The Final Four. Does anyone care?

Interesting that tweaks to rule interpretations have led to a complete change of fortune in the make up of the final four.

Look back four years and we had Argentina, England, South Africa and France. Yep, the backbone of structured, defensive, set piece rugby and a recipe for kicking and score lines evenly divisible by 3.

Back to the present, we have New Zealand, Wales, France and Australia. Yep, a backbone of unpredictable counter-attacking running rugby with score lines in multiples of 5 (or 7 apparently, in the Welsh case).

Surely this is a consequence of law interpretation variations and referee selection as much as any great change in the fortunes of the teams themselves.

The downside of this change in composition is that the RWC has now lost the active participation of the nations providing the first and second largest viewing audiences.

The up side is that the old conspiracy theorists on the money-grubbing nature of the IRB and their various sponsored lobbyists have had the air let out of their tyres. The downside is, how many people still care?

lol GG you are one paraonoid fruit arnt you

As a proud welshman I care. Maybe not as much as the other 7/8s of me cared but yes...its nice to see Lawrence and Kaplan letting the underdogs through to the semis.

So, GG are you saying our English friends are not true rugby fans, just England fans? surely they will all be watching the Welsh game, or games hopefully, if only to see us lose!

As for unpredictable play, Wales are playing a very stuctured game, the coaching has been superb, and we are sticking to the game plan and structured moves off the set pieces.
As for nz, 'structure first' is their mantra.

I look forward to your 7/8ths WUMming constantly with your 1/8th during the next 6N seabiscuit. Do you think the mods will 7/8th suspend you when it happens?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As a proud welshman I care. Maybe not as much as the other 7/8s of me cared but yes...its nice to see Lawrence and Kaplan letting the underdogs through to the semis.

what are you saying that you care or you dont care. GG is very odd- he likes to devalue the world cup, because he takes it to heart when NZ choke. Trust me every welshman(proper welshman- not like you who is obviously english) care about this more than possibly anything else in the world!

Something is wrong with me for I am about to agree with GG for about the 3rd time today. I am fairly certain that the refereeing directives introduced a couple of years back in particular with regards to tackler-assist releasing is partly responsible for the change-in-fortune of sides. It is IMO a good thing.

gavstar wrote:So, GG are you saying our English friends are not true rugby fans, just England fans? surely they will all be watching the Welsh game, or games hopefully, if only to see us lose!

As for unpredictable play, Wales are playing a very stuctured game, the coaching has been superb, and we are sticking to the game plan and structured moves off the set pieces.
As for nz, 'structure first' is their mantra.

You know what I'm saying though Gavstar. I was trying not to say "10 man rugby" because I know how much our English friends hate to hear it.

Millions of fans around the world still care, and just because England and Ireland are out doesn't mean the competition is a waste of time.

We're down to the final 4 teams in 2011 that we actually had in 1987! It's a bit of a blast from the past.
If France beat Wales and New Zealand beat Australia then we have the same 3/4 play off and final we had at the very start in 1987.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I look forward to your 7/8ths WUMming constantly with your 1/8th during the next 6N seabiscuit. Do you think the mods will 7/8th suspend you when it happens?

If they do ill be in good company eh GG

To be honest though if NZ had gone out as well the crowds and global audience for the remainder would be down.
If i wasnt welsh id probably be rturning my attentions back to the domestic games rather than watching a bunch of prima donnas strutting around in a competition that has no meaning to me. I have more attachment to my club than my national side.
Id call teh people who only watch international rugby the fickle part time fans.

Yes, It's hard to be a full time fan of something you're only involved in up to the first knock out match. I hear what your 7/8ths is saying.

Yeah how many of those 70000 tonga fans stuck around to watch ireland wales?

Well 95% of them live in Auckland.

GG, this is not wendyball it's rugby. Along with millions of other followers of the sport I will be watching and getting worked up with pleasure and frustration in equal amounts as I watch the final dramas unfold. In fact, I'll probably enjoy it more than I would if England were playing, I won't be screaming as yet another penalty is given away or another scoring chance goes begging. In short, yes, I care. Just make sure you beat Oz!

Top man.

Yep, I'll be vomiting in my cornflakes with anxiety while you're kicking it back and enjoying the show I guess.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Top man.

Yep, I'll be vomiting in my cornflakes with anxiety while you're kicking it back and enjoying the show I guess.

wow i am suprised - a post that shows GG cares.

I wouldnt have been destroying my bodyclock to watch all the matches if I didnt care. NOt just the Welsh ones I was up this morning to watch the boks and Ozzies.

I will be cheering the All Blacks, almost changed my mind today to support someone else, but after calming down i realised the RWC is still about the players primarily.

So I do care about who will win yes.

Until Wales were in with a shout I wanted the All Blacks to win. However we stand a far better chance of beating the Ozzies if we get into the final so next weekend is really interesting.

biltongbek wrote:I will be cheering the All Blacks, almost changed my mind today to support someone else, but after calming down i realised the RWC is still about the players primarily.

So I do care about who will win yes.

Actually you should be behind Wales because you can argue you beat the World champions in the World Cup!

If the SA fans are backing NZ, can we return the favour by borrowing Lambie or Steyn?

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Back to the present, we have New Zealand, Wales, France and Australia. Yep, a backbone of unpredictable counter-attacking running rugby with score lines in multiples of 5 (or 7 apparently, in the Welsh case).

Surely this is a consequence of law interpretation variations and referee selection as much as any great change in the fortunes of the teams themselves.

I agree GG. Commented on this the other day. Even though the matches themselves didnt reflect open games except for the Wales tries, the four teams through are the most traditional 'running' sides who usually get punished for it.

They each played a traditional 'structured' side (with perhaps Ireland not fully falling into that mould) so although not pretty, one for the 'good guys'

Taylorman wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Back to the present, we have New Zealand, Wales, France and Australia. Yep, a backbone of unpredictable counter-attacking running rugby with score lines in multiples of 5 (or 7 apparently, in the Welsh case).

Surely this is a consequence of law interpretation variations and referee selection as much as any great change in the fortunes of the teams themselves.

I agree GG. Commented on this the other day. Even though the matches themselves didnt reflect open games except for the Wales tries, the four teams through are the most traditional 'running' sides who usually get punished for it.

They each played a traditional 'structured' side (with perhaps Ireland not fully falling into that mould) so although not pretty, one for the 'good guys'

the only problem i can see is your not actually taking facts into account here.

NZ top of penalty counts.
france very low on tries scored
england high on tries scored.

i could go on

Oakey, not looking at how many tries a tier one nation can run in against third tier opposition in a pool game.

Looking at the natural international style of various teams. It's surely a well known fact that Eng, SA, Ireland and Scotland along with the Pumas tend to be stodgy, constructed and kick heavy. It's not a criticism, don't get upset, just merely pointing out relative success of contrasting styles across the err "clarification" of various laws.

I was thinking the exact same thing GG

mystiroakey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Back to the present, we have New Zealand, Wales, France and Australia. Yep, a backbone of unpredictable counter-attacking running rugby with score lines in multiples of 5 (or 7 apparently, in the Welsh case).

Surely this is a consequence of law interpretation variations and referee selection as much as any great change in the fortunes of the teams themselves.

I agree GG. Commented on this the other day. Even though the matches themselves didnt reflect open games except for the Wales tries, the four teams through are the most traditional 'running' sides who usually get punished for it.

They each played a traditional 'structured' side (with perhaps Ireland not fully falling into that mould) so although not pretty, one for the 'good guys'

the only problem i can see is your not actually taking facts into account here.

NZ top of penalty counts.
france very low on tries scored
england high on tries scored.

i could go on

Yes I know...even though I did make the comment: "Even though the matches themselves didnt reflect open games"

This is true traditionally of the open nature of the teams. I think you'll find next week they try ration will go up because both sides have the willingness to run...

TheGreyGhost wrote:Oakey, not looking at how many tries a tier one nation can run in against third tier opposition in a pool game.

Looking at the natural international style of various teams. It's surely a well known fact that Eng, SA, Ireland and Scotland along with the Pumas tend to be stodgy, constructed and kick heavy. It's not a criticism, don't get upset, just merely pointing out relative success of contrasting styles across the err "clarification" of various laws.

you fail to mention NZ's penalty count, that goes against your point - that running teams(you are the only true one) arnt getting penalised.

England v france had a neutral try count- 2 each- the side that kicked more won.

SA v aus - AUS won- SA had loads of terriotory , much more running and got tries disalowed!

still dont get your point pal

TheGreyGhost wrote:Oakey, not looking at how many tries a tier one nation can run in against third tier opposition in a pool game.

Looking at the natural international style of various teams. It's surely a well known fact that Eng, SA, Ireland and Scotland along with the Pumas tend to be stodgy, constructed and kick heavy. It's not a criticism, don't get upset, just merely pointing out relative success of contrasting styles across the err "clarification" of various laws.

Ghost we played your "style" today and lost.

GG wasnt the change in interpretation due to the fact that post 2007 the breakdown was so in favour of defending teams that teams would not attack for fear of being turned over, which was effecting the entertainment factor of the sport, i think that we would agree that if rugby is to continue to grow (and it needs to) it must be entertaining to watch and therefore marketable,

as for styles of teams in terms of stereotyping you are correct, but if you look at the oz vs bok game youd be forgiven for mistaking which team was meant to be a traditrionally flair team if you didnt already know,

likewise in the Arg game wasnt their try started from inside their own half?

mystiroakey wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Oakey, not looking at how many tries a tier one nation can run in against third tier opposition in a pool game.

Looking at the natural international style of various teams. It's surely a well known fact that Eng, SA, Ireland and Scotland along with the Pumas tend to be stodgy, constructed and kick heavy. It's not a criticism, don't get upset, just merely pointing out relative success of contrasting styles across the err "clarification" of various laws.

you fail to mention NZ's penalty count, that goes against your point - that running teams(you are the only true one) arnt getting penalised.

England v france had a neutral try count- 2 each- the side that kicked more won.

SA v aus - AUS won- SA had loads of terriotory , much more running and got tries disalowed!

still dont get your point pal

It's not about penalty counts dude, you've missed the point. It's about ability to play the style that isn't penalised. SA have largely stuck to their set piece, forward drives, direct crash ball running and up and unders. Eng have been lost in no mans land, making selections for a running game then trying to play their legacy style. Aus and NZ, Wales and France have revelled in the freedom to play their loose game.

Yes Biltong, you did play a looser game today, but the execution at key points let you down. Perhaps a little like England, you need to practise this stuff game after game to pull it off effectively in the big ones. This isn't supposed to be patronising or belittling or a criticism of anyone. I just think it's an interesting fact to ponder.

ah ok ive missed the point of your post there apologies,

although you have to concede that aus have made the semis on their defence likewise wales

Ghost you know what gets me the most is the f...n one eyed articles you read on some websites by supposed learned journalists and experts.

When we just beat Wales we were told how lucky we were to win, how we were dominated and overpowered and didn't really desrved the win.

Today i have to read about how heroic the Australians defended.

It is so f...n pathetic it is actually hilarious.

i think new zealand will win the world cup, have said that from the start.

cricketfan90 wrote:i think new zealand will win the world cup, have said that from the start.

without fail

To be fair i thought the Aussies had a free pass at the break down, the ref just seemed to give them the benefit of doubt,in defence and attack.

ok GG i think you have explained that better.especially this point

"but the execution at key points let you down. Perhaps a little like England, you need to practise this stuff game after game to pull it off effectively in the big ones"

this was also scotland and argentinas problem against england

I am still not 100% mind but i am on the edge lol

mystiroakey wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As a proud welshman I care. Maybe not as much as the other 7/8s of me cared but yes...its nice to see Lawrence and Kaplan letting the underdogs through to the semis.

what are you saying that you care or you dont care. GG is very odd- he likes to devalue the world cup, because he takes it to heart when NZ choke. Trust me every welshman(proper welshman- not like you who is obviously english) care about this more than possibly anything else in the world!

Mystiroakey

I struggle to understand why people like the above you quoted write such drivel on rugby forums. No place for it. Rugby is about friendship and gentlemanly behaviour as much as sport. Luckily this sites creators have encouraged the use of ignore button hoping these guys loose interest.

The difference the rugby results of our magnificent welsh team have made to the public in Wales is remarkable, everyone has a smile on their face and a happy tune to whistle..! Wales is truly a wonderful place to be right now. This means more than you can imagine to all of us.

In answer to the original question - I'm an England supporter and yes I do still care.

I think regarding playing styles and relative success I think it is easy and IMO incorrect to fall in the trap that running rugby has succeeded against forward orientated rugby.

The only surprise in the last four really is Wales and I believe they are there because nearly all their players have hit form at the right time giving belief momentum etc.
SA should have put Oz away but that's how it goes sometimes.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As a proud welshman I care. Maybe not as much as the other 7/8s of me cared but yes...its nice to see Lawrence and Kaplan letting the underdogs through to the semis.

what are you saying that you care or you dont care. GG is very odd- he likes to devalue the world cup, because he takes it to heart when NZ choke. Trust me every welshman(proper welshman- not like you who is obviously english) care about this more than possibly anything else in the world!

Mystiroakey

I struggle to understand why people like the above you quoted write such drivel on rugby forums. No place for it. Rugby is about friendship and gentlemanly behaviour as much as sport. Luckily this sites creators have encouraged the use of ignore button hoping these guys loose interest.



The difference the rugby results of our magnificent welsh team have made to the public in Wales is remarkable, everyone has a smile on their face and a happy tune to whistle..! Wales is truly a wonderful place to be right now. This means more than you can imagine to all of us.

Well said. Lot of emotions flying around at the moment methinks...easy for me to say though.

Just imagine when Wales are in the final at Eden Park!

man the valleys will be singing...

biltongbek wrote:Ghost you know what gets me the most is the f...n one eyed articles you read on some websites by supposed learned journalists and experts.

When we just beat Wales we were told how lucky we were to win, how we were dominated and overpowered and didn't really desrved the win.

Today i have to read about how heroic the Australians defended.

It is so f...n pathetic it is actually hilarious.

I dont read the press when it comes to rugby anymore as most of the so called experts are so out of touch its unreal. A lot of the posters on here have far more knowledge and normally give a good account of whats happening .As a neutral i think you guys were unfairly reffed by Lawrence mostly in the scrum and at the breakdown .but also you seemed to panic a little with all the forced passes in the second half

just to point out - i dont think seabiscuit was being derogatory against wales.

Anyway. Wales v New zealand would be a fitting final- two nations that love this game on the whole more than any other

Taylorman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As a proud welshman I care. Maybe not as much as the other 7/8s of me cared but yes...its nice to see Lawrence and Kaplan letting the underdogs through to the semis.

what are you saying that you care or you dont care. GG is very odd- he likes to devalue the world cup, because he takes it to heart when NZ choke. Trust me every welshman(proper welshman- not like you who is obviously english) care about this more than possibly anything else in the world!

Mystiroakey

I struggle to understand why people like the above you quoted write such drivel on rugby forums. No place for it. Rugby is about friendship and gentlemanly behaviour as much as sport. Luckily this sites creators have encouraged the use of ignore button hoping these guys loose interest.



The difference the rugby results of our magnificent welsh team have made to the public in Wales is remarkable, everyone has a smile on their face and a happy tune to whistle..! Wales is truly a wonderful place to be right now. This means more than you can imagine to all of us.

Well said. Lot of emotions flying around at the moment methinks...easy for me to say though.

Just imagine when Wales are in the final at Eden Park!

man the valleys will be singing...

If we are that fortunate I would not be surprised if you couldn't clearly hear them singing the valleys in Eden Park...!

TheGreyGhost wrote:Interesting that tweaks to rule interpretations have led to a complete change of fortune in the make up of the final four.

Look back four years and we had Argentina, England, South Africa and France. Yep, the backbone of structured, defensive, set piece rugby and a recipe for kicking and score lines evenly divisible by 3.

Back to the present, we have New Zealand, Wales, France and Australia. Yep, a backbone of unpredictable counter-attacking running rugby with score lines in multiples of 5 (or 7 apparently, in the Welsh case).

Surely this is a consequence of law interpretation variations and referee selection as much as any great change in the fortunes of the teams themselves.

The downside of this change in composition is that the RWC has now lost the active participation of the nations providing the first and second largest viewing audiences.

The up side is that the old conspiracy theorists on the money-grubbing nature of the IRB and their various sponsored lobbyists have had the air let out of their tyres. The downside is, how many people still care?

What a load of crap.

These 'tweaks to rule interpretations' have helped make the game a lot more enjoyable to watch.

'Yep, the backbone of structured, defensive, set piece rugby and a recipe for kicking and score lines evenly divisible by 3.' ....YAWN...... Boring rugby....

'The downside of this change in composition is that the RWC has now lost the active participation of the nations providing the first and second largest viewing audiences'..... Well these two teams you are referring to should have played better!

'The downside is, how many people still care?' .... Quite a few I should imagine. Just because your boys are coming home it does not mean that people will stop watching the RWC. Did you only watch England play or did you watch other games to?


I'm Welsh by the way and in 2007 I drove to Paris with my wife (she's Welsh) a mate and his wife (he's English she's Welsh) and we watched the game on a huge screen under the eiffel tower, supporting England all the way. So do people still care about the RWC if their team is out, I would say yes.

damage wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Interesting that tweaks to rule interpretations have led to a complete change of fortune in the make up of the final four.

Look back four years and we had Argentina, England, South Africa and France. Yep, the backbone of structured, defensive, set piece rugby and a recipe for kicking and score lines evenly divisible by 3.

Back to the present, we have New Zealand, Wales, France and Australia. Yep, a backbone of unpredictable counter-attacking running rugby with score lines in multiples of 5 (or 7 apparently, in the Welsh case).

Surely this is a consequence of law interpretation variations and referee selection as much as any great change in the fortunes of the teams themselves.

The downside of this change in composition is that the RWC has now lost the active participation of the nations providing the first and second largest viewing audiences.

The up side is that the old conspiracy theorists on the money-grubbing nature of the IRB and their various sponsored lobbyists have had the air let out of their tyres. The downside is, how many people still care?

What a load of crap.

These 'tweaks to rule interpretations' have helped make the game a lot more enjoyable to watch.

'Yep, the backbone of structured, defensive, set piece rugby and a recipe for kicking and score lines evenly divisible by 3.' ....YAWN...... Boring rugby....

'The downside of this change in composition is that the RWC has now lost the active participation of the nations providing the first and second largest viewing audiences'..... Well these two teams you are referring to should have played better!

'The downside is, how many people still care?' .... Quite a few I should imagine. Just because your boys are coming home it does not mean that people will stop watching the RWC. Did you only watch England play or did you watch other games to?


I'm Welsh by the way and in 2007 I drove to Paris with my wife (she's Welsh) a mate and his wife (he's English she's Welsh) and we watched the game on a huge screen under the eiffel tower, supporting England all the way. So do people still care about the RWC if their team is out, I would say yes.

Dude, I'm a Kiwi. "My boys" aren't going anywhere (yet). You've read that entirely the wrong way.