主播大秀

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Ben Dirs

Ugly win a thing of beauty (372)

Paris - Big sporting occasions can mess with people's minds. On Saturday night, as my brains were being blown out by the , I found myself making the sign of the cross and I very nearly cried.

When I tell you that I鈥檓 not sure I believe in God and that I blub about once every 10 years, usually when watching , you get some idea of the mind-bending atmosphere that was swirling round the Stade de France as England beat the World Cup hosts.

The scenes after the final whistle will live long in the memory: French fans disappearing from the ground as quickly as bath water being sucked down a plughole; England fans roaring along to Wonderwall; the tears of Sebastien Chabal.

engfanscheer438.jpg

Seeing a grown man weep is never nice. Seeing dear old "Sea Bass" weep was like walking in on your dad doing the vacuuming in one of your mum鈥檚 saucy negligees.

He who dares, Rodney, he who dares鈥hat was the motto of the massed ranks of England supporters who had taken a punt and turned up on spec, hoping desperately to see their side shatter French dreams and march towards the final.

For the brave many, gaining entry to the match was as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Row upon row of All Black fans waved surplus tickets as we made our way to the ground, all holding out for a silver lining to a miserable World Cup campaign.

A couple of mates set off from England at 5am and managed to blag their way in for free, a wild bet paying handsome dividends. If they had not spent the whole day singing , everything would have been just about perfect.

As for the game鈥ell, what lovely, lovely boys those England lads are. Brutes, bullies, bludgeons, but lovely, lovely boys nevertheless.

I鈥檓 normally an aesthete when it comes to sport 鈥 give me Seve Ballesteros over Tiger Woods and John McEnroe over Pete Sampras any day of the week.

But there are occasions, and Saturday night was one of them, when I roll up the sleeves, rub the hands together and greedily gobble up a filthy victory.

amounted to more than just winning ugly. It was, if you will allow me to stretch a metaphor to snapping point, winning Pat Butcher 鈥 a growling, smoking, slattern of a victory, with varicose veins galore and gravel in its guts.

I imagine those Antipodeans bemoaning the manner of England鈥檚 semi-final win over France are the sort of people who like their crumpet blonde, buffed and brainless.

Not for them the joys of 鈥楾he Grower鈥 - a man or woman lacking in looks but who, after 80 minutes of chat, suddenly becomes eminently attractive. It鈥檚 called personality - and in sport it goes a long way.

Hold on one second. I鈥檝e just re-read that and you must now be thinking I鈥檇 like a nibble on The Butcher. I must stress that I wouldn鈥檛, although at 4am on Sunday morning鈥

鈥aah, Saturday night and Sunday morning. Not, thank heavens, the carnage of Marseille but a ruddy good knees-up nonetheless.

While the locals seemingly evaporated into thin air, Piaf鈥檚 "" drifting eerily through the door of the occasional bar, England鈥檚 fans trundled on into the night - bewitched, bewildered and bemused. And, for the most part, staggeringly drunk.

The LFMs (licence fee moaners) will be pleased to learn that I awoke on Sunday in a very pokey hotel room surrounded by four other men. That鈥檚 what you call saving the public鈥檚 pennies and that is what you call some unwelcome spooning.

The morning after the night before, the mantra remained the same: "England are in the World Cup final. How on earth did that happen?鈥

For Tommy and I, who thought England might not make it out of the group stages, the trip, which has been rattling along in fifth gear since their quarter-final win, has now shifted into hyperspace.

For the French, the party is over. The scene on Sunday afternoon as the Eiffel Tower鈥檚 giant scoreboard flashed France 9-14 England over and over again, each blink a little stab into Gallic hearts, was both painful and poignant.

So it鈥檚 South Africa in the final and what perfect symmetry it would be if England could avenge .

The Springboks may have won quite comfortably but there is a sense they have been travelling in the opposite direction to England since September鈥檚 group encounter.

and very nearly , they look far from unbeatable. England, on the other hand, have finally found that happy knack of winning, by hook or by crook.

Beg, steal or borrow in order to get here for the final. Be brave with regard to tickets and prepared to hold your nerve. It鈥檚 going to be the father, son and the holy ghost of all parties. Tommy and I will be going 鈥 make sure you are there too.


Ben Dirs is a 主播大秀 Sport journalist travelling around France in a camper van with Tom Fordyce.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 07:11 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Prestwick wrote:

This blog has been a pleasure to read!

Don't let the license fee whingers get you down! Get drunk some more! Lets see some photos of you chugging 1930s champagne while eating Beluga Caviar off of the belly button of a burlesque dancer's finely toned abs! I DEMAND MOAR!

  • 2.
  • At 07:29 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jacques Malaprade wrote:

I will savour SA victory cause u guys will know uve been beaten BEAUTIFULLY. VIVE EXCITING RUGBY... Not your boring mindless "we have a front row and a kicker" style. SA will meet u on all levels and more.

  • 3.
  • At 07:50 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ewen wrote:

Ugly is never beautiful, but it can be (and in England's case is) effective.

For the sake of the game I hope the boks win on Saturday, but I have a horrible suspicion that on Sunday England fans will be singing
"We're s**t but we won the cup"

  • 4.
  • At 07:50 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • max wrote:

i think you're grossly underestimated the south african team. its got quality stamped all over it. sure england were outstanding against lacklustre france and the hopeless wallabies, but penalty goals and scrums alone will not be enough to stop the springbok juggernaut. PS. south africa's got habana too!!!

  • 5.
  • At 08:02 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carlos wrote:

Ermm... Jacques, England actually scored more tries than the opposition v France. If France, Australia, NZ could swap positions with England they would. Furthermore, if England win (here's hoping), who cares what you think? In fact even if they lose, who cares? So wind your neck in and go suck on some sweet grapes. Go England!!!

  • 6.
  • At 08:09 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • chyciebabe wrote:

Ben, your blog is certainly more enjoyable than Ingerlund's knockout stage play... Although I find your crumpet comment very, very odd indeed... Lets say we of a Southern persuasion are actually seeking a more all encompassing, beautiful but classy morsel with brains and speed of thought and subtlety and humour, rather than the one dimensional, but admittedly sublimely booted fare sought by certain Northern Hemisphere natives.... Well done to England for knocking out two of the heavyweights with a gameplan to suit the situation, I can't support them in the final though, leaving the unpaletable thought of cheering the Saffies for the first time ever, but I saw more rugby played in the final 15 minutes of their 'dire' semi than the 80 coma inducing minutes, to a neutral, in the one the night before... believe me, whilst great for fans with a vested interest to cheer on their team to a surprise final, for the rest of us can only serve to kill the game we love and pray it isn't allowed to hold and taint the Web Ellis for the next four years.. Go Bokkies

  • 7.
  • At 08:16 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

England, defending world Cup Chamigoons. Nxt week Boks vs Wilkinson.

  • 8.
  • At 08:20 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

These people coming on here saying we only have a front row and a kicker - I only saw one try scored on Saturday night. Now who was that by again - England.

Great blog, boys!

  • 9.
  • At 08:24 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Eberg wrote:

As a neutral, the SA vs Arg semi final was a damn sight more entertaining than the France game. Not forgetting that they absolutely anhilated you once already, i fail to see how you can be this over confident....South Africa are unbeaten for a very good reason, and they score tries, lots of tries, i hope the final will be entertaining and the score line reflects a more exciting game than we have seen previously.

  • 10.
  • At 08:29 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Matt Davies wrote:

Jacques Malaprade: did you not notice the difference between the scores was the try we scored? It was fun watching the french play the 'typical english' way.

  • 11.
  • At 08:33 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • babbo_umbro wrote:

it seems to me that producing mindless, jingoistic nonsense is a bit like rugby and cricket - the Brits invented it and have been producing it for a long time, but others - particularly those from the ex-colonies - have taken it up with a will and have overtaken us.

  • 12.
  • At 08:38 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ibanez wrote:

Go South Africa!!

I wouldnt actually mind England winning, except that we would have to hear about it endlessly for the next 3 or 6 months, or probably even longer.

England fans are sooo boring. Just like their rugby team really!

  • 13.
  • At 08:39 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • tom deloford wrote:

south africa scored 3 (or 4) tries against Argentina but every single one was counter attack from a poor mistake or the Argies trying to do too much and showing their lack of big game experience, England have shown that they have cool heads and beter decision making, I didnt see south africa create anything apart from the disallowed try.

The final will not be for the purists and the french will feel even more vindicated in their criticism of the English style. Fine, I hope it brings them consolation.

Argentina made so many mistakes last night, their lineout was woefull and they turned the ball over like there was no tomorrow, south africa will not get the same oppurtunities next week.

I think if England win it will be close, tense and ultimately could come down to a drop goal!

Is it ugly? Depends on your value system, all I know is that in 20 years all that will be remembered is that, incredibly, England defended their crown.

  • 14.
  • At 08:46 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • DJ wrote:

What a final! Great story in itself! Can't see how we can call the Other Semi dire though mate, I'm sure it was every bit as spine tinglingly nerve shredding as our own for fans of the teams involved. Can we roll SA over? Yes... but the margins for error just keep getting smaller and smaller with our gameplan and the calibre oppo we're playing. Not so fussed about the group game result, I'm not sure who that'll help more actually, but I just can't shake the feeling that SA had the perfect preceeding game vs Argentina (can't call Arg a 'warm up' game these days!) for the similarity in styles. Despite what Jacques seems to suggest - SA, like Aus, ain't particularly creative themselves... but boy do they spank you for 7 if you make the slightest mistake. Habana in silky flow has got to be one of Sights To See in the World Cup... so I'm hoping i don't! If we get a couple of scores on the board early on then i think things will get interesting, but if we fall behind by a ways I fear we'll suffer from the same limitations as the Argentines and just not quite have the gameplan to claw it back. I just can't see SA going through one of their curiously distracted half hours against us, not in the Final. There's nowt wrong with the way we or Arg play - Arg did it just as well but to infinitely more applause for their grit and discipline from some of our SH cousins than we've enjoyed - it's bruisingly effective, but it IS limited. And that's the thing about limitations innit? They do rather limit you somewhat. We'll stick with what's got us to the Final, and rightly so, and hope another heroic display of guts and nerve bring us home. Fantastic game in prospect. Sod the try count -what makes sport good for the true neutral isn't tries or basketball scores, it's the drama of not knowing who's going to win, and this England team have been the soap opera of the RWC... possibly of ANY RWC if we pull it off. God help my heart if we're within touching distance going into the last 10.

  • 15.
  • At 08:48 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

goodness, even the French are jumping on the bandwagon of anti-English. Don't suppose they remember that they also played in the game on Saturday. Can't blame us for everything! What were we supposed to do, not tackle? Not kick the points when penalties were given for fouls conceded under great pressure? Not take the opportunities to score when they come? Anyone saying their team wouldn't is deluding themselves.
I'm so happy we're in the final. All the bitterness that comes from the South (ie. southerly from Dover) is really green eyed jealousy. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one am glad you're jealous... means we have something you want... a place in the final. I'm looking forward to what should be a good game next week. The toughest challenge yet.

  • 16.
  • At 08:57 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • DSparky1 wrote:

Sorry I must of missed this exciting brand of rugby that SA played yesterday! Bar Brian Habana the SA attacking options mirror that of England.....

  • 17.
  • At 09:00 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • tomthepom wrote:

Guys, and girls, on this blog. It's going to be a long enough week's waiting without all this petty squabbling about who's the best team, who deserves it and all that colonial rubbish. If the past few weeks have taught us anything it's that form is irrelevant and it's about who turns up on the day. If England turn up for the third weekend running then they can win, and deserve to, but if the final summit is one too far let's celebrate what we have achieved, be gracious losers (like the French were) and not turn on our team...

  • 18.
  • At 09:08 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • rick munter wrote:

Great modern-culture metaphor Ben ... an EastEnders icon is far less jingoistic than the "Bulldog Spirit"(and keeps the Beeb paymasters happy no doubt!)

As a former Beeb worker I've been really impressed at the risqu茅 nature of some of yours and Tom's entries and the fact that the blogs don't feel too moderated (even if you are filtering out all the posts where antipodean ire is reduced to calling us c's and threatening refs with retributive assasinations!)

There has still been a plethora of whining and whinging - again the French who have had more cause maybe to be angry given it's their world cup, have seemingly been more magnanimous and gracious in defeat than a vocal minority of antipodeans (and a few sour, disgruntled Celts).

I'm sure there's enough frenchmen who can speak-write enough english to make their feelings felt here - but even their own media has been sanguine. So let's shake that nation by the hand, give old Sea Bass a hug and if you can buy them a couple of Pastis or Vin de Table I'll be happy to subsidise it with my Licence Fee.

And to the Antipodean factions (and please note it is just a vocal faction not a majority) ... the ones who'll support anyone but England and go on about the fact that the Northern Hemisphere have ruined the "beautiful" game. Please, please play in your own league or something and invent a new game you can be great at ... or possibly just stick to Netball ;-)

In the meantime roll on the Saffas!

Allez les ros bifs!

  • 19.
  • At 09:08 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • DJ wrote:

I'm still chuckling at Babbo's comment haha I like that. I'll be passing it off as mine down the pub in a bit haha

  • 20.
  • At 09:10 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

Jacques - obviously a bitter, frenchman who cannot accept his team were beaten by a superior team (self visions of grandeur -like the french football team)

This is the same boring pointless argument of 4 years ago when the ~
Auzzies whinged that all we had was JW for kicking our points, then other than the early try all their points were kicked!
We also scored in the same fasion albeit in a different sequence, with one exception, 26 seconds to go JW with a sublime drop goal
RESULT
England World Cup Champions

Every single player from every single team would have taken the style of victory 4 years ago and IF we prevail on Saturday no matter what they say (whinge about) in public they would again because this is what they are all here for, to win

SO STOP THE WHINGING AND ENJOY THE TOURNAMENT AND LOOK FORWARD TO ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF ENGLAND AS CHAMPIONS!!

  • 21.
  • At 09:11 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • jonathan wrote:

Jacques...... remind me who did SA beat in Qtr and semi's on route.....oh yes Fiji that titaninc team of the south pacific and an Argentinian team full of passion and a few good players..... seems the only decent game so far from SA was against England! Cant see it being repeated, once bitten twice shy!

Go England!

  • 22.
  • At 09:11 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Billy wrote:

Interesting that two teams from the same group are in the final.

I thought the SA/Eng group was the toughest group. Tonga and Samoa are big physical sides - virtually NZ B or C teams. Ironically it probably helped England to have some tough matches as compared to NZs group (Scot, Italy etc!)
More thought needed for the next RWC when it comes to groups.

Antway, a good victory. Didn't expect Eng to get to the final, so will have to grovel to get the time off work!

  • 23.
  • At 09:11 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

Well lets deal with a couple of points from all the England haters out there. Winning ugly? Our guys are still in France, Welsh, Irish, Scots, back home playing for their own clubs. So called superb all blacks and Australia back home too. I'd rather win ugly and be in the final than be back home with all the above mentioned sad fans.
Comment number 3 above SA the beautiful game my ass. You obviously didn't watch the endless kicking by your side last night and two interception tries and a mistake turnover do not constitute beautiful rugby. The occasion got to Argentina and their big names under performed, but not before they had seriously dented your scrummaging pride.
Two wide margin wins on tour against our 4th team and a 36 0 drubbing of our woefully under performing team earlier in the tournament quite rightly have SA favourites, but I didn't see anything last night that would cause me sleepless nights worrying of another hiding. We have come along way in 4 weeks and sure it is is going to need a super human effort to beat the Boks but as the last 2 games show we have the ability so go on boys win ugly and be proud making history.

  • 24.
  • At 09:12 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

The bookies favour SA to win and rugby as a spectator sport needs either an SA win or an England win with open and entertaining rugby(wouldn't that be nice!). That is a neutral's view but I do understand the nationalistic viewpoint that a boring game producing a win is better than a flowing loss.

  • 25.
  • At 09:13 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rugby fan wrote:

I saw a dire semi-final on Saturday night not Sunday. There were a lot of teams in the competition who could have beaten France when they were playing that badly. England managed to win only by a small margin after spending a long time behind.
That sort of game is not going to inspire anyone to want to play rugby. Like Ewen, I too hope for the sake of the game that the Springboks win next Saturday. Unlike him, I believe they will.

  • 26.
  • At 09:14 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Davo wrote:

Just to say that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time...BRILLIANT Mr Dirs!!!

Personally speaking, this World Cup is better then 2003, cos we expected to win then, whereas on paper before the 2007 competition we didn't have a chance...so I am really enjoying the nerve jangling exploits of our red and white heroes....C'mon boys!!!

  • 27.
  • At 09:15 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Liam Gallagher wrote:

Errrr mate it werent wonderwall, it was dont look back in anger man

  • 28.
  • At 09:17 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • jessie wrote:

south africa play good attacking rugby and at the same time are able to defend. so england i'm afraid will be well beaten. there's only so much you can do with a dependence on winning through kicking. even if wilkinson does kick well, sa will score tries and so england's lack of score trying ability will be exposed

  • 29.
  • At 09:19 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • lewis wrote:

Anyone fall asleep watching south africa last night, did they play any rugby? They didnt create one attacking moment, just lived off Argentinas mistakes. God it was boring

  • 30.
  • At 09:19 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Joe Zielinski wrote:

That photo is of my friends and me!!

  • 31.
  • At 09:19 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • GrandweeUlsterMan wrote:

England won in 2003 with a 'machine-like' performance (call it ugly rugby if you will) and they are seriously in line to do it again. Fair play to them.

The point is, win or lose in the final, England are on top of the world again but are we then going to see the same shambolic England inter-RWC as we saw from 03 to 07?

Do England have the unique ability to lift themselves for this particular tournament in a way that the All Blacks can only dream of only to go back into their shells again until the next time?

...and finally, is it good for rugby?

  • 32.
  • At 09:23 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Robert Wilson wrote:

Sour Grapes all round for the anti english mob. Its all about winning, doesnt matter by how much or how you do it, YOU WIN.

  • 33.
  • At 09:23 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • paul dobson wrote:

Having watched the Argies take on and for most of it dominate the boks, I wonder (fingers crossed)if this is the underdogs tournament (albeit my argument ends with the Argie defeat). Argentina gifted all tries, they controlled the scrum, won the loose, were average in the line out......all areas where England WILL be better than the Argies......come on England lets take it to the Boks face to face.....hope Habanna gets an early run and feels what hitting a ruck and being counter rucked is like ;)

  • 34.
  • At 09:25 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Paddy McMaster wrote:

Nothing wrong with dressing up in womens underwear for the housework in South Africa apparently....As the nation starts the turn the cogs and resemble a workforce today thoughts wonder to how many "big screens" can be erected in one night to be accompanied by kebab vans and some polish boys sells cases of beers. Saturday feels a long way away right now....bring it on.

  • 35.
  • At 09:29 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Catherine wrote:

Ben, your and Tom's blogs continue to be a highlight of my day, any chance you can keep them going when you get back? :) Maybe the Beeb can keep you in that campervan tootling around Britain?

One thing that is really heartening about our situation is that, for once, an English sporting team seems to have developed a killer instinct and self-belief, (albeit with a wonderful continued humility) which goes against our national psyche. About blooming time! I know other people have said it in the last few days, but England football team, please take note of some decent sports psychology (oh, and please stick with Gareth Barry.)

All that said, I'm still preparing myself for a double disappointment next weekend, I'm not sure I can dare to dream that the England boys and Lewis can pull it off next weekend!

  • 36.
  • At 09:29 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carole in Maidenhead wrote:

Hello? Hello? Anyone out there capable of just enjoying the rubgy, instead of wasting energy on vitriolic nonsense?

  • 37.
  • At 09:33 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • brok wrote:

Winners win and losers make excuses. It鈥檚 also an international final which will make it a very tight game, when two teams are giving it their all to win.

I鈥檓 sure the rules of rugby will be changed again to suit the southern hemisphere teams due to them constantly moaning and their influence on the game. It makes a mockery of a sport when its most basic rules are constantly being disputed, because teams refuse to adapt and simply cry until they get their own way.

  • 38.
  • At 09:34 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • rugbyprof wrote:

What's all this crap about playing ugly? To anybody who understands the game England have played some decent stuff in the last few games. I think this style thing is usual nonsense to cover up the inadequacies of some of the teams no longer in the tournament.

The game requires forwards (remember them Australia), backs, guts, a gameplan that's flexible and above all decision-making (All Blacks take note). 'Style' is but one attribute with many different meanings.

I will concede that defences have been very good which has limited some of the try-making opportunities. However, if we continue to get cynical killing of the ball which denies a try (remember again Australia)which does not carry a fuller penalty and if we continue to award 3 points for a drop goal rather than 2 points then its not surprising.

And what is so ugly watching a scrum being decimated and going backwards. Since when was rugby invented for handbag-carrying players?

And what was so stylish for the All Blacks to spend about ten minutes (at least) for a rotating forward to move an inch at a time against France?

The game has got a lot quicker since I played but the same basic rules apply to win. As for the England-France game, who cannot deny it was compelling from a dramatic perspective?

Let's face it, this tournament would have been pretty boring without the England story. What a great final in prospect with such symmetry.

Oh - and it looks pretty official that the original group containing the finalists was the hardest by some distance.

  • 39.
  • At 09:41 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Barbie Girl wrote:

The comments in this blog have been spot on.
It was not a game of beauty, nor yet a game of young soldiers, merely veterans showing the youngest how to play.
In the future, however, all that will stand testament to time is the score and that's what it's all about!

  • 40.
  • At 09:42 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Micky wrote:

Guys guys guys... a "dire" semi-final win over Argentina? Which game were you watching on Saturday night? I watched both semis, and while neither was a classic I found myself annoyed after the Eng-Fra game... because of how "dire" that win was for England... But that's subjective.
14-9 against France?
or 37-13 against and Argentina team that beat the French 5 times in their last 6 games, quite a few of them in France?
Bias is ok and all, but that is dangerously close to denial.
Also it says very little about next Saturday. Jonny alone make England a great team, therefore the 36-0 only gives the Boks a psychological advantage.

  • 41.
  • At 09:47 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

I agree with tomthepom. No matter what happens, couldn't ask for anything more than England reaching the final twice in a row, so even if they lose, I'll still be proud of my team.
Let's not write SA off just yet-good team and they do have the ability. We shall just have to wait and see...

  • 42.
  • At 09:47 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Gp wrote:

i dont quite understand how you can boast about how england scored the only try when it was a pretty flukey one at that. Lucky bounce and unlikely slip of the french player and that was it, apart from that england hardly looked like scoring a try.
At the same time the french failed to take their multiple chances to put the game out of englands hands while they outplayed england for most of the first half and large parts of the second. If you dont do that you dont deserve the win.

England have definately shown a lot of spirit but it has been a bit overly exagerated by other teams lack of ability to show up on the day and finish them off when they could have.

For rugby's sake i hope the saffers win as much as it pains me to go for them! But congrats to england for punching well above their weight so far.

  • 43.
  • At 09:48 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • st george wrote:

never in my sporting memory has a team of ramshackled underdogs done the impossible, why not basque in the glory that thus far is a remarkable achievement. we will fight them on the beaches is the cry, and saturday will be no different, stop bemoaning the ugly game and sing the national anthem with pride. come on england

  • 44.
  • At 09:49 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Pete Johnson wrote:

This World Cup hasn't been the most entertaining, but it has still managed to keep everyone enthralled with it's twists and turns. England have made it to the final, even though Australia, New Zealand and France stood in the way. Stop the criticism and get behind the team that could well be writing history as the only side to be consectutive world cup champs. Whether they get their through skil and performance or sheer luck, I do not care.

  • 45.
  • At 09:53 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • chearypimms wrote:

Tomthepom
Agreed! Worth remembering that after next weekend England have done well to get this far. While we are talking about entertaining rugby, sure NZ play great and are a joy to watch, but then so is Japan (They run a lot and their forwards punch above their weight) and has any body seen USA play Canada? Well that鈥檚 pretty entertaining (always plenty of "rucks")but that is not what the WC is about it's about winning, for my money SA probably going to do it, but England will make it very hard, as for France I have a lot of French friends spent 4 years in Germany with the French army (Baden)My heart goes out to you and you will recover very quickly I am sure, good wishes to all

  • 46.
  • At 09:57 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ryan Greenaway wrote:

The 2 teams in the final are the 2 teams that have played the right gameplan in the right game. I suppose we could've gone out and tried to outplay the Aussies with attractive flowing rugby, but would we be here now, unlikely. It doesn't say much for the teams who lost to us, if they can't even beat a team with just a front row and a kicker. That is, after all, just 4 players. Also, before all the bitter folk start cheering on the Boks, didn't about 80% of their tries last night come from Argentina turnovers, surely that reflects more on poor play by Argentina than good play by the Boks.
I'd like to think that come Saturday, those boys in white with the word "Champions" stamped all over them, will not be so generous.

COME ON ENGLAND!!!

P.S. I was at the trophy parade in London all those years ago and remember John Inverdale saying that the only thing better than beating the Aussies in their own World Cup, would be to beat the French in their own World Cup! John Inverdale, how right you were...how right you were!!!

  • 47.
  • At 09:57 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

England are in a win-win situation. Lose on Saturday and they've done brilliantly to get there, win and they are miraculous. All the pressure is on South Africa. It'll be tight and nasty and I'm going to love it.

  • 48.
  • At 09:57 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Well done to England for "winning ugly". Can someone now explain why Scotland on beating Italy playing the same were so "heavily criticized?

  • 49.
  • At 09:57 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • ed wrote:

SWING-LOW!!! SWEET CHARIOT!!!...

Why does this week take so long to pass? I think England have the better chance of winning because they've rediscovered they're winning form and their whole pack is unstoppable. Forget the Bokkies' juggernaut, its now time to hype up england's instead.

C'MON!!!!

  • 50.
  • At 09:57 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Une francaise en Angleterre wrote:

I'll be in France for the final on Saturday and I will be proud to support England, not only because it is my second home but the team have shown such courage. Ensemble, ils ont du cran et de la chaleur du sang. However, I do hope they sort their lineout out before the weekend. Also, Josh Lewsey will be a big loss.

As for Habana, (Max #5) he is very fast but over-rated, one dimensional, over-padded and usually offside. And as for Percy Poser Montgomery! Well, Will Greenwood had some lovely comments about him on Saturday.

I was going to say that we should not lose the spirit of this blog and the RWC by reducing it to throwing silly insults - but I seem to be doing it myself now.

  • 51.
  • At 09:59 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

all the boring rugby comments that are being thrown around are motivated by one thing.. jealousy, that we are the world cup holders and we are in the final.. we have had to beat better teams to get here and regardless of whether we lose or not will have had a better tournament than the vast majority of the southern hemisphere arrogant chokers and celtic windbag chip on shoulders!! england has always been the greatest country on earth, and always will, whether we are crap at sport ot not..cmmmmmon england

  • 52.
  • At 10:03 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Stevio wrote:

鈥淜ill the game we love鈥. Well if you love it and know it so well you鈥檒l be aware it is the ultimate team-game for players of all shapes and sizes. The laws of the game are there for all to see and abide by, and surely it is the team who adapt best to the laws who prosper, be that by honest means or otherwise. At the end of the day it is results that count 鈥 not artistic merit. England 鈥搗- Australia, I thought both teams played rugby but only one winner. NZ?? What can you say? They need to win. Very refreshing to see Corry et-al to earlier say- basically we were crap. No blame on Refs, match balls, weather, teams playing against us, etc, etc.
Bit rich of AB鈥檚 to shout of about virtue of free flowing Super14鈥檚, then winge and whine about a couple of forward passes. Has O鈥橞rien (a Kiwi) said: It happens- live with it. Don鈥檛 think the ref stopped them slotting over a match winning drop goal in the last 15 when they had all the possession, did he?? What would ALL other teams do in that situation鈥︹︹.play open running 鈥榖eautiful rugby?? Wake up!

  • 53.
  • At 10:04 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

Max (reply 5),

I think that you missed what Ben was saying; I doubt that any of us underestimate how good the SAs are, but England's Rugby and team spirit have improved so that we are winning games that no one thought we had any right to win, whereas South Africa seem to have been going backwards struggling to finish games they should have cruised through.

You can only beat what is in front of you and frankly I am rather insulted you call France and Australia lackluster and woeful. You seem to be attributing the English victories to the poorness of the opposing side, I ask you now how much did English forward power have to do with making them look poor? Quite a lot with Australia, because they are one of the best sides in the world infact before the WC started they were rated as the second best rugby nation in the world and were playing some very attractive games.

I'm assuming you are going to be supporting SA on saturday so I thought I'd just remind you that you only edged out Australia in the Tri Nations cup using Penalties and Drop goals so it is a good winning tactic and is capable of putting SA out of the cup.

Moving on... English rugby is both ugly and beautiful, the problem is that instead of flowing moves in the backs the english have most of their technicality tied up in a clever kicking game and forward skill. Yes forward skill! If you have ever played in a forward pack then you will know that lineouts, scums, rucks, mauls are not just a matter of brute strength, but also requires clever use of body angles, body placement and a hell of a lot of unspoken communication and teamwork in the mayhem surrounding you. It doesn't look pretty, but I assure you that a group of forwards working hard up the center of the field are showing just as much skill and team work as a group of backs throwing long passes and changing the angle of attack.

Fancy battle plans can lead to famous victories, but they can also lead to a horrific defeat. The English are a part of Britain and Britain won many battles and wars, by using steady sensible tried and tested tactics. We are one of the more reserved and concervative nations in the world and I'll be damned if I will see my national team play any other way just to please some neutrals. We don't care what you think of our Rugby, it works and it has beaten flair more times than not.

So sirs it is a dual; the field of battle is Paris, bring your best 22 men and let the last side standing be declared The Champions. May the best Englishmen win!

  • 54.
  • At 10:08 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Badger wrote:

What's the difference between the Southern Hemisphere and a 747?
The 747 stops whining when it lands.

  • 55.
  • At 10:09 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Big Pip wrote:

If all those people think exciting rugby is all about scoring tries, then they do not understand the game. Resolute defence, big tackles, try saving tackles, two big packs going head to head, kicks that gain yards or points, its all good. Even my sister, who for her sins lives with a scotsman, told me she was jumping round the room Saturday night, and you could count the number of rugby games she has watched on one hand. I doubt if many of the whingers commenting will be English supporters, certainly not from the reaction that went round The Cricketers Pub in Bedford on Saturday night, which is a rugby pub strangely!!

  • 56.
  • At 10:14 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Android wrote:

Benders, apparently Jason Leonard is going to play Pat Butcher in panto this year.

As an England fan, I hope of course we win on Sat, but our backs have got their work cut out. The boks finishing looks hot.

Need another big game up front...

  • 57.
  • At 10:17 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ian wrote:

You know the worse thing about England winning the Rugby World Cup next weekend?

There won't be many more blogs to read from our Ben and Tom.

  • 58.
  • At 10:24 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan K wrote:

It may be ugly but it's effective and as an Englishman who's fed up of the "it's not the winning it's the taking part that counts" mentality that is being pedalled in schools I'm glad to see an England team that it's winning whatever it takes!! Neither game was pretty at the weekend but the amount of screaming at Steve Walsh (why that man is allowed to ref a semi I'll never know) by the South African's whenever there was an infingement was appalling this is Rugby not Football boys just play your game and let the ref do his job!! Like many people have commented a large number of SA scores last night were argie errors which they wont get against England!!

  • 59.
  • At 10:30 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Wee man wrote:

As an irish fan, I have to admit i will be throwing my support behind England come the 20th. Who would've believed it? Answer: The England camp. No-one else. Magnificent! It wasn't pretty, but it was all heart! 80 mins away from glory. Think on this:

If England win;

First team to win consecutive RWCs.
First team to lose in the pool stages and win the tournament.
First team to zero out in a pool game and win the tournament.

HISTORY IN THE MAKING!!

Go England!!

David Brodie #50, the reasons Scotland were so heavily criticised against Italy were: Scotland failed to score TRIES against a weakened Italy (Scotland 1st Team), and England deserve the plaudits because they have fielded their strongest side in every game and chickened out of none, despite the South Africa drubbing or turnaround between games. The Scotland coach was a disgrace after the NZ debacle! Well done Brian Ashton and England, against all odds! make the 6Ns proud!

  • 60.
  • At 10:33 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Hotspur7 wrote:

All of those people complaining about "lack of style" have obviously never crossed the white line, never played the game. These England players will be having the time of their lives, because playing the way that they're playing is seriously enjoyable - absolutely 100% full on rugby, no quarter given. For players, that's what the game is about, and that is why they play.
Sure, watching a winger take out another winger on the outside in a run to the line is a thing of beauty, but it is one aspect only of this great game. This RWC has proved that real rugby is still alive and kicking at the top level, as opposed to the candy floss stuff played in the SH, which was created for a TV audience of non-players, and which does not hold up once real yard by yard pressure comes on.
It will be fascinating to see how SA play if England can put the squeeze on them from the first whistle on Saturday.

  • 61.
  • At 10:34 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • John Jones wrote:

Seems to me that the southern Hemisphere has sold it's soul to the USA and been poisoned by that American belief that for sport to be good and beautiful it must involve lots of running around like headless chickens, scoring freely at both ends of the pitch until the whistle blows and the team that happems to be in front at that point wins. If that's how you like your rugby, then watch RL, the most sterile and mindless form of rugby known to man. The whole essence of rugby union is based on the fact that you have a pack of forwards who are there to win and retain ball. If you can't get the ball off them, you'll lose, it's as simple as that. If you put out a front row consisting of Yellow Jersey'ed jelly babies, you'll lose. Remember the old adage, Forwards win games, backs determine by how many. If our forwards negate your forwards then we will win, but that, to a rugby purist, doesn't mean that the win won't be exciting, enthralling and absorbing as Saturday nights game was to rugby enthusiasts of any country who had the slightest understanding of the roots and ethos of the game. Personally I don't give a flying fig if we only beat the 'Boks 3 - 0 'cos it'll probably mean that it's been the mother of all forward battles that will have kept us on the edge of our seats for 80 minutes.

  • 62.
  • At 10:36 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • mikeh wrote:

Has anyone noticed the dignity with which Australia, France and Argentina have accepted their defeats? This is a marked contract to those whining Kiwis!

  • 63.
  • At 10:36 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Karen wrote:

It doesn't matter that the England try was flukey - an opportunity presented itself and it was taken. After all that's just how SA won their semi.
I had a sneaking hope before the World Cup that we might do better than our recent results had indicated. We had great players but they needed to spend some time together. They are now playing for each other as well as their country and that is what has helped them get through.
Win or lose on saturday I will be so proud of our boys.

  • 64.
  • At 10:41 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • martiens wrote:

Personally I think England never won Saturday's game... France just lost.

  • 65.
  • At 10:43 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Neil wrote:

A victory for SA in the final
would be a victory for rugby itself. They have been thus far the best team in the tournament, and the only unbeaten one. They have scored 33 tries (to England's pathetic 12), and played quality rugby, which makes them eminently more watchable than England. Of course, the English would take 3-0 wins forever without thinking about the consequences for the game. And whilst we Welsh could do with a few 3-0 wins, we are still proud that we scored 23 tries ourselves in four matches and occasionally played some wonderful rugby. Winning, however, is important, but I would wish that winners did it in style, because that is what rugby needs.

  • 66.
  • At 10:43 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Bixente wrote:

Well, congrats to England from France (Biarritz !).
You deserved to win even if it was very tight. I think you kept your cool and composure even when your forwards got tired.
Do not pay any attention to negative comments like Jacques' ones. His behaviour does not represent at all the way french fans have reacted to this defeat. We are very sad but everybody recognises England's merits over here. No problem whatsoever. Your boys have done the job even if the your team is not as brillant as it used to be 4 years ago (but you had the strongest team in the world back then, no doubt about that !).
The only frustration comes from the fact we do not play our style of rugby anymore and from lame ass Laporte's tactics. Many french rugby fans knew what kind of scenario to expect. It is no surpise whatsoever. We cannot play against defensive teams. We do not know anymore what to do with the ball. Laporte has tried to make us play the english way for several years now but we will never match England at this sort of game. It is not our culture.
There were many situations where you could see 3-4 french players on the wings against only one-two english players. But would we play there ? No ! Thanks again Laporte.
Regarding the final, it's gonna be a very tough game. The only worry for England is that this SA team knows how to make the ball run quickly and takes advantage of every opportunity.
But who knows what's gonna happen with the great spirit the England squad are showing right now.
Good luck and well done England.

  • 67.
  • At 10:45 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Grumpy Man wrote:

Much as I feel compelled to doff my cap at England's spirit and savvyness as they prepare to take their well deserved place in the final, I would rather endure Pat Butcher hoovering in the buff than an England win. This grumpy stance is due to all the 鈥榝ans鈥 coming out of the woodwork again after 4 years of welcome hibernation.

Already this morning I鈥檝e heard 鈥淲hy do people keep talking about the forwards when Johnny scores all the points鈥. I might go home soon before I hear 鈥淭hat Jim Rozenthal really knows his stuff鈥. I鈥檓 all for celebrating sporting success for any of the home nations, but can a law be passed this week send people to jail if they claim to be a huge rugby fan but can鈥檛 name more than two players in the team of the jersey they are wearing?

  • 68.
  • At 10:46 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • MikeB wrote:

I for one am immensely proud of England whatever happens against SA this Saturday, the boys have defended OUR crown with Pride and Passion, what more can we ask.

I genuinely feel for the French, but admire their largely magnanimous attitude in defeat, a mutual respect there I feel. Less can be said from many of our other competitors, I actually find some of the anti English sentiment on these pages quite astonishing鈥.

Nobody likes us but we don鈥檛 care!

As another poster said last week鈥. This isn鈥檛 sevens, it isn鈥檛 touch rugby, and it certainly isn鈥檛 league鈥.. so may the best team win RWC2007, the uglier and grumpier the better!

  • 69.
  • At 10:49 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Louis Parperis wrote:

If New Zealand or Australia had reached the RWC final and had the chance to win the cup by scoring 5 penalties to South Africa's 2 goals, does anyone really think either team would play supposedly beautiful rugby? There's only one answer to that and all the petty carping about the limitations of the current England team cannot hide that fact. At least the Aussies accepted they were beaten by a better team and that's why their record in competitive rugby is infinitely better than the Auto Erotics whose ability to rewrite the history of rugby as a fantasy knocks Stalinist revisionists into a cocked hat. Colin Meads in his illustrious career was interested in one thing and one thing only - winning the game. When Don Clarke kicked his 6 penalties to beat the 4-try British Lions by a point, nobody in the SH was shouting the odds about beautiful rugby. All we're witnessing at the moment is the bitterness of losers: if the Boks win on Saturday by playing ugly, good luck to them because, at heart, rugby is an ugly game. If we wanted it otherwise then we'd all be traipsing off to Wembley and the like to watch the Drogbas and Didas of this world fall over like Andy Haden. I don't do jingoism or hubris and neither should anyone else unless they like bitter taste of failure that is most frequently their reward. Rugby is a game where respect should be shown in equal measure to the officials and the opposition and if it isn't, the game's not worth playing. England has profited in part by the poor tactics of the opposition at this competition which has seen the team best suited to win this RWC go out. That's not the fault of the English, they have still had to go on and win their matches where others who had chances aplenty did not have the mental resolve to see it through. I hope the French get the chance to lift the trophy in 2011 because the players were let down by dopey selections and even more dopey tactics this time around.

  • 70.
  • At 10:51 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Elena wrote:

I seem to be somewhat confused. I though the whole point of the competitive sports is to win within the rules of the game. If you want "style" read a fashion magazine, sport is about winning. The whinging about "style" seems to be done by the losing sides' fans, who should really consider that not being able to lose gracefully is also "ugly".

Lastly, personally what I find really ugly is to watch players constantly kicking off on the pitch, which I have seen twice now in SA vs Fiji and SA vs Argentina. Is that part of the "style" and the beautiful game that they are meant to be playing?

  • 71.
  • At 10:52 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • DJ wrote:

Can't help thinking that at least some of the 'Neutral' bent who are grumpily demanding a balanced, free flowing try-fest for the Good Of The Game are in their heart of hearts actually wanting SA to slaughter us 36-0 again and for there to be many lingering camera shots of England fans in tears come the end. I also wouldn't mind betting that if SA were to beat England in the same manner and scoreline as England beat France there won't be anywhere near the same vitriol on these pages from the 'Neutrals' as if we rolled SA over the same way. Seige mentality? You betcha! We get virtually nil credit for our guts and nerve and every team we've beaten has beaten themselves (and could actually have been rolled over by a bunch of grannies0 if you believe some of the comments you read here.

Funny thing Neutrality. It's unfair to disqualify all comments from fans of losing teams on the grounds of sour grapes... but with the bitterness of some of the diatribes on these pages from fans of losing teams it's hard work not to as a rule.

  • 72.
  • At 10:53 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Riaan wrote:

I am a South African living in London and I love the excitement surrounding the game. I am surprised at the utter conviction of the English press that England will be victorious. I am crossing all my fingers and toes for the Springboks and I hope for a very decisive defeat of England. Long live the Springboks! Nothing would be better to see John Smit lift that cup and the English press eating some humble pie.

  • 73.
  • At 10:58 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Glenn wrote:

Dan K......you are an idiot.

How can you criticise the Boks for questioning some of Walsh's decisions when england constantly do so no matter the ref or opposition. case of double standards.

Why did they have 2 Englsih touch judges and an English TMO for a game which decided a finalist to play England?

England once again are being arrogant, pompous and heading for a mighty fall against probably the best team in the world right now. Better forwards, backs and centre pairing and a scrum half that is head and shoulders above any other. England are a one man team (and not a World class player at that) and his kicking has been second class throughout (although he can blame the balls all he wants).

Every other rugby playing nation and true rugby supporter will be looking for a SA win on Saturday as they play a more fluent, attacking and dynamic game. It will be a black day for rugby should England win this (doubtful) and perhaps it will show "Ingerlund" that against a good team they are lightweights.

  • 74.
  • At 11:00 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Riaan wrote:

I am a South African living in London and I love the excitement surrounding the game. I am surprised at the utter conviction of the English press that England will be victorious. I am crossing all my fingers and toes for the Springboks and I hope for a very decisive defeat of England. Long live the Springboks! Nothing would be better to see John Smit lift that cup and the English press eating some humble pie.

  • 75.
  • At 11:02 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Woody wrote:

Everyone goes on endlessly about Jonny Wilkinson being the only good thing in the England side, and I'm not disputing that he is a fantastic player and we are a better side when he's in. But for all his undoubted ability on Saturday he wasn't slotting penalties from 55m, he was taking them from close to the posts after France infringed under pressure. Now I may have celebrated pretty hard but I don't recall Wilkinson making several 60m runs to set up these kicks, instead England were in that position because they tackled hard across the field, stole ball at the breakdown and recycled well, gradually working up to a good field position. One man cannot do that! As for it being boring, I defy you to find an English or Frenchmen who was able to turn away during the last 10 minutes. So stop complaining, we worked hard and got to the final, you didn't.

  • 76.
  • At 11:05 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Frenchgirl living in England wrote:

First, let me just say that i love the blog! been addicted to it. :-P

I think France has not played well on Saturday night; hence i'm dissapointed with not qualifying but not devastated.

England has played better than France, sure, but they were far from being at the top too, and there is a lot of space for improvement if they want to beat SouthAfr on the 20th.
That being said, I think both country should be happy they restore North Hemisphere reputation after what we've been put through at pool stage.

Good luck for next saturday. The World Cup has been great, whoever takes it next week.

  • 77.
  • At 11:07 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carole in Maidenhead wrote:

Re post 2 from Jacques - you probably have not had the advantage of information that I have, but via Ben's masterly Cricket Blogs this year, I feel I have come to know a bit about Mr Dirs Senior. All I can say is, you REALLY shouldn't have said that.

  • 78.
  • At 11:12 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ross wrote:

Last night's match was "dire"?? What game were you watching Ben? Think you might have been watching reruns of the previous night. (From the sounds of things, the commentators were). The Boks were outstanding last night, and Argentina only made mistakes because of the pressure being applied. True, the quarter final wasn't a high point, but it reminds me a lot of the 2003 Wales v England quarter. You could have interpreted that as "losing momentum" or, alternatively, a good wakeup call. I know which way I'd interpret it.

Man-for-man SA is stronger in every department and, after a superb display last night against a gutsy Argentina, clearly the one thing they DO have is momentum. Remember this was the team that DESTROYED france - a French team that England managed to beat after the rugby equivalent of a 0-0 bore draw won on penalties). Our backline, guided by Eddie Jones, has been putting together moves that Tait, Hipkiss and co could only dream of. Percy is making his kicks. Habana is unstoppable and, for anyone who hasn't watched last season's Super 14 final, has bucket loads of BMT when the pressure is on. If the Boks play like they did last night it'll be a try fest.

  • 79.
  • At 11:13 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • sorcha wrote:

will the petty comments about england's "boring" victories please cease. i'm irish and i'm very very impressed with england's rugby team at the moment. most irish fans would take a place in the wc final and beating australia and especially france even in a so called "boring" way. In my opion the england france game was a fascinating battle of wills between 2 strong sides. the english scrum dominated and the tackling was ferocious and in my view that looks fantastic to see. congrats to england for their strength of character and team spirit- I hope ireland can do the same. To be honest i dont really like sa and their dirty tactics so i will be shouting for england even if it means another 4 years of "we are the best"- lol. it is true that if the english win it again, that they are the best and no amount of whinging from nz or australia or france etc etc about boring rugby can dispute that. in my eyes whoever manages to get to the final are the 2 best teams. stop slating english rugby and stop accusing them of arrogance. on the negative side england will need to do more than just kick for drop goals as sa are a different story.

  • 80.
  • At 11:17 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • DBH wrote:

I'm a NZer but well done England! No one gave you a chance a few weeks ago and now you're in the final. What's more you showed NZ the way to close down sides. Not very exciting but effective - most Kiwis would have settled for that scoreline against France.

Also shows the central role of the fly-half. Wilkinson has shone out despite some missed kicks whereas Barnes from OZ and Dan Carter (albeit partly due to injury) had off-days when it counted.

Here's another thought. The world rankings currently give SH sides a better ranking than they should - one reason for this is that too often lately the NH sides have come Down Under with weakened sides due to "club commitments". Is there any chance of changing this? Otherwise, the SH sides are not getting enough competitive action with the NH between RWCs.

  • 81.
  • At 11:18 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • jim wrote:

On behalf of the LFM I continue to protest about this dreary rubbish. I keep stumbling across these mindless blogs when following up threads which might be about rugby.

On behalf of grumpies everywhere I hope that blogs disappear whence they came.

  • 82.
  • At 11:26 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Cuzzer wrote:

It's funny that so many of you "purists" enjoyed the South Africa v Argentina game more last night. Did anyone notice that the Argies completely lost the ability to catch the ball? Two intecept tries and one from a knock-on, classy fellas. Habana is quality, no argument there - but if you fail to appreciate an England performance with barely an error in sight then you cannot consider yourself true fans of the game.

  • 83.
  • At 11:26 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • craZydays wrote:

Any one else see a resemblance between the Greece team that won the football in 2004 and the english team currently winning at the mo? They both may be as boring as hell..but only i thing matters...thats winning. If England wanna win this Cueto must play out side Hipkiss...bye bye super lightweight Tait. As For SA, there not going in reverse, since England they're just playing in third gear...I won 200 on them last night cos I bet they'd have 2 or more intercept tries..people might say they were lucky, others know they're clinical finishers.

I said it when it happened, Joe "the gimp" Worsleys tackle was a World Cup winning tackle on Clerc, hit Steyn and Pietersen in defense and this may just come true. Can someone explain why nobody has noticed how bad Easter is, hes about 2 stone overweight - and gives away penalties like it's fun - lack of a better alternative - LD looks his age...

On another note,I said NZ would never win this world cup cos they'd have to beat France, Oz and SA to do it and I was right...anyone else notice who can still do this though? Thank God NZ are out, Hope for a good game next Saturday (but if its entertaining it probably means England lost).Wilkinson is a legend, Come on SA!!!! And you cant win a world cup bye fluke, whoever steps up to the mark deserves it!

  • 84.
  • At 11:28 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • chris woodruff wrote:

So what if we play ugly I just wish our footie team would do the same.Who won the last footie world cup?Oh yes that dynamic,stylish team Italy.Who cares about style etc.Its about winning and England are winning.Good on dads army and captian Mainwaring who selected them.Roll on saturday.

  • 85.
  • At 11:36 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Kevin F wrote:

I see a lot of talk about ugly Rugby. As previously stated , it all depends if you have played and understand the game.

As an ex rugby player, the ankle tap by Joe Worsley was every bit as beautiful as a player running the full length of the field to score.

It was a player at full stretch saving a certain 5 points which is every bit as good as scoring 5 points.

Rugby isn't just about scoring tries, it's about technique, team play and players pushing themselves to their physical limts, which is what England did against Australia and France.

WHEN IT MATTERED !

I am not going to knock SA as they are an awesome team as well and are deservedly in the final. It will be a tremendous match, England will have an even bigger point to prove after the 36-0 defeat and SA know it.

I a proud of England and what they have achieved and will be one of the proudest and happiest men on this earth if they win the final on Saturday.

  • 86.
  • At 11:37 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • michael wrote:

please can somebody explain to me how france produce some of the finest wines,when there seems to be an abbundance of sour grapes in their country..

  • 87.
  • At 11:37 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • walks wrote:

"for rugby's sake hope SA win". lets be honest if the country you support won 3-0 in the direst game imaginable, would you really care? No, you are World champions and nothing else matters. The Kiwi's would probably tear their right arm off for any kind of World Cup win at the moment.

As for the entertaining Boks, was to kick, kick and kick again against England or was i watching a different game? It was only inabaility to handle the SA kicks and our appalling efforts at trying to do the same. It could have been a whole lot different yesterday if Argentina hadn't coughed the ball up so many times. Their forwards definitely had the upper hand early on.

Anyway roll on Saturday, 3-0 to England!!

  • 88.
  • At 11:37 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan wrote:

Alot of the comments about 'flair' rugby are very interesting. Teams play with 'flair' when the oppo misses tackles or when they have a comfortable cushion of points. The thing is that it is all about winning and flair is risky - Argentina tried to spread the ball wide a couple of time last night and took risks - which resulted in minus 14 points. In test meatch, meaningful rugby, you can't afford these mistakes - and it is exactly that pressure and tension which creates a match worth watching - not tries scored from 80 yards with 4 forward passes....in pressure games all teams play the same - if they don't then why did Aus, NZ, France etc not score 4 tries each and win their games? Spare me the vitriol, the tight, hard graft games with passionate defences and people hitting contact at 90 mph are what rugby is about. Good luck everyone.

  • 89.
  • At 11:39 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mark, Paris wrote:

I'm sick of hearing of the fluky England try...

Gomarsall's box kick was of the highest standard, Traille hesitated, Lewsey didn't

Ultimately the difference between the two sides

Let's hope it's a tense final. To re-quote Johnno before the French game, England have to live with SA for 60 minutes, then hope to kill them off.

Time for Robbo to go out in a blaze of glory?

Arise Sir Brian?

  • 90.
  • At 11:40 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • big al wrote:

so what if it isnt pretty

we scored more tries than france, would have scored more than oz if they had tried to compete in the scrums, and lets not forget, the only reason SA beat fiji was because they used their scrum to overpower fiji in the last quarter, other wise they were out.

england, masters of pressure rugby, absorbing it and creating it.

and another plus, very much appreciating the words of support from our celtic neighbours, another example of rugby supporters knowing their stuff

  • 91.
  • At 11:42 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Peter Manning wrote:

For me the comments about 'ugly rugby' and 'entertaining' comes straight out of "The Sun" guide to Rugby Union...anyone who knows anything about rugby would understand that it's not all about Tries and running around - ask the All Blacks!

A wise man once said about Golf "You can hit the green in one or two shots, but if you cannot putt you will loose"....same with rugby "if you don't have a kicker...you will loose" - ask the Aussies!

  • 92.
  • At 11:42 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jeffers wrote:

Ugly is the only word, we are rubbish and much better, more entertaining teams are out. Like in the last RWC we have got lucky, we probably bored our opponents into submission with our style of play. If there's any justice SA will beat us again but I'm not so sure, ugly our game may be but it's effective.Why we continue to hero-worship Wilkinson is also a mystery to me, he misses as many as he gets and with some other kicker our win over France would likely have been more comfortable. It's time for more rule changes in rugby to favour teams that try to score tries at the expense of teams playing like England who's game centres around defence and kicking. Fortunately, most other teams don't try to copy our style with the exception of Scotland. They tried it against Argentine and lost the game as a result because they couldn't do it as well as we do. This RWC has seen many memorable games, sadly none so far has involved England. Let's hope that the final will be different but I have my doubts, unless SA thump us like last time.

  • 93.
  • At 11:47 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

It's going to be sooooooooooooo booooooooooooooooooring being world champs again , oh dear drink those sour grapes and munch that humble pie
SA ,that front row is going to get marmalised OS du rant lokked like he wanted to be back on his farm , the 8 was ponderous and the 10 is a club player , that blond lad in the centre is good but he will be sent down a chanel to be boshed ,throw them triple miss passes if you dare

  • 94.
  • At 11:48 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • evilspindoctor wrote:

South Africa only score from other teams mistakes. Habana apart, England are actually the far more creative team and look to attack more than the boks who are great at pressurising, intimidating and long range kicking but nothing else. It will be a tight game. I'm suprised more of the neutrals aren't behind the underdogs on this one - particularly six nations sides.

  • 95.
  • At 11:49 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • PJ wrote:

I'm French and I watched the game in an Australian pub in China (yes yes!).
I must say that I was angry against the strategic choice to reconduct the same technique that we used with NZ to play England. My opinion is that France has got a serious problem of management since 1999.

Anyway, i'd like to say that, for a Frenchman, i'll be supporting England. Why ? Because, for the first time in my life, I saw british fans comings to me (after the game) and congrats our team, showing respect. You see, it doesn't take much to see that: repect each of the teams, wheter they win or not, and enjoy the spirit of rugby.

Come on England, keep the Cup so that we'll have our revenge in 2011 lol.

See ya all!
A bloddy Frenchman in China

  • 96.
  • At 11:51 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Benedict Bannister wrote:

What impressed me most with the Boks last night was:
- their lineout. Both on their throw and against the Argies. They cleaned up in that department. The stats speak volumes: 18/19 won on their throw, stole 7 off the Argies.
- their turnover at the breakdown. Their backrow were awesome. In fact all their front 8 in the loose.

It was from this hard grafting forward play that their dominance was established. Helped greatly by the catalogue of mistakes by the Argies, which gifted the Boks 3 of their tries. Throw in Habana's exquiste touch and you had a fine performance against a good though perhaps knackered Argentine team.

So, what does it all mean? It means that SA are the team to beat. They play intelligent savvy rugby, and unlike their SH counterparts have never seemed to deny that everything emanates from the front 8, and if 3 points are on offer, take them. And their backs are opportunitistic.............. Is that a criticism???!

They certainly look like world champions, and though as an Englishman, I would love to see England lift the cup, ugly and/or with the rub of the green, it's a very, very big ask. It would be amazing if England could lift themselves for a 3rd game in a row.

Even before the end of the tournament, a chin-chin to the Frenchies for organising the best RWC thus far.

  • 97.
  • At 11:51 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • tali wrote:

I didn't even finish reading this blog it was so boring. About as boring as the English play the game. Go the Boks, at least they play the game the way it should be. He who dares wins, England NEVER dare, they play percentage, ugly ugly rugby which is why the game is frowned apon so much in the North. Rugby is loved in the Southern Hemisphere because they know how to play it down there. A classic rugby call from the crowds in New Zealand is 'pass it Don't Kick it'. Sure NZ lost but at least they do it playing the way it should be. Thats why so many fans from all countries love watching them and why the Aussie Rugby Boss was right, everyone truly does hate the English rugby team.

  • 98.
  • At 11:54 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carole in Maidenhead wrote:

Taki Blog 97. Why waste so much energy hating another nation's rugby team? Why not get a life instead?

  • 99.
  • At 11:58 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

I think Tali is a bit like an overwrought pop star, starting to believe his own publicity. (Rugby is frowned on in the north")?!! Where on earth does he get that from. Well carry on mate, now we know anyone from the SH is deluded.
Anyway, I have just had a revelation! I can now see the English plan in all its machiavellian glory, (I think that's how you spell it). Lose pathetically to SA in the pool match because we know we will meet them in the final when they will be grossly overconfident. I'm impressed Brian even Sir Clive, that master of planning couldn't have thought that one through.

  • 100.
  • At 11:58 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • David, Quimper wrote:

Great blogs. Can you really maintain the standard all week ? Here's a challenge: find a decent fish and chips in Paris - other than at the Alcazar which is too expensive for the 主播大秀 and is owned by Conran anyway. Good hunting.
PS Does anyone know what Chabal is supposed to have done ?

  • 102.
  • At 12:01 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • SueW wrote:

Hmmm, I'm a football (round ball!) player but watched both semis. I have to say that the semi with the higher score wasn't the better spectacle. There was a bit of running, tries mainly following unforced errors and an awful lot of - to use football terminology - HOOF! Haven't seen so much aimless kicking since watching a mate's pub side; and certainly loads more than my women's side!

  • 103.
  • At 12:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Will wrote:

Q: What would you call the 7th/8th place play off if there was one?
A: The Bledisloe Cup.

  • 104.
  • At 12:05 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Casper wrote:

I'm shocked you all thought the game was ugly! I loved it!! was on the edge of my seat for most of the second half. With the way the match was played, and the teams involved, did everyone expect a clear win? Both teams played with determination I was hoping to see, and up until that final whistle, I still wouldn't have wanted to put money on the outcome. Unlucky for France, but pleased England are through. Can't wait for the final, lets see if the team have learned from last time

  • 105.
  • At 12:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ibanez wrote:

Do England actually know what the try line is for?

  • 106.
  • At 12:07 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Perfidious Albion wrote:

The (happily unlikely) event of England winning the RWC next Saturday would be a complete disaster for the future of the game.

It would mean that rugby will inevitably go down the road of professional soccer; i.e. all teams are too scared of losing to actually go out and play the game with a minimum degree of creativity.

This formula of totally negative rugby has already 鈥渆arned鈥 England a WC. As a result, the 鈥渋t鈥檚-only-about-winning鈥 mentality has infected other erstwhile exciting teams. Even France on Saturday forgot to play ball-in-hand attacking rugby until it was too late to save the game, or should I say to save the result. The game, as such, was beyond redemption for the purposes of a sporting spectacle for any save the most myopically jingoistic Ingerland supporters.

For the sake of entertaining rugby:

GO BOKKIES!!!

  • 107.
  • At 12:07 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • JC wrote:

Jeffers - are you a rugby fan? Do you only watch rugby during the world cup? There are so many elements to rugby but at the end of the day the reason you play in the World Cup is to win. I really don't understand why people keep carping on about how boring and bad England are. They can only beat the teams that are put in front of them. If throwing the ball around like a basket-ball game is the best way of playing then why are there no teams in the final who play like that? South Africa have always put a premium on solid and tight forward play and then releasing their backs when they have solid field position. If the defending team gives away penalties to stop you scoring should you not kick at goal? Do you really think that at the knock-out stages of the World Cup that teams should fling the ball about with wanton abandon? That's how you get knocked out in tight games.

  • 108.
  • At 12:08 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • sorcha wrote:

I am happy for england and they did really deserve to get to the final by grinding out results and they were brilliant in the scrum, ruck etc but realistically they must up their game if they want to beat sa. to big al who said they would have scored more tries v australia if they had tried to compete in the scrum. england didnt get any try v oz- that's the point. and only one try against france is nothing to shout about. praise england for their hard earned victories, yes- but they must also appreciate the fact that they need to score more tries.

  • 109.
  • At 12:09 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • hag wrote:

As a Namibian-born, South Africa-raised British citizen of German descent (phew): Well done England, you are doing a Germany in what has been the best world cup ever. Now for the final - may the best team win. Which will probably be the boks, though I won't risk any money on it.
But it's all so bloody marvellous, eh?

  • 110.
  • At 12:10 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • grumpy old man wrote:

Graeme (68)
Remember Sid Going's AB's? David Kirk's side? Pinetree et al? They ALL played ugly until the opposition 8 were beaten, and only then did the backs see the ball. I don't recall Kiwis moaning about ugly then - just smug faces. These teams knew how to WIN and it was a pleasure to watch their efficiency even if one was rooting for the opposition. WINNING is something the AB's have forgotten how to do. Against the French who were out on their feet for the last 20 mins of the semi-final, 2 drops would have done it and quite possibly opened up the French for tries in the final ten. All we saw was a brainless and clueless AB team unable to close out a game. If you prefer "Strictly Come Dancing" rugby, go and watch League.
By the way, as your first step from hubris towards humility, I would suggest toning down the hokey-cokey until the AB's win something worthwhile.

  • 111.
  • At 12:10 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mat Byway wrote:

Basically, I think South Africa v England is a dream final.
It gives England the chance to avenge the earlier defeat, and South Africa the chance to finally shut the English up.
One thing is certain, South Africa are not as good as they think they are.
Their tries yesterday were as a result of errors by the Argies, and they did not look that good up front.

I take England to win it by 5-9 points.

World Cup qtr and semis are normally ugly affairs whatever game you play.

I do sense abit of 'bok' tension coming from this Blog !

  • 112.
  • At 12:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • david wrote:

Fantastic article but please, PLEASE check your grammar.

It should have read: "For Tommy and me..." not the howlingly incorrect
"For Tommy and I..."

Of course, none of us is perfect, but as a 主播大秀 journalist you should know the rules!

  • 113.
  • At 12:12 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rob Harrison wrote:

Can I please ask why is it that when England beat France we get told that France played badly and England didn't deserve to win. However, when SA beat Argentina (scoring every try from a Argentina mistake) its beautiful rugby.

As far as I can tell the SA tactics are either give it to Monty to kick it away (very poorly) or give it to Habana to make a straight, predictable (albeit very fast) run.

We are a different team to that of the 14th Sept, we will give them a run for their money this time.

Come on England!!!

  • 114.
  • At 12:14 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Une francaise en Angleterre wrote:

Re. 99
Chabal has been cited because he showed his feminine side. Crying is against the rules, apparently.

Dangerous tackle on Simon Shaw. I did not see it, did you?

  • 115.
  • At 12:16 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steven May wrote:

I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments.

If England are dragging the game backwards then it is only because our backs are less than convincing playing an expansive game. If we had backs of the calibre of Carling/Guscott and the Underwoods I'm sure we would only too pleased to dance in the tries.

And if England are so limited and forced into playing ugly, then surely it is up to the opposition to do something about it. If we are so predictable then it must be oh so easy to beat us. If we've only got half a team then think what we would be like with a whole team.

Looking forward to next week's game and us beating the South Africans 70-0 with Matthew Tait running in five tries. Failing that, 3-0 will do fine.

  • 116.
  • At 12:16 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Both England and South Africa - though most of the latter's fans will certainly deny it, they are so proud - are lucky to have reached the final. But that doesn't matter. I expect a full-on blood-curdling and highly physical game. The stuff about England being boring is just nonsense, especially with regard to the reborn team of the last three weeks.
May the Best Team win...and may the best team be...ENGLAND!!

  • 117.
  • At 12:16 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Kiwis: FACE THE FACTS -
The New Zealand Rugby Union is on a witch-hunt to smoke out the referee who analysed the World Cup quarter-final for the NZ Herald.

High-performance refereeing manager Keith Lawrence has written to all 25 of his squad saying they should own up immediately or face the consequences of contributing to the "Refereeing the ref" article in Thursday's sports section.

The referee asked not to be identified because he was fearful of censure from the NZRU.

He gave English referee Wayne Barnes a 7/10 mark for the way he controlled the match - won 20-18 by France - identified some missed decisions, and said he would have sent two more All Blacks off.

  • 118.
  • At 12:18 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ted wrote:

"England are actually the far more creative team and look to attack more than the boks who are great at pressurising"

Mr delusional. Like the players.

  • 119.
  • At 12:22 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Perfidious Albion wrote:

St George at #43 wrote

" ... stop bemoaning the ugly game and sing the national anthem with pride. come on england."

Eh, ... so what "national anthem" would that be?

I wasn't aware that England had one.

  • 120.
  • At 12:23 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ted wrote:

"Arise Sir Brian?"

The only knighting will be the goodnights to England

  • 121.
  • At 12:26 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Coxy wrote:

Hi guys,

Got back to Blighty after the rumble at Le Stade on Saturday night, first chance to check out the blogs.

The atmosphere Saturday was phenomenal, just being part of that was extraordinary... mingling with all and sundry, sharing experiences, consoling the French, and drinking the fizz; it all amounted to nothing short of superb...

Re. the game itself, well, it's about which team scores more than the other, whether it's done 'pretty' or 'ugly' it doesn't matter. I did wonder if England had done enough in the game to 'deserve' being the winners... the answer has to be 'Yes' as they took the opportunities (eventually) that presented themselves...

It seems to me that there are a lot of 'bitter' people out there having a 'go' at England - why? Because their team didn't make it to the final, and for a team that was written-off - even before the tournament started; and especially after the drubbing at the hands of the Boks - they have done incredibly well.

So here's to a nail-biting final, and I wish I could be there... you never know it might just happen...

So Tom and Ben, I didn't manage to find you in the 'village' (I assume it was the one just outside the RER station), so couldn't buy you the beer I promised... but keep up the good work, and enjoy your week in Paris... the atmosphere will start building, rising to a crescendo on Saturday night...

So all the best

Cheers

Paul C

  • 122.
  • At 12:27 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • peter wrote:

Isn't there something quite magnificent in watching a Team of "no-hopers" turning themselves into World Beaters through a sheer "never say die" spirit and do it by playing to their strengths? It is that which has enthralled me and I am lost in admiration for their spirit.Its exactly the same spirit and approach which has got the Scotland Football Team to where they are in the Euro Qualifiers - and my admiration for them is also immense.yet strangely)but perhaps unsuprisingly)their win in Paris against an infinitely more talented French Team playing football at a level of about 6 grades higher than the Scots who scored 1 goal from thei only attempt on goal rightly was greeted with cries of admiration.
Yet for displaying exactly the same sot of virtues the England Rugby Team is pilloried.

I have no doubt that to beat S.Africa we shall have to score some tries and it may very well be that in the end the Boks all round armoury will prove too strong for us but if England do win the Cup no sporting triumph will have been more
hardly earned or moe richly deserved as an award to a efusal to lie down and be walked all over.

  • 123.
  • At 12:28 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Adrian Turner wrote:

I would like to ask how we, the rugby enthusiasts, can get Argentina to play in the 7 nations next year. They deserve recognition for their amazing progress.

  • 124.
  • At 12:29 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Martin wrote:

As a neutral Welshman - I didn't know that was possible when talking about England until this world cup! - I couldn't give a monkey's about fast/slow, open/tight, creative/dour rugby, I just want a good match. Grieves me to say it but England's last two games have been the most compelling and rivetting matches I've seen for a long time. They did EXACTLY what they had to do to win. If they do the same thing next saturday - well this Taff will doff my cap to them.

  • 125.
  • At 12:29 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mark, Paris wrote:

Ibanez,

If I'm not mistaken, we won 1-0 on try count as well. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument!!

Did anyone know that France has beaten England once in the World Cup - 3rd/4th place play-off in South Africa against 2 SFs and a QF now

I'm still grinning....

  • 126.
  • At 12:30 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tony wrote:

All this and y'all fail to note that the Argentinians SCORED against South Africa...I don't seem to recall the English doing so.....still, tomorrow is supposedly another day.....

And we shouldn't forget the third place playoff...the French have a point to prove too.....I reckon that match will be a really interesting encounter....remember too, both matches are 'revenge' matches of sorts....doesn't auger for great classic rugby....but let's see. Loved the journal ye have done too..shows an interesting angle to some English tourists today....bad planning, blaming others (toulouse and the signposts....bad planning guys...do better homework for next time!!) still, a fun read.

  • 127.
  • At 12:33 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Stewart Douglas wrote:

Once again England have gritted out another fine victory.

However I hope the Springboks win the world cup on Saturday.

They have shown more enterprise behind the scrum and do not depend on ferocious defensive tackling in the three quarters with no invention behind the scrum.

England have shown amazing defensive characteristics and once again the boot of Johnny wilkinson have seen them through to the final.

Is this the way forward for Rugby Union in general. I hope not. If all the teams had played the way England have played then what a dour World cup this would have been.

So common on the Springboks and show England the way Rugby should be played.

  • 130.
  • At 12:37 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Sam H wrote:

as the SA coach said the previous results have no bearing, especially no the summer tour wich hardly featured a 1st string side! i think that since our 36-0 drumming we have worked on the strategy of a good defence then building on that! which is a great tactic, if you stop your opponents from scoring points it means you can slowly build your lead on penalty's a drop goals, which i think still makes for a thrilling contest, aka England vs France & Australia, which have been thrilling! and i cant help but admire this approach that England have taken!

  • 131.
  • At 12:39 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

I have to laugh at all the non-English and non-SA supporters who sprout on and on about boring play, lack of tries, etc. The simple truth is that every one of you (NZ, Aus, French, et al) would have preferred your sides to have won games by penalties and drop goals alone, if it meant a Rugby World Cup Final appearance.

I, as an Englishman, have immense pride for the way BA and the boys have turned this tournament around, and hope for an exciting game, with or without tries, and ultimately, an England win.

  • 132.
  • At 12:41 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • simon wrote:

to all those antipodeans who endlessly go on about 'boring England' and 'Total Rugby', there is a game that would appease your needs... its called RUGBY LEAGUE.
And if thats want you want to play then please get on with it, but don't criticise our use of forward pressure which, the last time i checked, was an integral part of the union code.

  • 133.
  • At 12:44 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Paddy Macken wrote:

As an Irishman I would like to congratulate the English rugby team on a fantastic display of guts and determination. They thoroughly deserve to be in the final and I feel they could and should go on to win against SA.

However, I am disappointed in some of the comments I have heard and read about the style used to get England to the final. As far as I鈥檓 concerned this is just petty jealousy from those posters whose teams have not made it as far.

To the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Australian and New Zealand supporters falling into this category of whiners, I would like you to see the list below. The teams in upper case were the losers of each game and I dare any fan of one of these teams to respond to my post saying the following sentence: 鈥淚 would be unhappy if my team had WON this game by a 14-9 scoreline playing the same quality and style of rugby as England did against France鈥:

IRELAND vs France (Pool)
WALES vs Fiji (Quarter Final)
SCOTLAND vs Argentina (Quarter Final)
AUSTRALIA vs England (Quarter Final)
NEW ZEALAND vs France (Quarter Final)

Any takers? Thought not. Any losing fan would have been DELIGHTED to have won the game in the same fashion and by the same score, rather then swallow an ignominious dumping out of the RWC. Those people simply have to get used to the idea that however unpalatable it is for them to accept, ENGLAND are in the final due to their skills and determination, rather than their team. As one posted suggested earlier, all of England and France was totally and utterly rapt watching the semi-final game (As was this Irishman) and as it was their semi-final, I think they鈥檇 be quite right not to give a damn what anyone else thinks.

You will notice that France do not figure in my comment. Well, the truth is 鈥 although I鈥檓 no great fan of French rugby 鈥 I felt the players and fans carried themselves with pride and dignity and showed a great deal of magnanimity towards the English after the game. I鈥檓 sure they would have been very happy to have beaten England 14-9, as would the Saffers if that were to be the score next Saturday.

England could be World Champions again in less than a week. If that鈥檚 the case, some people will just have to get used to it. Even if England don鈥檛 win, personally I think they have more guts, skill and courage than they have been given credit for.

So whiners, whine away. But don鈥檛 whine to me because I will just laugh in your face and tell you exactly what you are.

Go England.

  • 134.
  • At 12:44 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jamie wrote:

This blog has been a pleasure to read throughout the entire RWC, I take my hat off to you both.

I'm going to be one of many fans, that will be making their way across the channel on Friday to watch what looks to be one of the most exciting sporting events in years, and have every confidence that regardless of the result... it will be one of the most memorable days of my life.

One last step lads.

  • 135.
  • At 12:45 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • BigMac wrote:

Alas the Argentines lost their nerve last night and cracked. SA are a very good well-rounded team but didn't impress that much last night. As others have said almost all their scores were from Argentinean mistakes. At times all the play was from the boys in blue and white. They must be allowed to join the Tri-Nations now.
Habana, however, is awesome, given the space and that's the key - can England contain him?
Who will win? I hope it's England but they are going to need to be on top form to contain the Boks. It doesn't have to be a wide-open running game to be nail-bitingly tense and exciting. Personally I would prefer the Welsh to be there, but given the choice, C'MON ENGLAND!!

  • 136.
  • At 12:46 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ben wrote:

Why all the hate? Just because you all predicted that England would flop and now you are all out and we are still in. I've just spent two years in SA and watched alot of Super 14 and tri-nations rugby, i must say i was shocked, the atmosphere (and the rugby)was better at the Varsity game between Mancheter uni and Manchester Met. I found the game on saturday amazing, if you don't like it, watch League. My the best team win on the weekend, but even if it is not England, i wont be whinging like the suck pig you all seem to imitate.

  • 137.
  • At 12:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Nigel wrote:

I think Benedict Bannister got it spot on. As an England fan I want them to win, but the Boks are a very good side and will be hard to beat. And if they win, good luck to them.

And please all 'neutrals' don't judge England on the basis of the stupid bias and myopia of our media.

Those fans who understand the game are unlikely to moan about ugly rugby. And the only ones that do are trying to create an atmosphere where England change their tactics. This criticism worked once for the Aussies, England tried to play a more expansive game and lost.

If you want pretty rugby go and watch sevens.

This has been a brillant world cup, seems a real shame to let the naysayers try and spoil it.

Oh, great blog boys.

  • 138.
  • At 12:57 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Adz wrote:

Graeme (#67), your comments are insulting and pointless. What would you have the England team & fans do? Should the team accept that they're not the most gifted at free-flowing rugby & deliberately lose "for the good of the game"? Or should they play to their strengths and have a go? And should the fans not get behind their team just because some people don't like it? Ridiculous! As for us not being able to see ourselves as others do, we are well aware of your opinions thankyou. We shall carry on being English (what choice do we have really?), and you are free to carry on moaning and wishing your team was in the final. BTW, no more disparaging comments about RL please, it's a totally different game with its own merits.

  • 139.
  • At 12:57 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rich B wrote:

in all the talk of boring, boring England, haven't you forgotten Lewseys' excellent try? Gomersall's kick was perfectly judged and certainly full of 'van der Westhuizenesque' opportunism. The Argies were no contest for the Boks, and if you can pass the ball on a silver plate to Robbo on saturday (like the blues did to the Boks backs last night) we'll be laughing.

  • 140.
  • At 12:58 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mark McCoy wrote:

England, despite their 'success', based on their supposed status are the most boring team on the planet!

If they win on Saturday, there'll be lots of early risers come Sunday, who drifted off early the night before.....

  • 141.
  • At 12:59 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • RobP wrote:

England have every right (as every sports person/team has)to play to the best of it's ability and in a manner that maximises its chance of winning. However, they must also ask themselves this question. When every team has adopted their blue print and the sport becomes less exciting to watch and sponsors and TV audiences dwindle - will they accept pay cuts at Bath, Leicester, Wasps etc ?

  • 142.
  • At 01:01 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Troy wrote:

So England are in the final. Even for a loyal Englishman this is a suprise.

People may say that the team has got there through boring rugby. Through attrition. So what? As a former member of the front row union you know what you job is - to help the team win. It is an insult to the team and particularly the forwards to call it boring rugby. Playing to your strengths is sensible. Playing in the pack is hard and unforgiving work. Just because Australia and France could not match England up front should not take away from the acheivements of the England squad.

South Africa though are a different matter. It will be tougher against a stronger team such as them. You may see and expanded game because of this.

Either way I hope England go on and win.

  • 143.
  • At 01:03 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Phil K wrote:

The key to England's success for me has been our abysmal performances over the last 4 years since winning the last world cup. Every other major nation has spent those 4 years slagging us off, and telling us just how poor we really are, partly correctly, but partly through plain jealousy. And the SA result did nothing but vindicate them.

I saw a couple of comments that said England are only in the final because Aus and France didn't play to the best of their ability, and I would wholeheartedly agree. But why is that? A fluke or conincedence? I think not. Its because England didn't let them play well, and that they were so scared of being shown up by an England team that they had spent 4 years belittling and putting down that they couldn't mentally play well.

I don't think even the most die hard England fan could say England are the best team in this world cup, probably not even in the 5 teams if we are honest, but the more you goad a wounded animal, in this case wounded pride, the harder it will fight back.

SA, if you want to win the final, your best bet is to stop moaning about how bad England have been, and start giving them the respect that the World cup champions deserve. Don't give us any more ammunition to embarrass you with!

Personally I hope SA play pretty rugby in the final as they and NZ/Aus seem to find so important, because that way everyone will surely be happy. SA and the other Southern hem teams will have seen the great game of rugby played as it 'should be' and England will have another nice shiny trophy to look at for the next 4 years!

  • 144.
  • At 01:03 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Gary wrote:

This coming Saturday .. I am going to Penarth ..very close to Cardiff to see my daughter .. and probably every high street store you could mention.. However i will have to find a pub for the final... DO YOU THINK I'M SAFE ??

  • 145.
  • At 01:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Robert Owen wrote:

As a fanatical Welshman I just wanted to say good luck to England.

England performing on the world stage is a vindication of the 6 Nations, the Heineken Cup and Northern Hemisphere Rugby as a whole. I want to play the world champions in a meaningful match every year!

People critising the English game plan are so naive. England have had a look at where their strengths lie and made sure they played to them. If other team can't counter that then they don't deserve to win.

  • 146.
  • At 01:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

The key point about England in this World Cup is that they do not have a strong team. To have got to the final at all is an amazing backs-against-the-wall effort.

When England win the final (and they will) it will be the greatest achievement in World Rugby history (never to be repeated again). A triumph of the heart.

True champions win even when they are playing badly (something Australia did for many years)... and England are true Champions.

  • 147.
  • At 01:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Pete Edwards wrote:

Who was it said "defence wins World cups"?? All the rubbish comments about winning ugly pale into insignificance if you consider how defensively astute teams now are; you have to take your points whenever and however they are offered, be it from the boot or turnover and interception tries. SA and England reached the final by taking their points when the chance was offered. You can't win the World Cup if your not in the final!!

  • 148.
  • At 01:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • moo wrote:

During England's progress towards the final I have heard and read so much of how boring our rugby has been (and yes I am English). I've heard so much about how we are 'killing the game' and how the southern hemisphere teams play such 'beautiful' rugby. I would love us to win by playing wonderful, flowing, aesthetically pleasing rugby but I would maintain that our rugby does have a certain beauty. Beauty in that it is functional. Functional in that it has thus far got us to the final. There is no point in playing 'flowing' rugby if it means you don't win. Rugby is not art...it is sport (and yes sport can be beautiful). The point is to win. Wallowing in the poetry of always coming so close and not quite making it (but always being true to the spirit of the game) is always a second choice behind winnning in an ugly fashion.

South Africa in the final will possibly be the hardest test of the whole tournament and whilst not convinced of our imminent victory, if the last 3 or 4 weeks have taught me anything it is that in this game nothing is impossible and that we will just have to wait and see. Go on England.

  • 149.
  • At 01:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rob Proctor wrote:

Just a quick repost to Jacques Malaprade comments on exciting rugby.....Am I the only person who is totally feed up with the mindless jingoism of the average southern hemisphere rugby fan.
Where do they get off, we've had it from NZ fans for years, when everyone knows they have no bottle. The Australians are well..Australian, whilst the Southern Hemispheres C team - SA, have only ever one the thing at home and that took Nelson Mandela to deliver the team talk!
As an ex forward I can say with much pride, that England do play 'the beautiful' game, could there be a more beautiful sight than seeing the Australian front row being ground into the dirt?
SA will find that they are playing a different team to the one that took to the pitch a few weeks ago, a team that seems to have discovered its aura of invincibility.
Come next Saturday, the question will be asked of the SA front row 'what have you got up front lads' and after the way Argentina pack pushed them about last night, I think the answer will be 'not a lot'
So as a Welshman, I am praying that England stuff SA, in the hope that the big mouthed arrogant gits from the Southern Hemisphere, might just shut up for a couple of years.

  • 150.
  • At 01:05 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Alex Mills wrote:

Some fo the comments on the board are typical of the Southern Hemisphere arrogance. I think all England Rugby fans are amazed that we made it to Semis let alone the final.

Yes, we have not played flowing rugby, and yes we may have had a lucky bounce here and there.. but we played the way we thought we would win the game and we did win.

Clearly South Africa are favourites for Saturday but England getting to the final is an outstanding defence of the World Cup.

So bring it on... and if England do manage to win on Sunday - I hope you South African fans will be gracious in defeat - as I hope the English fans are if you boys win - as long as the match is clean and you dont poison us the night before !!!

  • 151.
  • At 01:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Martin wrote:

As a bitter Irishman it agrieves me to say it but you've got to take your hat off to England pulling a final place off.

I'm sure everyone who has been knocked out to date will take the same line, Yea, but...'

It's not a strong arguement that everyone hates the English and only a reasonable one about not wanting to see a c**p side in the final but hey, ho...

Good luck at the weekend, I do expect you will need it for this one.

  • 152.
  • At 01:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Jay wrote:

Unbelievable to hear people going on about 'the beutiful game' etc. The main thing about the World Cup is not necessarily how good you are but how you handle the pressure otherwise you might as well not bother having a world cup. There were some serious words after the 36-0 and the boys came out fighting like no other team has ever done. Yes we've had to win ugly at times but what you have seen on that pitch is a lesson in determination and guts the like of which you will never again see. Fair play to most real fans though I think they have taken it on the chin as we would have done. You will always have the bitterness from some, but from most you will hope your own teams learn by it. We will need every ounce of the collective spirit, guts and determination that we have recently shown to have any chance of winning but one thing is on our side, I don't think we will fear losing. The pressure is on the SpringBoks lets see how they handle it.

  • 153.
  • At 01:07 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • NH4_FWRK wrote:

Here we go again! Could these blogs please be restricted to people who understand the game of Rugby Union!
Any team in the WORLD would love to be where England are now given the state they were in six weeks ago.
All this nonsense about beautiful Rugby! It is an intense physical sport that has many facets and many ways of winning. If you want beauty - go watch a ballet - (or an OIK-Ball {soccer} match!)
England deserve to be in the final because they played the best tactically for each team at each KO game.
However, SA are much smarter than other opposition - notice how they backed off on mauls and got penalties? No other team worked that out. Habanna looks the real danger man, but the scrum looks able to be dominated OZZ stylie. It will be a fascinating final, with whichever team loses taking it gracefully if they are truly world class.
BTW - another facet in ALL sports is working out how to "play" the ref - England seems to be getting quite good at that!

  • 154.
  • At 01:07 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • phildog wrote:

I am Irish living in Scotland, so neutrality never comes into it when discussing England. However, England is in the final and the other nations are not.

Yes, the English style is mind-numbingly dull, but it works. This side is similar to the 91 team, except they are nowhere near as good, backs and forwards. However, if they try to play any other way except "up the jumper", they will be thrashed. Yes, it was a lucky try, but the bounce of the ball in rugby is part of the game and it works for and against both teams (Easter would not have lost control of a round ball at the 5 metre scrum)

France should have thrown the ball about on Saturday for more than ten minutes. They were moving the English pack around the field, but then they stopped and decided to attack up front. That was easy for England to defend and win turnovers.

Whether this style will be good enough to win, Saturday will tell. It is the only way to win for England. It is not beautiful, but I would have settled for the same passion from the Ireland team, as Ashton's team has shown.

For those blinkered Englishmen, Sunday's match had much more attacking play from both teams. Yes, the Saffers did score from 4 mistakes, but 3 of them were from deep inside their own half. (lucky tries work both ways) Turnovers are part of the game and add so much excitement. Even in my distant past, the opportunity of attacking from a stolen possession was the greatest part of the game - it still is.

Let us hope we have a great final. It will be nervous for all Englishmen, but let them realise that it is best for the game if it is won with style and let us blinkered non-Englishmen recognise that if the rose is triumphant, it will because that team scores more points than the opposition.

Still, c'mon the Boks!!!

  • 155.
  • At 01:08 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Bizangofish wrote:

Regards which Oasis song was played on Saturday night - you're both right. It was Wonderwall first, then a Beatles song (can't remember which), then Don't Look Back In Anger.

Don't know what they played next as I was too busy singing Jerusalem in the lloos!

  • 156.
  • At 01:10 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

Can england become the Mighty Ducks of the rwc and beat the team that trounced them in the early stages in the final? Probably not, although, according to the rest of the world we wouldn't have beaten Tonga, oz or France.

Also, England's style may not be aesthetically pleasing but the last two games have been in the balance right up to the final minute. i much prefered watching a game with suspense and drama, like england-france, than SA mauling of Argentina. it was game over by the 39th minute!

  • 157.
  • At 01:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Matthew Chalmers wrote:

England are in the final, the game on saturday was played on a knife edge!!
the Game on Sunday was more open only because it was littered with mistakes and defencive frailties. The SA defense is no longer un crossable in Atrgentina took there chances they could of won easily. England will not make the mistakes Argentina did and look like creating chances game on game. Bring them on and Jonny will send the Saffies home tail between there legs the writing is on the wall!!!
Great blogging ben!!!much better than the cricket.

  • 158.
  • At 01:13 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

God these SH gits are really getting on my tits with the constant snipping and whinging about this ugly rugby. Who gives a monkey's (would rather write something else but would like this to be posted) how we win as long as we win.

Anyway real reason for this post, not sure if anyone can help but would love to go to the game on Saturday but don't fancy going on my own and can;t find anyone with spare cash / wife allowance. Me and 3 mates made the trip to Marseille for the Aussie game so that's wiped them out.

If anyone can help or are in the same position and would like to team up to buy tickets, travel to France etc please let me know. Brief info - I am married, 2 kids, straight and big big rugby fan.

Any suggestions people???????

Bring on the Boks, they can go the same way as the Aussies and Frogs.

  • 159.
  • At 01:13 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Adz wrote:

And another thing - it is wrong to say that at this rate all teams will end up playing like England. They won't because they can't. Each country has its own strengths, France tried to play like England and they lost - don't expect to see them trying that again, they'll soon be back to their usual style and long may that last. NZ will always play their way, same with Australia. When they have the right set of players & coaches, they'll win, it's simple. We shouldn't try to "socially engineer" the sport, it will find its own way and the cream will always rise to the top. Eventually.

  • 160.
  • At 01:17 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

why do you think football is the most popular game in the world? because of the drama of a low scoring sport, every goal making a massive difference.

England's tight, low scoring games have been so dramatic, every point crucial to the result, one try or kick could change everything and every second counts.

So keep on defending like lions and kick those points!

  • 161.
  • At 01:18 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Saul Dobney wrote:

The SA-Arg match was really disappointing yesterday because it turned on mistakes and naivety from Argentina. Without these it would have been another tense exciting affair. The Argies had the beatings of SA in the scrum, were about equal in the loose, but just didn't have the mental side to make good decisions under pressure. Argentina kept going for kicks and touch despite getting creamed at the lineout (and why didn't they change the lineout plan?). The backs kept making errors so there was little pressure on SA who just had to kick the ball up field and wait for mistakes, or win the resultant line out.

After the Eng-SA match where England played just as naively, the English team has (finally) started making good decisions, adapting tactics, changing the point and style of attack according to the circumstances and opposition. This seems to be a Brian Ashton thing - players who can think, read the game and change to conditions. It's one dimensional play that has cost teams. SA-Eng is going to be a very different game to the 36-0 drubbing.

  • 162.
  • At 01:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • PJ wrote:

So much drivel - especially emanating from this downunder part of the world. As a Pom down here it is remarkable to read such "insightful" rugby doggerel from the self-appointed guardians of the beautiful game.
Everyone seems to forget that in the RWC Final in 1991 (last time we lost to the Wallabies in the RWC) the final consisted of a reasonably talented England back division - Guscott, Underwood, Carling, Webb, Halliday spending their afternoon running at an Australian side who defended and scored a superb try from 2 metres out from that prolific try-scoring machine Tony Daly.
Why ? Because the italian bigmouth himself said England couldn't win playing the style that had got them there .... why anyone would believe him beggars belief .... but there we go. I don't remember too many Wallaby supporters claiming their victory was somehow tainted bacause it wasn't a spectacular display of running rugby. It was all about the winning. So save us from the whining & whinging because you've forgotten that forward play wins rugby - and last time I read the rules he who scores most wins - let it be Jonny again !
Stay strong boys, carpe diem

  • 163.
  • At 01:27 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Monkeynewshound wrote:

Congratulations to the French for the magnanimous and gracious manager they took the defeat in Paris on Saturday. The atmosphere and banter before, during and after the game was 1st class. Special thanks to the French guy who gave me his French Rugby Beret which I'll be sporting for Saturday's final. Allez les blancs.

  • 164.
  • At 01:28 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Hipkiss to start wrote:

ive lost years off my life in stress the past two weeks being an england supporter, we have to win on sat, cos then it will be worth it!

  • 165.
  • At 01:29 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Comment 27: "That sort of game is not going to inspire anyone to want to play rugby."

That rather depends. If you want to be a forward, then it's extremely inspirational.

  • 166.
  • At 01:30 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jeri wrote:

My 16 year old son, is a mauling, rucking forward. That's his game, and he has taught me how to appreciate it. The SA kicking game was boring in comparison. I am a proud Scot, but will be willing the English on on Saturday. Oh, and could one of the forwards be obliging enough to muss up old Percy's hair a bit. Don't know why, but oh how I dislike that SA no.15.

  • 167.
  • At 01:30 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Can I coin a new word?

"Rugly"

  • 168.
  • At 01:31 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Joe wrote:

England werent even meant to be in the final. but now we are, cos we have self belief in each other and the grit to win, oh here we go everybody have a go at the english, boring to be honest. jealously is a crude thing. all you moaning french are boring same all stuff over and over.we knocked out australia and the hosts, SA knocked out fiji and argentina enough said..

  • 169.
  • At 01:32 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:

Oh well , last week i posted that the blog was getting a bit tame, no banter.
Today the rugby worm has turned again ,vitriol in buckets, tired bitching and personal comments are sooo sad.
CAROLE FROM MAIDENHEAD,quite right enjoy the moment.Banter still a part of this but not this tiresome rubbish about NH/SH celtic fringes and enough chips to make harry ramsden rich.
On SA as already posted they are also in there on merit
whatever style statements .
Going to paris, as a pundit certainly got england wrong.
Dogging out is good and England never in a position scorewise to throw it about.SA did not really throw it about until the last quarter it is called playing what is in front of you.
Professional sport is about winning first and entertaining
if and when you are in a winning position.FACT OF LIFE.
If this is not the case why have NZ/AUSSIES sacked or replaced their respective coaches ,had pages of abuse in their own press etc .QUESTION WHO WILL REPLACE JOSH .
TOM and BEN i hope your exes sheets are as creative.

  • 170.
  • At 01:35 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • spooner wrote:

98 "A classic rugby call from the crowds in New Zealand is 'pass it Don't Kick it'."
Has anyone read the stats for Dan Carter/Butch James/Jonny Wilkinson?
%age of balls received kicked from hand?
48/48/40 - in that order!
10-man rugby?
Just thought I'd explode that particular myth, whilst trying to ignore all the above pathetic name-calling.

  • 171.
  • At 01:35 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

Jacques Malaprade - by the mixture of comments posted no-one is sure whether you are French or South African and quite frankly no-one cares. In regards to the Sour grapes from everyone else, which is a very unenviable quality, i am amazed at the the negativity that you have developed. You may not have noticed but Rugby is a sport, the greatest sport in the world, and 99% of people involved in our sport are fantastic people who put a positive spin on anything that confronts them - if you have nothing positive to write about our game become a Football supporter. For all the negative jibes the clue is in the title 主播大秀 - you may like to look at what the first B stands for. If you are annoyed by English people talking up the success of their team i suggest you look at your own media outlets and stop writing your blinkered visions here. However i know this is highly unlikely as everyone around the world knows that the 主播大秀 is the best - another thing that you probably can't bear!! We are a proud nation who has seen their warriors fight tooth and nail for victory to get to the final. Win or lose i am a realist. Lets look forward rather than dwelling on the past. South Africa are a good side and will be very difficult to beat, but we as Englishmen will revel in the fact that we now have that opportunity. Anyone with the peripheral vision of a bat would say that our game is unattractive because the chip on your shoulders won't allow you to say any different. I say good luck to both teams (that's a sporting gesture for you!!) but our hearts will be shouting for England and beautiful or ugly, win or lose you will not stop us from being passionate about OUR team!!

  • 172.
  • At 01:36 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Coxy wrote:

Just for information Bizangofish (and all others wondering about the songs)...

The Beatles track played was 'Hard Days Night'.

Cheers

  • 173.
  • At 01:37 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • nerrisinlondon wrote:

May I just say, Tomthepom has hit the nail on the head, I was gutted to see so many of my French friends in tears after the game on Saturday, I was delighted to win of course, but the first thing I did was buy them all a pint and a shot, then we all went on the lash together. People who love the game don't get into all this pom/french/kiwi/whatever bashing. I've seen some of the best Rugby ever over the last few weeks, all this talk about a "pretty" game is just fodder for the journalists to fill empty space. Please, please, please, can we just look to the positive and not have the negative that so many seem want to offer...

  • 174.
  • At 01:38 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carole in Maidenhead wrote:

Anyone making jingoistic comments is an imbecile as far as I am concerned. I do believe that England WERE arrogant in the 2003 RWC, but no-one could possibly accuse them of that this time round. Even team members are astonished to find themselves in the final. THAT's what makes it such a pleasure to see them there. Oh, by the way, I'm Welsh.

  • 175.
  • At 01:39 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • rob wrote:

I've decided that all this talk about england winning in an ugly way rather irritates me because all that england is doing is playing the game, within the rules, in the way that provides them with the best chance of victory. Isn't it?

Have I missed something or is that not pretty much the nature of sport?

Perhaps those who want to see a more beautiful game should start watching football, or maybe additional points should be awarded to the team with the most fashionable kit and players who are not beautiful enough should be banned from the field . . .

"the scoreboard flashes up a 200 point lead to england as Kate Moss leads the team out. Kate is wearing Prada thign-length boots, Gucci hot-pants and a Stella McCartney vest. A late substitution sees Sienna Miller on the bench . . . "

Actually, that's a really good idea!

  • 176.
  • At 01:40 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • RDA wrote:

It doesn't matter how you play the game, it is whether you win or lose.

Look at how "ugly" Chelsea have played and won compared to the "beautiful" Arsenal game which wins nothing.

I hope England win in an "ugly" game as it shows that they are tactically superior to SA.

And anyone who claims Sunday's game was anything other than "ugly" was on the wrong channel. Kick, miss touch, kick, miss touch, kick, miss touch... I turned over to Top Gear.

  • 177.
  • At 01:40 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carey Gunn wrote:

Ugly? Beautiful? What happened to the "eye of the beholder"?! On that premise alone, England's latest wins are stunningly gorgeous because they had us all (yes, even the miserable gits who would slate England just for breathing), on the edge of our seats, breathing heavily in anticipation of whichever way the game would go. Rugby isn't pretty. If it were, John Terry would try and play and then where would we be?!

  • 178.
  • At 01:41 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steff wrote:

Ben - you say that the Saffers won their 'dire' semi versus Argentina.

As a neutral, I witnessed far excitement from one player (Habana) in Sunday's game than the entirety of two teams could provide on Saturday.

I'm not getting carried away, they were both miserable matches, but take off your rose-tinted glasses for one moment and consider that unless you were an Englishman or Frenchman on Saturday, there was no excitement. (Who cares if the game remains in the balance in the last ten minutes if the previous 70 have been complete dross?)

  • 179.
  • At 01:41 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Marie Borard wrote:

If you SH guys want points for 'flair' or 'artistic impression' can I suggest that you try figure skating.

Your team's full of big girls anyway.

C'mon England.

  • 180.
  • At 01:41 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Robster wrote:

We all want to see free flowing try scoring Rugby, but for once Rugby has got to learn from the Football boys. Last season Arsenal played the best Football and won NOTHING. Chelsea were boring and won two cups, United were more entertaining but not that great and won The league. Whats all this taking Rugby backwards bs. Winning is the only thing that matters, ask the AB's and the Wallabies. Last night's score flattered SA as Argentina made too many mistakes and gifted them tries. All the Rugby in the first half was played by the Argentinians and once they Boks were ahead they played sensibly and clinically jumped all over any mistake. If England can play relatively mistake free it will be close, and they can win. It's not all about 1,2,3 and 10 all the guys 1 to 15 were superb on Saturday with Ashton sending on the cavalry at the right time. Come on Boys !!!

  • 181.
  • At 01:47 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Karl wrote:

This RWC asks the question, Where is Rugby heading? Before I try to answer that, can I say that as a Wallaby supporter, the Wallabies did not deserve to win against England as they lost the battle in the ruck and scrum to the English forwards. I also recognise that England has won all of her games fair and square and by the rules.

In this sense all those defending England's 'ugly' wins are right. However, do the rules of Rugby need changing? I've seen NZ, SA and English sides happily taking shots at goal from 50-60 metres from their tryline, with confidence. Not even in their attacking half. With the skills of Johnny Wilkinson and others, might the Rugby try become as meaningless as feeding into the second row of a rugby league scrum? Is it really unthinkable that we may have successful penalty kicks from 70 metres and beyond? A remarkable feat, but is it the Rugby we love?

In this blog alone some English fans seem comfortable with this, one quote,'Rugby isn't just about scoring tries, it's about technique, team play and players pushing themselves to their physical limits...'
Another 'I'd be happy with an ugly 3-0 victory.'

Perhaps we need to make penalty/field goals worth 2 points, with tries scoring 10. Or perhaps Australia will produce a kicker like Wilkinson?

On second thoughts, let's go for 10 point tries...

  • 182.
  • At 01:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • MJ wrote:

Let's just say that England's win over France is a prime example that strategy matters! At the end of day, for what it's worth, England WON the game! Regardless what's going to happen in the final, England has a chance to create the history, which is more than Aussies, Kiwis or the likes have ever hoped for!

  • 183.
  • At 01:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Duncan wrote:

For those anti english fans who only like free flowing rugby and bemoan any tactic that isn't running with the ball in hand then please watch the ba bas. thats what they do - exhibition matches.
If you want to watch tense nailbiting rugby played under the greatest pressure then watch every team in the world cup because they all play ugly at some point to try and win.

  • 184.
  • At 01:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • n jones wrote:

First of all I must say how much I was enthralled at Englands win over france.True it wasn't the most free flowing game, but it was the most brutal and tense of matches and essential viewing .I bet there weren't many who could have turned away or switched off in the last 10minutes.
South Africa will deservedly start as Favourites but, despite the arrogance
of the SA fans on here ,England will be bloody difficult to beat, and like France if England are within a couple of points going into the Final minutes the Springboks will be very nervous. What price the grumpy old men and non world class kicker then?
One last point If everybody hates us so much Why can you not go anywhere in the UK without hearing A South African Accent, or being served a beer by a KIWI behind the bar. If you don't like us **** off home

  • 185.
  • At 01:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • j barrett wrote:

South africa manager zola yeye has predicted the springboks will thrash england again on saturday,im a scot and i will support england,as i have had it with sh arrogance.

  • 186.
  • At 01:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

I was at the match on Saturday, and I have to say that many of the sad and bitter bloggers who have posted on here could take a huge lesson from the French fans. The number of fans who came and shook hands after the game, had a beer with us, and wished us 'bon chance' for the final was absolutely incredible. They knew and understood the enormity of the game that they had just watched and responded to their loss with dignity and respect for their opponents. Every player on that pitch, whether he be French or English, had put their body and soul on the line for the win. I can only hope that the shocking posts on here have come from people who have never played the game and who don't really understand it. It is the mutual respect of fans and players alike that has always made rugby special - and made Saturday night in Paris special, if we lose that then we are in the realms of violence and segregation. Good luck to England, and thank you so much to France for a wonderful tournament and for being such incredible hosts before, during and after the game.

  • 187.
  • At 01:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • James Tayler wrote:


I sometimes wonder whether those "commentators" who espouse "beautiful" rugby have ever enjoyed the insight gained from first hand experience of the physical, sometimes brutal game that rugby is. Perhaps if the aforementioned "commentators" had ever found themselves receiving a good shoeing at the bottom of a ruck, or tried to execute a drop goal, or tried being part of a wonderful flowing, fast running 15 phase end-to-end try-scoring team effort (that inevitably petered out after the second or third phase), then they would understand from experience the so-called 鈥渦gly鈥 essence that is rugby. Yes, when successfully executed, such flowing rugby is great to watch but it is the exception rather than the rule and is almost always built on 鈥渦gly鈥 foundations.

We have seen some quite lamentable (ugly?) drop-goal attempts in the RWC illustrating how difficult a scoring opportunity it actually is. If it were easy then Jonny would not be special because every team would have their own Wilko and the game would no doubt more often than not be decided by penalties and drop goals. I doubt French or Argentinean fans would have complained had they won due only to the kicking skills of their team? And they wouldn鈥檛 be complaining about the 鈥渦gliness鈥 that put their Jonno in such a position to score. (Is it not a bit naive to think you can score a drop goal from your own half? Does it not belie any faith in your 鈥渦gly鈥 colleagues in the forwards?).

Anybody, talented or not, who has invested blood, sweat and tears into any sport knows that after the taking part, the camaraderie and all other fine aspects of sport, the ultimate point is winning. No person on the winning team cares about the manner in which they win (provided it is within the rules and spirit of the game), and true fans who have some insight into how a victory is actually achieved will not ultimately care about the manner of it regardless of whether they support the winners or the losers (even in the painful aftermath of watching your beloved team loose). For winning is why people play sport for their country and why fans travel and pay to watch their teams endeavour to achieve victory. And no player or true fan would countenance the concept of an 鈥渦gly鈥 win 鈥 too often the only 鈥渦gliness鈥 surrounding sporting endeavour emanates from the mouths of those losing 鈥渇ans鈥 who bemoan the sport that they watch because their team lost.

  • 188.
  • At 01:51 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • doctormatt wrote:

it's the year 1954, and in the pool stages of the football world cup in switzerland. Hungary thrash Germany 8-3. fast forward 3 weeks, and it's Germany 3, Hungary 2 in the final - germany are world champions.
the germans are more efficient and more organized than the more free flowing hungarians.
ring any bells??

  • 189.
  • At 01:52 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Michael S wrote:

I can't believe anyone actually thinks Sunday's game was the more exciting to watch...

It was painfully obvious after 20mins that Argentina had reached their limits, and the last half hour was just waiting for the final whistle to go as SA had clearly got the game in the bag.

Saturday, and with 81 mins on the clock England are desparately defending against French attacks to try and get the score to win (or take the game to overtime, at worst).

Which would you rather watch?

My head says Boks (too strong all-round), but my heart screams England (spirit and belief).

  • 190.
  • At 01:55 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Kevin wrote:

Ben,

You and your many blog site owners do make a lot of speculation on how the opposition does or does not win! SA nearly lost here, nearly lost there, but you seem to have a problem counting the close scores England have one by, 2 points, 6 points, does that make them invincible?!?!

As with Argentina, they played well and fronted up every game, but they were tired, there lose was not due to inability to beat SA, just the human body can only take so much. England could be heading down this road, the players are commenting on the pain and physicality their bodies are going through.

SA, although winning ugly have won by 10 points + in every game and are only doing enough to win and win when they need to, switch on and off. On Saturday they do not need to save anything more, this is it, so don't be to surprised if England go down by a big score !!

  • 191.
  • At 01:55 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • josh wrote:

Some of these anti-England comments are hilarious!! End of the day England yet again in the final and that is what matters. Flowing pretty rugby, WTF who cares as long as our name is engraved on the trophy. We our proud of our boys showing true english spirit, maybe if some of the "technically" better teams had some passion they would stop moaning about how the english win. C`mon Boys !!

  • 192.
  • At 01:57 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • JC wrote:

Noone likes us,

Noone likes us,

La la la,

We don't care!

The first rule of any international sporting contest is that you meet the physicality of the other team. Australia and France have both failed to do so!

I suspect that is what hurts the most... hiding behind calling it 'boring' cannot mask that!

The final will be tight... whatever happens I am, once again, an immensely proud Englishman!

  • 193.
  • At 02:00 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Englebert England wrote:

Well the South Africans seem to have no doubt, their name is being written on the trophy as we speak but......

1) They say the England team that beat Australia and France looks like a different one to that which lost to SA in the pool game. That's because it is. 33% percent different at least.

2) England are a rare example of a team which is dependent heavily on one player - namely Johnny Wilkinson. Examine England's win % with him, and that without him. Frightening isn't it?

3) Vickery the captain didn't play in the pool game. A captain's influence on the team can be worth at least 10 points.

4) League situation is different to knock out. Think about how many upsets happen in the FA Cup every year. Players always play harder when its knockout.

5) The media would have us all believe SA are light years in front of England - a cold hard analysis of the stats suggests that is not true with the only area of genuine advantage for SA being the line out.

Heart says England, head says too close to call.

  • 194.
  • At 02:02 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dean Dreamer wrote:

England can't beat South Africa. And they couldn't beat Australia and they couldn't beat France either.

  • 195.
  • At 02:03 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Terrific blog chaps. Loved every entry. One quick question though . . . why are you one-way Twittering? By not following any of your followers, your just delivering a stream of messages that people might like to respond to but can't. Anyway, a minor gripe I guess.

  • 196.
  • At 02:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • James wrote:

Injecting a new angle into Saturday's final... should PM Brown be there?

  • 197.
  • At 02:05 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • chris phillips wrote:

Just a quick point really. It annoys me that for england vs australia people accuse england of playing horrible ugly rugby against an australia team that didnt turn up, played awful and england just scraped by.

Against France, the EXACT same accusation is made. France were diabolcal, england werent much better and just scraped through.

Are all you anti-english-at-all-costs people really that stupid to not make the connection?

england DID NOT ALLOW two of the best teams in world rugby - think barnes, mortlock, latham, jauzion, beauxis, ellisalde etc, all much vaunted - to play.

It is a credit to england that these teams with much vaunted back lines were completely cut off from doing any damage, it was a monumental effort to do so. these teams did not just 'not turn up and played crap', they came in with a game plan which england tore to shreads, it was SUBLIME.

Would you rather we played like the welsh? skip out have a nice little run around, throw the ball about a bit yey lovely pretty game this....

how did that work out for you??
wales were beaten by fiji, and would have been hammered by the aussies and hammered by the french.

we play winning rugby. get used to it.

  • 198.
  • At 02:07 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • David Cooper wrote:

So many idiotic comments, so little time.

Team sports are about making the most of your own team's strengths and nullifying the opposition's. England have done that very well since the SA game.

Everyone (including the England camp) knows that the English backs are no match for the French, Aussies, ABs, Boks and some of the other nations, whereas their forwards are amongst the best in the world. You cannot expect a team like that to come out and play "flair" rugby. Why? They would be on the earliest plane home.

The fact that Australia and France completely failed to deal with England's tactics (Australia managing one try and France none at all) is testament to the fact that they were unable to overcome England's strengths with their own. So, they deserved to lose.

NZ, for their part, reinforced that by persisting in trying to run the ball in for a try from great field position, when a single drop goal would have given them victory. How short-sighted that is.

Put simply, the ABs and Wallabies are just as one dimensional as England ... for them it is run or nothing. Some might consider it more exciting to watch, but what is the point in putting 76 points past Italy in game one if you can't get past the first knockout game of the tournament?

For me, the Australian and New Zealand sides don't appear to have a clue about playing competitive knockout rugby. Sometimes if you want to get through a competition, you have to (a) be prepared, and (b) know how, to grind out a result when plan A isn't working.

Their supporters seem more interested in throwing the ball around than winning the game. Their loss, I suppose.

  • 199.
  • At 02:10 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

I will miss this blog after next weekend. The first thing i do each morning is check it out. Great fun.

Onto my point: Whether we win or lose on saturday I'll be happy. After our awful displays leading up to and in the early stages of this tournament, to turn it around and to be just one win away from retaining the cup makes me very proud of this team.

Some of the whiners are forgetting what makes a team a winning team. In Englands case playing to its strengths, team spirit and not having anywhere in their vocabulary the word 'quitters'.

Wouldn't some of you NOT in the world cup still, like to have just 10% of whatever our England team is on and be there instead on Saturday? To me what makes great rugby is that there is variety in styles. Sure, somedays it can be boring to watch, but for me though this tournament has been the best ever to watch.

Roll on the weekend and pray for an Engalnd win!

Remember the Millwall song? We may be s**t but we don't care!!!

COME ON ENGLAND!!

  • 200.
  • At 02:12 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • GrandweeUlsterman wrote:

Paul at #166 -

'Rugly' absolutely priceless mate!

  • 201.
  • At 02:13 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

As an Irishman I find all the carping against England pathetic, they are in the final on merit and good luck to them. I hope it is a great final but I am sure eitiher side would settle for a streaky win.

  • 202.
  • At 02:14 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • moobabe wrote:

"All of those people complaining about "lack of style" have obviously never crossed the white line"

I think people's concern is that it would be nice if England crossed the white of the try line once in a while...

  • 203.
  • At 02:15 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • chris phillips wrote:


Steve post 171 ;

HERE ! HERE !

well said i wish the argument could just end there. its a mixture of jealousy and bitterness. We came into the world cup as honest proud englishmen hoping against hope that our team - who we accepted were not the best, by some distance - could fight and do us proud.

They have played like true warriors, and we are just proud of them, yet all these haters, for some reason, want to drag it down into a horrible slanging match.

Like you i dont see the need for all the negativity ; its clear that if we lose, we are insulted, if we win, we are insulted...

as the phrase goes ; "to those who hate me, thank you for making me the centre of your world"

let them say what they want it only makes us more proud of our achievements, SA will be bloody tough on saturday, but

COME ON ENGLAND!

  • 204.
  • At 02:20 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

I just pray that South Africa can beat what has to be the worst team ever to contest a World Cup final.

  • 205.
  • At 02:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jake wrote:

How can people complain about the viewing for a neutral with regards to the England v France semi?!?! That game had so so much, the tension was unbearable even from the sofa in the living room you could feel the atmosphere in the stadium to an extent. There was attacking play by the barrelfull, sure it wasn't a massively high scoring game but that was down to the outstanding defence of both teams rather than the lack of attacking.

The last two minutes when France was relentlessly attacking the English defence was incredible rugby. Pulsating, thrilling, gripping...it had everything & I cannot believe that people can whinge & whine about this game!

Mr Dirs...man am I envious of you and Mr Fordyce. I would do anything to have watched the quarter & semi final matches. I can imagine that being there would live in the memory forever, although the night after might be a little blurry due to the alcohol...

  • 206.
  • At 02:22 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

I am rather amused by all the whinging comments about true rugby and beautiful game. I am a scot and fully accept that our team is seriously lacking. I am seriously impressed by Englands grit and determination. I would like to just remind all the posters about the history of rugby. A "try" is called a "try" because it was a "try" at kicking for goal... There never used to be any points for a try!! Until people whinged the game wasn't high scoring enough!! So we return to the question, whats your problem with a kicking game, its rooted in rugby history!!

  • 207.
  • At 02:23 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Carole in Maidenhead wrote:

ANYWAY, apart from all that....BEN, TOM, what have you been up to today?

  • 208.
  • At 02:24 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Stewie wrote:

All the best rugby teams in the world depend upon a kicker, no matter how much "flowing" or "pretty" rugby they play. This WC has shown up the majority of teams for their pretty poor tactical kicking, because it is that part of the kicking game that wins or loses most games. Ask any forward on any team how gratifying it is for them to see the ball they had just won for their backs being launched deep into the opponent's 22 - you can see their head lift. Its much easier being "pretty" in the opponent's 22. Its been pretty boring, though, watching most of the teams, including Aus, NZ, SA, Scot, Eng, Ire, Italy, Arg and even France, just launch aimless, high kicks one after another just to try and get the opponent to knock it on. If Wales had carried out even a small amount of tactical kicking, who knows where they would have got to. As an Irishman, I know that we have great backs in our team, but without a number 10 kicking well out of hand we have no chance. I don't think that many of the people slating England for boring rugby can have played much rugby themselves, because if they had, they would know that you can only beat the team in front of you and that it is very hard to win if you can't kick. Every decent Irish win in the last four years has been based upon gaining field position from good tactical kicking, winning the line-out and then letting the backs do their stuff. I think that on reflection the powers-that-be should review the line-out again to try and make it more competitive, because the "kicking tennis" will continue until teams think they have a better chance of winning a line-out against the throw. Over the lat 3 years England have suffered from not having a plan B when things start to go wrong (NZ also suffer greatly from this). But so far, no team (apart from SA in the group game) have forced them into a change of plan on the pitch. Some of the NZ supporters could also take note of the grace in defeat shown by Australia and France. I wonder how many of those slating England were cheering madly when the Lions beat SA in the last tour there by playing real "ugly" rugby. Catch a grip guys, you play to win. I can't believe it though, that this current England team is actually in the WC final, but Good luck to them, they deserve it.

  • 209.
  • At 02:24 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Kips wrote:

Ask any rugby player, any real rugby player, It doesn't matter if you win by a try or a kick; winning's winning :)

  • 210.
  • At 02:25 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • AndrewL wrote:

To Jacques Malaprade and all the other whining twits: if you can't lose with grace, take up supporting a tiddly-winks team or perhaps synchronised swimming would be more your speed. It doesn't say in the rules of rugby that you have to look nice or play any particular style of rugby. We won, you lost, grow a pair.

  • 211.
  • At 02:29 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • buzzwhite wrote:

Come on England!

If the poor losers can't take it what do we care, they have already lost interest and probably won't bother to watch now they are out. Very true, believe it or not! They are bored because they are not winning. They freely admit they hate us anyway and they couldn't bear to watch us win again.

I have lived in NZ for the past 6 years and its great! The only downside is their love of League style Union. Why do we have 8 forwards if we are not supposed to use them. I have to say the 'beautiful' SH game becomes very boring when you watch a lot of it. Very athletic but where is the dour, fight it out, tooth and nail spirit of the NH sides.

Funny thing is- the South Africans play a more interesting and dynamic game. AND they are sportsmen, unlike the constant whingers (Spelling?) from NZ. I, for one, would rather lose to SA than any other SH side.

  • 212.
  • At 02:30 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Alan Orpin wrote:

What worries me most about SA is the fact that Steyn finds it necessary to have highlights put in his Barnet.

Good Grief.

Does this mean there might be a ducky in the rucky?


Hahahahahahahaha.

  • 213.
  • At 02:31 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • daragh wrote:

I think this may annoy some people but I have to write it. i am an Irish man who was cheering for France on Saturday night. It was a great disappointment to watch such a dull and unadventurous game of rugby. England's only try was only came from a calamity from the French 15 and the game just got worse from there. I don't support France with any anti-english sentiment, i just prefer the way they play rugby. I will however support England on Saturday as northern hemisphere friends. One last point: The notion that the southern hemisphere rugby will take a look and wonder how they can reach the heights of northern hemisphere is a joke. They will hammer all of us next autumn when the grace us with their presence. If there is any justice South Africa will win, but I will join in with Jerusalem in the stand sat Saint Denis this Saturday night (but I will be wearing the green of Ireland!)

  • 214.
  • At 02:36 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • chrisk wrote:

I want to test this idea that England are somehow devaluing the Rugby World Cup with a style of play that is completely out of kilter with current thinking and the short history of this awesome competition. There appears to be a view on the other side of the world that a Southern Hemisphere final would involve the ball being thrown around with gay abandon in an orgy of ties. I think it's worth looking back at the results of the previous five finals and noting that in over 400 minutes of play a total of only 8 tries has been scored. Three of these were scored by NZ in the inaugural final in 1987 - which even revisionists would accept was more of a beerfest for many of the teams that turned up. The highest aggregate score was 47 points (Australia 35 France 12) of which 37 were scored with the boot. The only final where no try was scored (the amazing 15-12 victory by the Springboks in 1995) involved two SH teams. And so on... Finals (or any knockout stage) are unlikely to be the time when players experiment and create, because the fear of failure is too strong.

It seems to me that what really makes a gripping World Cup Final - one that stays in the memory for years to come - is not the style of play per se, but the closeness and intensity of the contest. It is perhaps not surprising that the two finals that tend to stick out in people's minds are those in 1995 and 2003, which went down to the wire. So let's hope for a great match and, as they say in France "le meilleur gagne"

And here's a story to remind us why we all support this marvellous game. The pub I was in was packed, beer was flowing and the atmosphere was getting boisterous. We roared out God Save the Queen, but when the French anthem started, quite a few people started to boo. Within seconds, they were told to shut up or get out; La Marseillaise was completed in silence - apart from the French, who sang their hearts out - and then roundly applauded. Maybe all of us on these bulletin boards could show each other the same kind of respect over the coming days.

  • 215.
  • At 02:39 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Fred wrote:

I'm so glad that my team lost and played attractive pretty rugby. Get real. Win or lose, take it on the chin and get on with it.

Well done to the French for hosting such a superb world cup and for being such good sports after defeat.

  • 216.
  • At 02:41 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

For all those who are still going on about tries, a few points to consider:

1. There are, believe it or not, ways to score points other than tries.

2. I haven't seen England's opponents scoring many either - strange, if it's as easy as you suggest.

3. If England are so incapable of scoring tries, why are their opponents so stupid as to give away penalties in their own half? Maybe, just maybe, England would be scoring more tries otherwise, and the cynical killing of the ball by the opposition is what you should be complaining about.

4. South Africa's "wonderful" attack, playing "proper" rugby, achieved what exactly, last night? Habana's well-taken try came from turnover ball against an unprepared defence, and everything else was basically passed straight to a green shirt by an Argentina backline feeling the pressure. All rather underwhelming.

In fact, South Africa's game all tournament has been based on gaining territory and exerting pressure. Just like Argentina's game (although they employed a few more up-and-unders), and France's under Mad Bernie, and England's in fact. Just fancy that - all the top-performing sides have notably tried to play the game in the opposition half, finding position more important than possession. But England are boring, and everyone else plays "proper" rugby - riiiiight.

I fancy the Boks to win on Saturday, although not by a massive margin. I think their lineout will ensure that they regain the ball if we kick to touch, and win or disrupt a fair chunk of England ball. And if we kick down the middle, Pretty Boy Montgomery will be waiting to hoof it straight back with interest. Still, I thought much the same about France, with Traille at 15, so who knows?

  • 217.
  • At 02:43 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • every game but tonga wrote:

How can no-one mention defence? For those of us who play the game, we all know that (legal) tackles win matches, and that's what both England and South Africa's wins were based on. "Stylish" rugby is nearly always a product of inferior tackling from the opposition...

  • 218.
  • At 02:46 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan wrote:


If World Cups, or indeed major international championships in any sport, existed merely to confirm the current world rankings in each, then no one would turn up to watch them.

Tiger Woods doesnt win every Open, Brazil do not win every football World Cup, the #1 ranked 100m sprinter doesnt always win Olympic gold. And sport is made all the better for it.

Now what part of this is so difficult for our SH cousins to understand or accept?

NZ are deservedly the #1 ranked team in the world, and equally deservedly they are playing no part in the final for the simple fact they were unable to score more than 5 points in the whole of the second half against the French - and never looked like doing so.

Get over yourselves!

  • 219.
  • At 02:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Biglad wrote:

errrr.... I like gritty, physical 10 man rugby and the cheap, clueless blond crumpet... Does this mean I am not normal?

  • 220.
  • At 02:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Col wrote:

Great blog!
Playing brilliant rugby usually wins you tests but not the World Cup due to the fact that all games between the top sides are tighter.
We've beaten the Aussies and the French by having a better game plan and all 15 players sticking to it, simple as that!
Great to see non-England fans moaning - isn't that what we do....... :O)

  • 221.
  • At 02:50 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Alan Moses wrote:

Some simple facts for all the Southern Hemisphere wingers.

The sole aim of professional sport is to win. You only get bonus points in the pool stages so there is no need to score tries. The aim is to get 1 more point than the opposition. That is called a win.

As all the chat is about flowing, glamorous rugby, we have seen that is as much use as a chocolate toilet at the business end of the World Cup.

AUS and NZ can keep playing flowing, fancy rugby beating rubbish teams by 12 tries but that does not prepare you for hard games.

Once people get their heads round the fact that winning by 1 point is enough then they will maybe win something other than the Bledisloe mug..I thank you.

Bring on the abuse.

RWC finalist.

  • 222.
  • At 02:52 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Gavin wrote:

Any team that makes it to a World Cup final deserves to be there. It's a tough tournament, and results in a series of tight matches speak for themselves. England have done tremendously well to get to the final, considering all that has gone before.

But here is an interesting one: Will Brian Ashton be knighted if England in the Cup... as Sir Clive was?

Clive Woodward BUILT a team over six years: a team that beat every major nation home and away in that period, started the RWC 2003 as favourites, and delivered majestically. A knighthood richly deserved.

Brian Ashton has inherited a team low on form and moral that lost heavily in SA in the summer, looked average in the warm-up games, and stumbled through the pool stages. However, he has drawn on his senior players, and managed to will his team through two against-the-odds knock out victories, and into a World Cup final. If they keep it up, keep it tight and trust Jonny, they could be World Champions again!!!

But will it be worthy of a knighthood??

  • 223.
  • At 02:52 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Hedropsforglory wrote:

Just a quik note to my fellow English - can we stop bundling our fellow Brits, neighbouring Irish and fellow European French with the the bitter folk on here? Not only is the "always anti-English" thing overstated generally, I am pleased and genuinely grateful that a number of them are dotted around these boards sticking their heads above the parapets saying "reveting stuff, we're with you". And the French were magnanimous after the game, let me tell you, and that says much about their character given how it must have hurt.
No, the vitriol on here is largely Antipodean jealousy (how's it going to change for you boys if you don't ever take a good look at yourselves, rather than us and the ref?) and really quite splendidly, highly rattled Saffers.
'Aint life grand?!

  • 224.
  • At 02:54 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Matt Holmes wrote:

6 weeks ago I would have said that England had no chance in the World Cup, losing 36-0 was rubbish but if you're going to have 1 bad game (sorry 2 including the USA match) you might as well get it out of the way early on, since then we have won every match, improving every week - even the most ardent fans would have doubted our ability to beat Australia and then France but we got through both of these tough tests.

In the mean-time SA have been severely tested by Fiji, a team that were demolished 55-12 by Australia (for some reason that name rings a bell, did England play them?) and then they played Argentina, a team that looked so emotionally and physically drained that they couldn't do anything but hand the Boks 3 tries.

If you can't dream what have you got, there is no pressure on England as they were never expected to be in the final, whereas for South Africa the pressure must be immense, this could be SA's last chance for a while - a lot of the squad are moving to Europe after the World Cup and will not be eligible for the Boks, so it's last chance saloon for many.

So as much as I agree that SA are the favourites for the final, I don't think that it will be as simple as many believe, will they crack under the pressure (a la cricketing contemporaries Messer's Smith, Pollock, Klusener etc). England have been up against it ever since they arrived in France and there's no reason why they can't keep on proving their doubters wrong. If we still need convincing then we only have to think of Butch James attempting a quite memorable drop-goal, did it make it into the Argentinean 22? I couldn't see for laughing, magic.

Role on Saturday, it will be quite an evening.

  • 225.
  • At 03:01 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Scotnat wrote:

Min, your column is as wet as England rugby supporters in general.

But fair play to Engerland for doing so well with, apart from Wilkinson, a pretty limited outfit.

I hardly think the southern hemisphere teams or France are "jealous" of England though, as they are all superior in spite of the freak results of this world cup.

Once Jonny retires or gets crocked England will be lucky to get the wooden spoon in the six nations.

I hope SA tan you in the final so we Scots do not have to put up with the relentless drivel that will eminate from the Great wen should you fluke your way to victory.

  • 226.
  • At 03:08 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • darran mather wrote:

of course, closeness of score and intensity of effort is essential to a thrilling match but the implication that a high scoring game with lots of tries is somehow less valid than one domintaed by tedious forward play is simply nonsense.

rugby is primarily about crossing the try line and placing the ball over the line. that IS rugby. that is its aim. that is why the AB's and Wallabies bordering on the iconic while England are tolerated. they play boring rugby but are quite capable of playing exceptional rugby. I for one just wish they'd open up and have faith in their ability to perform the basics ie, run the ball, pass the ball and beat the man. i suspect traditionalists see this style of play as too rugby league and therefore decry its beauty choosing to focus on the scrum and the forward grunt.

  • 227.
  • At 03:08 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Who Cares Who Wins wrote:

As a long-standing (ex-)player of the most beautiful game, I'd love England to win, but actually think they've done more than adequately already - reaching the final and beating 2 of the clear favourites. Going down to just one (winning) team in this world cup would be a good result (albeit twice). England entered as a broken and uncoordinated gaggle, and apart from that SA thrashing I witnessed at great expense in SDeF, they have fought out a victory in all games. Remember Woodward was also "guilty" of approaching the WC as a series of games to be won. Instead of seeking outright domination, he was happy to win every game by one point if need be. 6 Nations and friendlies are the time to practice beautiful rugby - all that matters in future years is whose name is on the cup. I hope this will be England, but both teams have earned their finals places and either will earn the win. As SA have been pushing through their victories without significant progress or improvement, I feel England's performance trajectory favours us, but this will turn on 1 or 2 plays. The adverse press and rubbish spouted (incl by a losing S-hemi side largely - take a lesson from the gracious French) has probably done more to accelerate team spirit, unity, and commitment than any training session or game in the last few years. So (perversely) thank you to those whingers, as well as we loyal ones who continued to fork out cash to watch games, for your help. Whether we grind out a victory or not on Saturday will of course matter everything to those players who've stepped up to the mark. Personally, I'd like to congratulate them in advance and irrespective of the final score/ result. Good luck England.

  • 228.
  • At 03:09 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rich wrote:

Arrogant English? Mate, we didn't even expect to get out of the group stages and are now just thrilled and surprised to have fought through to the final. I would suggest that certain teams who cannot accept that any other teams should progress further than them may have the edge on the arrogance front.

And as for negative rugby, this is knock out tournament. The basic idea is to win or go home. England know they are not the best and so play to their strengths, getting pilloried in the process as they are unfairly not playing the type of run-fest that other teams did before packing their bags.

The team with the best defense wins world cups - just ask the Australians. They are the ultimate tournament team, play whatever style is necessary, and know that it is about one thing and one thing alone. Winning the game.

For all the reasonable, rational, articulate Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans who understand this, come here and have a cuddle. For the rest of you, especially the ones who live in England and do nothing but whine about how bad it is here and what awful people we are, no one is stopping you from turning around and going back. Really, no one.

The final will be immense, and I doubt either team will worry too much about the style or lack of that they win it with.

I think that's all.

  • 229.
  • At 03:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Joss Price wrote:

A great weekend's rugby; England met France and South Africa met Argentina at the Stade de France, Australia met New Zealand at Charles De Gaulle... Great to see the two toughest, most physical sides reach the final. The scrum is the cornerstone of the game, it's very foundation, always has been, always will be - a fact the Aussie and NZ basketballers would do well to remember. Chin up, only 1460 days to go.

When are the organisers of the Tri-Nations going to pluck their collective heads out of their own backsides and invite the Argentineans into their tournament? Surely this World Cup was the catalyst they needed for a shake up?

Great quote from Graham Henry in the NZ Herald "We're still the best team in the world, we just haven't got that little yellow cup". He's been having PR lessons from that shouty crackers Iraqi Minister For Information...

  • 230.
  • At 03:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Talking of songs..enjoy this adapted from Euro 96/WC 98 tunes


think it's bad news for the global game
They鈥檙e just not strong enough, and we're not fair enough

It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home...
(The All Blacks will go on getting great results, getting great results..)
It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home
It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home
It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home

England fans seem to know the score,
They've seen it all before,
Telstra Dome,
oh so pure,
Jonny鈥檚 gonna bang it away,
Sheri blow it away,
Any oppo can play,
'Cause I remember...

Four more years of hurt
That鈥檚 our silver lining
World Champions on the shirt
Campo鈥檚 mouth still whining

.

So many jokes, so many sneers,
Has left the Kiwi鈥檚 in tears,
Wear them down,
Through the years,
But I still see that tackle by Shaw,
And when Lewsey scored,
Cattie belting the ball,
And Billy whizz fizzing ...

Four more years of hurt

That鈥檚 our silver lining

World Champions on the shirt

Campo鈥檚 mouth still whining

(England have done it, in the last minute of extra time)
(What a last minute drop goal, good old England, England who couldn't pass the ball, England have got it in the bag )
I know that was then
But it could be again

It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby鈥檚 coming home
It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home
(England will do it)

It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home
It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home

Four more years of hurt

That鈥檚 our silver lining

World Champions on the shirt

Campo鈥檚 mouth still whining

Extended version (98 remix)

It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home

Tears from oppo gone away

No plans for final day

Take a plane, drift away

For us it meant this

Songs in the street

Now to make it complete

Jonny will kick it so sweet

And now we鈥檙e singing

Four more years of hurt

That鈥檚 our silver lining

World Champions on the shirt

Campo鈥檚 mouth still whining

Talk about rugby still at home

Long way south without a throne

They had choked, we had grown

And now I see Sheri ready for war

Lewis good as before

Easter ready to score

And Corry screaming

Four more years of hurt

That鈥檚 our silver lining

World Champion鈥檚 on the shirt

Campo鈥檚 mouth still whining

We can dance Jonny鈥檚 dance

We鈥檒l dance it in France

It's staying home,
It's staying home,
It's staying,
Rugby's staying home

  • 231.
  • At 03:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • dave wrote:

Great blog.

Why though are the responses from the English people on here so full of anger? After playing such fantastic, aggressive rugby for the last four games, you should be delighting in your team and its incredible achievement. Yet, all I read here from England followers is anger and vitriol mostly directed against the southern hemisphere teams. Absolutely bizarre.

  • 232.
  • At 03:12 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Bernd Steven wrote:

Once again the English have allowed themselves to believe. Chat to you on Sunday!!

  • 233.
  • At 03:12 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Englands win was a wholly unexpected pleasure, and to hear the SA, OZ and All blacks complaining is an absolute joy, because whatever they may think, the better teams won their respective quarter finals; they were better prepared, had more self belief and showed the skill and determination to apply themselves for 80 minutes. So if the final is beauty against the beast, I say 'Come on the beast'. After all, even in the fairy tale, the beast won through in the end ...

  • 234.
  • At 03:14 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steve R wrote:

As usual, the 'anyone-but-England' hate brigade are out in force.

I wouldn't mind if you were all a little more honest and said that you wouldn't support England no matter what sort of rugby we were playing.

I don't know - perhaps it riles you that if your team had some of the qualities that this England team DO possess, they might still be in the tournament.

Do I think we'll beat the Boks on Saturday? Hand on heart, no. I think they are a superb team and I think it might be a game too far for our boys - however, I'll still be cheering them all the way and if the miracle does happen, it'll be all the sweeter knowing our so-called fellow Brits are choking back the ever-present bile they reserve for us.

  • 235.
  • At 03:14 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Boring or sitting on the edge of your seat? That seems to be the two schools of thought. Here's a simple way of looking at it: the England players play for themselves, the coach and their country. As one of their countrymen, I would rather they played blood and guts upfront than caved in like the Australians (who play flowing rugby). It really doesn't matter what non-English people think: they're not playing for you. Criticise/praise your own country ... and work out how to beat us.

  • 236.
  • At 03:15 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • LACHMAN wrote:

I`mm enjoying all the banter on the blog, and being a proud Englishman of Irish parents and married to an Irishwoman I`m a little disappointed to hear the disparaging remarks from some (not all) of my celtic friends. How many of the English team have no celtic blood in them? these guys have gone out and used what they have at their disposal to win games and progress to the final. We all knew Sat nites game wouldn`t be a classic 2 sides evenly matched going for the biggest prize in Rugby nobody wanting to make a mistake and gifting the opposition a score, so lets get away from all negative comments and get back to watching a truly wonderful world cup, and watching fans from all over getting on and having a laugh come what may after all thats what sport is all about...isn`t it?
by the way COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!

  • 237.
  • At 03:17 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • sorcha wrote:

To anyone who says that think it's not good for rugby that england are in the final- i say rubbish. it is a good thing for rugby that current world champions are able to cope with big changes within the squad and management and if not retaining their crown, then at least defending it with all their might. it's such sour grapes to suggest it's boring. it's actually fascinating to see a huge example of how team spirit can give a team an edge. if nz were in the position england are now in, they wouldnt care if their rugby was described as "boring", they'd be rubbing everyone's faces in it!

  • 238.
  • At 03:17 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rowan wrote:

Why is everyone rising to the bait that the anti-English here are irritating you with? England did what was necessary to give themselves a chance at retaining the cup, if the other countries had played better they would still be in the tournament!

  • 239.
  • At 03:27 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

I don't think 15 guys defending their nation's pride with everything they've got is ugly. It's rather uplifting. France against England was a superb contest with lots of great attacking but moreso defensive action. Defence is part of the game folks - knowing how to play possession rugby, kick and neutralise attacking threats wins matches. The game is not and never has been just about scoring tries or running flowing rugby (which nowadays is much more difficult given the average size and fitness levels of each player).

England has improved with each match since SA. They look very strong for this one! I know if we keep it tight, we'll do it!

SA look good as well! I wouldn't expect a wonderful open game as both sides will be wary of making mistakes with two excellent kickers on the field. This, could end-up, try-less and so what! I'm sure I'll be on the edge of my seat if I manage to sit down during the whole affair!

C'MON ENGLAND!

  • 240.
  • At 03:28 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

In reply to post #181

10 points for a try and 2 points for a penalty won't increase the number of trys. It will increase the number of penalties conceded.

If you really want to see more tries increase the value of penalties to 10 points, that way everyone will avoid conceding them, opening up the game for more tries :-)

Remember the only reason that England are scoring penealities is because the opposition are illegally prevent them playing the ball.

  • 241.
  • At 03:31 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dams wrote:

Well...
Congrats to the english team for that win.
Sure your team is not very exciting to watch when they play (that is not new) but at least they know what their forces (and weakness) are and play according to that.

I still don't understand why our players never went back to what is the best for them...play wide and fast.
Instead, they kept playing that rugby that is so not what we do the best.
They didn't play a very clever game...looks like they didn't play at all.

Anyway, that is just a game, we lost.
Again, congratulations to you team.
As a european, I will be cheering for them on saturday.

  • 242.
  • At 03:34 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • oddball wrote:

Go England !!!!
All of us seem to forget that the exciting play we watch and listen to is created by courageous team members in the mud and the blood split seconds before we even start to think about it.
Both teams in the final are worthy of their places, easy game it will not be for either side
Go England!!

  • 243.
  • At 03:42 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Trev Wallace wrote:

Scot Nat...you really are a misery

  • 244.
  • At 03:42 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • veschman wrote:

to all
i have just read for the past hour this comment on england /france and it is scarry
i played 10 year rugby in a local club where i used to lived and what i saw saturday was about the same level no more no less and rugby gonna go this way because of pressure , money, media it is win ,win ,win and whom care about it so
LONG LIVE RUGBY AND LET S HOPE IT WILL BE BETTER DAY

CONGRATULATION ENGLAND

  • 245.
  • At 03:43 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Pete77 wrote:

This blog has produced many a entertaining and interesting moments, however what you have written above is complete rubbish and as per usual English supporters have being blinded to the reality of what has actually happened. How can you say the semi final between Arg & SA was dire. Look at the stats, 5 tries in the SA match to 1 in the Eng match, in the Eng match there were 87 kicks and NO linebreaks. Sure the eng match was intense & on the edge of your seat stuff, but in terms of rugby, well at least you saw rugby in the 2nd semi.

Man I am gonna laugh when you English get brought down to Earth on Sat....But I guess you won't mind because you'll walk around for the next four years saying your the 2nd best team on the plant....rubbish!

  • 246.
  • At 03:44 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Fiona wrote:

I remember the days when only about 10 people used to reply to your blogs.

Word gets around!!!!

  • 247.
  • At 03:47 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • K Deano wrote:

Chris K speaks so much sense.

One of the many reasons we all love rugby because it attracts a better quality of person than football (soccer).

I'm proudly English but the Marseillaise sends shivers down my spine as much as God save the queen or watching a passionate Haka. I embrace all rugby's best traditions and love them one and all.

I truly love the game, I love the supporters (never seen a proper fight in over 25 years of watching live games).

Maybe the internet is not the best medium to discuss things as people often feel a lot braver hiding behind a keyboard and say things they'd perhaps never dare say face to face.

I can understand some fans feeling disappointed at not making the final but there really is no need for the poisonous nonesense I've read on this site. I can only conclude that the real fans aren't bothering to comment. I also think that the most aggressive comments have almost certainly come from people who've never really played the game before.
Anybody who has played the game and taken the knocks would not be so gobby.
Sean Fitzpatrick is a great example. Having watched his beloved All Blacks knocked out seconds earlier he was then asked to comment live on British TV. He was a true gentleman and utterly gracious in defeat despite being obviously devastated.
I'm sure there are some tiresome England 'fans' out there gloating and stirring up trouble but they are defintley in the minority. You would do well to rise above it as real rugby folk do not behave like mouthy football thugs.

Banter is one thing - vitriolic abuse is another.

As for the style of play debate - ludicrous.
SA are hardly the most creative of teams but are very effective. They play a game based on territory and a strong pack. They then capitalise on the opposition errors.
I don't mind this as they do it very well.

The fact remains that Australia have neglected the scrum for too long and were found out. Not England's fault.
NZ lost because they didn't play smart enough and try a dropped goal in the last ten minutes. Sure, they suffered some bad calls from the ref but the game was still theirs to win.

Of course there will be some banter from other fans but that is all part of the game. If England had lost to Tonga or Samoa I'd have expected a similar onslaught from down under.

Deal with it and move on. Having a common enemy (England) is an easy solution but ulitamtely it won't help you.

  • 248.
  • At 03:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan K wrote:

Glenn I will not stoop to your level by exchanging insults I was not critising them for questioning his decisions I was commenting on the high pitched girly scream before the decision which then influenced a man who is not fit to ref the level I play never mind internationals!!
I have yet to see anyone from the England team be arrogant and pompous I along with a lot of the team accept our limitations of a squad who have had poor preperations for the 4 years who have been honest in admitting their failings but have been tactically astute enough to play to their own strengths and exploit their oppositions weaknesses anyone who has ever crossed the white line will value the England performances for what they are true honest hardworking job-done displays!!
Re your arrogance comment I think you'll find it's the SA manager who has come out and stated that they will repeat they 36-0 result in the final who are the arrogant ones again??

  • 249.
  • At 03:55 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jimbob wrote:

To all the anti-english posters...who cares if you're going to support SA, or you were supporting France on Sat night, or you think we play 'ugly' rugby......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Change the record please. Do you really think we really give a damn what you all say. We're in the final - you aren't. Get over it. Sport is ALL about winning not whining!

I can guarantee that every single fan would want to get to the final regardless of how they got there.

I happen to be one of the few fans who actually believed in our team before the world cup and i'm immensely proud of our lads.

To all the people who go on about '4 more years of bragging if we win'....i'm sure you'd all be so subtle and quiet about the fact you were world champions. I can really see the Welsh and Scots being quiet about that. You just don't like it because the grass is greener on our side!

  • 250.
  • At 03:55 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Joss Price wrote:

Where Scotland even in the World Cup this year?

  • 251.
  • At 03:56 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • blokish wrote:

Frankly I do not think England's was "ugly". NZ and Aus and to a certain, but much lesser extent SA have, imho, devalued the game of Rugby Union with all this Rugby League stuff they play. Prefer to watch league if I want to watch the boring style the NZers play to be honest. Sure they can chuck the ball around but I would rather watch a titanic struggle up front and personal than MaCaw's continual foul play and the mincing around of Carter et al blaming everybody but themselves. Now that is boring ugly stuff!.

Hope it is a forwards game against the Boks, ugly?... well beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Pleanty of evidence of one of the 10 deadly sins exhibited by SH fans....proud and glad I am English, at least we're in the Final!

  • 252.
  • At 03:57 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Nick wrote:

#119 & #121

Oh Teddy - please stop! My sides are about to split with your amazing wit!

  • 253.
  • At 03:59 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • AndrewL wrote:

I watched both the England v Australia and France v AB's in an Irish bar in Warsaw. In the afternoon, the pub was full of Irishmen and Englishmen cheering on England, and in the evening, Englishmen and Irishmen cheering on the French. Thats the way it should be. What is it about some people in Britain that they can't cheer on their neighbors? Spite? Small-mindedness? Stupidity?

  • 254.
  • At 04:02 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • olliewallie wrote:

my god!! Bitter bitter anti-english. stamp racism out!!
the amount of times we saw france, SA, Argentina and Aus take LAUGHABLY long drop kick attempts at goal!!! Francois Steyn anybody???!!?!? we took shots at goal when presented with opportunities after heavy try scoring pressure that led to the opposition fouling in order to stop us! What the Kiwi's would have given for one drop goal ATTEMPT in the last 10 minutes....why?

  • 255.
  • At 04:03 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • The Landlord wrote:

Scotchip writes:

"I hardly think the southern hemisphere teams or France are "jealous" of England though, as they are all superior in spite of the freak results of this world cup."

Ha ha ha - superior, hunh :).

So they didn't *really* want to win their games? 'Course not.

No no, don't tell me. Scotland is better than England too, it's just that they don't like to win in the big competitions much (or indeed almost any competition). If it wasn't for that old-testament reliance on one-dimensional "score-boards" Scotland would be wiping the floor with England, no doubt!


  • 256.
  • At 04:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan Clarke wrote:

Hey

watching the rugby on saturday showed me that there is spirit everywhere. i was watching it with a friend who had never watched rugby in his life bu by the end was leading the chants in the pub!!!

Why do we always moan about our national teams??? Even when they're winning someone finds a way of criticising and belittling us. Surely the whole idea between playing a competetive game is winning? I saw the England football play away in Andorra and WIN, yet they got booed off the park?!?!?

Isn't it about time people just opened their eyes and look at the results?? The only thing i saw on saturday was 15 men in white with roses on their hearts giving their heart and soul and doing the things right when it mattered and... shock horror... england won!!! Australia, NZ, France, Ireland, Wales (list goes on....) played FANTASTIC rugby but... they're home.

Lets get behind England on saturday and watch another pride-filled performance and i know i, for one won't be moaning about how we score out points as long as we score them

  • 257.
  • At 04:08 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • jason wrote:

Would you all be such cry babies if it was your team through to the finals instead of England?

It's a pity that you're all too busy trying to make excuses for your own teams lacklustre, pathetic, copycat (I have never seen so many poor attempts to drop kick) perfomances to see that the English team have managed to put aside their dreadful performances and have managed to pull off an amazing show of determination, guts and courage!

It's quite simple that your teams were not equal to England in the 80 minutes that mattered...boo hoo...get over it...maybe if you critisized your own teams as much as you do England they would have put in better perfomances?

So England only scraped through against France because of a lucky bounce, a shoe lace tackle and a well executed drop kick...did they cheat, did they play dirty? NO they took their chances and came out on top.

England have found a method to play very effectively with the team that they have...Jonny Wilkinson is an amazing sportsman and I would bet 279-1 that all those LOSING teams wish they had someone capable of turning a game around with the drop of a ball!!

GOOD Luck to England

  • 258.
  • At 04:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • grassa wrote:

What is boring Rugby? Only people who have never crossed the whitewash and don't understand the game can talk such rubbish about running Rugby being the great. As much as I love some of the skills of the NZ players; I can equally marvel at the guts and determination of an England team not prepared to get beaten. That is why we all play the game, to stand with 15 mates and go toe to toe with the oppo. As a fly half I loove to create great tries; but all my best memories of playing have been when we as the team have had to dig deep and test ourselves mentally and physically. That is what makes great Rugby.

  • 259.
  • At 04:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jimbob wrote:

Scotnat,

What a surprising comment from a Scotsman. I never saw that coming. You need to get out a bit more sunshine.

This column being wet? Certainly not as wet as the drivel you're spouting, or as big as the chip on your shoulder!

  • 260.
  • At 04:12 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

Flowing rugby? Backs? All nonsense!

Everyone knows that the two most important players in a team are the tighthead prop and the backup tighthead prop.

Howay the lads!

  • 261.
  • At 04:19 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Billy bob wrote:

Scotnat, talk about chip on your shoulder! ;)


They weren't freak results, we played to our strengths which is utilising the forwards. We're not going to attempt attractive rugby and lose just so the flair teams feel justified!!!

Some teams are good at the physical side, some are good at the pace and passing side. And it looks like the physical side are winning games, therefore we were the better team on the night.

Therefore we deserve it! You lot up north always moaning, I've seriously never met such an irrationally hatred filled country in my life! Honestly it's pathetic.

No, Braveheart didn't happen like that. :D

  • 262.
  • At 04:20 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Robinson wrote:

"I am a South African living in London and I love the excitement surrounding the game. I am surprised at the utter conviction of the English press that England will be victorious."

I haven't seen anything of the sort in the English press (well not any serious newspaper; forget the comic books). Most pundits put SA as the firm favorites based on our recent record against them and that is absolutely right because they are clearly a much better team than we are.

If you want to watch fast, running rugby, go to the sevens final. If you want to see drama, blood, guts and heart, watch an England game.

  • 263.
  • At 04:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • David Gull wrote:

gosh so many fans from losing teams just feel the constant need to critisise England - when deep down they are just jeolous


the Argies V SA game was a very boring game for a neutral, always clear who was going to win and little good rugby played
good luck England in the final, but i cant help thinking this whole tournement has been tailer made for the boks
they must be so happy they have us in the final

  • 264.
  • At 04:22 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:

Oh dear,the road to rome so full of good intentions and all that .A pretty limited outfit yes,. in the final yes .
POST221 .We may be but if your team hadden been so scared of losing you might have something to crow about. As for wooden spoons arent they for stirring porridge.Lamontable .

  • 265.
  • At 04:24 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • strowgini wrote:

Whoever thought that SA used exciting rugby last night to beat Argentina must have been blind. I have never watched such a lacklustre display from the pre-determined winners of the World Cup. The main points were scored by capitalising on errors made by a deflated side. Was it me, or did the SA team make many ball handling faults, had the ball turned over repeatedly and when challenged, their seemingly invincible pack seemed to crack. Maybe it could be game on???

  • 266.
  • At 04:25 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Robster wrote:

Scotnat.Get a life and stop criticising England. This is not a 1 man team as you would like to suggest. The pack although not perfect is far superior to anything Scotland could put on the park and although our backs don't look the most incisive in the world, none of them would have made the mistakes Lamont made against Argentina.
Wooden Spoon in the Six Nations no that is reserved for you, Wales or Italy. We English never expected anything from this World Cup and are just enjoying the moment but I will tell you something, if we had gone home early and Scotland carried the hopes of the North we would have wished you well and not carped on about how we would have to put up with Scottish bragging. In Football when we failed to qualify for World Cups this is what we did supported Scotland. If it all goes wrong in Russia and at home to Croatia that is what we will do next summer. So stop moaning and just enjoy the Rugby.

  • 267.
  • At 04:27 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:

sorry my chiding was directed at 225 not 221 hey ho not angry or wet .

  • 268.
  • At 04:28 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rob Brown wrote:

Let's get this out of the way first. I'm English, I'm proud of the England team and full of admiration of their professionalism, grit, determination and skill. I thoroughly enjoyed the tension and drama of the game and can't wait for the final.
However, let's be honest it was an awful game. It was only the occasion that made it what it was. If this had been Sale v Bedford on a wet December Saturday afternoon, the match reports would not be anything like the ones we are seeing. What is all this pride about ugly rugby, about winning being everything - in a World Cup semi-final, maybe but as a rule it will kill the sport.
Before the match I watched some proper rugby. The Rugby League Grand Final. In RL there's no such thing as ugly rugby, there is hardly ever a game without a try scored and the rules don't change every five minutes. The final was a show of top quality sportsman showing amazing guts, determination, discipline and skill. But ugly it was not.
I thought the RWC win by England in 2003 was the death knell of RL in England. The money's been going south along with a few good players, but Union well and truly messed up with the Robinson era and are now shouting from the rooftops about ugly rugby. I now know league still has plenty to give and Union has plenty to learn.
Anyway, ugly or pretty, go and win it boys.

  • 269.
  • At 04:29 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rufus wrote:

It's worth pointing out that the only way to get to a world cup final is by beating the teams that you are drawn against.

If you are playing a side with good backs but mediocre forwards then it doesn't take a genius to work out that glorious running rugby will probably get you an early trip home. Once it gets to the knockout stages of the tournament then it doesn't matter how you win, just as long as you do.

I speak from the perspective of a (very) low grade prop-forward when I say that the fact that so many people find the way that we beat Australia dull is that they haven't been there. The front row (even at my level) is a dark and nasty place, but it is very difficult to comprehend how Australia managed to put out a front row that was so comprehensively stuffed. The entire game, as well as being far more tense than SA knocking over teams who (with the best will in the world) weren't expected to make it past the groups, proved to be a masterclass in the dark arts. Doing that takes skill, patience and endurance. All scoring an interception try takes is some timing and the ability to run very very fast.

Either will work, but to slate one while venorating the other is hardly fair.

  • 270.
  • At 04:39 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Billy bob wrote:

"Man I am gonna laugh when you English get brought down to Earth on Sat....But I guess you won't mind because you'll walk around for the next four years saying your the 2nd best team on the plant....rubbish!"


And you know what the funny thing is? We don't even like Rugby that much! Most of us only watch it because it's England and we're proud, it's all about football dude. And that's what is so sad about you lot.

Also, what do you consider Rugby? Passing and running? Well if we're going to be silly about it, WE invented the game. So technically, the way WE play is the original way.

OllieWallie has a very good point there, read his post my son.

  • 271.
  • At 04:40 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • danny t wrote:

SA are the most complete team in the tournament and they seem to be able to up the pace and intensity when required. Even against Arg I felt they were cruising, causing them to make errors and then capitalising.

The hope for England is that they will feel the need to prove a point and put too much pressure on themselves, we have to target Montgomery with a good kick and chase like we did with Serge Blanco in the 1991 semi final this will also put him off his goal kicks, pressure Steyn by running at the inside shoulder and the 10-12 channel let Butch give some penalties away with his atrocious tackles, our lineout has to get parity and attack theirs I think John Smith could be vulnerable if Kay has the game of his life (but also the area of most concern in my eyes they dominated Argentina and was the reason they won), and get our heavy guys over the gain line get targets to hit.

As Jonno said in commentary stay within a score.

Argentina game plan was pretty good they just could not compete at the lineouts which meant they couldn't play the territory game as thy had done in previous games

  • 272.
  • At 04:44 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

IMPROVISE - ADAPT - OVERCOME!
GO ENGLAND

  • 273.
  • At 04:45 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • fakir lazarus wrote:

KEEP TALKIN THE ENGLAND TEAM WONT KNOW WHAR HIT THEM. I CAN IMAGINE THE HEADLINE ON SUNDAY IN ENGLAND.

GO BOKKE NIYABE SABANA ? HAYI

  • 274.
  • At 04:47 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan K wrote:

Glenn I will not stoop to your level by exchanging insults I was not critising them for questioning his decisions I was commenting on the high pitched girly scream before the decision which then influenced a man who is not fit to ref the level I play never mind internationals!!
I have yet to see anyone from the England team be arrogant and pompous I along with a lot of the team accept our limitations of a squad who have had poor preperations for the 4 years who have been honest in admitting their failings but have been tactically astute enough to play to their own strengths and exploit their oppositions weaknesses anyone who has ever crossed the white line will value the England performances for what they are true honest hardworking job-done displays!!
Re your arrogance comment I think you'll find it's the SA manager who has come out and stated that they will repeat they 36-0 result in the final who are the arrogant ones again??

  • 275.
  • At 04:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan K wrote:

Dave Comment #255

Are you a tighthead prop by any chance??

You have a valid point though to all those who say we are a one man team I'm sorry but the forwards have put the man in that position to take the pop rather than the laughable attempts by Steyn and the one from James a man who has never scored a drop goal at international level never mind one that long (p.s. I know Flood shanked a useless attempt when he came on but think he was at least in France's half!!)

  • 276.
  • At 04:49 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • LACHMAN wrote:

#225 Scotnat,
WELL YOU`LL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT FOR ANOTHER 4 YEARS HA HA

  • 277.
  • At 04:52 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • FormerForward wrote:

Interesting comment from Scotnat (225) But Englad didn't have JW between world cups and to my knowledge we didn't get any Wooden Spoons either

  • 278.
  • At 04:54 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Peter in Preston wrote:

Gp (comment 42)which game did you watch at the weekend? You say that "France had multiple chances to put the game away.." I think I recall 2 attempts at running the ball in the first 75 mins. The 5 yard scrum that was dismantled by England and the Vincent Clerc dash to the line, snuffed out by Worsley. Then when JW dropped his goal the French tried to spin the ball out wide. England tried to move the ball wide many more times. France kicked long 3x more than England.
You also talk about a "lucky bounce" leading to the try. Well fancy that then, a odd shaped ball bouncing in strange ways?
What gets my goat is all these arm chair critics. If you have ever played the game then you know it is the score that matters and it is about a team winning not spinning lovely long passes out wide (like the Argies.) It is about points not artistic impression. There are no points for pretty. That said Eng, to those who understand the game, played fantastic, to a man!

  • 279.
  • At 04:59 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Stef wrote:

Well done England ! ( and as a Scot that's not the easiest thing to say)

They have shown that heart and balls can count for more than months of conditioning camps and endless analysis of you opposition. As a former prop I can look on in awe at the way the English front 5 have demolished everything that has stood in front of them and the way the rest of the squad have defended like their lives depended on it.

It might not be pretty but it's effective and after the tournament has finished all that will be remembered is who won not how they won it

I suspect that the final will be another tight encounter with the issue in doubt till the last 5 minutes and if England are within a point or two of the Boks i can certainly see them winning it.

The only way i can see that being any different would be if the Boks get more than a score ahead and England have to chase the game. They simply don't have the tools to do this.

Good luck England

  • 280.
  • At 05:03 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Andy Fieldhouse wrote:

Anyone else want to try to get Kenny Rogers over to Paris on Saturday to lead the England players in a prematch sing song of The Gambler? I've started a facebook group to try to get some support in the hope that the Beeb or the Daily Telegraph might fly him over especially...

  • 281.
  • At 05:10 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • nick wrote:

as a liverpool fc fan i'm really enjoying this lfc-style-scrape to the final. its just like istanbul and as much fun.

nothing beats being the underdog and i can assure all other england fans that its much more fun to win when you don't deserve it - especially when everyone says you are lucky and rubbish.


  • 282.
  • At 05:13 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Une francaise en Angleterre wrote:

I think some of you have been having testosterone injections.

  • 283.
  • At 05:16 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

To all those who are pointing out that England scored a try on Saturday and aren't all about their kicker, lets just remember that it was a gift by the French. Mistakes and the benefit you can make from them don't come any simpler than that.

The final may not be pretty (largely down to England's style I have to say) but ultimately as long as you pplay by the rules it *is* the winning that counts. For the neutrals we can all hope SA will win for Rugby's sake but nothing should be taken away from England if they win it.

  • 284.
  • At 05:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Grant wrote:

As one of the ubiquitous South Africans residing in London, I must say that the perceived arrogance of the English supporters is somewhat unfounded. It seems that the views of the press are deemed to be those of the public which is certainly not true. I have found that English rugby fans are very sporting and in many cases a lot more cynical about their teams chances than other nations are. My work colleagues are obviously delighted with the reversal of fortune that England have experienced at the World Cup but like the English team are fairly pragmatic and have just been taking it one game at a time. Unfortunately, the English sporting press are for, the most parts, appalling. I thought that journalists in South Africa were bad but the English press take it to unprecedented levels. I feel that this reflects badly on the English team and their supporters who have to bear the brunt of the criticism. As for Will Greenwood, the less said the better. I though that his ranting after the England/France game was embarrassing but his "commentary" on the SA/Argie game made Murray Mexted seem like a bastion of impartiality. I suppose those who are used to ITV's Formula One coverage shouldn't expect unbiased commentary from them but it is still galling. They should take a leaf out of the Australian rugby commentators books. They, unlike their cricket counterparts (Messrs Lawry and Chappell in particular) are brilliant. Always funny and entertaining, they get just as excited when the opposition do something special as when Australia do.

Fortunately I will be attending the final so won't be subjected to the tripe emanating from Greenwood's mouth. I can only hope that the game dishes up a fitting finale to this fantastic tournament. A South African win wouldn't be too bad either

  • 285.
  • At 05:23 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • RDA wrote:

Scotnat, just one question - why?

I am 100% English yet I will support Scotland against every team at almost every sport providing they is no conflict of interest with England. I was cheering for the Scottish football team against France in their fantastic 1-0 win in Paris. I even support Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League.

I will continue to do so even though cretins like you do your very best to incite hatred. Boring.

  • 286.
  • At 05:28 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Victor Ludorum wrote:

With the honourable exception of Fiji, none of the teams in the knockout stages have played exciting free-flowing rugby. Fiji can't/won't play any other way (Nicky Little called it 'Fiji style'). But they were beaten by a disciplined and brutal Saffer side who crushed them at scrum, ruck and maul.

Beautiful, flowing rugby only gets played if you have overwhelming dominance or nothing to lose - at this stage in a World Cup neither of those things could be said to apply.

There is a lot to be said for well drilled attacking/counter-attacking moves, but they rely on space, marginal calls, fingertip passes and pin point support for off-loads and quick ball. Things which a savvy, well organised (and dare I say beautiful and free-flowing?) defence tends to negate.

If you watch the England France game over again you might be surprised to notice that England actually played the majority of the running rugby. (I have and it is so...)

Now, I'm not suggesting that England
are just waiting for the right moment to cut loose in a Harlem Globetrotters style display of ball moving virtuosity, but isn't fair to say that they are boring and unambitious. It's just that their attacking ambitions have been matched by the defending ambitions of their opponents - in those situations it has come down to who can wrestle the ball into a kickable position and then capitalise upon it (JW's late drop goal on Saturday) or capitalise upon the defensive mistakes of the opposition (Fourie du Preez's interception try).

The teams who forgot that have been sent home.

  • 287.
  • At 05:34 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • blokish wrote:

Here鈥檚 an interesting one:

SA have about 3 times the number of rugby players in their country than England and NZ and about twice the number of France. Indeed SA have the largest number of players anywhere on the planet by a mile. England has about the same number (slightly less) than Australia and slightly more than NZ whereas as a percentage of the population playing rugby NZ has over 3 percent and the closest to them in number is SA.

Figures from Sunday Times yesterday (QFinalists)

SA = 434219 players with a population of 47.5 mil (0. 9% of population)

France = 212058 players with a population of 61.5 mil (0. 34%)

Australia = 165219 players with a population of 20.5 mil (0. 8%)

NZ = 141726 players with a population of 4.11 mil (3.4%)

England =145736 players with a population of 60.75 mil (0.24%)

Argentina =80000 players with a population 40 mil (0.2%)

Scotland =74000 players with a population of 5.12 mil (0.53%)

Fiji =80000 players with a population of 1 mil (0.8%)

It is worthy of note that Australia have won the cup twice, NZ once, England once and SA only once despite having over twice the number of players than France who have never won it!!.

As a percentage of the population playing rugby with over 100,000 players the SH teams dominate the top three spots! (NZ>SA>A) .

I was surprised with these numbers to see how more players SA has than any other country. Perhaps they should 鈥渄o鈥 better!

  • 288.
  • At 05:35 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Bizangofish wrote:

Many thanks Coxy - "Hard Day's Night" I remember now!

Wonder if they'd have played the same tracks if France had won? Possibly just the Marseillaise on repeat!

All credit to the French throughout the weekend. Utterly welcoming before the game, and completely magnanimous to a man (and woman) afterwards.

Sport and hospitality the way it should be.

  • 289.
  • At 05:36 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Emrldcove wrote:

Being an Englishman living in the USA I was privy to hear some post France /England game 'impartial' TV commentary by so called TV commentators of, shall we say, previously beaten nationalities in this World Cup. They could not contain their digust and contempt at the English victory on Saturday which frankly made it even more sweeter. Sure England were not pretty but in a knock out tournament of this magnitude why are England (along with any other team)under any obligation whatsoever to do anything other than win. I cant remember seeing an entertaining World Cup football final since 1966! I was at the 1994 final between Italy And Brazil and it was about the most boring game ive ever seen. BUt the occasion was simply awesome, as will be this final.
And please, all those critics of Johnny Wilkinson, he is , when I last checked English. Would any team out there not pick him. People seem to forget that every drop goal he scores is deliverd from a platform in a strategicly advantageous position by the English forwards. For those of you who have been to Las Vegas and seen the Luxor Casino, the light atop the building (the brightest in the world btw) is a perfect metaphor for the role Johhny plays for the English rugby team.

  • 290.
  • At 05:42 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • The Landlord wrote:

"Man I am gonna laugh when you English get brought down to Earth on Sat..."

Yeah, someone said something like that Saturday before last against Australia. Then, when they picked themselves off up the floor and said the same thing last Saturday against France. I'm already more than proud of England's turnaround, but nothing would please me more than watch people like you choke on your own words. (Again.) But you'll be gone by then, because you're just a whinging blow-in.

  • 291.
  • At 05:44 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • paulcedron wrote:

As an Argie I have to recognize that SA is one of the best teams in the World, they outplayed us absolutely (except in the scrum, thats an Argentinian belonging).
But we have to respect England, since they are still the World Champions and they are in the final.
Not too many teams can say that.

  • 292.
  • At 05:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Adrian wrote:

I can understand the comments from English supporters saying that it is better to win ugly than lose. Of course that is true. Fair enough. However, what I dislike is that English rugby teams aim to play ugly every game (and lose ugly as well as win ugly). To someone like me who has grown up watching and admiring running rugby in the SH, watching England play is the football equivalent of watching Bolton play. Is it effective? Yes. Does it get results? Yes. Is it admirable? In my opinion, No. It's why neutrals will always love to watch the French play, they may lose plenty of games and be inconsistent, but which semi final will go down in history, France v NZ in 99 or France v England in 07? So fine, accuse us of sour grapes, but give me Brazil over Bolton any day.

  • 293.
  • At 05:51 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • canucklehead wrote:

Rugby is a battle and not a performance for the benefit of neutrals.

So sod the whiners - and applaud those who are man enough to be magnanimous in defeat. NZ, Aus, France ultimately didn't have the blend of skill, strength, preparation and passion so they failed.

The final comes at the end of a month of immense effort - it must be nigh on impossible to peak at the right time. England have recovered from that game 1 drubbing to emerge victorious from the tougher half of the draw. SA have not had to work as hard for their place in the final. In short, 36-0 will not happen again.

So, on Saturday, let's leave the whiners to their rugby sevens and enjoy a real battle

  • 294.
  • At 05:52 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Mr. Ball Bags wrote:

This fallacy about beautiful rugby and neutrals is pathetic. Especially from the Southern Hemisphere.

1995, South Africa won by great defense in the final culminating in a drop goal.

1999 Australia won through their defence and their kicking game. (Drop goal to win the semi)

2003 Australia won thier semi by playing hard and ugly against the ABs. In the final England did more attacking.

2007 The All Blacks went out after spending the last twenty of the game driving hard yards up the tight channels and South Africa scored tries on sunday only from Argentinian mistakes, they created very little.

This 'boring' chat is farcical. It is simply jealousy. Besides, you don't play to turn on neutrals, you play to win. Finally, don't pretend you know what non-rugby fans enjoy or don't enjoy, games with this amount of tension are far more exciting than an old school Super 12, basketball-esque 56-42 game.

Oh, prediction, England look knackered and the Boks look more talented, England have to start well early and desrupt the mentally fragile SBs. Get them angry and England will win.

  • 295.
  • At 06:00 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Amazing, I still can't believe we've got this far...Had the joy of watching the semi final in a sleepy Scottish fishing village which found itself suddenly inundated with about 70 students - mostly English...

Being beyond impoverished I am now trying to blag a yacht to sail to Paris for the final...Anyone got a yacht going spare next weekend?

  • 296.
  • At 06:00 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Victor Ludorum wrote:

To Rob Brown #268 - RL is running rugby but in RL there's is no ruck, maul or scrum (to speak of)if they weren't running and passing they wouldn't be doing _anything_.

To be honest, to my, admittedly philistinic RU eyes, they don't really seem to do that much when they are passing and running. (I am willing to accept that that is short sightedness on my part, but it just doesn't do anything for me).

  • 297.
  • At 06:04 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tim England wrote:

Err is the point to win beautiful? When your playing to win all that matters is the win, then you get the prize at the end.

If you want points for artistic impression go watch dancing.

Also the answer is not more points for a try, that will result in more penalties. Make it 10 points for a penalty and see how many are commited in attacking positions then.

I am an England fan and I still think the best side in world Rugby is New Zealand. In 2002 England were at their pomp and just about maintained that form to the World Cup Final.

  • 298.
  • At 06:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • John Hartnell wrote:

I think we should start composing the end of term report on ITV's coverage. As a starter perhaps:

Jim Rosenthal must learn to use lower case letters in his links. The audience already knew that "JONNY - WILKINSON - WAS - BACK - FOR - LE - CRUNCH!!!!" Unless his homework improves he will continue to be mistaken for Alan Partridge.

  • 299.
  • At 06:39 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Joss Price wrote:

England produce the goods when it matters, however we all know that the best team in the world is New Samofijiongaland... sorry, the Kiwis.

  • 300.
  • At 06:42 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Grant wrote:

Re #287:

Those are interesting figures. I read somewhere the other day that England had the largest player and support base in world rugby (it did sound a bit fishy at the time). I suppose if South Africa have the largest player base we should expect do do well however given the circus that is the administration of sport in South Africa I reckon we can be thankful that they managed to organise plane tickets to France, let alone a world cup winning campaign. South Africa's world cup record is actually excellent. If we win on Saturday we will have won 50% of the world cups that we have played in. When you take into account the fact that our 2003 campaign was run by a lunatic who decided that the best way to condition for the tournament was a military bootcamp that is a fine record indeed.

  • 301.
  • At 06:47 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • pete wrote:

Rugby is about winning.
"Looking good" is for when your holding the cup!.

  • 302.
  • At 06:52 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • j barrett wrote:

SCOTNAT,im a scot who can admit we were awful at this world cup,why criticise the english,when we barely scraped through against the mighty italy,thanks to patersons boot by the way,wasnt that boring/?,OH AND DONT FORGET OUR SHAMEFUL surrender to the all blacks,when we treated our own fans with contempt by not turning up.COMMENT ON THAT PAL.

  • 303.
  • At 07:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Daryl Pritchard wrote:

Hasn't anybody else sussed it yet, we've just lulled the Rugby world, bring on South Africa, they will get the same the Aussies got four years ago. The Welsh and Scots chokers and gobshites who want to wear a SA shirt on Saturday carry on SA are a far far better team than you will ever have and if I were you I'd use the shirt of your nation to clean the car or something. The good sports in Wales and Scotland I apolagies to but tell the bitter and twisted fellow countrymen how sad they really are.

  • 304.
  • At 07:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Neil wrote:

Post 287 - blokish, I don't know where The Sunday Times got their figures (or whether you have wrongly transposed them). The IRB has the following figures:
Eng Number Of Registered Players: 716505
SA Number Of Registered Players:
464477

More importantly for the RWC:
Eng Senior Male Players: 147944
SA Senior Male Players: 147650

See
and

You may want to do your sums again.

Also note on the IRB website, SA and England are now 2nd and 3rd in the rankings. Poor Argentina have dropped two places to below Australia, despite Australia not playing this week.


  • 305.
  • At 07:27 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

I've just got one thing to say- COME ON ENGLAND!!

  • 306.
  • At 07:28 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Cock of the North wrote:

#302#303 couldnt agree more My response to Scotnat hasnt been approved for posting nuf said ..

  • 307.
  • At 07:30 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • David Smith wrote:

I went to S.A. for the rugby world cup in 1995, and saw England beat Australia, then get trounced by New Zealand. south Africa then won a brilliant final (purely by their determination to win) against New Zealand, the atmosphere in the stadium was electric, and I don't think any tries were scored, but it was one of the best events I have ever witnessed! I just hope this weekend can be just as exciting. Whoever wins will have the last laugh, and as my grandfather used to say...'the winners can laugh...the losers can please themselves'.

  • 308.
  • At 07:39 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dave Jones wrote:

So the Aussies and Kiwis are trying to claim some kind of superiority due to their lovely, flowing, running rugby. It's just a shame that 1) they aren't good enough at it and 2) their desire to win, moral fibre, balls, call it what you win just isn't there. Let's face it, they'd still be in the tournament if they were good enough or wanted it enough.
The longer they keep moaning about ugly rugby and blaming the ref for their defeats, the better for everyone else, and the longer it will be before they win anything meaningful.
Maybe the whingeing nations can follow the examples of their neighbour South Africa - keeping their collective mouth shut and just getting on with it. Or the example of Argentina - displaying pride and dignity.
On another topic completely, is it just my eyesight, or does Will Greenwood look and sound more and more like Ron Manager?

  • 309.
  • At 07:57 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • spooner wrote:

181 Karl, a wallaby supporter, surprise,surprise - "I've seen NZ, SA and English sides happily taking shots at goal from 50-60 metres from their tryline, with confidence".
Why single out these teams?
Did you miss the Australian (and then French) 50-metre drop goal attempts? Yes, DROP, not field goal!
I'm willing to accept that they could be devalued to 2 points, even 1, but penalties as well?
Can you not see, past your petulant tears, that a team, and most particularly a SCRUM under pressure, will be even more happy to offend within their own 22 and give away just the 2 points?

  • 310.
  • At 08:06 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Scotnat wrote:

To my dear English friends and the Quisling fellow I seem to have got up the noses of COME ON RA SOOTH AFRICA.

You'll be greeting on Sunday.

  • 311.
  • At 08:17 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Kenneth wrote:

It is of course standard Scottish practice to support anyone playing England. Personally in the past I have always found this to apply to the English rugby team in particular. But something has happened in this tournament. It could be the 'plucky England' factor. It could be that there is no-one in this present XV that appears to Scottish sensibilities to be terribly objectionable (not even Mark Regan). I think however it is something else. England with their beautiful ugliness, with their devotion to the best dirtface traditions of the game, with their obstinate cussedness in the face of Antipodean arrogance, are quite simply playing for the soul of rugby. With Stellenbosh rules waiting in the wings,and rugby about to become either, at best, a kind of synchronised drill with boots on, and, at worst, a form of rugby league without the Horlicks, this final could be the swansong for the game that so many of us loved, revered,grew up with. If it takes a team of bloody Englishmen to send the great old game to its final resting place with a final rousing victory, then I for one will not begrudge them a cheer or two. I may even shed a tear.

  • 312.
  • At 08:18 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Blokish wrote:

Hi Neil (post #304)

Just checked the number and numbers in my post are a correct transcription of the ST figures. Frankly I was surprised but I am even more surprised that England would have so many players (IRB) epecially as SJ got the number of clubs correct. Seems odd for the ST and Stephen Jones to have got it so horribly wrong!. Also having played for 7 years in France and 8 in England I would be astounded if England has neigh on 3 time more players than the French. (SJ French number corresponds with IRB btw). But can't argue with IRB numbers but might just give them a call tomorrow.

Cheers!

  • 313.
  • At 08:33 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Cock of the North wrote:

How do we feel about Vickery as Captain?? I cant help thinking that Martin Corry deserves some credit and should the Rugby gods smile upon us on Saturday, surely Martin Corry should accompany Vickery to recieve "Bill"

  • 314.
  • At 08:38 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Cock of the North wrote:

How do we feel about Vickery as Captain?? I cant help thinking that Martin Corry deserves some credit and should the Rugby gods smile upon us on Saturday, surely Martin Corry should accompany Vickery to recieve "Bill"

  • 315.
  • At 08:48 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • David Smith wrote:

It was funny watching the game this weekend. I'm from Yorkshire originally, but live in Dallas (USA) now. I drove fifty miles to watch the game (and will make the same journey on Saturday). it was sureal to be at an Irish pub, in America, singing 'God save the queen', then realising that most of the white shirts around me were French 'away' shirts. 75% of the crowd was French and they did a resounding rendition of la marseillaise. A french guy then turned to me saying 'ha, we beat you at singing the anthems' I pointed out 'yes but were here to play rugby, not just to sing'. Eighty minutes later he turned and congratulated me, and wished us good luck in the final! I spoke to a couple of Soth Africans, and told them (and some other english guys) that I would see them next week, for an epic battle, it will bring back good memories to hear 'Nkosi Sikelei Iafrika/Die Stern Von Suid-Afrika' and 'Shosaloza' again, only this time I will be hoping its England who raises the William Webb Ellis trophy...that band of angels is waiting to carry us home! swing low sweet chariot, lets make it a long ride home for the Sarfies.

  • 316.
  • At 09:21 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Venables wrote:

for those of you who say France and the Aussies were awful, that's the whole merit of how England play, they make you look lacklustre, secondly, all this talk of how bad it is to watch and not real rugby is so subjective, I love destructive rugby. Anyway, it's all within the rules of the game, and if you don't like it go and invent another sport where you can't win with penalties and drops and destroying the opposition.

  • 317.
  • At 09:25 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • FIlcho wrote:

Well well i see jealosy is rearing it head , NZ,OZZIE , TAFFY, HAGGIS,PADDY and FROG all really hacked off that we got there.Mind it goes right along with the OZZIEs on saturday in yello OZZIE tops with France face painted on them.


Never mind jealous people we in the final

  • 318.
  • At 10:17 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • sorcha wrote:

surely it's a bit rich of scottish fans to be critiscising the english style of rugby- was it not chris patterson alone with his kicking who got them into the quarters?at least england beat better opposition than italy. scotland's style of play is posibly the most boring of all the home nations.

  • 319.
  • At 10:46 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Emrldcove wrote:

After reading many of these comments I've come to the conclusion that there should be two Rugby world cups. From their comments it would appear that most southern hemisphere fans would prefer a World Cup where teams show up, run attractively round the field in nice uniforms flinging the ball around with gay abandon in an effort to produce an aesthetically pleasing spectacle. And kicking? Good Lord not too much of that please. Perhaps the winners could be decided by a panel of judges rather than points on the score board. Who knows maybe we could interview the players and find out their thoughts on world hunger and the panel of judges could take this into consideration.
Then there is the World Cup of Rugby thats decided by points on the scoreboard. Points are scored as a result of hard fought, blood and guts commitment, honed by thousands of players on cold wet saturday afternoons. There is no kudos for 'running attractively' here. It is gutsy tactical rugby and requires every player to dig deep into his soul, for without that sacrifice there can be no victory at this level. To win here a team must know their opponents. This spectacle to me is far from boring, it is the human spirit at its best .
I know which competition Id rather watch.

  • 320.
  • At 10:53 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Jimmy Clothman wrote:

First of all - great blog. Best read I've seen for a while on this b***ocks babbling corporation website.

As an ex-pat manc, I have to say that obviously the writer of the article is not trying to negate the ugliness of England's play. It goes without saying that this is a team of 15 george grahams (to borrow a metaphor from Rugby's association brother). They are the kings of ugly, but their beauty comes not in the style of their play, but in the grittiness of their underdog performance. This is (once again to switch codes) Wimbledon's gallop to the 88 FA cup final, and while I will be supporting the boks (I'm an ex-pat for a reason), you have got to admire the gritty grossness, which is the ugly duckling England.

  • 321.
  • At 11:00 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • steven walker wrote:

well, what alot of crap, so many mindless comments by so many beer swigging couch players,why not enjoy the game and realize the two teams in the final made it there, by hook or by crook, so what if one team kicked there way and another team used the other teams mistakes, rugby is war, there is only one result , win win win. anyway you can.
go the boks

  • 322.
  • At 11:02 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Canukdcv wrote:

Well this is all very entertaining, Guess I'm not the only one that never really imagining England would be on the cusp of such an historic sporting moment. Anyway I have read many championing the flair of erstwhile competitors, now safe a'bed (ta ta chaps!) Also plenty of grumbling about the more brutally basic English approach. Well next weekend the discussion will be over and the two styles will meet head to head. It may prove that flair and expansive rugby triumphs, or that control and domination wins the day, either way which ever team holds the Webby aloft will be worthy winners. This really couldn't have been scritped any better with both teams bringing totally different goodies to the party. I love speed and slick handling (being an ex-handbag carrying back!) and I expect the Sarfies try to give it plenty, however I am awestruck by the mauling the English pack have been dishing out to their opponents in the run up to the final. The whole notion that one style is better to watch than the other, simply shows a complete lack of rugby knowledge.
Oh yes and the recent quote from the French coach saying the Kiwi's are the best rugby nation in the world... hmmm let's just think about that, perhaps that should actually be "The Kiwi's are the best rugby nation not in a position to win back-to-back RWC's, sitting at home crying into their tinnies, whose flair guile and trickery had us all spellbound right up to the point at which they boarded their plane home!"
Simply equating "Running the ball a lot" and being "The best" is just a laughable sour vintage.

  • 323.
  • At 11:14 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Kassra wrote:

"I only saw one try scored on Saturday night. Now who was that by again - England"

and such a well worked move for the try.....

don't know why i'm complaining, i'm an english fan! but saying we got a try and france didn't doesn't really say much since our try was the result of a kick for territory and the mistake of a frenchman!

was a gripping game for us english and frenchies, but i could imagine it was dire for the rest of you!

  • 324.
  • At 11:29 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • wavydavy wrote:

Well England are in the final. No drugs no cheating just pure mental strength. SA are scared because England believes in itself and have yet to peak. I for one will be in Paris on Friday to see France come fourth and watch England win on Saturday and I really dont care if its dull and boring. The atmosphere will be electric and the fans will be awesome and no English player in his England shirt on that field on Saturday night will feel any less than he deserves to be there. It matters not one jot that Jonny Wilkinson has God hand stitch his boots and Jason Robinson has Lightning for breakfast - they are playing with belief and determination. Will power wins and SA knows it and can feel the vibe. We have got there the hard way passing OZ and France who put out the favourites - We will win boring or on fire I dont care any win will do.

  • 325.
  • At 11:45 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • meltonism2 wrote:

I think that all of those who would like England to play wide, expansive, attractive rugby obviously have never played any rugby at a serious level before. Why shouldn't we? Quite simple really, we are not good enough to play wide, expansive rugby!! If we do will get minced. However what we are good at is playing from the pack. That is the reason that we are in the final. Rugby is basically a very simple game that is complicated by idiots !! You play to your strengths and then make a game plan around them. Above all don't complicate things. Much in the same way that SA will do i.e give the ball in open play to Habana or Peterson to run in breakaway tries.
How do we beat SA? Simple don't let them have enough ball, keep it tight untill the last 20 and then watch the SA pack whilt (I don't think that they're pack replacements are good enough). It's that easy. But for all of those that have played in the pack will know it takes a great deal of skill and concentration to win that way. Oh and keep the ball away from Habana and Peterson and we stand a chance.

  • 326.
  • At 12:00 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:

HELLO to 225 scot nat or nut you achieved aka warhol your 15 minutes of infamy fair play to you the wind up worked.
However are you really from natal or a cally thistle supporter?
Maybe we all need to be less sensitive and go back to the rugby.
DOUBT is the beginningnot the end of wisdom.

  • 327.
  • At 12:01 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Scotnat wrote:

There's been a lot of talk about styles here. I am by no means a rugby expert but I think the people who believe the English forward grind is superior to the expansive game are as misguided as the football pundits who champion the route-one, aerial bombardment supposedly tougher "British" style over continental emphasis on skill and passing. The British style of football fails over and over at the highest level just as England's limited game will fail against the more rounded approach of SA. England (deservedly) won the world cup last time around because they finally had the balls and ability to loosen up.
As for those who believe England are not a one man team - take Wilko away and your basically Argentina, and possibly not even that.
The stats support what I'm saying. Every team who's won the world cup (including England) played a rounded game.

  • 328.
  • At 12:11 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

Any real rugby fan is not just at a game to see the three quarters running the ball. The strength and skill in the forwards is a fascinating and often absorbing aspect of the game. I love the fact the Argentinians named one of their forwards (I think it was Leguizamon) 'the Spaniard' after the film 'Gladiator'. Anyone who has seen the film will understand the sense of passion and respect the Argentians were confering on the recipient of that title, and indeed how important they thought that member of their team.

To the football fans who seem to have climbed on the rugby bandwagon, please don't make the mistake of thinking running rugby is the only important aspect of the game. Yes, we all enjoy running rugby, and it can be likened to a forward hitting a long shot at goal, but that is not the only aspect to football. Who got the ball to that forward? And did he run back and defend on occasion. Other aspects contribute to a win. The real beauty of rugby is in appreciating all these aspects. And to anyone who disagrees please note I'll send round the legendary Pontypool front row to alter your perspective!!! Real rugby fans appreciate the legends of yore - more often than not those whose work goes largely unnoticed in the pack.

  • 329.
  • At 12:55 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • ABRUZZORUGBY wrote:

Hello everyone from Italy! After watching and reading my thoughts are mixed. On the one hand I believe that the road "we're ugly, we know it, but we like it as long as we win" is a dangerous one for rugby.
I can see the italian soccer syndrome coming. Ugly winner, ugly sport. At the end of the match italian soccer players often wait for their winning opponents to congratulate them with a punch. Rugbists normally clap hands.
Our loved game is based on confrontation and respect. Wanting to win at all costs is a denial to confrontation and a lack of respect.
Just think: if in sport winning was all, why England did not stop to play in the last thirty-five minutes vs. South Africa in the pool? England standed no chance to win, they knew it but they showed respect to their opponent and to the rules of the game. So think better.
In fact I suspect the english team is a lot less primitive than some of its fans. Wilkinson, for one, has always been exemplar in his professionalism and fair play.
On the other hand I think the pommies are being a bit abused here: their maybe ugly win spared us a surely sapping french triumph.
France' rugby team is modest too, unlike their arrogance. The RWC had just begun and they were in disbelief to have lost, as if final victory had been granted to them in advance.
And talking about the atmosphere, France wanted to be a welcoming host and then they painted the top of every post bleu blanc et rouge. Merci beaucoup by all other teams' colours.
They arranged themselves an extra favourable pool and calendar and then found themselves playing the best team, the All Blacks, in Cardiff Wales.
They managed to beat them and did not find a single word of fair play for the kiwis' good rugby that night, preferring to spend their precious time to gloat in their gloire.
A week later the english beat them in Paris France and the french coach says that, well, in the end it all boils down to little episodes, all forgetting about gloire. And oh, now that the XV de France can go to holiday, M. Laporte declares that the AB really are the best rugby team in the world. Read: we have been sent home but have beaten the real world champions. One more episode in the serial "In reality we lost but we won metaphorically speaking" (see also World War two). So typical french. Take a magnanimous air not in victory but in defeat, so some fool will mistake you for a winner. Others, more perceptive, will see that in the RWC France has reached the same grandstanding of M. Le President at five feet tall.
In France it' s gonna be a long long long semaine until the little final of friday. And, 莽a va sans dire, it's so harder to win without knockons.

Long live Rugby Union Football and may the better win the Webb Ellis Cup.

  • 330.
  • At 01:07 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Just catching up with the blog after being without power until 9pm. Some good posts and some real crude comments. Mostly from the anti-England mob but also I'm ashamed to say from some of the 'English', albeit possibly in retaliation. Very much agree with Hedropsforglory, post #223. Have also been pleasantly surprised at the number of fellow Brits who have stuck their heads above the parapet. Just disappointing when some of our own foul the nest so to speak. I was appalled when 1st discovering those blogs a few weeks ago at the degree of sheer xenophobia against England but as some have said I think it has very little to do with either rugby or reality and would rather we don't rise to the bait.

Also agree with the comments about the French. Never been a fan of that country due to too many squabbles, generally over the EU and the like, but will be urging them on next Friday. They have organised a magnificent tournament and accepted that bitter and hard fought defeat with real class. Hope we're not in a similar position next Saturday but if we do we can perform the same.

In one way I approve of all the venom from elements in the SH especially. While their sounding off about how good they are and how they outclass everybody else their blinding themselves to their serious flaws. :)

In response to post #123 from Andrew I definitely agree. It would be great to see Argentina join the 6/7 Nations tournament. Would be good for both them and the northern nations.

Steve


  • 331.
  • At 01:40 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Pom Wombat wrote:

What we saw on the last 2 Saturdays were 3 teams (2 English, 1 French) punching well above their weight - and the edge was because of the passion, grit and determination. These inner strengths added to their physical strength and their rugby skills.

The one single act that de-valued anything in the RWC this year? It certainly wasn't when England played (and won) ugly, or relied on Jonny to drop a goal (or rather the team worked hard to provide the platform)...

It was when Scotland chose to play a second team against NZ, to aim to have a fitter team ready for the Italian encounter.

Rugby is about standing toe-toe against the foe, determined to win the game. Scotland's decision shows a lack of determination - a weakness that proved that while they had one eye on the quarter-finals, they didn't have what it takes to go further.

NZ showed the same problem earlier in the year, pulling people out of the competition. It was dressed as squad rotation, and team-building. Instead, it caused a loss of hunger and grit within the team.

The summer before the 2003 RWC, England toured Oz and NZ with the aim of taking them on, and standing toe-toe. The real point in doing that was to help build those inner strengths - to show that grit & determination, and the team strength, actually could win through.

What we see now is the culmination of team-formation in serious adversity. Losing matches in the 6 nations of the last 4 years hasn't been enough to force England into this situation. It took humiliation to make the England players realise that they didn't want *this* campaign on their CV's. "Not without a fight..." should be the motto.

  • 332.
  • At 02:56 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Ces wrote:

England scored one try - off a freak bounce in the first minute of the game. But that is rugby. England have played smart so you have to give credit to them.

I hope the IRB reduce the number of points for a drop goal to one. It is a blight on the game. Good luck to the teams on the weekend. Good luck to rugby.

  • 333.
  • At 03:38 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • irishfanupforengland wrote:

As an Irishman have to say, more power to England. They have surprised everybody and deserve to be where they are. In the final. Normally I don鈥檛 support England. At least in the Six Nations anyway. Not so much out of anti English spite, more a liking to root for the underdog. Gives an interest as a neutral in the game. Can鈥檛 understand this anti English claptrap that a lot of the posters are writing. It鈥檚 just a game after all and great fun win or lose afterwards. And what is so wrong with English bragging anyway. If Ireland were in the final I鈥檇 be insufferable. As rugby fan to have seen England come back from the early pool games - to where they are now is a remarkable sporting achievement. Frankly the French - English game was far better as a rugby spectacle than S. Africa trashing England a month ago. Well from a neutral point of view anyway. So in keeping with the hope of an exciting game and a love of the underdog, I鈥檓 all for England. 鈥

Incidentally no English fan I have spoken with is under any illusion that England needs a major rebuild, win or not. For now though it鈥檚 all swing low 鈥

  • 334.
  • At 05:20 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

If the score in the game against France had been reversed with France winning 14-9 then it would have been hailed as a great victory by the French and world press! Sour grapes springs to mind. Go England! keep that "determination" dial turned to maximum!

  • 335.
  • At 05:24 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

The fire is lit and the pot is on the boil, but the potroast is not Springbok, its English roses. Cry the beloved country!! Vive Bokke!! Amandla!! Kleenex for Johnie boys.....

  • 336.
  • At 05:42 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • ross wrote:

Regarding mikeh (#62)

Except the Ausies.

  • 337.
  • At 05:58 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Ted wrote:

"We don't even like Rugby that much! Most of us only watch it because it's England and we're proud, it's all about football dude"

What percentage of the premiership are English players. Come to think of it how many top clubs are owned by them? Of course it takes PLACE in England.
Perhaps when England sport stops 'importing' players from other countries and starts developing Englishmen, they might stand a chance of competing successfuly in world sports again.

  • 338.
  • At 06:30 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • embarrassedozzie wrote:

As an Australian, I can only say that I am truely embarrassed by the way that my fellow countrymen and our Island neighbours are whining on about the style of play which has elevated England to the Final. They beat us fair and square, they played a game which closed us down, we arent in the final because we were dominated by a better team, same goes for the French. The all blacks suffered simply because they were beaten, no matter what a bitter Laporte says, the New Zealand team were shown the door by a better side. The winner of this world cup will be World Champions, end of story for another four years.

  • 339.
  • At 06:43 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • gurkha wrote:

It is with great amusement that I have perused the comments, both sage and misguided, of the English supporters. One thing that I do not understand is that when the English play boring rugby, it is good. When the Bok do the same they are being unimaginative. And, if you want to know why the AB's and the Wallabies were knocked out, it is because the lack the mental strength to come back after things get rough, and go into some sort of catatonic state. Not so with the Boks. Lets see if the English have that same strength of mind next Sunday.

  • 340.
  • At 06:58 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Sakhalin Hooker wrote:

I cant believe some of the England bashing in this blog. Here's a question for all supporters of teams knocked out in the quarters and semi's (you know who you are). Who will you be supporting in the final? That's right someone else's team, most of you the boks. However I'll be supporting my team, England. I'm as surprised as most people that they are there, but ugly or beautiful i'm proud of them. So Kiwi's, Aussies, French and all the rest you, your boys had their chance and screwed up so button it and try to enjoy the final.

  • 341.
  • At 07:14 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • michael wrote:

Jeez Louise ... nothing like a World Cup to rouse a slumbering Inglander.

Nobody begrudges a team its win.

I always back & watch the English football team in the other code so it's not anti-Englandism but the fact remains - the RWC format is pretty useless.

It would just be good if these forums could be use the collected brain power for more than just bloated opinions and fragile patriotism.

I'd like to see an RWC that actually examines the relative merits of the top 8 teams. Rugby has the advantage over football of only a few world-class participants. Maybe the top 8 ranked IRB teams could play each other in a round robin & play-off for the Cup & the other 8 for a Plate?

That would be a real RWC.

See

And just for the record I think SA will prove that England have had a bit of a lucky streak...

  • 342.
  • At 08:27 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Guy Darvill wrote:

I find comments arguing that the format of the World Cup needs to be changed rather hilarious.

Re: Number 342 - a round robin for the 'top 8 teams'? And how would you choose those sides? Would Ireland and Wales be there?

I'm afraid to say that New Zealand and Australia lost. That's what happens in sport. If being ranked number 1 in the world meant you deserved to be world champions then why would you even hold the tournament?

The amount of sour grapes on this blog (and others) is just extraordinary. England have beaten Australia and France. South Africa beat Fiji and Argentina. As such, they are the two teams who deserve to be in the final. Nobody else does, because nobody else - when it really mattered - was good enough to win under pressure.

  • 343.
  • At 08:36 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Robinson wrote:

I'm not sure what all the England bashing is about to be honest. We are a limited team and we know it, from the coach right down to us plebs who pay their RFU subs (any lower than that and you aren't a true supporter!). I watched the France game again and we did try to run the ball. We just don't have the back line to break a good defence.

It's an amazing story us just reaching the final and I'm pretty sure the Bokke will beat us fair and square as they don't have the same limitations physically or psychologically as some of the other top teams who've gone home. I also think our recent record against the Bokke will be psychologically difficult to overcome, rather than a motiviating factor for the players.

I get the same vibe from this England team as I got from Will Carlings in 1991. Spirited, lots of heart but ultimately limited.


  • 344.
  • At 08:50 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • RolandG wrote:

So much is made about the Springboks poor showing. The fact is they have played poorly and none of the other teams have been able to live with them. That is the hallmark of champions.

The game against the Pumas showed that their backline is all quality by taking and converting the opportunities that came their way. If anything, South Africa expects nothing less than a comprehensive victory. We have nothing but confidence in this team and if they hit their peak in the final, England are on a hiding to nothing.

  • 345.
  • At 09:05 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Daniel wrote:

Hilarious to read complaints of England's style of play. Imagine complaining that a gold medal sprinter's running technique didn't 'entertain' you enough. The SA v Argentina game was dull - where is the excitment in being gifted 4 tries by a second rate team? World cups are about winning first and foremost. To a real rugby fan- a true show of power, commitment and good tactics is just as rewarding as anything to watch. If you are not satisfied with that- i suggest watching a different sport.

  • 346.
  • At 09:18 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • GoBokke wrote:

Haha , it amuses me all these comments about boring rugby. Look at WWE wrestling , do we want 2 fake teams with pre-planned outcomes entertaining us?? I dont think so , rugby is about winning within the rules. Rugby union rules are there to provide us with an exciting game that requires a host of skills and tactics , and any team that can come up with the best combination of tactics to win deserves it. If you only want running rugby watch sevens rugby , I prefer union with its variety , even a boring match of 15 man rugby is more exciting than soccer , sevens rugby , or staged WWE. Let the cleverest team win , any team that chooses to have the second best strategy for the sake of running rugby should rather play sevens.

  • 347.
  • At 09:20 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Colette Brady wrote:

Talk about a North/South divide you guys do get vitriolic! What is stunning and exciting in the English turnaround is to see how a team of no-hopers with passion and guts claw unlikely victories from the polished sides who everyone expected to walk into the semis and final. That is the thrill of this sport. It separates it from 'corporate' football in the total commitment of the players. It's like life or death. Don't give me 'bad for the game', this is what makes it so thrilling. I shall be eating my nails in a beach bar in Cagliari, Sardinia on Saturday (Italian football fans having to watch the highlights of the footie outside!) having spent the week trying to explain the Laws of the game....in Italian to lots of bemused Sards! C'mon my beautiful boys!!!

  • 348.
  • At 09:32 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • cooker wrote:

The only tedious thing about the World Cup is listening to the constant moaning from the upholders of so called "beautiful rugby".... most of who's teams incidently are now sitting at home. Rugby Union is a game that should be decided primarily on forward attrition "forwards win games, backs decide by how much". If all teams agree to play a perverse basketball style 15 man game of sevens with sham scrums and a token contest at the breakdown... all is well and good, welcome to the Super 14's/Tri-Nations. However, if one team plays "rugby" with forward strength with proper scrums, rucks and mauls there's only going to be one result.. oh... don't forget drop goals, very useful if you're two points down.. much more effective than 20+ wasted phases. You only have to look at the rule changes the Aus/NZ are pushing for.. they want to emasculate rugby. If they succeed the game will be poorer for it. If not, and they continue to play their pseudo-rugby league in happy isolation, expect more "shock results" in 2011.

  • 349.
  • At 09:44 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • sorcha wrote:

i'll be supporting england in the final. the english rugby fans are really decent, fun people to watch a match with and also to have a few bevys in the pub after the game! in dublin at this year's 6n, the english were very good losers and didnt begrudge or make any petty comments about ireland winning. so i think in light of that, why do people feel they can begrudge england getting to the final of the wc. to say it was boring rugby is only because it's england. if nz, ireland, australia, wales, scotland etc had gotten to the final playing the way england did, then it would be seen as good defensice rugby. for god's sake people. as an irish fan, i'm getting behind the nh team and i know that if it was ireland, wales or scotland v sa then the english would be supporting the nh team too.

  • 350.
  • At 09:52 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

All I know is I've just got myself a ticket and I can't wait...if we (England) win I will most likely have a coronary, if we lose I will celebrate the fact that just being there and being part of the final from 4 weeks ago is amazing and unbelievable and that those 22 Englishmen have shown qualities I thought had long since died out in our national psyche: courage, honour, passion and commitment. It actually makes me proud to be English despite our fat, angry, bald, football supporting bretherin.

And if South Africa win then at least the people serving us English folk beer in London will be happy for the next few months...

  • 351.
  • At 09:56 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

I was fortunate to be in the stadium on Saturday and whilst the game was not a free flowing open match (non-English supporters wanted to see), of all the years of internationals I have attended since 1977, this was the most tense and exciting as an England supporter. Most rugby supporters know you can't beat France - they either lose or implode. Whilst any loss in a semi-final is hard to swallow, I must thank and congratulate the French supporters around me for being polite and gracious at the final whistle and wishing England good luck 鈥 thus keeping the Trophy in the Northern Hemisphere. This being totally opposite to all my moaning, unsporting and sour Welsh friends who should look at their own set up - rather than bemoan England!!

Unfortunately I was also at the Stade de France for 36-0 S.A match and like most supporters left the stadium believing that performance was the end of our 4 year reign as World Champs. Removing all the media hype this week, I am struggling to think what England鈥檚 game plan will be for the final. SA are strong at back row, scrum half and out wide and will be difficult to stop.....but you never know - a Cup Final is different. COME ON ENGLAND!!!

  • 352.
  • At 10:07 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • nick spice wrote:


England have been magical. Mistakes minimal. Tackling phenominal. Decision making exemplary. When we lost 36-0 SA where we did not have one kick for points (never known that in my life) I was seething and ashamed......Farrel was like a caveman who had just seen day light for the first time ...it was an embarrassment.

Three weeks later and we sent the south sea islanders packing, we destroyed the Aussies (could have been a much wider gap) and the french simply knelt down and surrendered ....... The Dads Army, with great hearts, guts and pride have made oh so proud to be an englishman.

A final thought is that teams that tend to win world cups (eg Italy - Footie) often start slowly and develop during the tournament itself......... The Red Rose is that team so I see a 17- 10 Victory
COME ON ENGLAND

  • 353.
  • At 10:16 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:


328 scotnat, Thats better an opinion rather than a windup. Dont see too many comments on the superiority of 10 man rugby.Most of us long suffering supporters would like to play a more expansive game honest.
achilles heel for a long time has been a lack of english scrum halves no replacements for dawson or bracken.
Ellis apart . Wrigglesworth too young.
A policy of not rebuilding after 2003 bums on seats club vs country.Not excuses fact .

Centres like Greenwood do not grow on trees ha a pun.Tindall Abbott Olly smith either injured or off the radar
HOWEVER .games that tight are not won by just moving the ball along the backs.Cannot play running rugby on the back foot.
Given what we have the team has been brilliant in the last 3 games . IF other teams are then too inept scared or refuse to play their own game what to do???
YOU have to win the hard yards to play ex pansively
If you think it is boring now should have watched in the 70`s

  • 354.
  • At 10:27 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Peter The Pom in Preston wrote:

I went on one of the Aussie blogs last week and read myriad of posts re changing rules etc etc. Then I logged on and wrote the following which raised a few suggestions as to where I should shove my suggestions...

By far the most sensible comment on the blog was from another Northern Hem fan - 鈥渓eave the game alone - don鈥檛 change the rules because one of the so called 鈥減owerhouses鈥 of world rugby can鈥檛 play according to the way the rules are.鈥
We (the Royal English we that is) know that one of your (that鈥檚 you the Aussies) leading administrators is trying to get heavily involved with the rules governing body.
Can you imagine the mess he will make of it? Here are a few ideas to help you Aussies:
1: When a scrum is forming a balloon is placed on each of the front row鈥檚 heads - if any balloons burst during the scrummage then someone is pushing too hard (naughty packs)and the team with most balloons left gets a penalty. If all balloons are burst the game continues with uncontested scrums.
Before each game the referees must check that flankers and scrum halves finger nails are cut back so as not to interfere with balloons.
2: All players from the Northern Hemisphere wishing to play in the pack must be under 6 feet 1 inch in height and 15 stone in weight (imperial measurements.)
3: Only teams playing in Gold and Green, called Australia are allowed to win.
4: If those mentioned in 3 are tackled and drop the ball then they are allowed to pick it up and carry on. At this point the opposition must stand to one side and allow the flowing move to continue until a try is scored.
5: If there are no tries scored in any five minute period then the captains must nominate 2 of their players who will have their legs tied together until the next try is scored.
6: If Australia still fail to win (rule 3 makes this difficult but I am convinced you will work out how) the game is declared null and void and awarded to the losing team.
Cheers all
Pete the Pom

  • 355.
  • At 10:42 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Ross wrote:

I dont think there's anything wrong with the sort of 'ugly' rugby England have been playing. I think SH fans - I'd include myself - are just frustrated that a really average England team have got the final of the WC. Nine times out of ten they wouldn't have made it this far, it's just that this is sometimes the nature of knock-out competitions. As a South African I'm quite frankly delighted England have progressed this far because it gives us a much better chance of winning the thing.

The frustration, especially from NZ fans, is just that their team is frankly better than England in every department. If England had to have faced NZ at any stage in this tournament though, I'm convinced it would have been a drubbing - Wilco or no Wilco. Australia are useless at the moment (we all knew that already based on S14 and 3N performances) and France seem to be suffering from some sort of weird home ground disadvantage (only outstanding display came in their Cardiff game) so the quarters and semis were always going to be close. My point is that the two best teams in the tournament are NZ and SA, and its frustrating to see a team which has lost so many rugby games of late doing so well.

Next Saturday I'm going to have a right chuckle at those English fans who underestimated our front row. Os Du Randt and John Smit are world class, and CJ was returning fresh from injury but is one of the most athletic props in world rugby (at times in the past year has been the best prop in SA by a mile..) I dont think we (SA) are going to underestimate England (Jake White is right that 36-0 against Farrell and co means nothing). But England are overestimating their own powers. Lewsey is a massive loss, and really its down to Robinson and Gomersall now to carry the weight of the entire backline and inject some creative spark to score some tries. I don't think they'll have what it takes. I hope they don't. COME ON BOKKE!

  • 356.
  • At 10:48 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • kintenerife wrote:

it will be another great night on saturday win or lose to be in the final was every teams dream,and to have the backing of every welsh and scots supporter once again will be great.

  • 357.
  • At 10:51 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • nick spice wrote:

additional points

England have beaten 2 of the top 4 favourites ......Aus and France

SA ..... Not played anyone decent (including England at the time !). Fiji scared them and were within a foot of taking the lead after being many points behinf at one stage and Argentina made 6 glaring mistakes which made the score look much better than it was

Mmmmmmm ..... England to retain me thinks

  • 358.
  • At 11:17 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Oz the England Fan wrote:

Yawn... Why do the losing fans, coaches and players hark on indefinitely about their beautiful flowing rugby? It's ultimately totally ineffective at the defining moments of the crunch games. Play beautiful if you want, but right now in the 2007 version of the game it's worthless of you want to stand a chance of winning. C'est la vie, mes amis.

We won. That's all that matters.

South Africa won. That's all that matters.

As Mr Ashton said, bet those carping coaches and players would like to be sitting where he [or Mr White] is now. How true.

And as for Saturday's final, what a corker it's going to be. Did you see that Mr White says that England are the favourites (per the Reuters website)? not sure what he's been drinking and I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly going to be close and a great evening.


  • 359.
  • At 11:28 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Perfidious Albion wrote:

Don't you worry, kintenerife, all true Scots and Welsh fans will be with you 100% on Saturday ...

PS - you are South African, aren't you?

:-)

  • 360.
  • At 11:47 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Pomdownunder wrote:

No matter what happens on Sat night it's been one amazing, unexpected, thrilling ride and I have loved it

Courage, passion, bravery, bodies on the line, sheer cussed guts.

You've done yourselves proud, well done.

Go England.

  • 361.
  • At 11:49 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Ollie wrote:

Boks - 9 tries in the last two games
England - 1

Hmmm...

It looks like Wilkinson's going to have to kick well. Shame that Montgomery's in much better kicking form really.

That aside, I think if England DO win it, then cries of "they didn't deserve it" will be unfounded. Any team who can, over the course of two weeks, see off, in succession, Australia, France and SA does, I think, deserve to be at the top.

Bet you never thought you'd hear a Scotsman say that.

  • 362.
  • At 12:15 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • the Landlord wrote:

"All I know is I've just got myself a ticket and I can't wait...if we (England) win I will most likely have a coronary, if we lose I will celebrate the fact that just being there and being part of the final from 4 weeks ago is amazing and unbelievable and that those 22 Englishmen have shown qualities I thought had long since died out in our national psyche: courage, honour, passion and commitment. It actually makes me proud to be English despite our fat, angry, bald, football supporting bretheren."

This sort of thinking is totally alien to the SH. You may as well be speaking to them in Welsh or Old Norse. They will not ever understand this way of thinking - that if England loses in the final it was still a remarkable turnaround of which the team should be proud, and not an(other) opportunity to scream and whine about something, anything, everything.

  • 363.
  • At 12:45 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • James Jude wrote:

All I know is that I will be absolutely bricking it on Saturday.

The match promises to shred every last nerve.

  • 364.
  • At 01:11 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • BokFan wrote:

First of all, well done England, that was pure guts! But lets clarify one thing, people in this blog mentioned that SA scored "opportunistic" tries.. but the reality is that the extreme sustained pressure at breakdowns and in the tackle that the boks enforce on the oppostion starts to cause the desperate passes and bad options that lead to those "opportunity" tries. If England don't watch out for that, and maintain composure under the pressure, once again they'll be engulfed by the Boks. Good luck on Saturday, either way, its going to be a classic!

  • 365.
  • At 01:31 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

K Deano Comment 247. I accept your comment re the atmosphere at Football v Rugby is much better at Rugby though I do take exception to you saying it attracts a better qualty of supporter. As a football fan who has just been to his 1st Rugby internationals just before and during the World Cup I found the whole Rugby experience fantastic. It seemed so civilised to walk up to the ground in Montpellier and have a beer on the pavement then casually stroll in not long before the game commenced. Marseille was great too. The problem with football is not that it does'nt attract a decent qualty of supporter but, as it is considerably more popular, it inevitably attracts the lesser quality as well. However, I do long for the day when fans at football can mingle and have a 'craic' the same way as Rugby fans do. By the way one thing you have to put up with in Football is being wound up and there seem to be plenty coming on here determined to ruffle a few feathers. I just say to them 'who's in the World Cup final'. Got a problem with that then become an administrator and change the rules but stop bothering us. Come on England!!!!!

  • 366.
  • At 03:50 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Jeremy wrote:

Well done England, showing grit, determination, and spirit. They haven't rolled over and given up, they have regrouped and played to their strengths and exploited some of the weaknesses in the opposition. SA will be massive, but they haven't impressed me (Habana is the major exception), NZ, Oz and Fr all had their chances but failed to produce the goods on the day. England must be doing something right, I read in the sports pages SA Coach Jake White quoted "But England have got massive potential, some real stars and plenty of exciting young players coming through. There is so much desire and passion in English rugby that I'd have to be tempted.". So the coach seems to believe that England are a team he would like to be involved with. As an ex tight head prop, it doesn't have to be pretty - just as long as its effective. Go England - finish the job off and let me rub the Ozzy noses in our success.
J exiled in Oz, but I know where my heart is.

  • 367.
  • At 03:54 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • AEW wrote:

As and Englishman, I accept that our team is not the best - that's why its all the more hilarious, and enjoyable when we win!

  • 368.
  • At 04:13 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Daniel wrote:

For anyone who genuinely thinks a Springbok win is a foregone conclusion- see David Campese's words prior to the England v Australia game. 9 tries againsts 2 tactically unastute and battle weary teams is hardly something to boast about.

To anyone bemoaning England's lack of 'beautiful play'- this is the world cup. We already have a 'beautiful play' competition- it's called the Bledisloe Cup- played by the teams that came 7th and 8th in this World Cup. If you want a sport where artistic merit is awarded then I suggest figure skating is the sport for you.

To anyone daring to suggest we change the rules in favour of the 'champagne styles' of Rubgy that got the Kiwi's and Aussies back home so early- please, just stop being so silly. Next you'll be suggesting we give Percy Montgomery double points when he kicks on account of his lovely hair.

Yours- a hopefull, but nervous and unassuming Englishman.

  • 369.
  • At 06:06 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Carlos wrote:

#92 - do you actually know anything about rugby/the England (your) team?

Wilkinson is worshiped because he's a) good, b) a true sportsman - win loose or draw.

Free flowing rugby only occurs at an international level when teams are missmatched - the pool game of SA vs. England a case in point.

When two good teams take to the field, running rugby is stopped in its tracks by excellent defences. End of discussion.

For those who hark on about the "beautiful game", honestly... at an international level, rugby is not being played to entertain, it is being played to win. Each team chooses the style that they believe they can maintain for 80 mins and will help them win. It may not be great for neutrals, but as an Englishman, I don't care. I was on the edge of my seat for 80 minutes on Saturday, because right up to the end you didn't know who was going to win. If that's not exciting go watch Arsenal or Man U.

As a former (forward) rugby player, I could appreciate that I was watching two excellent teams push each other to the limit.

Yes I would like to see lots of tries, but more importantly I want to see my team in the final, and hey! Guess what...?

  • 370.
  • At 06:58 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • daniel wrote:

Agree with #396.

#92 is quite obviously NOT REALLY English.

Hilarious that someone has actually bothered to pretend to be English make their (rather weak) point hold more water. Absolute piff- and poor spelling to boot.

D

  • 371.
  • At 07:13 PM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • chas02 wrote:

If we (England) win the world cup, does it mean we will have another 4 years of dross to watch ...

  • 372.
  • At 02:54 AM on 17 Oct 2007,
  • keith john adkins wrote:

I live in Sydney, I read an article in the paper titled "drop goal easy option" it was supporting the "world wide" call to devalue the drop goal to 1 point. First I'd heard of it. It was basically saying the drop goal needs to be devalued to encourage the running game. OR is it really to help the aussies cause they don't have a player who can regularly kick them. Talk about sour grapes. If you want to watch a game where there lots of running and no drop goals watch rugby league. You can bet if Johnny was an aussie there would no call for this at all!! I like rugby union because it's a sport that requires ability with both the feet and hands. The drop goal has been part of the game for years and there's absolutely no need to get rid of it.

The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites