Come on England!!!!

[nathan]

saying the tournament was a fix is pretty lame. When you get to this level, its not just skills ect you need to perfect. Its the extra nerves too.

Anybody in any sport can have good and bad form.

Agree with kemps comments above. Also think it was certainly one of the better world cups, but i might be biased as i like to see unpredictable results instead of predicatble results up untill the 2 best teams are in the final.

I think tournaments like this would be boring if every team had the same style. It's nice to see teams tested on how to defend against different styles.

 

[Bungral]

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.

Very good points.. Nerves are suck a F***er... even on a smaller scale. I played in a footy tournement in spain against Athletico Madrid under 17's as goalie and i was well nervous... Think what its like in the knock out stages of the world cup?

And again agree with it being boring if the best always won.. Like last night in the snooker.. I wanted Ronnie to win but he got out played by Marco Fu who has never won a ranking event before.

 

[Rastalovich]

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.

Done the competitive stuff with rugby and american football. Done tours, competitions and tournaments. Travelling, winning and losing.

Don`t mind me saying so, but that doesn`t paper over it at all. It was a non-competition, imo, past the group stages.

NZ didn`t have players who bottled-it - that`s a ludicrous statement. U don`t bottle it doing deliberate time-wasting forward work when u`r behind. A school boy could probably tell u that, infact I`m pretty sure any player from any senior side playing rugby could tell u that. U do it when u`r not meant to win.

Got similar issues with football too. Like how man utd can have 1 season fighting relegation, fergie getting criticism all over the place. In come Sky (10% share in man utd at the time), in comes premiership monies - and the same man utd side, give or take 1 or 2 players, wins the thing. wtef.

 

[FarFarAway]

So the obvious explanation is that it was fixed? Give me a break...

 

[Rastalovich]

It`s a conspiracy I tell u !

Led by those at the top, aliens and rich mob-like oil merchants. All for their entertainment. Playing inner season games in brazil and so forth.

Like how u can become a `respected` billionaire from a country that can`t feed all it`s people and be able to buy an english football side. To play with.

Aint as far fetched as u might think, they`re talking about fifa `dealings` with monies and bungs on tv now.

lol

 

[nrage]

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.

I agree NZ bottle the big games but I think the phrase "don't have the balls to play well when it counts" is unfair.

I don't agree we (NZ) didn't have a complete side. NZ have some of the best, if not the best players in many positions on the field and this year we had enough quality players that a 2nd string team would have a fair chance of beating many of the top sides.

Just take a look at who was still on the bench at the end of the France match, Doug Howlett immediately comes to mind. Those players are good enough to play for any of the top teams in the world including England or South Africa.

Perhaps the number of players we had was part of the problem. It's hard for any team to put together a consistent performance when players are coming and going all the time.

I don't agree with Rast, I don't think there was any conspiracy. I think that NZ failed to deliver when it counted. I think they needed someone with a cool head to make the decision to take a drop goal in those last 10 minutes. I think the players that could have made the call or taken the drop goal were all on the bench, Carter was injured, Mauger and MacDonald were on the bench, McAlister had just come back on after being sent off.

Or, perhaps they considered the drop goal and decided that given the field position that a try was the better option. If that is the case then the credit goes to the french team for their defence, not many sides can hold out a determined NZ attack that close to the line for 10 minutes.

In the end games are decided by decisions like that, drop goal or try, and only in hindsight can you know whether it was the right choice or not.

 

[Rastalovich]

That decision making stuff is crap.

You could have made the decision - infact u just did. I could have. 50 thousand peoples in the stadium could have. Any1 considered suitable to play for a national side could have chosen to do anything but grind the clock down so that u lose, like planned.

The equiv. in american football terms is something like u got 40 seconds left in the game and u`r 4 points down. U`r 4th and inches at u`r opponents 2 yard line - and u kick a field goal. It`s just not done - and if it is done, u know what`s going on.

Or a more exact coinage, u`ve got 7 minutes to score 2 touchdowns to tie the game. U`r first drive u run every play and take 6 minutes off the clock to score your first. Leaving u slim to no chance of scoring again.

 

[nrage]

That decision making stuff is crap.

You could have made the decision - infact u just did.

Against any side in the world (including the South African team which won the cup) I would back the All Blacks to score a try in that situation. The french team's defence was exemplary, that's all there is to it.

A drop goal was probably the back up plan, but possession was lost and that plan was snatched from our grasp too. Best laid plans.. and all that.

 

[Rastalovich]

The same french side ripped by the pumas ? Twice.

 

[nrage]

The same french side ripped by the pumas ? Twice.

Yep. One in every 10 games the French play they play like men possessed. Even if you think going for the try was a bad decision you still have to ask why we didn't score one.