Ö÷²¥´óÐã

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Ryan Jones

A step too far for England? (98)

Swansea - After defying their doubters once again, and yes my hands are held up, .

That they will face South Africa in that game is an ironic twist of fate considering .

And should they manage to overturn the gulf in class evident on that day just over a month ago, it really would complete a comeback of such magnitude that it would sit comfortably in a list of the greatest of all-time, next to , or !

, largely because England didn’t allow it to.

They executed a game-plan faultlessly for the second game running and showed how self-belief, solid defensive structure andto winning, can produce results.

Once again they moved from set-piece to set piece, all the while putting the squeeze on the French pack and in between scavenged and foraged at the breakdown which didn’t allow France the opportunity to build a tempo.

Having said that, I do believe that France shot themselves in the foot by persevering with Beauxis at fly-half as the limitations to his all round game, compared to that of Michalak, played into England’s hands.

Surely if they could have opened the game up early on and produced some of the rugby they showed in the latter stages then they would have piled the pressure on England.

But instead it was England who got a flyer and Lewsey’s early score allowed them to settle into the game and gave them the impetus to go on and grab the result.

The rest of us can learn so much from their backs-to-the-wall revival, and also maybe the policy of selecting the players and employing tactics (which are arguably negative) to achieve success at a given moment in time and against a specific opposition.

If the likes of Wales, New Zealand or France employed the same attitude there would likely be a public outcry due to the style of game with which the fans are historically used to seeing from their team.

wilkinson_square_get446.jpg

As far as Wales are concerned, it’s us players too who have championed the and after showing that it can be successful in the , the boys are now desperate to show that it still can be.

Not to heed the lessons that this tournament has offered would be entirely ignorant though, and with the way the laws stand today and after England’s demonstration in the knock-out phases of how they can be made to work for you - we should take note.

That’s tough for me to admit, being something of a rugby romanticist, but it’s very hard to argue with W’s in the results column.

I’ve a feeling the reservations of the Welsh fans, the Kiwi fans and the French fans alike may be tempered by a World Cup final spot.

Balance is the key though and as far as Wales are concerned, I’m sure we will continue to look for that perfect blend of solidarity and flair when the , whoever he may be.

The South Africans, meanwhile, booked their final place with, what turned out to be, .

Their task was made considerably easier by the two interception tries they scored as both came at key times and stunted the momentum that the Argentines were building.

It was clear that Argentina were not going to leave that stadium wondering "what if" and they took the game to the Springboks from the outset, picking angles and off-loading at will.

But as they have done throughout the tournament, the South Africans just slipped into another gear at key moments and without ever setting the place alight never really looked like losing. Having said that, the score did not really reflect the overall game.

England can take heart, especially from the fact that Argentina got a lot of change at the breakdown during the game - an area in which England have excelled during this tournament.

I remember noting in a previous blog that this competition would be won and lost at the breakdown and that could very well prove to be the case.

In turn, the South African’s will no doubt target and it is vital that he stands up to the challenge of his abrasive opponents. There is no doubt he will, as bottle is something Jonny has in plentiful supply. If his game holds together meaning the South Africans cannot get to him in the way that they’ll plan to, then he can be the key.

Finals gone by have been decided by the narrowest margins and with a strong defence, an accurate goal-kicker and maybe most importantly, , you may be inclined to fancy England.

After opting against them throughout the tournament though, I do not want to tempt fate by pinning my colours to their mast. I’ll just say I think it will be very tight and the winner will be the team who can hold their nerve and close out the game best in the last quarter.

The good news for England fans is I think that will turn out to be South Africa. That should ensure it is Phil Vickery who will be holding the cup aloft come 10 o’clock on Saturday!

Ryan Jones plays number eight for Wales but misses the World Cup through injury.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 12:56 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Gary S wrote:

A nice honest viewpoint Ryan. A lot of comments on these blogs have pointed at the boring/ugly way England have got to the final but as you say, it's how you play "at a given moment in time and against a specific opposition".

And as for your last paragraph, I hope you are wrong again too!

  • 2.
  • At 01:15 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • RIMJAWPIG wrote:

England have been under scrutiny for the past three and a half years. Yet even with the world cup in their grasp, they are still written off, albeit with an underlying feeling among English fans that they can do it! Its a fair assumption to make the Boks the favourites as they have been a side without equals this tournament and not just with one player making the difference, which is what England is relying on (Wilko). Yet regardless of all the plaudits and the bruisings we took in the group match, it is more than possible that England can retain the world cup, through their style that has destroyed so many opposite packs and thats what we need to do tommorrow. break up the game, stun them into submission, destroy any hope of a clean, flowing game and sing some sassoon style pro's to ignite some national pride all the way to France once more.

  • 3.
  • At 01:16 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Steve Evans wrote:

Ryan, I hope your prediction is on the money this time.

The team who have played the best rugby this tournament deserves to win it, lets hope its South Africa!

  • 4.
  • At 01:22 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Phil wrote:

Ryan, generally a very good article. However, we must be careful that " The Welsh Way " doesn't become our albatross. I'm sorry, but I would swap places with England now if it meant playing a limited game and winning ugly. Unfortunately, our limitations are in the trenches, where it counts. Remembrow who played as well as they coulder the Aussies putting us under pressure in the front row in Cardiff a few weeks ago. What was all that about! Yes, it would be great to play with a fluid, Barbarian style approach, but we don't have the foundation to do this at the moment. We have the piano players, but we need more piano shifters.
Hurry back pal, you could be one of our best piano shifters!!!

ps;- no disrespect to the other guys in the back row who played as well as they could under the circumstances.

  • 5.
  • At 01:37 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Mac Eddey wrote:

One thing I think the critics of the way England play forget is that you have to adapt your style to the players you have available.

The party selected for the World Cup is arguably a pragmatic selection but few can spot any glaring ommissions other than through injuries. Bryan Ashton's instincts are to play a more expansive, less structured game but you need the flair and the confidence to do so.

Part of the reason for the decline of Wales since the great days of the 1970's is that they tried to play the way of Gareth Edwards and Barry John even when they lacked the players capable of doing so. It may be romantic but I've never heard any Welshman claim to be in love with losing every week.

The Kiwis have always been pragmatic. When they had all-conquering forwards they played a forward game; when they've had the backs to do so they've spun it wide. You can't tell me Sid Going or 'Pine Trees' was romantic.

I'd love to see England with silky backs to equal their powerful pack but I don't see players of the quality of Guscott or Will Greenwood at the moment. Some of the youngsters look promising and maybe we will see a team like the England of 2002 - they were going into their shells by 2003.

Any cup competition is ultimately about winning. Does anyone care that SA won it in 1995 with kicks?

It may be a step too far but Zinzan Brook also tips the Saffies and he's not been right once yet so I live in hope...

  • 6.
  • At 01:38 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

thanks for predicting SA!! ;-)

  • 7.
  • At 01:43 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • mark topping wrote:

Go the Boks !
I cant take another 4 years of drivel in the media about how saint Jonny can save the world with a single kick !

  • 8.
  • At 01:45 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Lee Simmonds wrote:

Just a thought going back to 66 Sir Alf picked a team to do a Job in the competition no Jimmy Greaves as he did not fit. After the first SA game the team has been exactly the same in theory as that picked to do a specific gameplan. It has worked so far here's hoping it continues.

Ryan thanks for been candid in the blog.

  • 9.
  • At 01:46 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • eugene wrote:

If you feel that England should not even be in the final like I do then please check out this link which captures this feeling very well

As for the final I expect, In fact, I demand a SA win- life would really be intolerable if the the dreary English manage to stagger to a utterly contemptable last gasp wobbly feeble drop goal type of win - that kind of result wold turn away many unbiased fans - which I am not of course!

Actually, I am not a great fan of SA rugby who have a pretty boring approach to rugby as well generally although they have some great players in their backs this time so I wish them well. They have also played by far the most intelligent rugby in this world cup - their game management against Samoa and England was flawless.

I am really looking forward to seeing Steyn in action - what a geat player and only 21 - his confidence in his own ability on the world stage is second to none - wish he were Welsh actually!

One last comment on the Wilkinson issue. Lots has been said about what a difference he has made to the team in this world cup. I say Codswallop!! If he had played aginst SA in the group stage they would still have lost 36 - 0

The only reason England have progressed to the final is not Wilko- but opposition sides playing below par and a dash of good fortune thrown in as well.

Lets hope I do not have to eat my own words on Sunday morning!

  • 10.
  • At 01:46 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

All through my rugby playing, I was taught that it's the forwards that win you the game. The backs merely determine by how much.
So once England sorted out their forwards, it's no surprise to me that they started winning. The games are tight though because the backs aren't firing yet...now if 11-15 can just get it together as well then we could be in for a real treat. Step 1 though is for Vickery and the boys to nullify the SA pack.

  • 11.
  • At 01:51 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Sundanceingspaceace wrote:


What on earth is this crap about ugly Rugby.
Some are even saying " for the sake of rugby "I hope SA win because they play exciting Rugby"

Sport, particularly Rugby, is about people playing to their strengths, allowing people of all shapes sizes and talents to have a place in the game, it gives the coach the room to compete by assessing his resources and cutting his cloth to suit.
Oh what a shame for rugby if it was only reserved for the wizz kids. Go Jonny Wilkicksom

  • 12.
  • At 01:52 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

I don't understand your point about France "persevering with Beauxis". I recall they pulled him off with half an hour to go, giving Michalak a more than decent opportunity to influence the game.

Personally, I think Laporte felt everything was going to plan when they were 9-8 up after 50 mins, and he thought he could have some magic from Michalak finish England off. The surprise was that France continued to play a very limited game with Michalak at 10, though this had a lot to do with England's stifling defence.

But the breakdown will be the key tomorrow; the side that leaks turnover ball will lose. The loosie in you must believe this!

  • 13.
  • At 02:00 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Worth remembering that the free-flowing Welsh centres and wings of the 1970's had a very solid and mean pack, and certainly 'won ugly' on many occasions.

  • 14.
  • At 02:08 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Daf Sills-Jones wrote:

Well written, Ryan. I've read your column a few times now, and it's always thoughtful, insightful, and intelligent. You obviously know your Rugby stuff - if your injury persist, perhaps you should consider going for the Welsh coaching job!

  • 15.
  • At 02:21 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Dan wrote:

Can you hear the sound of laughter?? It is coming accross the border. It is the English chuckling at this obsession with the Welsh Way. Winning pretty is nice but winning is all that matters. Period.

  • 16.
  • At 02:21 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • anglophone wrote:

I like Ryan's blogs for their frankness, insight and almost 100% predictive failure rate. That aside, I do struggle sometimes to see what all the fuss is about in England's playing style. Admittedly I do have the rosiest of rose tinted glasses and I will readily accept that some England performances in recent years have been a bit leaden, but the ugly tag can get a bit overdone. I watched both the Australia and France games and I didn't notice a shortage of ball going down the line...the fact that the line can't seem to do much with it is another point entirely. I've not noticed one single team bar the Pacific Islanders reject a kick at goal in favour of a quick tap. I've seen no shortage of rucking and mauling from all the major sides...everyone is trying to score the despised drop goal! (Just try to score one by the way when 500lbs of prime beef is inches from flattening you!)

The England RWC side of 2003 had a formidible pack, but also a superb backline that cut a number of the self-proclaimed "teams of the pretty game" to pieces. The generation before that contained backs of the calibre of Jerry Guscott and Rory Underwood.

The fact that England does not have a backline of that quality now is self evident but I don't see a lack of adventure...only a lack of finishing against ever improving defences.

Give the guys a break and remember that they are in the final and anything could happen. The only worry now is that the media and fair weather supporters have re-emerged expecting nothing less than victory. Up to now, England's edge has been in the overweaning confidence of their opponents. With all the expectation unleashed, that edge is being blunted by the hour. I think that Ryan's prediction is correct but let's hope that it lives up to his previous predictions.

  • 17.
  • At 02:35 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Peter Manning wrote:

"Any cup competition is ultimately about winning. Does anyone care that SA won it in 1995 with kicks?"

That is a fantaastic point - I am fed up to the back teeth of England being criticised for 'boring' rugby - it's within the laws of the game so it's legitimate rugby that is allowed and should be applauded when it works...open rugby is fine when required - what is required in tight games is nerves of steel, calming situations and playing to strengths that is what got England through last time and will get them through again.

As for the kicking...as a golfer once said "there is no point in being able to hit the green in 2 if you cannot putt" - that is the same for rugby and kicking - you can score tries but if you cannot kick the penalties and conversions you can still loose!

  • 18.
  • At 02:50 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Peter Manning wrote:

"The only worry now is that the media and fair weather supporters have re-emerged expecting nothing less than victory. "

Ain't that the truth sadly - and it's these 'supporters' that are also harping on about 'ugly' play and 'no tries' etc etc etc - without even trying to understand what technical and physical effort it takes to ruck and maul continuosly agaisn't players that are just as big and fit...

As you also rightly say England have thrown the ball around quite a lot - if Mike Catt had held on to the ball, that certainly would of been a try - Josh Lewsley's run at the start of the French game and how about Paul Sackey and his tries?

SA scored interception tries and were applauded for it - Sackey scored a 80m try and was crticised... confused..I know I am..

  • 19.
  • At 02:51 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • stuart mack wrote:

You know what, we executed our game plan and won the last two games.

Australia and France ended up playing a game that wasn't right for them and they lost. We won.

Let's give England the credit they deserve, massive underdogs in consecutive games, who overcame the odds playing to their strengths and their oponents weaknesses, this is winning rugby!

I am absolutely fed up to the back teeth with this attitude from the sidelines that England play boring unexciting rugby. That some how our victories aren't worth as much as others because of the way we play.

You have to ask yourself, would you rather be widely regarded as the best team in the world and at home (NZ), or the most talented in the Northern hamisphere but in the 3rd - 4th place play-off?

Or in the final competing for the trophy? wininng ugly? fine, as long as we win!

  • 20.
  • At 02:51 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Chris A wrote:

Eugene, Post#9. I realy do enjoy the point / counter-point of these blog discussions but rehashing the not-so-firmy held beliefs that England are boring etc etc etc as opposed to the real verisimilitude that they play to the strengths of their own team and embraace with open arms any augmented lapses of the opposition. One among many SH articles on the England style and the SH hopes for an England loss. Sorry but the old rehash doesn't buy any favours for the SH, or more particularly the sour grapes-stricken New Zealanders.

  • 21.
  • At 02:55 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Chris A wrote:

It seems that everyone has missed the fact that Ryan said Phil Vickery will be holding the cup aloft come 10PM on Saturdaay. That to me means he is predicting an England win, or have I missed something

  • 22.
  • At 03:03 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • NFN wrote:

Please tell me I didn't just read Ryan Jones liken the Welsh rugby team to both the All Blacks and France, not once but twice within one blog. Next he'll be arguing the welsh were unlucky not to get out of their pool...

  • 23.
  • At 03:06 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Right so far wrote:

Jonny has to raise his percentage - Brian's good -(but over hyped) not the quickest at the world cup or the most elusive runner. They will fear JR more than we fear Habana.

This game will be won and lost very simply in the line out.

There will be 30-40 kicks to touch in the game. If South Africa disrupt England in the line like they did in the last game they will have as good as 10 penalties kicked to touch.

Regan's first three throws will be the most important three things he ever does in his life. Percy will launch one in to our twenty two. Regan will throw and if he misses a few the england morale will drop and it will be game over.

IF England win their own lineout ball,and jonny's radar functions then they will win the game.


  • 24.
  • At 03:06 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • John C wrote:

Eugene, Post #9.

England are in the final because they deserve to be in the final. You can post your silly little links to your silly little Southern Hemisphere newspapers, it matters not a jot my son. ENGLAND ARE IN THE FINAL OF THE WORLD CUP! Why? Because we are not arrogant enough to think we can beat teams just by flinging the ball around. What we have lacked in this World Cup, we have made up for in passion, pride and a sheer will to win. Had your Aussies or Kiwi's shown an ounce of what England have shown, I'm sure that they would've progressed further. You are one of many bitter people who have shown contempt towards England. And why? Because deep down you all wish your team had displayed the patriotism that our boys have shown. Win or lose tomorrow I will be proud of English Rugby, because I know they will leave the pitch knowing they could not have given any more. And that, my son, is what it is all about!

  • 25.
  • At 03:12 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Chris Lanigan wrote:

Re Message 9. I am a Welshman but I really hope England win now just to annoy that Rattue chap haha. Anyway don't know if you'll do another column Ryan after the final but they have made for good reading. Hope the shoulder gets better very soon. I do speak to my dad about you (as he speaks to yours frequently.) looking for updates on how you are etc.

I also have to say that I would settle for winning by what ever means necessary. If we had attempted to play England's game as opposed to the supposed Welsh way we might have done better against Fiji.

  • 26.
  • At 03:17 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Jules wrote:

How far has pretty rugby got New Zealand and Wales (arguably not its finest exponent anyway) in recent weeks? Both teams failing to live up to their hype. Ireland have played some of the most attractive rugby in the game in the year preceeding the tournament and look how well prepared for the world cup they were. Tell an Australian that playing pretty is more important than winning - particularly the 1999 and 19991 teams - can't recall either of those finals being festivals of running rugby! Tell Joel Stransky that his world cup winners medal is worth nothing because all of the points came from his boot.

I've rarely read such drivel in all my life - except perhaps that diatribe of sour grapes from the NZ Herald linked in one the earlier posts.

Stick to playing the game Mr. Jones - you were pretty good at that once.

  • 27.
  • At 03:20 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • pierre wrote:

You know chaps, it may very well be a step too far for England. There is no doubt that the Boks are a very talented and capable bunch of rugby players, well able to win this match

But if it is, I hope we go down with all guns blazing and lay it on the line until the end. I for one could not have asked more from these guys considering where we started from.

He who dares Rodney, he who dares.

  • 28.
  • At 03:25 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Garcon wrote:

No way england is going fot win this final. They are too slow.

  • 29.
  • At 03:30 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • James wrote:

Eugene - I'm prepared to bet that New Zealand would have settled for a contemptible wobbly drop goal against France. Unfortunately they had neither the intelligence nor the nerve to execute it.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but, then agaisn, so am I. You're talking, to use your own rather hackneyed phrase, codswallop.

  • 30.
  • At 03:32 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • JT - London wrote:

Not another Welshman commenting on England's alleged weaknesses!

Let's save it for the final, England are world champions for a reason and are likely to be for another 4 years. They progress through competitions and this world cup is another example of this progression.

Let's send the Boks home as we have the Aussies and French, just some of the other teams that were meant to beat us!

Go England!

  • 31.
  • At 03:32 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Chris A, post 21

He actually said that given his previous record - i.e. getting it wrong each time - predicting the Boks would win, which he did. should ensure that Phil Vickry picks up the cup. So we're safe [I hope].

I've also had a 100% record on the England game since the group stage ended and hope it continues. Still heart says England and head says the opposition.

Steve

  • 32.
  • At 03:33 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • gebe wrote:

'break up the game, stun them into submission, destroy any hope of a clean, flowing game...'

Nice.

  • 33.
  • At 03:35 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Matthew wrote:

#9 Eugene. A Chris Rattue article used as your 1st exhibit for the prosectution...interesting that. I wonder if you have cared to read any of the other accurate vitriol from that smallest of small minded journalists. Perhaps i can direct you to an article he wrote not more than two weeks ago (but certainly not less) entitled "France pose absolutely no threat to the All Blacks". Some absolute corkers in there, not least when he uses the article, as every other, to have a sly dig at the grumpy old men of England. From reading much of this nonesense it would appear that not only is playing "boring" rugby some thing for which every rose wearing follower should be embarrassed about, but also that to succeed with age, and apparent treachery, is somehow inferior to a victory achieved through youth and adventure. But go forth, Mr Eugene, take pleasure in whichever means you so desire. I know where i shall be taking mine from.

  • 34.
  • At 03:36 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

The issue with the 'ugly' rugby tag has always irked me; as a team we have mostly played what is in front of us, rather than get creative and fling the ball around. Practical; yes. Ugly; unfair. Its only the quality of our forwards at the breakdown, who compete so effectively, that give us the advantage that most opposition forwards cannot compete against. Hence penalties awarded; hence kicked penalties; hence 'boring'. Argentina used the same game plan, but because they dont have the heritage of a pack that can compete with the best and not concede, they have had to develope their running game as well. If England faced forward packs that can compete on a regular basis, we would alter the game plan to suit. Dont blame us for our oppositions' weakneses determining our game plan.

  • 35.
  • At 03:39 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Guys

I'm definitely a fan rather than a player, suffering from acute bone idleness. However surely the key point is that you can't throw the ball about, with any real chance of success, without both good backs and a powerful set of forwards? England are seen as deficient in the back category but other teams with allegedly better resources have failed because their forwards have often been on the back foot. Their forwards have failed in comparison to the opposition they face. Similarly, in the group match with SA, as well as the lack of a proper kicker, the problem was that the forwards were suffering from SA pressure and hence the backs initiative was always with the Boks.

Stevep

  • 36.
  • At 03:43 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Eugene post #9

It's interesting to read some of the work of our southern hemisphere colleagues, but perhaps you should look at statistics more.
In 95, when our friends from NZ played and lost to the Boks, there was not a single try in the final, so much for their flinging it about.
Even more, the last 4 world cup finals have seen a measley 6 tries in total. 30 points scored by placing the ball over the try line from a total 105. those 70 points from the foot have helped win the last 4 world cups.
I know the IRB dropped the F back in the 90's, but the game I know and love is Rugby Football (there's a hint in that name!)
Keep flinging it about, I'm sure one day the rules will change so that it gives your team a chance to get to the final! In the meantime come on the boot of Jonny!

  • 37.
  • At 03:45 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • DK wrote:

Ryan,

Please, enough of this 'Welsh Way' b*llocks. And if you could be a little less condescending towards England (keeping in mind the difference in class between the current English and Welsh teams) that'd be great.

By all means write England off for a third time. Exactly what us English want to hear.

Maybe you could teach the Welsh powderpuff forwards how to show a bit of commitment and crucially, skill, the 'English Way'.

And please don't make out that you're not Anti-English because it becomes more and more clear every week that you are, regardless of you 'putting your hands up'.

  • 38.
  • At 03:45 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • chris wrote:

am in uganda,africa but am so sure that the british are up for the test,come jonny get it for us,that doesnt leave out,sheridan,robinson,mad dog,corry,sackey,vickery!!!let's do it boys!!!

  • 39.
  • At 03:48 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Jim de Alsace wrote:

Ryan,
I've been reading articles and blogs throughout the RWC and, amoungst the deluge of rubbish I've read, was happy to see an article that makes a bit of analytical sense.
All the key strategic elements to winning these top-level games are sadly for us at this time, not the Wales Way which we know and love to watch.
The high-level game has been dominated by tight unforgiving, error-free forward play and massive committment to obtain and retain possession in the breakdown. This together with strong defence and great kicking, can help secure a victory.
On this basis England have played superbly in the knockout stages despite Jonny Wilkinsons lack of consistent kicking form.
However, the Boks have consistently demonstrated as much if not more strength in both areas aswell, and as I expected, for me Juan Smith has been the strongest forward I have seen in this tournament so far and looks like the Boks' answer to Richard Hill. Percy Mongomery has also sustained the kicking consistency that Wilkinson has lacked.
So, despite being a proud Englishman and committed England rugby fan, I have to agree with your prediction for South Africa to win.
I just hope the boys play another blinder and prove us both wrong.
SO COME ON ENGLAND !!!!!!

  • 40.
  • At 03:52 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Sorry, just read my post and I replace the number "70" with "75", maths was never my thing.
And (the most embarassing of all) I replace "rules" with "laws".
I apologise to all that may have found this offensive in any way!

  • 41.
  • At 03:53 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Bifey wrote:

Sorry, but before we record a historic win tomorrow, I want to take time out to pay tribute to the team, and say I’m proud they are out there representing England. Let’s compare the rugby team to the football team who are in the process of screwing up.

I agree with contributors who say they’re happy the England football team may not qualify for Euro ’08. Call me an unpatriotic killjoy (and football fans will), but it’s what the team, the tabloids and the football fans deserve. The sport needs to look at rugby and shape up. My belief is the tabloids create completely counterproductive elevated public opinion such as the famous ‘England expects’, and a culture where ‘passion’ for football is measured only in aggression.

Rugby is the more aggressive game when the whistle blows. But off the ball, football reveals by far the uglier side of human nature. Here’s a rough list of illustrations of football’s absence of basic integrity:

- ‘earning’ free kicks, by diving and appealing (this isn’t cricket)
- causing the dismissal of oppo players
- openly congratulating teammates who practise this
- claiming corners/throw-ins when they know they should go the other way
- verbal abuse of the ref (although querying his decisions is permitted within the rules!)

Off the pitch it’s the same. Stadium violence, ‘firms’, football fans who torment, harass, bully and scorn rugby fans – often flavoured with a perceived class difference (I’ve seen it). Can you think of a more idiotic reason for a public assault on a stranger? Do rugby fans do this to football fans, can anyone tell me?

And it’s not enough to say this aggression just shows the commitment, the ‘passion’, the will-to-win. None of this is in rugby, and it could be. The rugby team is frankly outperforming our football team (at World Cup level) despite a fraction of the salaries in the sport.

England fans currently take football simply too seriously. It’s only a game, like rugby. We want to win, sure, but if that’s your real wish, just get some perspective! That way our players aren’t thinking of the ruinous tabloid headlines of tomorrow when they step up to the penalty.

In the meantime, Jonny Wilkinson as he squats is thinking of the glory and the adoration he has already earnt, hence his spot on the plinth in Trafalgar Square. He and the team are ambassadors for the country not just the sport.

  • 42.
  • At 03:54 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Don wrote:

There seems to be some sour grapes in some (not all) comments. Perhaps everyone should reveal which team they support.

Don--Anglo Scot

  • 43.
  • At 04:00 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Sorry, just read my post and I replace the number "70" with "75", maths was never my thing.
And (the most embarassing of all) I replace "rules" with "laws".
I apologise to all that may have found this offensive in any way!

  • 44.
  • At 04:01 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Gareth wrote:

#22

He said France, New Zealand and Wales play an open game - he never said that Wales were as good as the other two at it, which they sadly havent been for a few years

  • 45.
  • At 04:02 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Saffa wrote:

uh...ive just read your description of the England France match..and I think the manner in which you praise England for their "tactical play" makes me believe that I must have been watching a different match. Fantastic that they won and that Johnny pulled through(because clearly it wasnt a team effort), but I found myself channel hopping during the match. I was that bored..maybe Ive just been watching too much rugby but the first 60 mins were a bore, any team could have pulled it out of the hat at the end. Lets not live in la la land about Englands performance in the SF. Good luck to both teams.

  • 46.
  • At 04:09 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Michael McInnes wrote:

England v South Africa - Wilkinson v Montgomery - not as ridiculous as it may seem. Penalties, conversions and drop kicks have helped hugely in taking England to this point, and mainly penalties and conversions for South Africa. Both men will be targeted - Wilkinson is injury prone and being targeted combined with the damage he risks with his fearless, courageous tackling is a concern. Montgomery can be rattled under well placed high balls and SA would sorely miss his kicking, with the best percentage and highest points garnered in this World Cup. Wilkinson is the more potent match winner, providing he remains steady. Montgomery is deadly accurate and if they are close after 65 minutes these two can either win or lose the game for their teams. It can be said this often applies - but this is the Final and both men are the best day in day out point kickers in the game. Another intriguing subplot in this fascinating Final ahead.

  • 47.
  • At 04:11 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Rugbynewz wrote:

I thought we had got rid of most of the bad losing sentiment off these blogs from the SH lot, see the post at 01:46 PM on 19 Oct 2007 by eugene, I guess they just can't help themselves! He does not even have the courage of his convictions at the end of his piece, much the same as I predict the boks will be!

  • 48.
  • At 04:13 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

Ah Eugene my dear chap (post #9).

I believe you'll find that we're playing a game called Rugby Union which involves a scrum as a major part of the game. You seem to want to play a game that doesn't involve a scrum. That would be a game called Rugby League.
My guess is though that you don't want to admit that game exists as last time out the mighty kiwi's got hammered 58-0 by good old Oz (4 days ago). So instead you look to change the rules of a game you seem great at playing under "exhibition match" conditions but choke to death on under knock out conditions.

To steal a golf saying and amend it for rugby, "Use the Line for Show and Scrum for dough". That's why the 1987 Kiwi team won as their scrum was great.

Now trot off back to your little Ivory tower and drink your 'Bitter' beer whilst watching a great final contest between 2 great "Competition" teams.

  • 49.
  • At 04:14 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

Guys!!-its 50/50 in the final?
South Africa------is known to " fall at the final hurdle!! "
Past results mean nothing!!
England are " renowned "for grinding it out!!
Mental pressure sure is with England!!-----the reigning champions?
Let's play!!
Steve from Aussie!

  • 50.
  • At 04:25 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • simon wrote:

Memory jog to Chris Rattue (author of the NZ Herald article in which he suggests that the 'Boks need to win to 'save the universe' - too long spent watching 'Heroes'?):

Your 'nightmare' World Cup Final with the only scoring coming from the boot has already taken place. Just to remind you of the details, it was contested in 1995 by those infamous Northern Hemisphere bores South Africa and New Zealand - and provided a pulsating spectacle, with some of the best drama and pathos ever witnessed on a rugby field.

Dislike England if you like, but save us your grandiose one-eyed value judgements. You obviously have a way with words. If, one day, you ever grow up, you might even become an adult rugby journalist.

  • 51.
  • At 04:33 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Andrew Collins wrote:

So if the the two best rugby teams in the world are out of the competition, then presumably no one in their right mind will bother to turn up tomorrow just to watch a dull uninspiring spectacle. The ABs and the Aussies would be unlikely to to put in a decent performance against Barnstaple RFC in their present frayed state.

  • 52.
  • At 04:42 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

DK, post 37

I also thought Ryan was being a little arrogant in referring to that sort of open play as the Welsh way but your outburst is way out of line. What point to you see in descending to abuse, especially of a nation rather than an individual who has said something you object to. Also I'm not sure there's that great a difference in 'class' between the two teams in recent years. We have hit a good spell of form and put in some great performances since the SA match but I'm nowhere near as complacent as you seem to be about say next years matches. Whatever way, even if we were regularly pounding them by 50+ wins there's no reason for descending into such language. Better, if you have nothing worthwhile to say, to say nowt.

Stevep

  • 53.
  • At 04:51 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Connal wrote:

'South Africa is known to fail at the final hurdle'. Aye, I remember it so well in '95, a real wash out South Africa were there.

Similar amount of nonsene I expected from deluded England fans: Habana and South Afica side in general are 'overrated', they won 'ugly' in '95. Absolute garbage, though I'd expect little else from some of the myopic little chappies. Please don't liken the great South Africa team now or then to England, it is grossly unfair on the former who play some smashing stuff. Needless to say South Africa have a powerful pack who won't be 'bullied' (to use the terrible ITV commentay description) and backs who don't try and ape England's inane kicking game. Not just Habana but Pietersen, James, and du Preez among the best in the world in their respective positions.

  • 54.
  • At 04:51 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Bifey, post 41

Agree with most of what you say, although as a patriot I would rather the football team, and that from Scotland, were getting through although both look unlikely now. [Although at least the Scots can still decide their own fate, albeit by defeating Italy].

However I think you undermined your own case a bit, before going on to talking about overhyped expectations, by starting off "but before we record a historic win tomorrow". It may have been tongue in cheek, in which case I apologies but while I'm hoping I'm counting no chickens until the final whistle blows.

Stevep

  • 55.
  • At 04:59 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Infuriated wrote:

England have done brilliantly to get to the final, and their coaches and players should be applauded on the achievement. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they won tomorrow.

My issue is not with england 'winning ugly', as this is largely irrelevant. They will play the way that gives them the best chance of victory. My problem is with the way the breakdowns have been refereed throughout the tournament (I'm pretty sure this was an IRB directive issued at the beginning of the tournament). The extra competition that has been allowed has served to starve teams of quick, clean possession, which, in my opinion, is why teams have been encouraged to play a negative style of rugby.

There have been countless incidents where teams have been blatantly handling in rucks, or diving over the ball en masse (Argentina were tremendously succesful exponents of this tactic), which has contributed to numerous turnovers. Referees have been consistent in allowing this, but I do think that it doesn't lend itself to very postive tactics from teams. I guess the kicking tactics are a result of teams thinking "do we risk the inevitable turnover if we play some phases, or shall we just get rid?"

Only my opnion, and I have a feeling it'll be shot down as not many other people seem to have mentioned it.

  • 56.
  • At 05:09 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • TimD wrote:

This is the World cup and at this stage of the World Championship, it is about winning. Both teams are highly trained and motivated individuals, very skilled at what they do. Because they are so skilled they have absolutely superb defences. Unless an error of judgement takes place or a poor bounce of the ball both defences are going to be very sound and a try at this stage will rarely be scored. Think back to one of the best finals New Zealand South Africa - won in extra time with a drop goal. Think of the 91 final one by Australia in a very tight match - England lost by trying to play flowing Rugby - if they’d stuck to their normal style they could well have won.

My point is that at this stage of a World cup, the point is about being brave, believing and defending with your body and your soul. The teams will be so tight and close in worth that the narrowest of margins will mean victory or defeat. England have a superb professional in Wilkinson, who dedicates his life to his craft. When it came to it, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, Australia and New Zealand had some bad luck, but also lacked the physical strength and belief to win. France were superb, but could not break us down. England had the strength and the belief and if they keep it, stand a good chance of winning the World Cup again. I have nothing but admiration for them.

  • 57.
  • At 05:27 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • simon wrote:

Re posts 37 and 52,

...but Ryan Jones makes a good and sound point (perhaps accidentally?) in referring to 'the Welsh Way'.

Misty eyed memories and increasingly grainy black and white images of the wonderful Welsh teams of the 70's are like a millstone round Welsh necks. Not only have they a record of achievement to live up to, but the memory (perhaps now a little overdone by time) of an unstoppably beautiful flowing rugby by which all these successes seemed to have been achieved.

In my view, that is a double whammy which has turned many recent Welsh players from potentially very good to nervous wrecks, weighed down by this burden of history. And the paradox is that, as soon as a Welsh side hints at a resurgence in fortunes (World Cup '87, Grand Slam '05), the burden of this history comes back again to flatten them.

So there is indeed a perceived 'Welsh Way', but is it not time for Wales to become more pragmatic and play to the strengths of its squad at the time, rather than seek endlessly to emulate the style of their most successful period?

  • 58.
  • At 05:31 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Stephen P wrote:

"Jonny has to raise his percentage - Brian's good -(but over hyped) not the quickest at the world cup or the most elusive runner. They will fear JR more than we fear Habana."

Part 1 - Jonny has to raise his percentage = correct.

Part 2 - We fear Robinson more than you fear Habana???????????????

Yeah right!! Robinson has been a great player and is England's only spark in the back line. That much is true. But he is getting on now and is not as able to cut through defences as he was. The media tells me exactly how much you fear Habana. Probably so much that you will overcompensate and allow guys like Pietersen too much space.

  • 59.
  • At 05:43 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Bob Taylor wrote:

This England team is not that of 4 years ago, but we have a bravery and heart unmatched my any other side in this WC.

If we lose, then we will have done so bravely and can hand over our crown with a bit of dignity.

Perhaps the various jealous posters on this board could consider the last time their team was in a world cup final........

  • 60.
  • At 05:50 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Nick J wrote:

Someone mentioned Chris Rattue in their post... I love the All Blacks myself, though I support Wales (boo hoo), but to Chris Rattue I would say "Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"
Is he, like, the Jeremy Kyle of New Zealand or something? He is ssso narrow-minded (he probably thinks he's being droll, or wry, or ironic... even funny) but he just comes accross as the nastiest little man alive.
I bet he's rubbish at rugby too. Suffers from ALan Partridge syndrome (i.e. weedy at school, but thinks he's an expert on sport).. "that said", I don't want to be seen as doing the same as him. I'll finish off by saying 2 things:
1) I'm sure he's a nice bloke once you get to know him;
2) I think England will win (and I think that's what Ryan was saying, but for a grammatical typo missing out a 'not' in front of South Africa in teh last paragraph)

  • 61.
  • At 05:52 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Bob Taylor wrote:

Christ, some people write some real drivel....

Not naming names... *cough* Eugene *cough*

  • 62.
  • At 06:00 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • SpanishHenry wrote:

So Eugene and your like, England dont deserve to be in the final ?
IF they win they will have beaten two of the tri-nation sides and France, who knocked out the All Blacks. IF South Africa win just who have they beaten...ummm....Argentina and England...boring old England who dont deseverve to be there. SO whose will the better tournament..which team has won the most matches against top teams....would that be England?

  • 63.
  • At 06:19 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Drew wrote:

Re post #9, from the same author as the wonderfully insightful article you linked to, before the France-New Zealand game:

"the All Blacks could play in sackcloths and they'd still stomp all over France."

*smug mode*

  • 64.
  • At 06:51 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

To be honest I expect more than this for my licence fee. I could have written it. If you can’t be bothered to put in a bit more time and effort and say something new, insightful, or even interesting at least get on a train to Paris and enjoy yourself!

  • 65.
  • At 07:10 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • jackthehat wrote:

"Part 2 - We fear Robinson more than you fear Habana???????????????

Yeah right!! Robinson has been a great player and is England's only spark in the back line. That much is true. But he is getting on now and is not as able to cut through defences as he was. The media tells me exactly how much you fear Habana. Probably so much that you will overcompensate and allow guys like Pietersen too much space."

Exactly - media hype. Habana was absolutely skinned by the American winger. His 100m time is actually no quicker than Sackey. Do a youtube search on habana and the robinson. watch the montages and see who's the most devastating runner? Not even close - JR by a country mile.

  • 66.
  • At 07:48 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • BUSHY wrote:

Any other country would drop a placekicker kicking at 60% - and that doesnt include all his missed drop goals. 15 kickers with higher figs than him in the tournament - not bad out of 20 teams !!!

But thankfully for us rugby lovers England cant see past him despite him choking the last 2 weeks and missing all these kicks; thereby almost losing England games they should have won by 15+ points.

Great England pack but dont rely on your worse than average no 10.

For the sake of rugby; Go Bokke !!!

  • 67.
  • At 08:09 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Jeffers wrote:

The quarter finals were a step too far for this boring, untalented team!

  • 68.
  • At 08:19 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

"Do a youtube search on habana and the robinson. watch the montages and see who's the most devastating runner? Not even close - JR by a country mile."

I have lived in England for most of the years Robinson was playing and I accept that youtube will show him to be sensational. I don't question this, his speed from a standing start and sidestep are second to none. He has played well this tournament, but he is NOT the player he was. Habana on the other hand is getting better all the time.

I don't question the talent Robinson has - but you wrote that the Boks will fear Robinson more than you do Habana. As a Bok, I can say that you are wrong on this point. Sakey also has talent, but England do not have the ability to get him the ball in sufficient space to make him dangerous.

  • 69.
  • At 09:09 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • simonhill wrote:

No. 53 - Connal

"backs who don't ape englands kicking game". I almost choked on my dinner with that one. SA vs Argentina was all about the kicking. The only running that went on was from interceptions and ONE moment of class from Habana. In terms of tension and excitement Eng V France had it in spades. If you want to keep people interested there's no point the result being done and dusted by half time like in the SA semi.

We hear about Percy's excellent kicking record and yet for Jonny to kick goals and DG's is somehow wrong. Meanwhile all that bubbles up from Australasia is bile trying to mask envy. I'm looking forward to a great game. Whoever wins come the final whistle will have deserved it regardless of performance or style. I don't expect England to win but then no one expected us to beat Australia or France.

  • 70.
  • At 09:31 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Mic wrote:

I love how England fans can be downright rude about every nation in the rugby world critise other styles of play but if anyone dares offer a differing opinion on Englands style of play then they are up in arms about it and resorting to 'little England' mentality. what a shower, the majority of the English supporters on these blogs do a complete dis-service to the pleasant sport loving majority of the England nation and only help fuel the 'lets hope England lose' mentality which is quite unfair on the team. I think perhaps when talking about chips on shoulders they should have a very long, hard look in the mirror.

  • 71.
  • At 09:31 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Tony Hamer wrote:

I sent this retort to my South African mate. He's been sending me 'the 'Boks are supperior' press articles all week:

I really dont care how we play - we can play like I ice skate (Bambiesque) or turn out in tutus if it means that we have a chance of winning.

Anything can happen on the day, particularly if that skulk bloke sees the red mist, Catty keeps going any JW aims right.

These guys wont be the first 'best team in the World' to be ground into the dust by the strategy of 15 balding old Englishmen. I'm more than happy to bore them to near death and watch them commit hari-kiri.

So bring it on I say, as boring as possible and may the most bald and boring team win tomorrow.

  • 72.
  • At 10:02 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • eugene wrote:

Great to see so much reaction to my first post 9. Unfortunately, most of it was irrelevant. But hey great to see so much enthusiasm for the game - tomorrow probably will not be a blinder as finals never live up to the hype and neither side plays exciting rugby because it is beyond them.

Boks to win by 15! Steyn man of the match.

  • 73.
  • At 10:02 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • BUSHY wrote:

To 71 and so many others who simply dont care how boring it is - do you wonder why with that attitude no neutral can support you ?

Will kids be tempted to take up the sport if it is boring ?

Will the paying public want to watch games that are boring ?

And re 69 - Jonny doesnt "kick goals and drop goals" - he misses nearly half of them. 15 kickers better than him and he nearly lost you the last 2 games.

GO BOKKE !!!

  • 74.
  • At 10:13 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Verynearlysuicidalwelshfan wrote:

Surely Ryan, the tactic of the Rorke's Drift big second-half comeback (ala Australia and Fiji)has been what's mostly done for wales this cup.

As for england, well, im calling it SA, and bok fans may be relieved to learn so far ive only been wrong twice--i thought oz would hammer england (a side i hugely overrated up against one i hugely underrated) and i thought that nz would hammer france. and call me paranoid, but a bok ref knocking nz out off a blatantly forward pass... then again, on that note, maybe elvis was the touch judge. yes, i did call fiji beating wales (when do we ever do well against pacific nations).

England are a different side to what they were a month ago, i just dont feel that theyre as good as the english media make out. lets be honest, the aussies didnt have the forwards dominance to really threaten england, but england still only squeaked past them and the one time they were really under pressure they gave away a try. france just tried to kick them to death and in the last ten england just had the most left in the tank. sa, i feel, have got the better pack (i could be wrong, but i didnt see argentina turn much over) and firepower in the backs its like a pistol versus a rocket launcher. and as much as i like jonny wilkinson (you have to say hes a great player) montgomerys the form kicker this tournament. i think even now the england media still have to learn what wilkinson, all credit to him, has known all along despite the hype--hes only human, guys!

of course, three times wrong is the magic number...

  • 75.
  • At 10:18 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

Eugene you are a dimwit! Quite clearly you know very little about the game...

  • 76.
  • At 10:36 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • gutted irish fan supporting england v sa wrote:

despite some arguements about england's "boring" rugby (hello anyone see scotland v italy- nearly asleep at the end!) no one can say they dont deserve to be in the wc final. if they are able to grind out victories v 2 massive teams, then they totally deserve to be there. if any of the other teams had reached the final do you really think they'd be critiscising the style of rugby played- no. i salute the english for their team spirit, courage and strong mentality. i really dont think they'll win tomorrow as sa have 9 tries in 2 games, have a good scrum, montgomery is the best kicker in this wc and they can also defend with their life. i'm still supporting england though and the best of luck as anything can happen.

  • 77.
  • At 11:14 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • SpanishHenry wrote:

Couple of points:

1. Jeffers 67 - dont be so rude about the South African team I´m sure they´re doing the best they can !!

2. Doesn´t this remind you of the South African Lions Tour - bunch of no hopers who would be hopelessly outclassed by the Boks? Who won that series? You know where Montgomery was incapable of playing under pressure and Du Randt got steamrollered, oh and the Lions won with a drop goal!!

Trivia question: is Dallaglio the only player to have won all the major competitions he has played in? ie: World Cup 15 and 7s, the Six nations, the Grand Slam with England, and the premiership, the knockout cup and the European Cup with Wasps ?

  • 78.
  • At 11:46 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Clothilde Simon wrote:

I'm English, and I support England. I don't think we're going to win, but neither are we going to curl up and surrender without a fight. Gosh, this makes it sound like 1940 all over again...

Less dramatically, we were in the same situation against Australia and France, recently, so anything can happen.

  • 79.
  • At 12:16 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • graham wrote:

A few points from the world cup so far!

1. New Zealand have the second best fly half in the world who unfortunatly got hury and could not stand the heat having to go of and leave his team mates to lose! maybe just maybe if he had hung around he might have dropped a boring drop goal and kept his team in it alas he didnt he went of hurting,
2. The aussies were so far off the pace they tried dropping boring drop goals from the halfway line once again the execution was poor and more practice required.
3. Aussies n Kiwis go and buy the rule book and read you might then understand that rugby is a game of forwards and backs not just back row and backs.
4. Buy the DVD form the last world cup look at it and savour what winning is all about do you remember that ?
5.There is nothing boring about winning i am happy to be bored still if we England win by 1 point and play a forward dominated game who remembers the losers they must have been really boring eh!
6.Nice to see some support from all of the home nations.
7.Great blog guys its been highly amuing all the way through even in the real low parts.
8.Hey we are there again no one believed it, i did and have always had faith, We can and will do it, destiny awaits boys destiny awaits
9.Get the bloody brasso out
10.Come on England !!!!!!!!

  • 80.
  • At 01:37 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Theo S wrote:

I just watched the SA-Argentina and England-Australia games, and, to be honest, I think, unless Johnny Wilkinson does a lot of drop kicking, England are going to have a very, very hard time against South Africa. The Springboks are very quick, and very aggressive.

  • 81.
  • At 07:00 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Jhapinz wrote:

Post 79 what an idiot. U are able to preach now because your team has miraculously somehow got to the final. The reason you are there is because for 4 years you meandered in the doldrums allowing the ABs to slaughter you and everyone else in the process. The reason we are not happy is because unlike any other team we expected to win. The reason being that that you and most of the NH teams have fallen over themselves so pathetically to lose to us only to finally get some b$##ls in one or 2 games. Why dont you ask yourself how come you are able to lift in these games yet fail with disgrace over such a long period. The word fluke cannot be represented better. The ABs will learn and will go on slaughtering you lot over the nwxt 4 years because thats what they do. Come knockout time they will adopt a boring win at all costs no frills approach to 3 games and then go on to thrashing you all again. Simple.

  • 82.
  • At 09:12 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • MARC CARRINGTON wrote:

Having read through all of these messages there are a few obvious things that need to be addressed.
Firstly it's hilarious to listen to the sour grapes coming from the Southern Hemisphere.
I can imagine teams left in the World Cup(specifically England)do seem boring when your team have been knocked out but I wouldn't know!!
But I can promise this, it's not boring when it's your team doing the winning!!
Secondly, England have come into this tourmnament with, in my opinion, a less organised, less talented, less confident team but isn't it even better that through all that, England have played to there strengths and through grit and determination made it through to the World Cup Final!!
That, my Antipodean friends should be admired!! I'd much sooner have stick from you all for playing boring rugby and getting to the final than getting it for exciting rugby and being knocked out in the quarters.
The two teams that deserve to be in the final are England and South Africa because THEY ARE THERE.
Thirdly, credit to South Africa, they have been the best team so far in the tournament, deserve their tags as favourites and if they win tonight they will be worthy winners of the tournament.
My heart says England but my head says South Africa.
I'm praying that maybe Sth Africa might freeze slightly on the biggest stage of all but it's not likely.
England's best chance is to still be in it at 60 mins when the pressure will go on the favourites and with Jonny around, who knows???
Regardless, England have restored a lot of pride in themselves and the country and win or lose can go home with their heads held high.
They have become worthy reigning champions in the end and one last push tonight could send us "boring" England to dreamland!!
So, come on boys!!!
As for our Australian and New Zealand friends......"4 more years boys!!"

  • 83.
  • At 10:13 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

No, post 81 you are the idiot. Talk about overstating your case. The ABs can go on thrashing England or anyone else in between the World Cups for all anyone cares. It is the games that matter that you need to win.

England tore you apart before the last World Cup both home and away. Did they believe this was the pinacle? No, they knew they had to win the 2003 final to achieve something the ABs will not have achieved for decades by the time the next cup is played.

As for England playing boring rugby. That is tosh. They attempted to be more expansive than the opposition for periods of the games against both France and Australia. It is just as interesting to see a pack tear the opposition apart as they did against the Aussies than witnessing a team trying to run everything from the 10.

What makes rugby a great game is that there are so many different ways to win by so many different types with so many different skills. Why is a Wales team cutting through the oppostion backs with their slippery wingers and centres any less one dimensional than an England team dominating the forward play and then spinning it? It is not.

  • 84.
  • At 11:07 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • MARC wrote:

New Zealand are talented but always bottle it when it matters!

  • 85.
  • At 11:55 AM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Jhapinz wrote:

Wales? Is that the team that havnt beaten the ABs since 1954? or was it Scotland, Ireland or Argentina (never).
Get real. England 75-0 and 36-0. Damned sure England didnt whitewash us by that much. How embarrassing for a country with the richest pool of money and most players in the world.

  • 86.
  • At 02:50 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

To #85;

The AB's Aren't they they team that haven't won the world cup for 20 years? How embarrassing !
And here's lowly England with our crap team who've only managed to get into 3 of the last 5 world cup finals. How embarrassingly awful for us !!!!

I just don't know if I'll be able to show my face in public if we do something terrible like retain the trophy for another 4 years. Oh the embarrassment of it all !!

Now off you go and watch your provincial Air New Zealand Cup final and let the big boys battle it out for the proper cup. ;-)

  • 87.
  • At 02:51 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • graham wrote:

Jhapinz cant you comprehend English? its not what happens between the world cups is it? its what happens at the world cup surely and the Kiwis who told everyone to look out the world cup was theirs have gone home sulking their world cup record breaker even took his frustrations out on a couple of parked cars made me laugh so much, once again the we have a god given right to win the cup has not happened,hey you lost to a better team who know how to play more than one way,maybe it would be a good idea to draft some players in with intelligence who might use brains over brawn to win a match, and ones who might just not limp off when the going gets tough unlike the best flyhalf in the world he he he i love to hear all the moans and excuses grow up mate your team i admit are great on paper and against the minnow sides ran in try after try but when it really counted they all looked inside their shorts and suddenly discovered THEIR DANGLIES WERE MISSING!!! as usual hope you enjoy watching the game tonight and just think you could have been their if you were boring hehehehehe, or had the inteligence to drop a goal.

Come on England!!!!!

  • 88.
  • At 02:54 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • bulltraderpt wrote:

Poor ole Jhapinz, you aren't bitter, much Bwaaaaaaaa :-)

Whether we lose or win I only hope its a great game.

From the comments on this board some of our SH 'friends' are green with envy. ;-)

Come on England!

  • 89.
  • At 03:09 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Stephen P wrote:

81 - I know New Zealand were favourites but I think many South Africans also felt that we could win the tournament. We have given you some tough matches since the last World Cup, and I always had the feeling that you may come up against France and then Australia as quarter and semi finals - giving two chances for you to be knocked out. As it happened, had you made it past France you would have got past England.

What South Africa have done well is in preparing specifically for this tournament. Our decision to leave the first team at home during the tri nations looks sensible now. As for those who think we will freeze, I think we have 648 combined caps on the field this evening. We will not freeze.

  • 90.
  • At 03:15 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Stephen P wrote:

81 - I know New Zealand were favourites but I think many South Africans also felt that we could win the tournament. We have given you some tough matches since the last World Cup, and I always had the feeling that you may come up against France and then Australia as quarter and semi finals - giving two chances for you to be knocked out. As it happened, had you made it past France you would have got past England.

What South Africa have done well is in preparing specifically for this tournament. Our decision to leave the first team at home during the tri nations looks sensible now. As for those who think we will freeze, I think we have 648 combined caps on the field this evening. We will not freeze.

  • 91.
  • At 03:50 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • graham wrote:

Jhapinz cant you comprehend English? its not what happens between the world cups is it? its what happens at the world cup surely and the Kiwis who told everyone to look out the world cup was theirs have gone home sulking their world cup record breaker even took his frustrations out on a couple of parked cars made me laugh so much, once again the we have a god given right to win the cup has not happened,hey you lost to a better team who know how to play more than one way,maybe it would be a good idea to draft some players in with intelligence who might use brains over brawn to win a match, and ones who might just not limp off when the going gets tough unlike the best flyhalf in the world he he he i love to hear all the moans and excuses grow up mate your team i admit are great on paper and against the minnow sides ran in try after try but when it really counted they all looked inside their shorts and suddenly discovered THEIR DANGLIES WERE MISSING!!! as usual hope you enjoy watching the game tonight and just think you could have been their if you were boring hehehehehe, or had the inteligence to drop a goal.

Come on England!!!!!

  • 92.
  • At 04:02 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Hannes wrote:

In reply to comment 51 by Andrew Collins:

If the two "best" teams are out of the world cup, they certainly cannot be the two "best" teams anymore??

What a disgrace, they only have a place at 5 and 6...

GO BOKKE!

  • 93.
  • At 04:33 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Bill Stammers wrote:

What a load of sour grapes from the New Zealand Herald, and what a load of bunkum!!! The game is called Rugby FOOTBALL, the idea as with all games is to WIN!!! Now weather that is prettily or Ugly as some people call England's style, as long as it's within the laws of the game, who cares, I'd rather see my team win using the right method for the right day, than lose blaming the referee, the laws, Wilko's boot, the thugs in the front line, or whatever the All Blacks excuse is this time! They choked again, like most football games the coach is the dominant feature, and players have to perform to the edicts, all the great teams have a general on the field who can and does influence the game to his team's advantage aka Johnson, Pienaar, etc...

No more whingeing please All Blacks, you are undoubtedly the best Rugby Union team in the world, but you have to do it when it counts!!

  • 94.
  • At 06:32 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • amused wrote:

heard today that that the All Blacks are being offered grief counseling .... tch tch .... some of their fans could do with it as well ...

On to win tonight ... they're always be an England ....

  • 95.
  • At 10:11 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:


Unfortunately it was [ a step too far]. The guys put up a hell of a fight however despite injures and some dodgy decisions. Reminded me so much of 91 in terms of doing most to the attacking but the Boks held on well. Congratulations to the team for a massive performance but like the French the night before too many things went wrong. [Mind you Moody, learn to control your feet you idiot]!

Now to rebuild and get ready to get the jug back in 4 years time.

SteveP

  • 96.
  • At 11:51 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • Joanna Austin wrote:

I'm reading this entry post match as my brother in law burns his consolation cheese on toast but whenever you read it, everything rings true. Unfortunately James Standley's match report in my opinion makes a fatal judgement error. I quote "it was a bridge too far against a superior South Africa side". Sometimes the score doesn't correctly reflect form. Granted, South Africa's defence saved it for them but how, I ask, can you call a team maintaining so little possession and showing an equal lack of inspiration, World Champions! Winning a game by forcing errors, that's not rugby! Still, a fun few weeks had by all.

  • 97.
  • At 11:52 PM on 20 Oct 2007,
  • bulltraderpt wrote:

Well done to both sides.

It was a great game, I enjoyed it and am pleased with the way we played.

As to the decisions, I don't know whether his foot did graze the line and then went up in the air. And tbh, that's life, even if it didn't.

We lost, they won.

I only hope Brian Ashton will carry on for another 4 years, as I like the guy and the players seem too as well.

Well done SA.

1 World cup 3 finals and four semi finals is still a record a lot of nations would be proud of!

  • 98.
  • At 10:43 PM on 21 Oct 2007,
  • Jhapinz wrote:

Well done England. Beaten at your own game. good to see one SH team adapted to the boring style layed up there at all costs. How many kids are going to get out the videos of any of the SH games particularly Englands. A sad state of affairs when all you can do is kick, defend, and ultimately bore.
Over the next 4 years you'll continue to do that and we'll coninue to thrash your teams. Come the cup we'll pul out the B game modelled by NH teams and do it again. If the World wants to see boring play offs then thats what we'll do and certainly beter than you lot. Well done England, you surpassed our own expectations in this cup, but certainly could not expect to win after watchig your last 30 or 40 games (oe at least hearing of the scores couldnt actually sit through them all).
see you in 4 years where you certainly will be sent packing.

The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external internet sites