Your chance to make predictions and explain who you’ll be rooting for and why. I’m hoping for an England win, but predict SA to win 32-12, with Wilkinson scoring all England’s points. Since I’m English, it isn’t hard to explain my sympathies, and the fact that “Bristol”:http://www.bristolrugby.co.uk/index.php hooker “Mark Regan”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regan should playing for England and is an old boy of St Brendan’s 6th Form College (where my youngest went) more than completes the picture. I’m more intrigued about who the various Celts, Gaels, Aussies and Kiwis who write for or read CT will be backing. Normally, I’d expect an “anyone but England” policy, but, given “the dubious politics of SA rugby”:http://southafrica.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/26/rugby-race-and-nationalism-with-a-twist/ and England’s underdog status, there may be some surprises.
{ 64 comments }
Leo Africanus 10.16.07 at 2:45 pm
If ‘dubious politics’ would be the basis for supporting a team (and I have blogged about the persistent apartheid legacy of South African rugby; I am from there), then England should also disqualify. We can get into the class politics and crass nationalism of English rugby another time. I would have to go with South Africa though. That’s home.
ejh 10.16.07 at 2:46 pm
There’s no sporting entity on Earth I loathe more than the England rugby union XV, not even the South Africans. I wouldn’t support them if they were playing Chelsea, or Nigel Short.
I predict they will win.
christine 10.16.07 at 2:57 pm
Ordering: Australia/NZ/Fiji (possibly even Fiji first). Then basically any Southern Hemisphere team over any Northern. So go SA! (expat Aussie)
Kieran Healy 10.16.07 at 3:08 pm
Hmm. I would say I am a genuine neutral on this one.
SCM 10.16.07 at 3:13 pm
South Africa should win, but I’d be very happy if it were by so much. I think it will be more like 16-12 to SA after 70 minutes or so, with maybe another Habana break-out try thereafter if England get sloppy. The politics in South African rugby is tedious, but hardly unique. Wouldn’t any reasonable person be thrilled for Pakistan to beat Australia by an innings and one hundred runs?
des von bladet 10.16.07 at 3:19 pm
As a France supporter (which I am) and a Beneluxian (which I am only legally not) there is only my vestigial north-hemisphericism left to perturb my indifference. I’m not sure that’s enough, given that it’s probably only on French TV and Mrs. von Bladet is no fan of professional sport and speaks barely a word of French.
Chris Bertram 10.16.07 at 3:23 pm
Leo: crass nationalism I’ll give you (but no more than for other sports). I think the class politics bit is overstated. There’s nothing especially middle or upper class about the crowd at Bristol Rugby, or at Gloucester, for example. And the current England squad are hardly a bunch of hooray Henrys. On your side of the argument are the RFU and “Twickers”.
ejh 10.16.07 at 3:30 pm
On your side of the argument are the RFU and “Twickers”.
And indeed the vast over-coverage of the 15-man game by the broadsheets: at club level it is no better attended than its rarely-mentioned but superior cousin.
Chris Bertram 10.16.07 at 3:38 pm
You are such a troll Justin.
ejh 10.16.07 at 4:17 pm
Saying “troll” to somebody whose opinions and outlook differs from yours is such a childish habit, do you not think?
You wanted explanations of people’s loyalties: it appears you did not actually want them.
Leo Africanus 10.16.07 at 4:25 pm
Just btw Chris, the source you quoted on South African rugby has quite a twisted take on rugby there (that’s a longer story as to why only the case of a white rugby player being excluded got your writing/blogging). Not to ‘link whore’ (a new term I picked up in an article in New York magazine about the website GAWKER’s dubious practices), but there are better articles on rugby politics in South African even in American magazines, for example the very thin TIME Mmagazine.
The article in question:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1659593,00.html
and my post:
http://theleoafricanus.blogspot.com/2007/09/south-african-rugby-no-rainbow.html
Leo
P O'Neill 10.16.07 at 4:29 pm
Very tough call. An England win would probably result in the most dualistic analysis of any tournament ever, as the euphoria at home would contrast with the southern hem introspection as to how their vaunted game went so completely off the rails. Perhaps even rule changes if the disgust is deep enough?
Off-topic: What it will take for Sky Sports News to break their quasi-boycott of the tournament? They’ll cover just about anything before they get to it. Perhaps the highlights policy is a problem — in that respect US system of widely available highlights is better. TV channels actually cover sports to which they don’t have the live rights.
Leo Africanus 10.16.07 at 4:34 pm
I think SKY does not have rights. Sometimes that means not even showing highlights. But SKY also has a dubious policy of not showing you the goals after a game (in the case of futbol) trying to get as much out of it by either rebroadcasting the game, or screening it on one of their bouquet of channels and demanding extra subscriber fees for access to those channels.
Duncan Young 10.16.07 at 4:35 pm
This vexed kiwi says:
Tie!
The remaining match of interest is for third place.
Chris Bertram 10.16.07 at 4:36 pm
Thanks Leo. I’d no reason to think of that as representative. I googled a bit yesterday in an effort to find out a bit about the current politics and that story came up. I’m grateful to you for pointing me to other things.
(Justin: I’ve been in enough rugby internet discussion threads to notice that the provocative reference to RL as superior, in discussions that aren’t originally about the relative merits of the two codes, is a classic troll move. Perhaps I’d give someone else the benefit of the doubt.)
ejh 10.16.07 at 4:45 pm
(Justin: I’ve been in enough rugby internet discussion threads to notice that the provocative reference to RL as superior, in discussions that aren’t originally about the relative merits of the two codes, is a classic troll move. Perhaps I’d give someone else the benefit of the doubt.)
Well, there goes Bertram with his assumptions again – not the first time, is it?
I’ve quite often come across union fans who think it’s OK to call league fans “troll” because we object to the way union blots out league, even to the (very common) point of appropriating the term “rugby” to mean their code rather than ours. It’s clear to me that, just as that manoeuvre delegitimises league, so the cry of troll delegitimises the objection.
And it’s possible that this reaction – like the “game for hooligans played by gentlemen” hypocrisy and a number of other things – may make up part of the reason why some people loathe the England rugby union team. Which is why it is pertinent to the question originaly asked – who we will be rooting for and why. I’ll be rooting for “anyone but England”. You asked. That’s the answer.
Now stop being so damned intolerant.
[Justin: you were extremely rude in another thread on an unrelated topic the other day. More than one email correspondent has commented to me on how you’ve been a total jerk in discussion with them. I think I’m generally pretty tolerant, but I don’t see much reason to tolerate *you* and your passive-aggressive crap. Now please go away, and do not post on any discussion initiated by me for 7 days. CB]
ejh 10.16.07 at 5:19 pm
You referred to me here as a troll, which was an untruth. It appears to you are allowed to attack me but I may not respond. I find this conduct quite extraordinary and while I will not post on your threads as requested, it would be reasonable of you to allow this reply to stand.
conchis 10.16.07 at 5:25 pm
Anyone but England!
Mrs Tilton 10.16.07 at 5:52 pm
I’d prefer England to win, I think, and they will therefore lose.
Count von B.: does the Bladetskian “television” device receive DSF? Their coverage has been spotty, but they will have the final, if the Countess will countenance Hun commentary in the house.
Maria 10.16.07 at 5:54 pm
I’m mostly on the fence with my countrymen Kieren and PO’Neill. I can’t elicit much of a preference except for mild sympathy for the northern team. And I’m also impressed at Wilkinson coming back from injuries that would have ended lesser mens’ careers.
So, well, England. Even if my English brother in law will be insufferable in the unlikely event of them winning.
matthew 10.16.07 at 5:57 pm
And indeed the vast over-coverage of the 15-man game by the broadsheets
Evidently, broadsheet readers want to read about rugby union and not rugby league. What’s wrong with that? Using the fact that rugby union clubs are supported by large numbers of middle class broadsheet-readers to criticise them is a particularly odd use of guilt by association.
des von bladet 10.16.07 at 6:10 pm
Mrs T: No DSF here, sadly. It might be on a Dutch zender, though. And in fifteen years, a little birdie tells me, there might be a team of hulking young men wearing oranje to contend with.
But this zaterdag is more likely to be spent catching up with wedding anniversaries postponed from last zaterdag in honour of tomorrow’s exam, so coverage, like support, is likely to be a strickly hypothetical issue.
Michael Keyes 10.16.07 at 8:35 pm
As a neutral North American, I predict that England will win this time around.
Two reasons: First, it is hard to beat a team twice in the same tournament. They know what to expect and will make allowances and changes while the previous winner only has the same game plan to work with.
Second, SA did not look all that good against the Argies. 3 of the 4 tries were due to Argentinian mistakes, rather bad mistakes at that. And while Wilkenson may miss a few kicks, I suspect he and the rest of the team will be up for the game and very focused. They will control the ball throughout the game and rely on penalty kicks to win. It is unlikely that SA will have a free flowing open game with the English defens(c)e.
Of course I picked an Argentina victory, too.
duaneg 10.16.07 at 9:18 pm
This kiwi will be cheering, reluctantly, for England. Their come-back has been amazing. If they could overcome SA it would make for an incredible world-cup story.
John Quiggin 10.16.07 at 9:54 pm
Is “rooting for” British English? It means something quite different in Australian English.
SCM 10.16.07 at 10:03 pm
“Rooting for” would be South African English too. Would an appropriate Australian expression be that both England and South Africa can go root for themselves?
Chris Bertram 10.16.07 at 10:27 pm
It is indeed John, it means hoping that someone is successful in competition.
Stu 10.16.07 at 11:37 pm
As a Kiwi, I’m going for South Africa, simply because England are too boring to win. That, and the fact that England haven’t played well enough this year (or indeed since the last world cup) to be considered world champions. They’ve won a couple of critical games and that’s it.
Linca 10.16.07 at 11:47 pm
You have French readers that follow rugby, you know…
Anyone but England, obviously.
And good riddance on our Sarkozist, cowardly, unable to beat the English, coach.
terence 10.17.07 at 12:21 am
from NZ and definitely supporting England. I’ve always been pretty supportive of English sports teams (partly because I liked the country when I lived there). However, in this case I’m all the more supportive of England because the chaos-loving part of me can’t think of anything better than a team which hasn’t played a single good game since the last world cup winning this one.
I’d say the South Africans will win pretty easy though.
DJ 10.17.07 at 1:47 am
Re. comment 28. It is true that England have only won a couple of critical games and done nothing else. But then that is more than The Chokers have done who, in the last 4 years, have won a large number of insubstantial games, then lost the one that counted.
SG 10.17.07 at 3:23 am
I dunno what John is talking about, “rooting for” has the same meaning in Oz.
snuh 10.17.07 at 3:38 am
31: actually dj, to a new zealander the only games that count are against australia, and they’ve been doing pretty well at that over the last 4 years.
Toby 10.17.07 at 6:52 am
Re: 33
Do All Blacks cry like that when Australia beats them?
SG 10.17.07 at 7:01 am
dunno, been a long time since I saw that event…
MFB 10.17.07 at 10:15 am
OURS WILL BE THE VICTORY! WE ARE THE MASTER RUGBY RACE!!
(Thumps chest, chokes, gasps, staggers to sofa and opens enormous packet of melktert-flavoured biltong as the television set explodes.)
chris y 10.17.07 at 12:59 pm
linca, the appropriate position to take when one’s own side is knocked out of a competition is to support the side that beat them. Then, if they eventually win, one can realistically claim that one’s own team is at least the second best in the world, and can only be beaten (occasionally) by champions.
In this case, I think my own preference has to be for the ground to be buried under six metres of rotting fish in a freak meteorological accident, so that the match is called off and the deeply committed minority can enjoy bad tempered arguments about who would have won until Christmas.
john m. 10.17.07 at 1:45 pm
Sneaky question Chris! Having been cheerfully rude about England’s bad start in the world cup, I’ll revisit a point I made then: baffled as I was that they won the last one, turning up in the final of this one is just beyond belief. For that reason I’d like to support them, along with the Northern Hemisphere thing. BUT, I’ve a soft spot for the Boks having lived there for a while (post-apartheid, let’s all stay calm) and would have to say that I’d take their rugby style over England’s any day – but I’d take virtually anyone’s gameplay over England’s (1 out of 7 drop goal attempts or somesuch? Yuck.). Also, everything in SA is political in the sense you use it and in many ways is neither here nor there. Bottom line? I’m rooting for…Eng..I can’t do it, sorry. South Africa by 10+. Fyi, I called all four quarter finals correctly and when asked by a Kiwi friend why I didn’t have a bet on, I pointed out that if I had I would have lost. Is this covered by any economic theory? You should bribe me to bet on England – only way to guarantee the win!
Leinad 10.17.07 at 2:03 pm
Hemispherism Uber Alles!
sg: 2003, sometime in november. it was marvellous and I hate egg-chasing games.
Ahh to live in a country where Rugby League was minority sport and association football omnipresent…
Chris Bertram 10.17.07 at 2:32 pm
John M. Strange. My betting has the same effect. Some quirk in the space-time continuum means that my betting on a team causes them to lose. This time, I’ve had a bet on SA since before the competition (at 9.2 – decimal odds). Since they’ve reached the final, I can only assume that the Fates are just toying with me and that SA are doomed.
Linca 10.17.07 at 3:42 pm
Chris y, France considers itself to be of varying strength, having beaten the best team in the cup, after and before losing to two lesser teams. French wins do not denote superiority but a great performance.
Dennis 10.17.07 at 5:56 pm
Since the All Blacks have once again proven themselves to be the best side for 3.5 out of 4 years I’ll be rooting for England to take home the win. Hopefully, my picking England to win by a try won’t doom them to loose by three of them.
Brownie 10.17.07 at 9:11 pm
31: actually dj, to a new zealander the only games that count are against australia, and they’ve been doing pretty well at that over the last 4 years.
Really? Traditionally, South Africa has been the grudge match for an All Black. It’s a history thing.
And on the “boring” England thing, it should be noted that France spent the entire semi-final (bar the last 2 minutes) kicking for territory. This a team with a back line slightly more lauded than England’s. Which team scored a try, again?
Finally, what do you call the Rugby World Cup play-off for 7th and 8th place?
The Bledisloe Cup.
Derek Catsam 10.18.07 at 12:15 am
First, thanks so much for linking to my work at the Foreign Policy Association’s South Africa blog. Today I posted a long post on the big game:
http://southafrica.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/10/17/springbok-fever/
I think the Springboks pummel England. The defending world champs have been a great story these last few weeks, but England and South Africa have faced off three times this year, and the 36-0 thrashing in the Pool round may not even have been the worst, as the Springboks hung 50+ each of the other two times.
I also think that the racial situation with South African rugby is cmplicated — it cannot be easily reduced to a narrative of South Africa = racist, though historically that was true. But now the South Africans are dealing with trying to transform rugby while still trying to maintain competitive integrity. They have not gone as far as people would have hoped, but they have done remarkably in some ways.
I’ve written a lot about this issue, and am sorry for distilling it to a few points. In any case, expect Bryan Habana to show why he may be the best player in the world this weekend.
My prediction, which is subject to change, is South Africa 36-14 and running away in the second half.
Cheers —
Derek Catsam
SG 10.18.07 at 1:06 am
leinad at 39, it’s funny I don’t remember the game you allude to. Was it important?
derrida derider 10.18.07 at 1:35 am
The jarpies will win it easily. Both Australia and France played well below their best against England.
It’s not pommy-bashing or hemispheric solidarity that makes me want England to be thrashed in the final – it’s the desire to see negative tactics punished. Rugby desperately needs to change rules to reduce the incentives to kick.
Leinad 10.18.07 at 4:04 am
sg: it was about some Cup or something…
Brownie 10.18.07 at 10:00 am
Once again, the kicking thing.
I think some people need to look a tape of the 36-0 drubbing. South Africa did indeed score 3 tries, but the foundation for their win was built almost entirely on an unrelenting succession of hig kicks from James and Montgomery. Of course, when a southern hemisphere team is kicking the leather off the ball, it’s clever tactis. When England do it, it’s boring.
Likewise, France in the semi-final did nothing but kick until the last couple of minutes.
I know. if the All Blacks promise to lend us their three-quarter line, we’ll kick less and run more.
Deal?
Oh, and the results in SA in the summer were meaningless. A 4th string England 15 got dicked by 40? Big deal.
Both Australia and France played well below their best against England.
I think there’s a reason for that.
mollymooly 10.18.07 at 11:35 am
I hold the naïve maths-nerd view that a sports tournament is a scientific experiment to determine which competitor is the best. I disdain knockout tournaments for the thing that others love: flukey giant-killings or, as I call them, experimental errors. Until the Six Nations, the Tri-Nations and Argentina set up a round-robin Decacampeonato, the title of World Champion is a meaningless bauble. Of course they will never do that, since New Zealand would win every year.
Sports journalists giving their post-tournament retrospective synopsis will invariably try to reverse engineer a moral or just-so story in which the champion’s victory turns out to have been inevitable because of some deep quality not obvious beforehand. This bull is why these people are sports journalists instead of proper writers. If England win, it just proves the scientific experiment was ill-designed and the results meaningless. So I guess I hope they win 6-5.
My prediction is that South Africa will score between 1-4 tries and 2-5 goals, and England will score 0-2 tries and 3-8 goals. Anything more precise is a pure guess.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 12:34 pm
mollyooly,
There’s some truth in what you say and it’s no different to fotoball or cricket if you look at how their resepctive world cups are put together. On the other hand, isn’t there something to be said for the ability to produce on the big occasion and under the fiercest pressure?
Undoubtedly, New Zealand play the best all-round game in the world, but do you deserve the mantle “World Champions” if you consistently choke when the chips are well and truly down?
NZ simply haven’t learned how to win the biggest of big games. At least in part, I believe that’s down to their own refusal to accept the possibility that any team is good enough to beat them. Call it complacency, arrogance or whatever, but it’s a failing that true world champions don’t have.
A good analogy is sprinting. Asafa Powell sets world records for fun, but he can’t (yet) produce on the biggst occasions. Linford Christie, who never held a world record, was the exact opposite.
When there’s a few hundred million watching on TV all around the world, 80,000 in the stadium and you’re carrying the hopes of an entire nation on your back on the biggest occasion your sport can deliver, and you win, then you deserve “World Champion” status and no amount of mis-moves, gorgeous diagonals and scissors manoeuvres by a different team 3 months prior in a secondary tournament should alter that.
mollymooly 10.18.07 at 2:35 pm
Brownie: Of course. One way to add the requisite pressure of a knockout to the requisite error-correction of a round-robin would be to play a round-robin, but chop off one of your wife’s fingers if you lose a game. A better way might be to have a champion-challenger system like in pro boxing; NZ would spend most of the time as champions, but others would get a fair chance and bob up to the top every now and then. The ability to perform under pressure is meritorious, but the ability to turn it on match after match is, I think, more so. England of course had shiny new bragging rights in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 win, but the title “reigning world champions” got quite tarnished over the years. I would like a system where it always meant something.
The problems I described are much more acute in my favorite form of football, the Association flavour. There are so few goals that it’s very common for the worse team to win; add in the travesty of penalty shootouts and the FIFA World Cup becomes a farce. Did Italy perform better than France under pressure in Berlin? Pfff!
Derek Catsam 10.18.07 at 8:47 pm
I’d take issue with assertions such as “Undoubtedly, New Zealand play the best all-round game in the world.” We are talking about sport here. And in the context of sport there is only one way to determine the “best,” and that is to win on the field. Rugby (or soccer or baseball or American football or hockey . . .) isn’t freaking figure skating. there are no bonuses for wearing a pretty outfit or playing nice music or smiling even after you fall on your arse.
The “best” team is the team that wins in the tournaments that establishes which is the “best” team. That might be a tautology, but it is true nonetheless. Assertions that in some parallel universe New Zealand would win every year do not change the fact that in the world in which we live, New Zealand does not always win every year. people can anoint the All Blacks all they want. In this sport, we decide things on the field, as I suspect South Africa will decidedly do in a few days.
Cheers —
dc
Brownie 10.18.07 at 10:40 pm
I’d take issue with assertions such as “Undoubtedly, New Zealand play the best all-round game in the world.â€
Well, I support the basic thrust of your comment, but on this point specifically, there’s a reason the All Blacks began the tournament as odds-on favourites.
Like you, however, I’m firmly of the belief that it’s about doing it on the field.
john m. 10.19.07 at 7:34 am
Speaking of tautologies, if I’m bored watching a team then they are boring. Watching England thump their way around the pitch until such time as the only genuine rugby genius on the team can kick some points is blindingly dull. To compare the SA kicking tactics in the England game to the tactics employed by England is plain silly – look to the scores in the respective games: there’s a reason SA won by a clear 36 points rather than by a very narrow margin of 2 or 6. The reason why the French lost is because they started doing the aimless kicking thing beloved by weak teams – a total mystery why. If they had kept up the high tempo wide game they played for 10mins or so after the somewhat lucky England try they would have won.
Brownie 10.19.07 at 12:12 pm
Watching England thump their way around the pitch until such time as the only genuine rugby genius on the team can kick some points is blindingly dull.
Well, if we exclude the games England have won by kicking drop-goals alone – which means none – then we are left with the games where the bulk of England’s points have come via penalties. The thing with penalties is that you don’t get them for nothing. England’s dominance up front means they tend to extract more penalties from the opposition than they concede. Becasue they have one of the best kickers in the world, this can often be enough to win. Because this is often enough to win, they don’t have to the play a more expansive – and inerently more risky – game to win matches. The moral of the story is don’t give up penalties to a team with Jonny Wilkinson at 10.
Enlgand don’t play the game they do because they have an entirely different rugby philosophy to the southern hemisphere, but becasue the strength of their team means they can , when playing well, win matches by kicking points. But the bottom line is that other teams can prevent this by:
a) competing at the set-piece and breakdown and matching England up front, and
b) not coneding penalties.
If they can’t do either of these things, they can’t. Don’t blame England, though.
To compare the SA kicking tactics in the England game to the tactics employed by England is plain silly – look to the scores in the respective games: there’s a reason SA won by a clear 36 points rather than by a very narrow margin of 2 or 6.
South Africa did indeed score 3 tries – they also missed 3 drop-goal attempts in a first-half where they dominated Enlgand in every facet of play. The fact remains, the victory was built on a conservative gameplan – kick the ball high and long at every opportunity – which they executed to perfection. My point about the comparison in tactics is that I’m forever hearing people lament Enlgand’s lack of running rugby, when the truth is not none of the top teams is playing that style right now. When any of the top 6 nations meet, it’s either Gary Owen after Gary Owen (NZ, Aus, SA, France) or ruck and maul after ruck and maul (Eng, Arg). Yes, some of those teams are capable of flashes of backline brilliance more than others, but it’s simply wrong to pretend that this characterizes their general play or signals a different attitude to the game. Right now, we’re in an era where defences are very much on top and the tactical kicking game reigns supreme.
Funnily enough, the 36-0 drubbing was England’s first world cup defeat since 1999 when South Africa beat us in the 1/4 finals. I seem to remember one team knocking over 5 – count ’em – 5 drop goals that day, and they weren’t playing in white ;-)
The reason why the French lost is because they started doing the aimless kicking thing beloved by weak teams – a total mystery why.
It might be a mystery to you. See above, but also for my money they decided their best policy was to turn around our huge pack at every opportunity. There was nothing wrong with the tactic per se; it’s just their execution was awful.
If they had kept up the high tempo wide game they played for 10mins or so after the somewhat lucky England try they would have won.
Or they’d have run out steam by half-time and been pulverised by England’s pack in the second half. Who knows, eh? What we do know is that France began to throw the ball around at the end because they had no choice: they needed a try. It was desperation, not a rugby renaissance.
john m. 10.19.07 at 2:01 pm
Gary Owen?!
I rest my case in dismissing your knowledge of the game.
Brownie 10.19.07 at 2:48 pm
Feck. You won’t believe it, but pure accident. I can assure you I’m aware of the derivation.
Brownie 10.19.07 at 2:54 pm
I even sing you all the words to ‘Sean South…’
john m. 10.19.07 at 5:17 pm
Fair enough! Good luck in the final!
Brownie 10.19.07 at 9:10 pm
We’ll need it. Ignore my false optimism above. I’ve been medically diagnosed as ‘delusional’ ;-)
Derek Catsam 10.20.07 at 9:39 pm
Well, an interesting final, especially in the context of this conversation, given that South Africa won by the kicking game. But I’m not certain this should be seen as a defense of England’s style so much as an affirmation that, as in boxing, where style makes fights, style also makes rugby games. The fact that South Africa is capable of beating England at its own game after three other times pummeling them by a more traditional South African style simply proves that no matter how you slice it, South Africa is the clearly superior team and a deserving World Champion.
dc
Chris Bertram 10.21.07 at 8:24 am
Yes, no complaints about the result. SA are deserving champions, and England ought to be happy (once the immediate disappointment faded) that they got as far as they got. Fiji and Argentina also ought to be pleased with themselves. Everyone else ….
SCM 10.21.07 at 2:33 pm
Argentina were the revelation of the tournament. Hopefully this will provide impetus to a Southern Hemisphere Four Nations competition. As for the final itself, it’s a pity there were no tries, but that is not terribly surprising. And a win’s a win, whether from penalities, drop goals, or crossing the line.
Brownie 10.21.07 at 10:38 pm
But I’m not certain this should be seen as a defense of England’s style so much as an affirmation that, as in boxing, where style makes fights, style also makes rugby games. The fact that South Africa is capable of beating England at its own game after three other times pummeling them by a more traditional South African style simply proves that no matter how you slice it, South Africa is the clearly superior team and a deserving World Champion.
Correct conclusion – South Africa were the best team at this tournament – but the rest is codswallop.
Firstly, as you know, the results in SA this summer were meaningless. Victories by any margin against another team’s 4th string don’t tell you an awful lot, except maybe give you a pointer to the other team’s strength in depth…or lack of it.
Secondly, SA rather got out of jail last night. I very much doubt the pre-game tactics were to play England at their own game. If SA and England played that match the same way another 10 times, I think the victories wold be pretty evenly shared.
This is not a defence of England’s style per se – their lack of penetration was always going to find them out eventually – but a defence of teams playing to their strengths. No other team deliberately plays to their weaknesses, yet this is what England (alone) are implicitly asked to do.
This wouldn’t make sense even if other teams *were* throwing the ball around inside their own 22. The fact is they’re not, or naything like it, at least not against the class oppositon. SA, Aus, France, NZ all have a game that means they have no problem running in a hatful of tries against the lesser teams (most of the time). England maybe beat those same teams with a couple of scores from driving mauls and kicks. But when the big teams square up, the games tend to be a bit like last night’s. Hugely physical, lots of high kicks and defences well and truly on top. This is especially so when the stakes are at their highest…meaning at the world cup.
You talk about the traditional SA way. They’ve won two world cups, scored fifteen points in each final and scored zero tries. Nope, this isn’t a criticism of SA who, by the way, are the best team around right now, but it does tell us something about the game in the modern era at the highest level.
Congratulations to SA.
Comments on this entry are closed.