disposal, Doon

No, that is why I am asking you?

Doon the Water wrote:Davie
Is there an English equivelant of 'Jock'?

Maybe I misunderstood your question

I took it to mean "is there a name that the scottish call us English which is the equivalent to us calling you 'jocks'"

If that was indeed your question then you are asking the wrong person and I have no idea what names the scots call us English. Sassenachs perhaps? That seems terribly outdated. Otherwise I assumed you would have a far better idea than I

If that wasn't your question then I apologize and perhaps you can rephrase so that I can understand

Davie wrote:

On the basis of today's 90 minutes, neither side really deserved to progress, but one had to.

I thought fat rugger buggers only play for 80 minutes?

and another thing...........

How can a player be off the park[ twice] for more than 20 minutes with a wee scratch on his nose. Talk aboot bending the rules. [Mind you it may have been a blood capsule.]
Still we should be greatful that the employees did not switch the kicking ball this trip.

Nobody likes a whinging loser Doon. Move on and just accept the Jocks are pony at rugby......still at least you have a great football team. Hmmm.....curling maybe?

To be fair diggers, on a global scale England are only fractionaly less hopeless than the sweaties, and on a per capita basis, probably more so.

4th best in the world Super...nah, we aren't great it's true. Best cricket team though. And actually I'm more than happy with England's RWC history, one win and a couple of finals isn't too shabby really. It's actually the one sport we tend to overachiever at in terns of expectation anyway.

Diggers.
Not a bad loser. As I said earlier I think Scotland punch well above our weight at rugby.

I have never liked the English attitude to rugby since the days of Will Carling.
They do not seem to play to the spirit of the game.

The cricket team are great at the moment, are there any English players in it?
Sorry could not resist that cheap shot!

Scotland are ranked 9th in the world - Argentina and England are above us, albeit in Argentina's case marginally. Based on the rankings we shouldn't reach the quarters any longer. Yes, it's disappointing that we're going backwards, but I can accept the reasons for it.

Can I add that when watching the highlights the commentators were going mad because France decided not to take the 3 points for the penalty in the final minute and potentially missing out on a bonus point. So it got me wondering who could usurp the French in the final game. Ah, yes, Canada beating New Zealand and scoring four tries in the process. I can see why France didn't think kicking that penalty was vital.

Seems people laugh at the football rankings but accept the rugby ones as perfect even though they are equally skewed.
Doon, Ive watched 30 years of Scotland pushing the laws of the game every time they play England, to be fair it's the only way they are going to win I guess.
I've got more time for the Welsh and Irish who have had some great teams and played some good rugby over the years. Scotland have always just been a poor version of England, even more so with Robinson as coach.

Diggers
The Welsh and the Irish have considerably more teams than Scotland.
The only region in Scotland where rugby is popular is The Borders, one of the least populated areas of Europe.

Numbers don't have to dictate style and method Doon.

Doon the Water wrote:Diggers.
Not a bad loser. As I said earlier I think Scotland punch well above our weight at rugby.

I have never liked the English attitude to rugby since the days of Will Carling.
They do not seem to play to the spirit of the game.

The cricket team are great at the moment, are there any English players in it?
Sorry could not resist that cheap shot!

Strange comment Doon! I'm of a similar age to you, so have been watching and playing Rugby since the early 60's. I remember numerous very dour England matches played in mudbowls, where the only white shirted highlight for 2 decades was David Duckham. Even the Billy Beaumont(ish) era was only livened by the occasional Clive Woodward run. But the Will Carling era was built on expansive backs following on from solid forward work. As the saying goes, the forwards win the game and the backs say by how much.

Ooh and can I remind you of the phrase 'kilted kiwis'!

On another I'm gutted to see Carter out, great player and seems like a good guy. McGaw maybe struggling as well. They will miss this guys in the later stages for sure.

Carling had probably one of the best ever rugby teams with two flying brothers on the wings. Pity they seldom touched the ball.

Diggers wrote:Seems people laugh at the football rankings but accept the rugby ones as perfect even though they are equally skewed.
Doon, Ive watched 30 years of Scotland pushing the laws of the game every time they play England, to be fair it's the only way they are going to win I guess.
I've got more time for the Welsh and Irish who have had some great teams and played some good rugby over the years. Scotland have always just been a poor version of England, even more so with Robinson as coach.

Every ranking system has it's problems.

But looking at the rankings and comparing them with the groups and the results we've had, they look to have reflected pretty well.

The top 8 are the 8 in the quarters with only Ireland and Australia swapping positions in terms of seedings. Apart from Tonga beating Canada, every one of the 12 teams in that are leaving are in the postition the IRB rankings would predict them to be in. Admittedly there's a much bigger gap between the teams than those in the FIFA ranikings, but I believe they appear to have done a good job of reflecting the reality.

Doon the Water wrote:Carling had probably one of the best ever rugby teams with two flying brothers on the wings. Pity they seldom touched the ball.

Whoops - and isn't Rory still the leading England try scorer of all time. So he must have touched the ball long enough to place it over the try line on...............49 times

That is the point I am trying to make.

I can't remember who the England coach of that period was but that team should have been one of the best ever.
For some strange reason they played 'safe' kicking rugby instead of opening up. Rory Underwood should have scored twice as many trys as he did.

For the last 20 years Scotland have been forced to play that sort of kicking game due to lack of players/talent, Carlings team had talent by the barrowload.

Doon the Water wrote:

I can't remember who the England coach of that period was

I think it was Jack Rowell if my memory serves me right.

Hmm, they were a decent side but nowhere near as good as you are implying. Also the keyman, the flyhalf Rod Andrew was a kicking not a passing player and that dictated the style of rugby they played.
The 2003 side was far and away a more complete team IMO.
Just because you have limited numbers doesn't mean you can only play attritional rugby. It's still a choice. Holland is a small country but they okay great football. The fact is Scotland , and to a degree England, choose to play a particular style and it's often dull to watch and on Scotkands case doesn't usually work effectively anyway.

Scotland has not had a decent fly half since John Rutherford. [1980's?] We just have a very small player pool.
We produce the odd world class player such as Gavin Hastings, Mighty Mouse or Finlay Calder but you need 14 other decent guys to form a team.

You produce good players by coaching Doon, not just by chance. If you coach hoik it rugby you get hoik it players. Always thought Pattinson was a quality player mind, stifled in a poor team.

Scotland have a very decent fly half right now. The problem was he went off after 5 minutes with a didgy hamstring.

I don't know if it was just bad luck or a schoolboy error for not warming up properly on a dismal weather day - though in my experience it's unusual to pull a hamstring after only 5 minutes if you've prepared properly. Either way, Scotland would have worried England a lot more if Parks hadn't come on so early

Sorry Doon, I'm with Diggers here and not just because I'm a fellow arrogant Englishman. Scotland produce great (sometimes) destructive players but concentrate too much on disruption of the opposition at the expense of their own creative game and rely on a harem-scarem approach far too much.

Maybe in fours years time eh?

To be honest Davie I was quite pleased to see Parks come on, even though I am not a fan. It was obviously going to be a tactical kicking day.
Jackson does look like he is going to be a decent player. The RWC came a bit early for him.

NBS
I am old enough to remember the old 'Feet Scotland Feet' Murrayfield yells. Now that was proper harem scarem.

Digs is quite right, Will Carlings era was also dominated by Rob 'safety first' Andrew at Fly.

But you also have to take into account the heavy disruptive running of Carling himself, laying off to Guscott who always seemed to take exactly the right lines. No surprise that Rory did not score as many tries as maybe he should have, 'cos Guscott snaffled 30 of his own.

Shanks, speak to any player from the 95 final, forward or back, and their big regret is abondoning the grinding rugby to try and take on Oz in an expansive game. Nearly paid off but if they stuck to a forwards game they would more likely have won that day. Would have made for a duller game mind.
Guscott was class but was a bit injury prone from his mid 20's onwards unfortunately.

Wasn't that the '91 final? I think in '95 we were "Lomu'd"

As for Rory who "should have" scored twice as many tries as he did - he scored 49 in 85 appearances

98 tries in 85 appearances is a little far fetched even for someone as talented as Rory

Yes, you are right Davie. God that makes me feel even older. Remember Lomu running straight though Hastings, knew he was a monster after I saw that.

super_realist wrote:I didn't see it Diggers, but by all accounts they were dreadful. I heard the hateful Brian Moore on the radio saying that the likes of Australia, NZ and South Africa would be fearing England now that England have "topped their group".
I should think they would be delighted to play them.

Brian Moore speaks more sense than most sporting pundits. He's also not averse to digging the boot into England, so it's beyond me why the Celts view him as they do.

If you don't think other teams won't fancy playing against England, I suggest you check out the only team to have made the last two RWC finals and who also share the record for most RWC final appearances.

I don't like his style Merc, very confrontational, defensive and frequently one eyed and unprofessional. The way he argued with Mark Saggars on the radio after yesterdays match was an embarassment and not becoming of someone allegedly supposed to be a professional broadcaster.

I suppose that you could say his opinionated responses give him a bit of character, which is a good thing given how sterile the media can be, but I just don't like the guy. He's got a face for radio for sure, but a bitter, small man syndrome personality which I don't like.

I like Brian Moore and I am a scot, although probable the least patriotic man in the country.

I dont agree Moore has small man syndrome. He has more than proved himself on the rugby pitch against much bigger guys. He is just a bit chippy to say the least.
Cant say I love the guy but he isnt thick, pretty sure he is a qualified solicitor as well.