Now the smoke has cleared,comments on RWCs.

I have been silent of late,not really much to be excited about but have read some rather interesting comments,some good, some bad,some sour,and some plain stupid.
Most here know me,and my ethos on RWCs so they will know where i`m coming from.Firstly I congratulate Nz for a well organised RWC,and also winning it,as a All Blacks
fan.I am glad for the many kiwi fans here ,a monkey of your back,for myself don`t care a flying F*** about the win,just another All Black win.Hopefully they can continue
to win more matches,and hopefully the 4Ns.
This brings me to the point about small minded ,and sour comments re the win,IRB fixed it for them to win? ludicrous IRB is heavily weighted in favour of the NH,with a French
President.If anything it would have been fixed for france to win,if that was the case,Ref won it for them? nearly EVERY RWC has that ephiphet thrown at it,several matches
were effected in this one.BUT Joubert was by common consent THE best Ref in the Tournament,BEFORE the final,England and France both had decisions go for [France]and Against
England in 2007.France may well have won there Semi in 1995,a disputed try not given,Cueto`s not given etc.Paddy O `Brien fixed it so they won,RUBBISH The IRB set the rules and interpratations NOT Paddy O`Brien.
Only won because they were at home,can`t argue that one to be honest,fact is now 3 home teams have won them,and 5 home teams been the finalist`s so home advantage certainly helps.It`s really only there first win,because the Boks were`nt there,and not won this one because the Ref one it for them,THAT presupposes ANY team that enters a RWC will win it.
Boks 1986 had a 3-1 test win over the Cavaliers,who also lost one provincial match on tour,IF you are aware of the relevant touring history of the two sides,you would know.
That was very much BETTER than par for the course,and 1991 which some how never draws the same derision,on performances 1992-4.Boks would`nt have had a prayer.
As to a BOK Ref giving a RWC to an All Black side?that is in the realms of fantasy,He called it a he saw it,YES he missed stuff but on both sides.When the French Defence coach said we are not afraid of McCaw ,someone may just stamp on his bad leg!!.It was probably said tongue in cheek BUT the French were doing just that.
How do you win a RWC?,luck with injuries and a squad good enough to cope,a rub of the green,AND be the most consistent team in the Tournament,The All Blacks were that they won
EVERY MATCH.
AS has EVERY RWC winning team to date others have ,historically only a team winning there group has won .Teams qualifying without doing so have Always ended up second.
Some positives have been taken care of already,TMO`s will have more say in the game,ALL teams will now play midweek games. Citing window will now be increased,to cover incidents in a RWC final.HERE it should be NOTED Neither France or NZ cited anyone.
A few comments about seeding the Change using IRB ratings instead of the previous method of 4 Semi -finalists.Ob voiusly because for THE only time NZ the host nation would have been unseeded.Presumeably another method will be needed IF England fail to reach number 4 in the seedings for 2009.
The introduction of a new ball in 2007,and 2011 was criticised in both RWC`s ,from the Manufacturers Concerned the kudos for an exclusive Ball is obvious.BUT they should be available for
goal kickers PRE RWC.So they can practice with them then there can be no excuses.
The idea that the RWC should be hosted by the current little cabal should be abandoned,places with Stadia like Argentina,Italy,Usa or Canada should be considered too.
Though I do not like RWCs or knockouts in general and RWC is neither fish nor fowl but a hybrid,idea that only one way to win is negative safety first ,especially in knockout stages.
Go`s against the idea of a feast of Rugby,when Fiji versus Samoa resort to setpiece,kick penalties rather than there natural flair one despairs.Watching it was like a bad NH Club Game,on a wet wednesday afternoon,with two men and a dog watching.
The fact as early as the second game at group level,tier 2 sides were fielding weakened sides versus tier one sides,every one commented after first game.
How much the tier2 sides had come on ,but after the first match it was back to square one,understandable.BUT it meant that there were few surprises as in previous RWCs.
Of course having to play sometime 3 games in 7 days meant they had little hope in this RWC.
The season Pre RWC needs seriously looking at in 2009 especially in SH with extended S15,and 4Ns commiments,finishing 2 tournaments a week or 2 weeks before a RWC is ludicrous,
hopefully it will be addressed.
It`s catch 22 you need more money to finace the game,therefore more matches,but more games means more injuries,longer recovery times,more resting of key players and so on.

Emack, looks like you are making some sound points but that is hellish difficult to read

Could you re-edit so that it's easier to read (EG - proper paragraphs, sentences that don't shift to the next line ..etc) Thanks in advance

That article is like jazz. I can see there's some cool stuff in there and it's probably good for me, but I just don't get it

emack2

I am not exatley sure what you are trying to get at here. Is this a moan about New Zealand winning the RWC?

Or are you moaning about the Fact that New Zealand was allowed to cheat to win the RWC, seing that they was playing at home, and that they threatened not to turn up in 2015 if they was not allowed to win it?

Just not quite sure what you are on about.

"England in 2007.France may well have won there Semi in 1995,a disputed try not given,Cueto`s not given etc"

Yeah, that is a good way of taking the attention off New Zealand's win, by focusing two "disputable tries" in SA's world cup winning campaigns.

"and 1991 which some how never draws the same derision,on performances 1992-4.Boks would`nt have had a prayer."

By 1992 SA was out of international rugby for 6 years. Apart from the fact that they had to get adjusted to travelling, we as south africans felt in many instances we started every match with a handicap. Call it BS or just negate it, but we had a distinct disadvantage coming back, we weren't very popular, and I am convinced there was a plan to make things as difficult for us as possible, the emails between New Zealand referee manager and Australian referee manager some years later attests to that fact.

I am pretty sure it was never intended to become public. How many matches were influenced by that attitude.

The other problem at the time when we went back into international rugby was that every coach appointed selected his provincial squad to represent SA, first Northern Trnasvaal, then Natal, and ultimately Transvaal as a the highest representation by province won the world cup.

Onto this world cup. running rugby did not win the world cup, as much as many new Zealand journalists advocated that a running team should win it, well, they didn't win by running rugby.

The formula for winning is a strong team with enough lucky breaks.

That is why it means very little to be the favourite, when you look at the pool matches against weaker teams running rugby will tell you by how much you will win, but the win comes from the basics.

Any one of the top teams can win a world cup on that formula.

The referees influence the tournamnet too much.

In my opinion international rugby and the way referees interpret the laws are badly flawed. Last year there was an illegal try in a Welsh, Irish game.

Teams who dominate possession, territory etc lose matches because referees aren't consistent from one match to the next.

I am happy New Zealand won this World Cup. For the simple reason that they have been most deserved and for no other reason.

I would have lost all faith in rugby if Australia won the world cup (sorry to my Ozzie mates), why, because for enough reasons they didn't deserve to win.

I feel for France, it seems like a country with so much and yet in rugby they fail to achieve the top. Once again a world cup trophy is elusive, but to be honest would any of us felt they would have been deserved champions?

As for South Africa, I hope to God that SARU puts their house in order, if things continue the way they have been for so long, I will lose my loyalty to this country and not give a F...k about our rugby anymore. I will become an outside observer, becuase it is very difficult for me to see SARU slowly degrading one of the proudest sporting legacies in the world.

Thanks for reading.

Come on Biltong don't be like that mate. We need more supporters like you. Keep on trucking and hopefully Santa gives you a new coach as a belated Xmas present.

Have you got an article on that letter? Or a link to it? I've never heard about it and would like to read more.

Madge I think is taking the michael so won't bite

Running rugby doesn't happen at the WC business end. Save for a couple of games-the 95 semi-pragmatism and fear of failure come to the fore. It's an ironic shame that this is also when rugby gets its biggest audience. But you can't change the mentality-it's all on the line. I was mighty happy when NZ decided to kill the clock with four to go. I'll bet the other Kiwis were too.

Agree totally with Biltong about luck being a big part of it. Be it other results going your way preventing you from playing your nemeses, refereeing, injuries, the draw in general etc, it happens and you have to prepare for stuff like that to go for and against you. The All Blacks have had luck go against them for many a Cup, and it gets my goat that people begrudge them this one for having a little in the final. Not that luck was one-sided that day. We fell to our fourth ten, and the injury to Parra brought on Trinh-Duc who played a blinder. So I kindly raise two fingers to anyone who objects to the best side in that tournament lifting the trophy.

I dont think any one in their right mind would be grudge the best team of the tournament winning the RWC. After all NZ have been just about the best team (between rugby world cups.)

Regarding my comment about.NZ threating too borcott the 2015 rwc Ido believe that their was some kind of statement to do with NZ and not turning up for the 2015 RWC. Not sure what that was about though to be honest.

Hi disney, can't find it now, too late in the evening to be bothered.

Keith Lawrence who was the New Zealand referee rugby boss in 1997 sent an email to his australian counterpart about let's teach these Japies a lesson, Freek Burger mistaknely got the email.

He didn't find it too funny, so Keith Lawrence, Bryce Lawrence's dad (coincidence) had to apologise about it.

Biltong

All refereeing decisions that may lead directly to points

Try
Penalty
DG

should be reviewed by a TMO

All reds should also be reviewed by TMO

hi Biltong,

read on a french website that Gert Smal was favorite to be pdv successor....is that BS?

whocares wrote:hi Biltong,

read on a french website that Gert Smal was favorite to be pdv successor....is that BS?

Isn't he still under contract with the IRFU? Wasn't great for us in my opinion, the line out declined, the maul disappeared and Greg Feek had to come in to rescue the scrum. He certainly didn't justify his reputation or salary. Good luck to him if hes offski.

whocares wrote:hi Biltong,

read on a french website that Gert Smal was favorite to be pdv successor....is that BS?

He has been mentioned here in SA as a possible appointment yes.

How can I ask this without sounding racist or accused of being one ?

Does Gert Smal have a chance of being coach in the current climate.

I honestly have no idea, there are so many things happening behind closed doors and there are so many alterior motives that one cannot be certain about what will happen.

The fact is the sports minister said in one interview that Quotas did not work, but then the next day he said transformation in rugby is unacceptable.

That is what peeves me off greatly, the politicians is ruining competitive sport in SA.

Sounds like the WRU on a good day

I've all but forgotten about the World Cup win to be honest.
Greatly relieved when the final whistle blew but otherwise just another hard game against the French.
May be some Kiwi's care less about the World Cup because of all the other success we have or may be because we hadn't won it for so long we just got turned off it.
Don't know but really not too fussed about it. Much more interested in / worried about the upcoming proper tour by the Irish.

emack...its like RWC never happened. P.s. ignore the naysayers who diss your style, i think ts authentic and that's important. keep confusing the feck out of all of us (you work for the RFU?)

The article was in response to many newspaper comments about NZ RWC wins [in particular],and many things surrounding RWCs.
As to my prose style,it is due to a form of dyslexia and PC skills[or lack of].
My point concerning comments that 1.1987 does`nt count because the Boks were`nt there.
To which my reply is,that assumes the Boks would have won it[presumably on strength of Cavaliers tour].Tours and RWcs are different animals,BUT that is a very big assumption.SA history of Victories in NZ is not great,BUT we will never know.
point 2,1991 since 1992-1997 Boks played All blacks home and away some 12 times winning 2 both at home,and drawing 1 also at home.It is fair to say they probably would`nt have won 1991.
point 3,there was an IRB conspiracy to give the RWC to NZ which is so ludicrous as not even to be considered.
For the record ALL the RWC winners were worthy winners beating everyone
they met.
Controversial referee s decisions effect ALL RWCs,at sometime hopefully laws will be simplified plus TMO`s use more widely will reduce this.
Another point I meant to bring up,do people agree with using bonus point system in RWC`s as it means the difference.
For example of qualifying from a group ,by just doing the minimum required.
France 2007 and 2011 ,did`nt start playing until the knockout stages.
In Englands group Scotland had a mathematical chance of qualifying if they
won by a certain number of points.
In the Tonga match,when it became apparent a bonus point,with a try was required to be certain of qualifying.
Bang,bang two passes try,noone will convince me France could`nt have beaten Tonga at any time.
THAT is very sad because on the day Tonga thoroughly deserved there win.
One thing you can be sure of in a RWC nothing is certain,before Irelands victory.
Most people had Australia[or England] as finalists,and winner of a NZv SA semi the other.
One thing [of many] that bugs me is the groups being decided at qtr-final stage before a match is played.
I know there are good reasons for the current system,but I for one would prefer an air of mystery at that stage.
Finally,I don`t decry any teams RWC victory in the past,BUT before I die I would like to see a new name on the Cup.
Also perhaps a NH final for a change.

Cmon alan. We served you up the ab win well before your best before date but a NH final?
Id be lucky to see it in my time.

just joking. I think people will say what they want to say. For me the wcup win is now one of relief and i have noticed a distinct drop off in the flak we used to cop over the years. Perhaps a sign most are just as sick of dishing it up.

Im now more interested the progression of others- wales, SA under new reigns, Englands redemption, and argies exciting new years ahead as examples.

Time to stop looking back, moving forward and progressing this great game. So much could happen over the next 24 months. Thats what we need to focus on.

Taylorman wrote:Cmon alan. We served you up the ab win well before your best before date but a NH final?
Id be lucky to see it in my time.

just joking. I think people will say what they want to say. For me the wcup win is now one of relief and i have noticed a distinct drop off in the flak we used to cop over the years. Perhaps a sign most are just as sick of dishing it up.

Im now more interested the progression of others- wales, SA under new reigns, Englands redemption, and argies exciting new years ahead as examples.

Time to stop looking back, moving forward and progressing this great game. So much could happen over the next 24 months. Thats what we need to focus on.

i think its because the collective NZ rugby fan and his wife have stopped carping on about how good they are because they no longer need to.

Don't know about this claim that running rugby can't win you finals. Woodcock must've ran at least 50m and beat half the French team. A devastating run. At least that´s how Tony is talking it up now.

To win a RWC you need a bit of luck to win. We didn't have too much luck with our flyhalves but we did have luck with our backrow who managed to somehow hold on. Then we got the rub of the green in the second half with some key decisions and France missed some shots at goal as did we. This was a victory not for NZ fans but for all the NZ players who deserve the title as champions because that's how they've been playing since the disappointment of 2007 (2009 a notable exception)

There was a huge sigh of relief by all AB fans but now it's back to business and we must concentrate on holding out the Irish for 3 matches and winning the 4N and winning all our games up north later in the year. A huge ask but those are the impossibly high standards we set our team.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Don't know about this claim that running rugby can't win you finals. Woodcock must've ran at least 50m and beat half the French team. A devastating run. At least that´s how Tony is talking it up now.

Umm, yes, I would think most rugby players with ball in hand will run otherwise they will be caught sooner.

NZ definitely deserved the cup but they didn't deserve to win the final. They choked but luckily for them the ref choked as well. I thought Joubert was the right man for the final he was consistent throughout the whole tournament but he f'ed up big time. You look throughout the finals there have been had so far and i don't think we've seen one were the winners were outplayed in so many aspects of the game. The try in the 07 was debatable but SA outplayed England around the park. 03 England or Australia deserved to win it but Wilko had the balls to kick the drop goal. I could go on but i cant be bothered.

Was there a RWC in 2011?

It must have been a non event to go un-noticed; hopefully the next one will be worth watching

And I thought you would turn a new page for 2012.

I don't think I ever mentioned that I would Biltong.

Emack...you should use paragraphs etc...cos i just couldnt be bothered to read that....

gowales wrote:NZ definitely deserved the cup but they didn't deserve to win the final. They choked but luckily for them the ref choked as well. I thought Joubert was the right man for the final he was consistent throughout the whole tournament but he f'ed up big time. You look throughout the finals there have been had so far and i don't think we've seen one were the winners were outplayed in so many aspects of the game. The try in the 07 was debatable but SA outplayed England around the park. 03 England or Australia deserved to win it but Wilko had the balls to kick the drop goal. I could go on but i cant be bothered.

What absolute nonsense.

France were the stronger team in the last 20 minutes. Last time I checked a test match lasted 80. NZ were dominant the first 40, first 20 of the second half were pretty even, then the French finished strongly. But they were unable to breach the NZ defence.

If you actually watch the game you will see that the referee had a very consistent game. In fact the biggest error he made led directly to the only points France scored, two phases later. Try watching it without listening to the the emotional ramblings of commentators.

Umm... actually i listend to it with the biased NZ commentators on Sky and i could still see that France were the better team. You can't just sweep aside those calls Joubert missed mate. Anyway there are a lot more people who thought France deserved to win and most of the people who thought NZ deserved to are oh yea from NZ...

- Most games seemed to have great atmosphere.
- The games between the lower tiered nations were very entertaining.
- There were very few upsets! How many games went against the favourite (Ireland beating Oz, France losing in the group)? That could be the biggest challenge that the RWC faces in trying to increase viewing figures/markets/etc.
- Too many teams couldn't really keep control of their players (for effectively a month!). Plenty of teams at fault here.
- Scheduling for non- 6N/3N teams was, to be honest, shocking.

You really thought France were the better team in the first half?

Out of interest, how many times have you rewatched the game? I watched it several times, and there are quite a few calls missed for both teams, including, as I mentioned, leading up to the French try.

It is true that the French had NZ on the ropes for the last quarter of the game, but that word 'deserve' is a funny one. NZ 'deserved' to be out of sight if Weepu had kicked all his goals.

The thing is, for all the talk of the neutrals before the game of France not really deserving to be in the final and how the didn't really have a chance. Once they were in with a shout, then pretty much every neutral fan I've spoken to wanted them to beat NZ. (similar to the SF when every neutral wanted the Welsh to get up)

As I said on a thread not long after the final;

"As I've said, it was a passionate, emotional encounter. And I think the closer an underdog gets to beating a favourite, the more neutrals want it to happen and the more emotional energy they invest in it. And when it doesn't happen the disappointment and deflation leave people looking for answers as to why they are not getting the sense of enjoyment they think they deserve, it leaves a need to find excuses and reasons to blame.

And the commentators and analysts are the cheerleaders in this process.

NZ in 2007 and SA this time got very little sympathy because they weren't the brave, plucky, little guy beating the odds."


The more I watch the game, the more I stand by this.

The ABs clearly were stronger in the first half and the French came back strong and were better in the second half. More points went begging for NZ than for France though so you stick to your view gowales. I´m sure if we had beaten France you would´ve been on here saying NZ played the worst finalists in RWC history and were gifted the title. There´s no pleasing people like you when it comes to the ABs and that´s fine with me. I can dig wanting the underdog to win and I thought the French were dealt harshly by the media and not just the NZ media. They´ll get there one day. And I agree goneagain, there wasn´t a whole lot of sympathy in 2007. Sometimes you get the rub of the green and though we had bad luck with our flyhalves our back row managed to stay in one piece. Although Dusatoir et al outshone the AB backrow in the final, they were still vital to the overall win, none more so in the semi final but despite what people say, also in the final.

Nz were deserved winners of the 2011 RWC but if that final game had been played anywhere other than in Nz, then my feeling (and many others) was that France would have probably won that game.

My bigger beef is how the game is slowly been turned into a poor man's RL game. SH unions still say scrums have their place but front rows from the 70/80s would have a field day in the current scrummage mess. Todays mobile props are killing space for backs to play as it allows flankers to drift into midfield. Rant over!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

To win a RWC you need a bit of luck to win. We didn't have too much luck with our flyhalves but we did have luck with our backrow who managed to somehow hold on.

Not even sure its luck you need Kia. Its more not having bad luck or abnormal things happen.

95 SA didnt have any 'luck' as such. Neither did they have any bad luck or 'abnormal events. They played, and beat those in front of them. We had 90% of our players out with illness unable to train the day before the final, some still spewing as they went out onto the field, as we saw. When in history has this ever happened to 90% of a team the day before a match..ever? let alone a world cup final...no luck there, just an 'abnormal' event...and we still managed to draw after 80. You could say SA had a little luck in securing the winning drop goal but I dont buy that. By then it was deserved, and a great sporting moment for SA.

07 SA didnt have any luck..they beat those in front of them. They didnt have an inept as a ref as Barnes who simply chose not to penalise for a whole half with half the French backs up amongst ours and the small manner of the forward pass- again not luck, an abnormal, unusually inept performance by a ref.

In 2011 Ab's didnt have any luck, in fact with the injuries to the 10's and McCaw and Read, we had our fair share of bad luck you could say. Some say we had luck with the ref favouring us, some disagree with that. It certainly however, wasnt a 'Barnes'

SA, had Brussouw off injured early then had an inept performance allowing a free for all which Oz mainly through Pocock capitalised on. Once again, an abnormal event where even Lawrence admitted he failed to deliver (pity Barnes couldnt do the same).

87 was decisive, no luck required. 91 and 99 Oz won convincingly without incident and 2003 you could say in the end Wilko got lucky- but did he really? winning is about being ahead at the end, and thats what Wilko ensured- another great moment in the game.

So for all the Wcup victories, none of the victors were lucky. They did the job and won the title. They just didn't have one or two abnormal events. Injuries and so so ref displays are simply part of the game. The illness, Barnes and Lawrences efforts are 3 abnormal events that could have changed the result of the eventual winners.

I know there are many examples of last minute wins, tries to seal last minute results- Ireland being in a couple from memory, but again- not unusual events or down to luck.

England in 2003 were lucky that Aus beat NZ though

I was lucky enough to watch several matches live. Wales in Hamilton twice, Wellington. I saw Tonga, Japan and Canada play as well as a few in N Harbour. Every game I went to was brilliant, the atmosphere was great and Kiwi's at the game supported one or the other team by painting their faces and having their flags (adults as well as kids).

TV coverage was great but yes the Kiwi comentators are a little one sided and can be patronising in their estimation of the weaker teams.

Hand on heart, NZ scraped the win in the final but stormed into the final with great displays of rugby.

Hand on hear some more! Had Wales had a full team in the Semi's and Sam had stayed we would have beaten the French. I am not saying that Wales would have beaten NZ in the final but on their show against France and seeing how NZ played against them, I would say Wales would have had a great chance to have won.......maybe.

It never happened that way so history will say NZ won and deservedly so...just.

The entire competition was a huge success and NZ deserve a pat on the back. I firmly believe if NZ can build a better stadium for the final then the WC could return to NZ.

nganboy wrote:England in 2003 were lucky that Aus beat NZ though

Really nganboy?
NZ were completely outplayed by oz in that semi. At no stage did we look like breaking through and oz just D'd up big time. No ideas or plan B and simply outgunned.
How england can be deemed lucky on that basis i dont know.
In fact England would likely have beaten that ab side given that oz effort if they somehow scraped through. And i wouldnt say that probably any other time in history.
That year england were the best team in rugby and showed it. Many times.
My opinion anyway.

Taylorman, whether you want to call it luck or abnormalities, it boils down to the same thing.

Things fall into place and it paves the way for another team to advance further.

You may disagree, but I believe when SA was knocked out of the world cup, NZ was guaranteed the win, you may ask why?

Well SA and France were the only countries able to beat NZ on NZ soil. contrary to what has been advocated in the press before and during the tournament, SA was NZ's biggest threat and not Australia. Simply becuase we know how to win finals (bar the Lawrence factor) and how to win on NZ soil.

So when looking at any world cup there are fortuitous events that take place to benefit the ultimate winner.

An interesting comment Biltong,France having won twice,Boks 3 times in Nz in the pro era,Boks one on neutral ground.
No guarantees for anyone in a RWC,ireland winning turned it on its head.
England did not ,[by there own best standards]play well in the 2003 RWC.
Since the margin was only 3 and 2 points the result may have been debatable.Umaga`s injury was key 2003,playing someone out his usual position versus Mortlock was stupid.
From reports since Umaga was fit for the semi,but was being saved for the final.
A touch of arrogance that,injuries will kill you every time,the final was touch and go.
When Weepu strained a groin in the warm up,I question his doing the goal kicking.Crudon and Dagg are both efficent goal kicks,true they were inexperienced at this level.
BUT,after Piri missed his first kick,they could`nt have done worse,and may well have given them a cushion.

Morning alan, yes two of those 3 wins came in the three years preceding the world cup.

Biltong....based on what...come on Aus were more than capable of beating NZ. Any team who had reached the semis could have beaten them; the selection of a predictable and ageing SA side is why you were knocked out. It wasn't solely Lawrence. Do Wales blame their defeat entirely on Rolland? No. By suggesting Aus couldn't win you demean them.

Gatts, this is not about Lawrence. australia hasn't beaten New Zealand in new Zealand for yonks. They lost 11 out of 14 matches prior to the world cup.

They won the tri nations by playing good rugby against two sides who rested players.

SA won 5 out of 11 tests in the previous 4 years against New Zealand.

As for an ageing SA side, well that is just a cliche.

Go look at the team that played, they weren't aged.

As much as people want to believe that the springbok side was old, it is simply unfounded.

There were 5 players over 31 in the squad, and Bakkies didn't play much as he left with injury.

As for predictable, based on what? another cliche?

As I wrote prior to the RWC,the Semi was going to be THE Final for the both sides[at the time I was anticipating a All Black vBok ] semi.
So it proved,the Semi was THE best All Black display in a decade,the final as I feared a relative anti-climax.They won but they were a tired team hanging on at the final whistle.

Now it is over,hopefully normal service will be resumed,I expect a revived
Bok side in the 4Ns.
Yes, I want another 4Ns title preferably to nil,and the Bledisloe,Ireland 3-0,then an unbeaten tour of Europe.
BUT,History says the AB`s will drop 2 out of 15 probably away to Boks,and maybe Oz in the 3rd Bledisloe[just a money spinner pointless]

well, we wait with nervous anticipation for the announcement of the new Springbok coach.

emack2 wrote:As I wrote prior to the RWC,the Semi was going to be THE Final for the both sides[at the time I was anticipating a All Black vBok ] semi.
So it proved,the Semi was THE best All Black display in a decade,the final as I feared a relative anti-climax.They won but they were a tired team hanging on at the final whistle.

Hi all, new poster motivated to comment on the long running attack on New Zealand's long over due world cup win.

I can agree with you that the ABs peaked for the semi-final. To me, it was the most brutal and focussed 80 minutes of AB rugby I've witnessed since the 1996 SA tour.

But I'm offended by the continued suggestion that NZ were somehow lucky to win the final. I suggest that most of this is friendly rivalry showing its competitive head. So rather than debate some of the petty criticisms of the refereeing (which was outstanding in comparison with previous finals adjudication), I'd rather just point out that the score engineered by New Zealand was 8-7. Given New Zealand's ownership of opposition teams not just in the tournament, but in the preceding four years, surely it's more likely that this scoreline was a salute to Graham Henry's 87 victories?. It's just too much of a coincidence, and I can't see it any other way.

welcome miteyironpaw.

Which country do you hail from?

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_7420979,00.html
New Bok coach?,or indications PDV has triumphed again?maybe.

good one mitey

It was tricky work engineering the game so that the French scored exactly the right number of points. Great work by Sir Henry and co

miteyironpaw wrote:

emack2 wrote:As I wrote prior to the RWC,the Semi was going to be THE Final for the both sides[at the time I was anticipating a All Black vBok ] semi.
So it proved,the Semi was THE best All Black display in a decade,the final as I feared a relative anti-climax.They won but they were a tired team hanging on at the final whistle.

Hi all, new poster motivated to comment on the long running attack on New Zealand's long over due world cup win.

I can agree with you that the ABs peaked for the semi-final. To me, it was the most brutal and focussed 80 minutes of AB rugby I've witnessed since the 1996 SA tour.

But I'm offended by the continued suggestion that NZ were somehow lucky to win the final. I suggest that most of this is friendly rivalry showing its competitive head. So rather than debate some of the petty criticisms of the refereeing (which was outstanding in comparison with previous finals adjudication), I'd rather just point out that the score engineered by New Zealand was 8-7. Given New Zealand's ownership of opposition teams not just in the tournament, but in the preceding four years, surely it's more likely that this scoreline was a salute to Graham Henry's 87 victories?. It's just too much of a coincidence, and I can't see it any other way.

You could look at the fact that NEW ZEALAND WAS AT HOME, and the fact that every New Zealander( fan)that is , believed that New Zealand should of won the Rugby World Cup in 2007. You could also look at the possibilty that tournament was fixed by the IRB so that New Zealand would win by hook or by crook( the Referree's) being to lenient in the punishment stakes (Mc Caw going off his feet at the breakdown, entering the rucks fromn the wrong side) you get the picture. The Fact is New Zealand have been the best, or almost the best rugby team between rugby world cups, that they was bown to win it one day.

It is now time to put the 2011 Rugby World Cup behinds up and move on to the 2015 Rugby World Cup and the build up to it.