Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

JudgeDredd -> Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/14/2007 10:02:08 PM)

MEANT TO SAY - POSSIBLE SPOILERS, SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE SCORE OF A GAME, THEN DON'T LOOK HERE...JUST IN CASE (PEOPLE LIKE ME) GIVE A RUNNING COMMENTARY

Official by me.

I started one saying well done Argentine, but that was Argentine specific and just went by the wayside talking about other things.

So this thread is your official "post what you like" about the Rugby World Cup...any team, any topic about the games...bring it on

And my first comment tonight is about the South African strips...they look like bloody wetsuits!

Anyway...cruncher match, for both teams but mostly England and, I never thought I would hear myself say this, but good luck England (and if word gets out that I said that and anyone asks, I'll just deny saying it!) [:D]



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 9:48:15 AM)

omg...did England just get humped 33-0 by the boks?

I knew they were good, but I didn't know they were that good. I can't ever remember a single game where England didn't score any points!

Nothing went their way...not finding touch, bad scrums, lack of drive, kicking game was woefully bad meaning every inch had to be fought for...and against a heavy mob like the boks, that's bad news! AND Jason Robinson looks like he could be out...

Well, on the basis of that performance, England will be hard pushed to even make it to the next round...and surprisingly, the commentators are still talking about them doing so....but I reckon the Tonga boyz have to be walking into the next match with great big smiles on their faces.



MikeBrough -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 11:11:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

omg...did England just get humped 33-0 by the boks?



Even better ([sm=00000924.gif]) - 36-0.

I really do fear for Scotland though when they take on the Kiwis next weekend. 36-0 might seem like a moral victory by then.




JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 11:47:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeBrough


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

omg...did England just get humped 33-0 by the boks?



Even better ([sm=00000924.gif]) - 36-0.

I really do fear for Scotland though when they take on the Kiwis next weekend. 36-0 might seem like a moral victory by then.



agreed!

But most people thought there would at least be a fight...England didn't even look like scoring a try...can't wait to see the stats, 'cos I'm pretty sure they had very little of the ball (was on my 6th tin of Stella at half time, so my memory may be loose!)



Raverdave -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 1:57:31 PM)

36-0  [X(]   



Neilster -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 6:06:49 PM)

A fairly good win by the Aussies against a gallant Wales. There's still plenty of room for improvement though but the good thing is I think we'll play England in the next round and not South Africa.

Australia had too much class despite a lot of handling errors. Wales looked better in the second half when they were more expansive. All in all a good game under the roof at Millennium Stadium in front of a big vocal, parochial crowd. How on earth Wales got a home game in a Rugby World Cup supposedly held in France is beyond me. [&:]

Cheers, Neilster



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 9:40:05 PM)

Reasonable win for the Aussies...some dirty play on both sides there...and I noticed the ref let it go. I remember the day when the yellow card was used [&:] Southern hemisphere refs are more tolerant of the hard stuff...but I don't think they should be...the game is hard enough on the body without blatant professional fouling to be allowed to go on.

Latham and Alfie should've both walked for 10 minutes



Neilster -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/15/2007 9:45:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Reasonable win for the Aussies...some dirty play on both sides there...and I noticed the ref let it go. I remember the day when the yellow card was used [&:] Southern hemisphere refs are more tolerant of the hard stuff...but I don't think they should be...the game is hard enough on the body without blatant professional fouling to be allowed to go on.

Latham and Alfie should've both walked for 10 minutes


If anything the Welsh got the better of the decisions. And the game can do without overly officious Northern Hemisphere referees slowing it down with endless niggardly decisions, turning it into a kick-fest. Running rugby is what we're after brother! [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/16/2007 1:18:20 AM)

I'm not on about slowing the game down, I'm talking about two specific tackles and "the general consensus" being that southern hemisphere refs being more lenient in general...sometimes that's a good thing, as you say, to keep the ball moving. I was specifically talking about unruly play hence the comments "hard stuff" and "professional fouling". Both of these instances should be dealt with, by warning or, if severe enough, a card.

But in this particular game, both players should have seen the yellow card and been off for ten minutes to cool down.



Neilster -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/16/2007 6:06:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I'm not on about slowing the game down, I'm talking about two specific tackles and "the general consensus" being that southern hemisphere refs being more lenient in general...sometimes that's a good thing, as you say, to keep the ball moving. I was specifically talking about unruly play hence the comments "hard stuff" and "professional fouling". Both of these instances should be dealt with, by warning or, if severe enough, a card.

But in this particular game, both players should have seen the yellow card and been off for ten minutes to cool down.


We'll have to agree to disagree [:)]

Cheers, Neilster



7th Somersets -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/18/2007 8:35:54 PM)

So who is going to win?



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/18/2007 11:04:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I'm not on about slowing the game down, I'm talking about two specific tackles and "the general consensus" being that southern hemisphere refs being more lenient in general...sometimes that's a good thing, as you say, to keep the ball moving. I was specifically talking about unruly play hence the comments "hard stuff" and "professional fouling". Both of these instances should be dealt with, by warning or, if severe enough, a card.

But in this particular game, both players should have seen the yellow card and been off for ten minutes to cool down.


We'll have to agree to disagree [:)]

Cheers, Neilster


You say that, but I would say you are correct in that the northern hem refs seem alot more stringent, picky and defiant in slowing the game down...so we agree there. I'm currently watching the Scotland Romania match and I'm screaming at the ref to let the ball come before calling time on advantage!

But those two players should've been booked. That we will disagree on.

I'm all for open, free flowing play, but were absolutely necessary, discipline has to be maintained, and I think knocking a player to the ground with a blatant and dangerous shoulder charge should be sin binned. One of the major strengths discipline-wise rugby has over footie is the respect shown to the referees and the availability of the sin bin. I personally think it's a strength and should be used more for dangerous tackles deliberate and repeated slowing down of play.



Neilster -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/19/2007 2:25:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I'm not on about slowing the game down, I'm talking about two specific tackles and "the general consensus" being that southern hemisphere refs being more lenient in general...sometimes that's a good thing, as you say, to keep the ball moving. I was specifically talking about unruly play hence the comments "hard stuff" and "professional fouling". Both of these instances should be dealt with, by warning or, if severe enough, a card.

But in this particular game, both players should have seen the yellow card and been off for ten minutes to cool down.


We'll have to agree to disagree [:)]

Cheers, Neilster


You say that, but I would say you are correct in that the northern hem refs seem alot more stringent, picky and defiant in slowing the game down...so we agree there. I'm currently watching the Scotland Romania match and I'm screaming at the ref to let the ball come before calling time on advantage!

But those two players should've been booked. That we will disagree on.

I'm all for open, free flowing play, but were absolutely necessary, discipline has to be maintained, and I think knocking a player to the ground with a blatant and dangerous shoulder charge should be sin binned. One of the major strengths discipline-wise rugby has over footie is the respect shown to the referees and the availability of the sin bin. I personally think it's a strength and should be used more for dangerous tackles deliberate and repeated slowing down of play.


Yes, you're right. I didn't realise you were referring to those two incidents and I was a bit "tired and emotional" [:'(] when watching the game and couldn't remember them very well. The first was a pretty cowardly, late, "Venus de Milo" (no arms) tackle by the Welsh captain on a young player as revenge for his good play that set up a try. The second was payback by Mortlock. That's never a good thing, although in this case the original perpetrator was too concussed to continue, so justice was served. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/19/2007 12:07:35 PM)

Well, erm...I was actually talking about the other challenge (Mortlocks against Gareth Thomas was a bit late, but at least looked like an attempt at a tackle)...I meant the later very late challenge (not sure if it was Mortlock) on the Welsh kicker Shane Williams

Either way...we agree about open play and fast ball.

I would like to see the yellow card more though. I think there have been a few times in the tournament when it should've been shown...even if the ref allows play to go on to the breakdown and then deals with it...



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/19/2007 12:08:52 PM)

Good win for Scotland last night and a nice clean sheet to.

Who are these kiwi people? Where are they? [sm=scared0018.gif]



Plodder -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/19/2007 4:05:32 PM)

Right here...............................................waiting. [:D][:D]



Plodder -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 9:38:01 AM)

What a crap game of rugger that was.The AB's ball handling was the worst I've seen all year, Carter's kicking was pretty woeful and whoever made the decision that the AB's should wear their alternate strip should have compared it to the Scottish strip, It was bloody hard to tell who was who.The fowards were awesome though but how Chris Masoe got man of the match, I don't know.He pretty much knocked-on every touch of the ball. Scotland were terrible, even Portugal got points against us.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 10:03:42 AM)

I agree on all points Plodder.

Worst game this tournament I think.

Scotland should've got a yellow for the scrum problems. Where the hell was Paterson trying to kick? NZ had horrendous handling issues. Scotland were slowing the ball up everywhere because that's all they could do and when the hell is someone going to tell these bloody kickers that if you're going to kick to touch...get the bloody thing in touch...in touch before distance is the priority...especially against the ABs. They run and they know they can...touch IS a requirement when kicking against the ABs.

Just looking at the stats...woefully bad from the Scots....less than 4 minutes in the opponents 22! Reserve team, but still....

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/fixtures/round=100/match=10100/index.html



SMK-at-work -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 1:02:47 PM)

It was hte AB's 2nd team and it still had zero scored against it...I wouldn't be taking any comfort from any aparent problems if I was France or Argentina.....



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 1:10:58 PM)

New Zealand team:

1 Tony Woodcock
2 Anton Oliver
3 Carl Hayman
4 Reuben Thorne
5 Ali Williams
6 Chris Masoe
7 Richie McCaw (c)
8 Rodney So'oialo
9 Byron Kelleher
10 Dan Carter
11 Sitiveni Sivivatu
12 Luke McAlister
13 Conrad Smith
14 Doug Howlett
15 Leon MacDonald

Erm...SMK, that wasn't the AB second team, m8.

The two players in bold are the only two new players to this lineup from your Italian game...the rest were either on the Replacement bench (Oliver and Masoe) or in the first team.



Andy Mac -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 3:11:04 PM)

I do think it was quite cunning of Hadden to keep his best players out of a game he figured he couldnt win.

Its all about Italy for Scotland we know the AB will choke somewhere along the way but they were always going to hammer us.

If Scotland beat Italy then its a quarter final against France or Argentina both are hard games but winnable.

So actually keeping his best players, few as they are, away from the AB's and potential injuries is probably a good thing if a tad cynical roll on Italy !!!! 



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 3:49:29 PM)

Absolutely.

He's being slated for it here, but the AB game wasn't ever winnable for Scotland, whereas the Italy game is - and that isn't saying it's a done thing...as we've already seen first hand, Italy have more than the ability to beat Scotland (6 Nations, 2007 anyone?)

I don't know what the commentary about it up north is like, but he's being slated by the English commentators for it. I say good on him.

I, like every other Scot, would like to see how the 1st Scotland team could do holding off the ABs...but that's all it would be...a holding action. And what about any injuries going into the Italian game.

We wouldn't beat the ABs. They've beaten us in 20 meetings, with teams much worse than they have now....so I say it's a good call. Keep your squad and rest them for the match that counts to the quarters.



7th Somersets -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 4:18:14 PM)

If I were one of the Scots first team I would be disappointed at having missed playing one of the finalists (if not the winner of) the 2007 world cup.

Let's face it - Scotland getting through to the next round is the most that they will achieve this year - so the 'cynical' approach will hardly get them very much further.




JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 4:43:56 PM)

It's not a cynical view. You of all people (being a wargamer, I presume) should understand the strategy involved.

If Frank Hadden had played his first team and suffered injuries and/or the team ended up being beaten by Italy, he would be lambasted for it, and rightly so.

If, on the other hand, he loses to Italy for the choice he made on Sunday, then he will be lambasted for that! The point is, strategically, he stands a better chance getting his squad to the quarter finals with an intact and rested first squad.

You're damn right the players will be pissed about it, but they would rather progress than go home in the group stage. As I was. I was wanting to see Scotland play the ABs...but we can take them later [:'(]

As for not progressing past the quarters, you've been watching a different Rugby World Cup. Scotland and Wales have been the most impressive northern hemisphere teams so far. If Scotland beat Italy, they play either France, Argentina or Ireland...and all three of those games Scotland stand as good a chance as the opposing side of winning.

Scotland, going into the World Cup were offered odds of 300-1...it's now 150-1 to win. Now you and I know that aint gonna happen, but at 6-1 odds for Scotland being eliminated at the Semi Final stage, it's more than worth a punt. England and France have only got 5-1 and 4-1 respectively [:D]



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/24/2007 4:45:01 PM)

By the way, even Ireland are only at 66-1 to get eliminated at the semi final stage!!



SMK-at-work -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/25/2007 2:27:04 AM)

Dread you've identified 4 players out of the starting 15 who you admit are not in the "top" starting 15.

Add MacDonald - he's good, but he's not the first fullback...so that's 5.....1/3rd of the team starting 15 were not the top players for their position.

It's still probably a good enough team to win the cup, but it's not the top team by any means.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/25/2007 10:08:34 AM)

Well, fine...1/3 of the team are not the top players...so if you are correct (and I assume you would know more than I, being as you are actually from NZ), then it's still not your second team...and besides, NZ second team would beat just about any rugby team bar SA and the Aussies!



7th Somersets -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/25/2007 10:23:42 AM)

quote:

As for not progressing past the quarters, you've been watching a different Rugby World Cup.


I wait to be proved wrong. [;)]




JudgeDredd -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/25/2007 10:28:53 AM)

Well, I wouldn't wait too long. My patriotism generally says things my mind tries to stop it saying! [;)]



7th Somersets -> RE: Official Rugby World Cup 2007 Thread (9/25/2007 1:39:02 PM)

Sadly I doubt that many northern hemisphere countries will get much further.

Still, Bath are doing better than last year.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125