[Archived] Rugby

[RevidgeBlue]

One of the lads who works for me has just bought two tickets for Saturday night. £1,900 on ebay plus £1,060 for the flights for him and his Dad.

Hasn't even got accommodation ! I told him I didn't pay enough for him to do that, said he'd been saving up for a car

He might just have been conned. According to the Talksport presenter who's been in Paris today, there are plenty of face value or reasonably priced tickets floating about over there, there's a possibility some more official tickets will be released tomorrow, you can still get over on the ferry for 90 odd quid and you can still find a cheap B+B if you're prepared to put a bit of time and legwork in.

[blue phil]

Not so true today because rugby is far more advanced but as my old sports master said, "the ball players and athletes play football, the fat boys play rugby".

".....and you , jim; sod off with the fairies and go play netball "

[Flopsy]

I think that's very harsh on Terry.

He seems to be fairly unique for the modern day soccer superstar in having such a keen desire to play through injury, it almost equates to a reckless disregard for his own physical well being - a trait you (rightly) find so appealing in the rugger boys.

Can't see why people give Lampard such a hard time either. Has had his dips in form but seems to me to be a model professional in the right sense of the word.

Wouldn't disagree at all with Barton or Johnson or the general sentiment.

You mean Englands Finest^TM John Terry, who has been at best, ordinary for Chelsea this season, who has demanded that his contract ensures that he is the highest paid member of chelseas squad, and when he retires is given the Chelsea Managers job?

The guy who is so slow that we end up having to defend on the 6 yard box so that we can cover for his chronic lack of pace? You mean that one? A half fit, rather slow central defender, how ever good he is at tubthumping, is not what we need tomorrow evening, someone fit would be ideal, and why the hell they're playing lescott on the Left when we have Shorey or Warnock is beyond me.

Lampard deserves booing for being an obnoxious whining arse. Who's "couldnt hit a cows ares with a banjo" in the World Cup cost us more than Sven's selection policy. The put down by Barton on Lampard is about the only good thing the vicious little toerag has done.

[Eddie]

He might just have been conned. According to the Talksport presenter who's been in Paris today, there are plenty of face value or reasonably priced tickets floating about over there, there's a possibility some more official tickets will be released tomorrow, you can still get over on the ferry for 90 odd quid and you can still find a cheap B+B if you're prepared to put a bit of time and legwork in.

Don't know about the ticket side of things. I know a lot of people are looking, but I've yet to see many people selling. As for the price of the flight, that is the crazy part, he must have been able to find a cheaper option.

[Tim Southampton Rover]

After watching Englands football team play, if you are losing with 10 minutes to go against S.Africa please please pleaseeeeeeee don't replace Wilkinson with Stuart Downing in an attempt to win the match!

[RoversFanUSA]

Congrats to England on making it to the finals!!! I watched the game and you lot did damn well!

[neekoy]

Neekoy - There is no rule in Rugby that says you have to score tries to win a game. To win a game you have to score more points that the opposition. End of.

You will find no arguement with your summation of how to win a game.

Rugby is a penalty game, well NH rugby is a penalty game, play to win a penalty, kick for goal. Yes it will win the game but it is like watching Bolton win the Premiership with 1-0 wins.

This in my opinion why Union will always be the poor cousin in entertainment value to league.

Penalties are much to easy to give away in Union which leads to crappy kick for kick matches, which Australia is becoming guilty of themselves IMO on too many occasions.

The golden period of Rugby was the early nineties when running rugby was premium and players would improvise. These days it is all set piece play (except for the JL try against France which I actually loved) and players don't seem to have the creative ability they did 15-20 years ago.

I would love to see less penalties given for minor infractions and the value dropped from 3 to 2. IMO more emphasis needs to be put on scoring tries. This doesn't just relate to England but world rugby in general.

I guess though if you made it more open and entertaining you would have the NRL though so it won't change.

[Presty On Tour]

the final will be closer than the group game between the 2 sides, england have a chance imo.

fiji showed that south africa do have so frailties but the springbox have seen off every challenge so far and it really is theirs for the taking.

[bblue]

the final will be closer than the group game between the 2 sides, england have a chance imo.

I agree, expect a completely different set up for the final game. It's anyone's for the taking.

[Eddie]

I can see where you're coming from Neekoy, but at the same time the vast majority of penalties are given for things that could easily be avoided. If defending sides smartened up their play a bit at times you would force a team into trying to score a try. I do disagree with you though on players being less skilled now, I actually think the opposite is true and that is why teams tend to take kicks at every opportunity. When you know that the opposition have the ability to score a try at almost any moment from almost anywhere on the pitch you want to take the points whenever you have the chance. The speed and power of the game now means that you can never be sure that you have the game under contorl, even when you are attacking or defending in your opponents 22.

[Eddie]

Anyone want tickets for the final?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You will find no arguement with your summation of how to win a game.

Rugby is a penalty game, well NH rugby is a penalty game, play to win a penalty, kick for goal. Yes it will win the game but it is like watching Bolton win the Premiership with 1-0 wins.

This in my opinion why Union will always be the poor cousin in entertainment value to league.

Penalties are much to easy to give away in Union which leads to crappy kick for kick matches, which Australia is becoming guilty of themselves IMO on too many occasions.

The golden period of Rugby was the early nineties when running rugby was premium and players would improvise. These days it is all set piece play (except for the JL try against France which I actually loved) and players don't seem to have the creative ability they did 15-20 years ago.

I would love to see less penalties given for minor infractions and the value dropped from 3 to 2. IMO more emphasis needs to be put on scoring tries. This doesn't just relate to England but world rugby in general.

I guess though if you made it more open and entertaining you would have the NRL though so it won't change.

Whilst I agree that constant penalties are a blight on the game, I cant help but fee that this is another masked attack on the English & Northern Hemisphere in general.

One of England’s problems over the past few years is that we have given away far too many cheap penalties, thus giving the opposition a head-start. Where the Southern Hemisphere teams have bee better than the N.H over the past 3 years is during the Breakdown, Ruck & Maul, this is to do with constant infringement & cynical slowing down of the opposition possession, giving there defence time to recover.

Up until the World Cup Northern Hemisphere teams haven’t had the crafty knack of been able to do this without giving away penalties for offences such as offside, hands on ball in ruck, illegally taking down rolling mauls etc etc. In last several games there seems to have been a re-dressing of the balance France & England have become more adept at the shadier arts of the breakdown ( without constant penalty calling ) whilst the SH have been penalised for breaking the rules, its that simple.

England doesn’t play the most attractive Rugby, and are rightfully underdogs for the Final- Yet what an achievement for a side without “any World-Class players. The English team has become more streetwise as the tournament has gone on. Our Antipodean friends can criticise and snipe all they like abut England’s reliance on Penalties but against France and Australia in particular, if they hadn’t been illegally slowed down during the break-down they would of scored tries

[Eddie]

This strike could cause a few problems.

[Cheshireblue]

You will find no arguement with your summation of how to win a game.

Rugby is a penalty game, well NH rugby is a penalty game, play to win a penalty, kick for goal. Yes it will win the game but it is like watching Bolton win the Premiership with 1-0 wins.

This in my opinion why Union will always be the poor cousin in entertainment value to league.

Penalties are much to easy to give away in Union which leads to crappy kick for kick matches, which Australia is becoming guilty of themselves IMO on too many occasions.

The golden period of Rugby was the early nineties when running rugby was premium and players would improvise. These days it is all set piece play (except for the JL try against France which I actually loved) and players don't seem to have the creative ability they did 15-20 years ago.

I would love to see less penalties given for minor infractions and the value dropped from 3 to 2. IMO more emphasis needs to be put on scoring tries. This doesn't just relate to England but world rugby in general.

I guess though if you made it more open and entertaining you would have the NRL though so it won't change.

Typical whining Crim.

"The golden age of Rugby was when we were good at it". How predictable.

Athletes have got faster and stronger, accordingly it is more difficult to score tries as you now need to force errors in order to get by your opponent. There is merit in increasing the value of a try to 6 points to encourage teams to go for it a bit more, but at the end of the day, if you give penalties away for infringements you need to be punished. If the inhabitants of HMP Australia and the French didn't commit the penalties, they would not get kicked by Jonny. If you get awarded three points on a plate, then you take them. Reducing the points for a penalty will simply encourage teams to give away more penalties thus restricting the game further.

The Bok's and the Cons allegedly play a more flowing form of Rugby because (i) they have a good back line and (ii) their forwards are ordinary at best. England however have a fantastic set of forwards, so why would you not play to them? Why spin the ball out wide when your forwards can win the game for you?

There have been a few jibes at England not having any world class players in their team. Utter nonsense. Robinson and Wilkinson would walk into any team anywhere in the world, and it would take a particularly myopic Anti-Englishman to say that Sheridan and Shaw would also not feature in their native country's first XV.

[Ozz]

I was once told the RL was better to watch and RU was better to play. Simple definition of the differences in the code. Pro against amateur sports.

And remember the best team does not always win a knock out tournament.

[Eddie]

Typical whining Crim.

"The golden age of Rugby was when we were good at it". How predictable.

Athletes have got faster and stronger, accordingly it is more difficult to score tries as you now need to force errors in order to get by your opponent. There is merit in increasing the value of a try to 6 points to encourage teams to go for it a bit more, but at the end of the day, if you give penalties away for infringements you need to be punished. If the inhabitants of HMP Australia and the French didn't commit the penalties, they would not get kicked by Jonny. If you get awarded three points on a plate, then you take them. Reducing the points for a penalty will simply encourage teams to give away more penalties thus restricting the game further.

The Bok's and the Cons allegedly play a more flowing form of Rugby because (i) they have a good back line and (ii) their forwards are ordinary at best. England however have a fantastic set of forwards, so why would you not play to them? Why spin the ball out wide when your forwards can win the game for you?

There have been a few jibes at England not having any world class players in their team. Utter nonsense. Robinson and Wilkinson would walk into any team anywhere in the world, and it would take a particularly myopic Anti-Englishman to say that Sheridan and Shaw would also not feature in their native country's first XV.

You're both right to a certain extent. I think any rugby supporter will say that the sport is far more attractive and exciting when teams run with the ball. If you are going to argue with that then I would have to say that you are the one who is displaying a personal bias based on how your nation plays. England are playing good rugby now and their tactics make sense, good teams need to overcome those tactics.

I'm not sure about Robinson and Wilkinson walking into any side. I can understand why some down in NZ would probably keep Carter over Wilkinson and I'm sure the Scots aren't too unhappy with their fly half. England have some good players, they are a good team, but don't crow until we've won the World Cup. If you want people to be good losers you have to at least be a good winner.

[Flopsy]

[Cheshireblue]

You're both right to a certain extent. I think any rugby supporter will say that the sport is far more attractive and exciting when teams run with the ball. If you are going to argue with that then I would have to say that you are the one who is displaying a personal bias based on how your nation plays. England are playing good rugby now and their tactics make sense, good teams need to overcome those tactics.

I'm not sure about Robinson and Wilkinson walking into any side. I can understand why some down in NZ would probably keep Carter over Wilkinson and I'm sure the Scots aren't too unhappy with their fly half. England have some good players, they are a good team, but don't crow until we've won the World Cup. If you want people to be good losers you have to at least be a good winner.

I hate myself for responding to you, but I'm going to do it anyway.

You may like seeing running rugby, I prefer to to see a forward game. Not because England play a forward game, but because I was a loose head prop for 9 years. Backs are all mincing homosexuals who don't like getting dirty. I would much rather see an 8 man rolling maul grind towards the line and the no 8 nip over from 2 yards or even pile through under a mass of bodies at the back of the maul. The All Blacks in the late 80's and early 90's were the finest team ever in my book, but that is because they had Sean Fitzpatrick and Grant Fox, both of whom understood the dark arts of the rolling maul and forward play generally. Fox was an exceptional half back, especially when it came to marshalling his forwards and kicking them into the game.

You're not sure about Wilkinson or Robinson getting into any other side? Well stop the press. Putting aside the fact that you are only 12 and have probably only watched about 15 games of rugby in your life, let alone actually played the game, Robinson would get into an all time XV, not just any current national side. His all round game is excellent and his change of direction and burst of pace are utterly unique. He is quite possibly the finest talent ever to have played either code of Rugby. The look of pure fear and confusion on the faces of the convict defenders when ever he has the ball is comical.

And don't make me laugh about Patterson. Have you actually watched a Scotland game? Yes he kick goals, but his kicking out of hand is questionable, his distribution is woeful and his tackling is apalling. The Sweaties may well be happy with him, but that is no measure of weather he is a world class player. Dan Carter is to the All Blacks what Jonny is to England, but I'll bet most other nations would rather have Jonny than Carter. Why? Because Jonny has proved that he can do it, and has done it. Carter has potential, but a very bare looking trophy cabinet.

And please lay off the sanctimonious crap about being a good winner. Every nation in the world baits the English when it comes to Rugby. If they don't like it up 'em, they shouldn't dish it out. It is killing them that their so called expansive talented players have been dumped out of the world cup by England and France. Maybe, just maybe, they are not quite so talented as they thought they were, and that after all, England aren't a bad side and we may actually be worth our place in the Final on merit.

If we don't win it, I will be disappointed, but I am quite prepared to take stick from any Springbok out there. What I won't do however is take any backward step when it comes to the crims, Irish, French, Welsh, Sweaties or the Kiwi's. They talk whaever @#/? they like. Successive world cup finals says it all. This is the big stage, and they have all choked.

[Presty On Tour]

fairplay the argies ain't bad at rugby

[Flopsy]

10-32

hahahahahahahahaha

[Jimbo]

Christ that was a good game - ruthless aat the breakdown and just enough flair to destroy the froggies on the counter

I'd have preferred to meet them in the final though rather than the Saffers

[philipl]

Bad omen, Argentina beat the French in their group then stuffed them in the 3rd place final.

[RoyRover]

Athletes have got faster and stronger, accordingly it is more difficult to score tries as you now need to force errors in order to get by your opponent. There is merit in increasing the value of a try to 6 points to encourage teams to go for it a bit more, but at the end of the day, if you give penalties away for infringements you need to be punished. If the inhabitants of HMP Australia and the French didn't commit the penalties, they would not get kicked by Jonny. If you get awarded three points on a plate, then you take them. Reducing the points for a penalty will simply encourage teams to give away more penalties thus restricting the game further.

The Bok's and the Cons allegedly play a more flowing form of Rugby because (i) they have a good back line and (ii) their forwards are ordinary at best. England however have a fantastic set of forwards, so why would you not play to them? Why spin the ball out wide when your forwards can win the game for you?

I agree with the penalty thing. If a team is undisciplined enough to commit penalties in kicking distance, then why wouldn't England take the three points. They obviously realise the limitations of their own game, so take whatever points come their way. However I'm not so sure about your comments about the South African forwards. That is the area of their game that they are famed for, the shear size, physicality and quality of their forwards. Schalk Burger is one of the best flankers in the world, while Juan Smith is probably the best back row forward in the world. Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha are the best lineout combination going. The scrum would be the one area that England could gain an advantage, but elsewhere, the Boks have more than enough to match England.

The forward effort of the English has been quite phenomenal and has proven the idea that forwards win games. But they are facing the team that have the forwards to match them. On top of this, they have the backs to shred England. This is where I feel that South Africa have an advantage. If England can't dominate in the forwards like they have, then they haven't shown much from elsewhere that would suggest that they can open teams up. South Africa have shown both sides to their game. I'm not saying that this will be the way that it will work out, but that IMO is the difference in the two teams. Ashton has hinted that there might be a slight change in the tactics, but if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I think that South Africa will win.

[bblue]

France got stuffed heavily, if you had told them they'd finish 4th before the tournament, they'd probably have laughed hard but it wasn't as easy as they thought. Let's see if England can finish it off..

[Blueboy Downunder]

i think people know my views on the aussie's on this thread, but i think that arrogance and cockyness is a trait that is right through most of the southern hemisphere teams. in the last few weeks i have seen aussie commentators/pundits attack teams from up north and also have a crack at northern hemisphere refferees too. the kiwis's self indulgent attitude is a delight to watch and a comedian's dream - the australian's attack anything and everything to do with the opposition that they are playing against and the south african's have also been branded as arrogant. whereas i believe that teams from north of the equater (correct spelling), seem to be far far more graceful in victory and defeat.

i too prefer to see a forwards game chesh, as i was a lock forward for our local university team here in geelong, at the beginning of this century. i hope we see a good game later this morning but i am looking at this in 2 ways...if it is a forwards game and a close one at that...then we will retain the webb ellis trophy, but iof it is a backs game then the south afrifcan boys will win.

history is there to be made...come on england!!!!!!!!