Now the smoke has cleared,comments on RWCs.

First topic message reminder :

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.

We got England v France and NZ v France, which was the bogeys of 2007. You can't have everything in one tournament

I mean, come on, Wales actually beat not one but TWO Pacific Islands. It's like they were possessed...

'Wales actually beat not one but TWO pacific islands. Its like they were possessed'

Ha,ha,ha,ha,hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! Spot on , but i think you should have a little more respect for the best team in the NH and World cup winners in waiting and waiting and waiting, waiting

Kiwireddevil wrote:

red_stag wrote:Kick and Chase - am I to take from that that you reckon Ireland beating Australia wasn't a shock result

Australia sans Pocock and Moore was always going to struggle with Ireland - it meant Ireland's ball carrying back row were free to play their A game without having to worry about conceding turnovers.

From memory Ioane was also missing for Australia. He was their #1 line breaker and tackler in the tri-nations and his running meters were so far in advance of anybody else that he covered more ground with the ball in hand than the next two players from any country combined. He had an immense year and one that seems to be forgotten given Australia's 3rd place finish.

p.s. EW I think you meant Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!, not Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Mighty- No i meant what i put thank you very much, if i want advice i will seek it out and have never accepted advice that was unsolicited, except when i was told to put my Mortgage on Maori- venture in the 84, or 85 Grand national. That has been the only unsolicited advice followed. But thanks for the thought.

Sorry then EM. I stand corrected.

english warrior wrote:'Wales actually beat not one but TWO pacific islands. Its like they were possessed'

Ha,ha,ha,ha,hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! Spot on , but i think you should have a little more respect for the best team in the NH and World cup winners in waiting and waiting and waiting, waiting

As long as we are better than England .......... and we are, that'll do me.

Woodstock- Really, well the IRB rankings don't agree, and neither do our respective records tally at World cup.

english warrior wrote:Woodstock- Really, well the IRB rankings don't agree, and neither do our respective records tally at World cup.

IRB Rankings yeah they mean a whole lot. Wales also did better at the WCin 2011 and no doubt 2015 too.

gonna sit back and light a cohiba and watch this one play out

Guys. With the deepest respect, don't you think perhaps this latest twist of the thread might be more appropriate on the Engand v Wales Bickering Thread? The link to comments on the last world cup seems quite tenuous.

Well it is really simple Gatts.

His is bigger than his, but he doesn't want to show him, becuase he is not really sure whether his is bigger than his, and he also doesn't want to show him, becuase he isn't sure either.

It's called a stalemate.

Wales did a lot better at the WC in 2011 ? won 3 and lost 3, yeah really great, and as such i am green with envy over Welsh rugby success !! Hahaha,

Just remind me of Wales average placing throughout the 6 nations and i think you'll come up with 4th, i suppose its those Wooden spoons bringing the average down !!

I have to say though that lulling the World in to thinking Wales are not very good is a tactic that i feel is working really well for the 'Principality' Good luck this 6 nations and hope you can improve on your average of 4th.

For Wales the median is the problem statistic - I think they've been 4th something like 6 (or 7?) out of 11 times now.

In any given 6N you can be sure the bottom 3 will look like this with about 50% likelihood:

Wales
Scotland
Italy

For a 6 team competition, you shouldn't be able to do that so accurately!

english warrior wrote:Wales did a lot better at the WC in 2011 ? won 3 and lost 3, yeah really great, and as such i am green with envy over Welsh rugby success !! Hahaha,

Just remind me of Wales average placing throughout the 6 nations and i think you'll come up with 4th, i suppose its those Wooden spoons bringing the average down !!

I have to say though that lulling the World in to thinking Wales are not very good is a tactic that i feel is working really well for the 'Principality' Good luck this 6 nations and hope you can improve on your average of 4th.

We have to be careful with that line of argument EW. After all we celebrated our 2007 final, and discarded the heavy loss (also to South Africa :| ) in the pool stage and loss in the final as irrelevant on the basis that making a final is an achievement. Those two losses were more than sides who went out earlier in the competition suffered. It might just be better overall to say "well done on your semi-final" to the citizens of the principality and focus on our own shortcomings rather than lobbing stones over the border.

Mightyironpaw- 'It might just be better overall to say 'well done on your semi final' to the citizens of the Principality'

Whhhaaaat, are you out of your mind man, has your common sense completely deserted you???

Go to a darkened room and lie down. My,oh my what is the world coming to!!!

The smoke has cleared but there sure is a lot of hot air still blowing about here.