Come on England!!!!
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
Well, SA won who to be honest thought would win. I'm not sad though, we showed how much guts and determination we have and came runners up even though we were ranked very low.
I'd also like to take the time to point out how SA won the game....through kicking. Just goes to show what the southen hemisphere was saying is a load of crap.
In a high profile games like the rugby world cup you play to what you can get.
Either way, well done south africa! brilliant skill, brilliant defence too. Well done england too!
I'd also like to take the time to point out how SA won the game....through kicking. Just goes to show what the southen hemisphere was saying is a load of crap.
In a high profile games like the rugby world cup you play to what you can get.
Either way, well done south africa! brilliant skill, brilliant defence too. Well done england too!
equk
New member
Shame the England try wasn't given. His foot/leg wasn't over the line when the ball touched the floor 
Also a shame about the SA's blocking and getting away with it unpunished for so long. There should have been at least 1 or 2 yellow cards taken out during the game.
I think England played ok, but they could have done better. The drop goal attempts just seemed to slow the play and lose England territory.
If the try was given, I think things would've been much different as the players would have had a different mental state at half time
Not that SA are rubbish or anything, it's just a shame certain things which were seen by the commentators were not by the referee and so remained unpunished.
I think I might have a phonecall from my uncle and cousins who are south african tho lol
Also a shame about the SA's blocking and getting away with it unpunished for so long. There should have been at least 1 or 2 yellow cards taken out during the game.
I think England played ok, but they could have done better. The drop goal attempts just seemed to slow the play and lose England territory.
If the try was given, I think things would've been much different as the players would have had a different mental state at half time
Not that SA are rubbish or anything, it's just a shame certain things which were seen by the commentators were not by the referee and so remained unpunished.
I think I might have a phonecall from my uncle and cousins who are south african tho lol
name='equk' said:Shame the England try wasn't given. His foot/leg wasn't over the line when the ball touched the floor
Also a shame about the SA's blocking and getting away with it unpunished for so long. There should have been at least 1 or 2 yellow cards taken out during the game.
I think England played ok, but they could have done better. The drop goal attempts just seemed to slow the play and lose England territory.
If the try was given, I think things would've been much different as the players would have had a different mental state at half time
Not that SA are rubbish or anything, it's just a shame certain things which were seen by the commentators but not the referee were unpunished.
I think I might have a phonecall from my uncle and cousins who are south african tho lol
i do agree with you regarding the try. But i suppose thats just the game of rugby. You have to let it go. Just like the new zealands eventually did against france for the forward pass (even though one of the new zealanders jumped on top of a car though
)On a side note, is it sad getting drunk at home on your own?
FarFarAway
New member
It's a shame about the try that should have been allowed, especially in a match like that. You could clearly see the foot didn't touch the line so I'm pretty disappointed. That may have given us the confidence needed to go ahead and keep scoring.
Having said that, S.A were very good
Having said that, S.A were very good
name='Kempez' said:It's a shame about the try that should have been allowed, especially in a match like that. You could clearly see the foot didn't touch the line so I'm pretty disappointed. That may have given us the confidence needed to go ahead and keep scoring.
Having said that, S.A were very good
Not sure if the rules are, it has to go over the line or just on it for it to be out of touch.
FarFarAway
New member
On the line afaik...and it didn't
i saw a replay today that slowed it RIGHT down. we were all thinking that his foot clearly missed the line, and the try wasnt given due to his knee, but on the incredibly slow replay, you can see that his foot JUST grazed the line before he raised it. it was ever so slightly, but i think the video ref gave the right decision.
although i wish he got it wrong
although i wish he got it wrong
name='nathan' said:
Well... to be honest I think SA won because their forward pack dominated the English one. England couldn't retain posession long enough to set themselves up to either obtain a penalty (in opposition territory), or send a drop goal over, let alone any sort of back line movement.
IMO, that's the biggest difference from 4 years ago where the English forward pack was so dominant that it controlled the game.
Sure, there were a lot of points scored off the boot but I think that's always going to happen when both teams have great kickers, good forward packs and only average back line play.
Don't get me wrong, both teams have good wingers but the difference is that they have only 1 or 2 and don't tend not to make heavy use of the back line, compared to teams like NZ for example.
But then I'm a kiwi (NZ'er) so perhaps I'm biased. Don't even get me started on what I think the NZ team did wrong, though to be fair the French played out of their skins and thoroughly deserved to win.
Well, that's my take on the game anyway. Both teams played well but I think SA were the stronger team on current form and on the night.
name='nathan' said:i do agree with you regarding the try. But i suppose thats just the game of rugby. You have to let it go. Just like the new zealands eventually did against france for the forward pass (even though one of the new zealanders jumped on top of a car though
Not our brightest moment as a country that. Not that this excuses it but I suspect all that pent up energy which he didn't get to take out on the field (a decision I personally couldn't believe) needed an outlet, perhaps a boxing gym would have been a better choice however.
As for my take on the try decision his boot was very close to the line, so close I wouldn't want to be the person calling it.
In rugby, just like any sport really you can't do anything about bad decisions but it's gotta be hard to get back in the right mental state after something like that (either the forward pass or the try decision) go against you. But, they're professionals and that's what they get paid for I guess.
To be honest I dont think it would have changed the outcome. Yes, England would have fired up and Johnny probably would have made the conversion but I think SA were playing well enough and controlling enough of the game to get the points they eventually did and take the game.
But, we can't really know for sure.
Edit: Sorry, I should have multi-quoted that lot. To be fair I didn't realise I had something else to reply to till after my first post... but I suppose I should have edited the first one, oh well.
Rastalovich
New member
The whole tournament was a fix from after the group stages.
I find it very hard to believe that a team that gets spanked 36-0 by a team one week, can`t even get 3 points, can end up in the final with that same team a few weeks later.
A travesty.
A team such as NewZealand, wasting 10-15 minutes using forwards to try and get over the line from within 5 meters out and they know they`re behind.. doesn`t work like that in the real world.
You go and play NewZealand a week after this competition and they`d pummel u well and proper.
South Africa should have won the competition from the start as they are a heck of alot more explosive, with their wingers/backs in particular, hardly any of which you saw passed the group stage. And yet you see them in full flight when it`s South Africa vS NewZealand (arguably the team that should`ve came 2nd). Australia 3rd tbh. 4th -- well u can pick 1 from about 3 or 4 sides.
Fix !
lol
I find it very hard to believe that a team that gets spanked 36-0 by a team one week, can`t even get 3 points, can end up in the final with that same team a few weeks later.
A travesty.
A team such as NewZealand, wasting 10-15 minutes using forwards to try and get over the line from within 5 meters out and they know they`re behind.. doesn`t work like that in the real world.
You go and play NewZealand a week after this competition and they`d pummel u well and proper.
South Africa should have won the competition from the start as they are a heck of alot more explosive, with their wingers/backs in particular, hardly any of which you saw passed the group stage. And yet you see them in full flight when it`s South Africa vS NewZealand (arguably the team that should`ve came 2nd). Australia 3rd tbh. 4th -- well u can pick 1 from about 3 or 4 sides.
Fix !
lol
name='Rastalovich' said:
I know! I was sitting there yelling "where's the drop goal!"
The answer may be that all the players with experience and a level head plus the ability to kick a drop goal were on the bench.
name='Rastalovich' said:
That seems to be our problem however, we cannot perform on the day/night/when it comes down to the crunch. I reckon we need some damn good sport psychologists to get in there and work with the players.
name='Rastalovich' said:
Well, I reckon NZ should have won but I am biased there and I don't want to start a debate ;p
I think the reason you see we saw no back line play from SA is that in order to control the match they needed to keep the ball in the forwards, the minute you start throwing the ball around (while it's a much better match to watch) you open yourself up for an intercept or something 'random' and in big matches like the world cup final you dont want random, you want control.
That said, there was a heck of a lot of kicking/bombs into open field which is also essentially a random result almost half the time, so maybe my theory is full of holes.
And as for kicking, SA had the edge in distance there so half the time England ended up loosing territory.. yet they still kicked into open play.. but I guess it's better to loose a kicking content and then win your lineout (which they did for the most part) than to loose it in the forwards somewhere in the middle of the park.
I'd like to think NZ would always play a free flowing, throw the ball around style of match even in the world cup final, but perhaps that's wishful thinking... or perhaps that's why we can't seem to make the final, year after year?
Rastalovich
New member
It`s pretty much the point for me.
I watched quite alot of the tri-nations thingy. Saw the southern hemi sides when they came over here, and tbf they`re a different class.
The group stages - I enjoyed the whole side of that competition.
Then came the bit after the groups, which in all honesty lost my interest in the competition as a whole. NewZealand - weren`t NewZealand. And the same for the Oz.
It was as if the Welsh players had nicked their kit and went out. Total change in tactics, total change in the way they control the games. Nothing to do with the sides they played not allowing them to - the other sides weren`t good enough to do that.
Big thumbs down, no faith in the competition at all!
French were paid off too. Seen them play this year - never saw the same side in the competition.
I watched quite alot of the tri-nations thingy. Saw the southern hemi sides when they came over here, and tbf they`re a different class.
The group stages - I enjoyed the whole side of that competition.
Then came the bit after the groups, which in all honesty lost my interest in the competition as a whole. NewZealand - weren`t NewZealand. And the same for the Oz.
It was as if the Welsh players had nicked their kit and went out. Total change in tactics, total change in the way they control the games. Nothing to do with the sides they played not allowing them to - the other sides weren`t good enough to do that.
Big thumbs down, no faith in the competition at all!
French were paid off too. Seen them play this year - never saw the same side in the competition.
FarFarAway
New member
The Southern hemi sides aren't in a different class, they just play a different game generally. SA deserved to win as they have a balance. Explosive wingers with a huge threat (one that meant England were uber careful) and a good pack.
NZ just bottle it every big game. You can say they deserve to win cause they play better looking rugby, but that's BS. They aren't as complete a side as others and don't have the balls to play well when it counts.
Faith in the competition? It's a knockout tournament, some teams stand the pressure, some don't...easy as that. If you've ever been in the heat of an important competitive match you'd know the strain it puts you under and some people don't have the right mentality. England had the mentality but came up against a better side.
NZ just bottle it every big game. You can say they deserve to win cause they play better looking rugby, but that's BS. They aren't as complete a side as others and don't have the balls to play well when it counts.
Faith in the competition? It's a knockout tournament, some teams stand the pressure, some don't...easy as that. If you've ever been in the heat of an important competitive match you'd know the strain it puts you under and some people don't have the right mentality. England had the mentality but came up against a better side.
