RWC`s a discordant thought

The recent RWC has thrown up anomalies similar too 2007 at least.
By coincedence both in 2011 ,2007 two sides qualified from the same group.
In both cases the sides qualifying after being well beaten in the group could
have won.But for a contenious Referees decision[or decisions]in 2007 England
to manys surprised reached the Final by sheer cussedness.
France on the other hand did`nt really seem to bother until the Final they arguably
should have won.RWCs are decided by the depth of your squad and a little luck.
BUT,in the case of the French at least it seemed they tried to finesse a RWC[for want of a better word]
NOW the RWC is perceived to be by most people to be THE most important Tournament of all.That the
winning team,coaches,players are WORLD CHAMPIONS.Every one else is an inferior being.
Until 2007 usually the winners had some sort of momentum proceeding there wins 2003 for example
England had a 14 game run versus ALL SH sides then duely won .
BUT in 2010/11 France had conceded 5o odd points in a loss to Australia ,and recent loss to Italy
the All Blacks two last 3Ns matches.Australia was highly fancied to win,Ireland fixed that big time.
Lievremont Pre-RWC had indicated he would throw the All Blacks Pool game,whether he did or
not.His selection was suspect,then the Tonga match which frankly stunk of a thrown game.
NO disrespect to Tonga they played the game of there lives,but the last minute try showed the
Real France.
To date [up to 2011] the winners took the title un beaten,as should be the case in my mind.
BUT If a team can just cruise into a Final and then win it after losing one or two matches
does that devalue the whole idea of a RWC?

Like it or not, the RWC has become the pinnacle for any team to aim for and so if France did indeed have some master plan to cruise, (difficult to achieve in rugby, generally hurts to do so), into the final and therefore 'peak' at just the right time.....well you could put it down as exceptional. Let's face it, had they won none of their previous performances up to and including the cup would have mattered a jot. would've been world cup winners who's lunatic coach was infact a rugby genius and all would be forgiven!

France got to the final. Whether anyone likes it or not when doing the math their scenario was entirely plausible. Did anyone agree before the tournament that if you lose two you wont be in the final? nope. Two qualify from pool. That allows for the myriad of scenarios.
And the french are champions if anything at inconsistency- everyone knows they are capable of beating anyone- and did. And losing to anyone. And did.
Frankly, of all the teams, France performed exactly as expected.
The everlasting beauty and enigma of french rugby is they again, using whatever resources they have, showed they could win this when the chips were down.
With respect, no other team, other than perhaps SA did. Wales simply lost when they should have won. Ireland v wales werent quite there and oz met an unbeatable ab side at its peak of the tournament.
France took its chances and won where they shouldnt have, and nearly did the final.

Both teams that reached the final did so in their own way. The All Blacks by winning all their games, and the Refnch by beating Wales in the semi final to get to the final.

If the team that won the RWC had a little help along the way from the referee, well thats another debate all together.

[quote="majesticimperialman"]Both teams that reached the final did so in their own way. The All Blacks by winning all their games, and the Refnch by beating Wales in the semi final to get to the final.

If the team that won the RWC had a little help along the way from the referee, well thats another debate all together. [/

not sure there is much to debate

the IRB ref training manual has a separate paragraph entitled

Refereeing Richie McCaw

would be intrigued to know what it says

I am All Blacks fan none bigger,i`ve known them field weakened sides BUT
never known them not try to win a game.
IF you want to talk refs,and the legendary McCaw invisible bit ok.
IF the All Blacks had reached a Final throwing two matches and Then won a RWC.I would NEVER support them again,it is one thing picking a team to suit your opponents.
Quite another thing to go into a game not bothering whether you win or lose.
Get behind in a game then give up especially in a RWC,i`m old fashioned enough to play towin EVERY game.
Having heard Horidinquays statement post Tonga I am of the mind that my
conspiracy theory may be invalid.
Because of the set up of the RWC groups it is of course possible to reach the final losing matches and win a RWC it has`nt happened yet.
IF you want to argue as is implied the All Blacks were given the match by the Ref.MAYBE that occurred in other matches too BUT I am not influenced by commentators.
Nor naive enough to think only ONE side is infringing at Scrum/Lineout/Maul/Breakdown/Offside just because your side loses.
incidentally REFINCH.
Some refrerence to a secret Refs organization.

Gatts wrote:
not sure there is much to debate

the IRB ref training manual has a separate paragraph entitled

Refereeing Richie McCaw

would be intrigued to know what it says

Well it really depends what version/ language of the manual you are prescribing to Gatts:

For the Irish 2009 edition its 'Knee him in the back':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/ireland/7824594/Irelands-Jamie-Heaslip-handed-five-week-ban-for-kneeing-All-Blacks-captain-Richie-McCaw.html

For the French 2011 (latest) edition its do the old tried and true eye gouge:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/sportvideo/rugbyvideo/8849847/Frances-Aurelien-Rougerie-eye-gouges-New-Zealands-Richie-McCaw.html

If you've the Ozzie version it depends which year you've got: Either the weakest tackler 'shove in the back' from the 2009 version or the even weaker tackler 'knee to the head' 2010 version.

That answer it? Not sure of its relevance here though.

(Published by REFINCH I think Alan)...

Doesn't answer it at all but i love your attempt to be his knight in shining armour and its relevance here is simple, without his liberal interpretation of the rules NZ would never have beaten France. Discordant enough for you.

Gatts wrote:Doesn't answer it at all but i love your attempt to be his knight in shining armour and its relevance here is simple, without his liberal interpretation of the rules NZ would never have beaten France. Discordant enough for you.

oh i see. So where it used to be nz couldnt win cos they choked and now its they cant win without refs being unable to handle the mccaw factor even though they themselves dont see a problem.

Interesting.

For me it only seems to be disgruntled opposition fans and a few jealous players that cant handle mccaw.

Also odd how 6 panels of the most respected players in world rugby put mccaw in as nominated player of the year, based purely on the matches they played during the year. 3 of the panels choosing him as the best player..
So in your opinion are they also blinded by the mccaw factor who if surely was cheating as much as you and others assume, surely wouldnt pick him so often.
How is that expkained by the average mccaw hater gatts? very intrigued.
And believe me, mccaw doesnt need anyone to be his shining knight. He did that all on his own. Legends normally do

I am not a Mccaw hater, I just love the way you bite so quickly in his defence. Everyone who knows one end of a ruck from another knows he got away with murder throughout his career and the RWC Final was no different, that TD was IRB player of the year says as much about mccaw as it does TD.

Not biting to his defence, just commenting on the facts, not the heresay..I mean..."everyone who knows..."? do they...I mean have you actually asked everyone?

Not sure I'm the one thats biting. And you brought the McCaw/ cheat factor into this thread so nothing wrong with a bit of balance based on the real facts is there now... tut tut...settle down now...

Look McCaw is constantly infringing, not even the sternest AB supporter can deny that. He is not the only one though but he does attract more attention because he is one of the games greatest players and plays in the best team on the planet.

I can't really understand them being happy with losing to NZ in the group stages as they would have had a potential quarter final with England & a semi-final with Australia. Winning their group would have given them a slightly easier route to the final than being group winners.

France didn't plan to lose against Tonga, they simply had a typically crazy French day at the office.

But then Ireland turned it all on it's head by beating Oz and winning the group and then England imploded so 'the best plans of mice & men' springs to mind.

I suppose you can plan a route of sorts but crazy things can happen along the way.

"Look McCaw is constantly infringing, not even the sternest AB supporter can deny that. He is not the only one though but he does attract more attention because he is one of the games greatest players and plays in the best team on the planet" "

Now thats better..a much more reasoned, balanced, sensible approach...

Taylorman, Its a simple fact that great players playing in great teams live their playing lives under a microscope and McCaw is no exception. If McCaw played for Italy, his transgressions would'nt be focused on as much.

eirebilly
I'm an Ab supporter, and I deny it, i dont know what you mean by
'constantly"

aucklandlaurie, 'constantly' may be over doing it a little but he is more often than not on the wrong side of the law. No more or less than any other great 7, just that he gets focused on more as he plays for the best team in the world.

Back on topic, i dont think the results or France's run to the final has devalued the RWC. I loved the tournement and thought that it threw up some absolutely absorbing matches.

I am not being a WUM aucklandlaurie, i am just tired of McCaw being singled out for doing a great job and doing exactly what every other great 7 does. You live on the border and you take your chances and i honestly feel that no-one does it better than him.

Eirebilly
fair play,its just that I've never noticed him infringe that much,I get the feeling that alot of International referees havent either.

He does infring alot when you apply the letter of the law. Referees interpretations does allow alot of leniency there though as it makes for more flowing rugby.

As i said, he is not the only 7 that does this, just that he gets focused on more than any other player because he has been named the best player in the world and plays for the best team.

I think one of the points of the article is whether France, who almost won the RWC, had actuallly thrown matches along the way. And if they indeed threw matches, do they still deserve to win the RWC?

My thought is they did not throw matches. I cannot believe at any level the players who go on the pitch in a RWC are not giving 100%. Main reason is if a player goes out and does not give his all, his possibilities of getting injured go up significantly. Secondly, they are players, and they are the top players in their country, to boot. Top players are inherently driven to succeed, or they would never get to the top in the first place. I cannot see these kinds of people being able to turn it off at times, especially on the biggest stage. The stage they have worked all their Rugby lives to get to. Most of these guys don't have an 'off switch'.

So why did France lose to Tonga? Mental fatigue, perhaps? The let down after the anti-climax of losing to the ABs earlier? Livremont? All the above?

In simpler terms, I cannot see people who work for so many years to get to a point in their lives, then turn around and say "never mind, not today"

Taylor: That's what makes France such an enema, right mate?

doctor_grey wrote:Taylor: That's what makes France such an enema, right mate?

Oh, the cleansing thought!

Perhaps that is how they got rid of Lievremont?

biltongbek,
You think they got rid of Livremont by a good purge and a flush?
Not too bad, mate. Not too bad at all.......

Hi ya Doc... yep flush em all I say. Hows it in the gold ol' US of A. Snowing where you are?