Chaki Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 so France is off to the finals. I was going through the wc tipping comp that smithy is hosting, and i'm the only one to have france and aus in the finals...I think two others had france v nz... Correct: it's between Frenchkiwi and me now
kiwirwe Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Correct: it's between Frenchkiwi and me now Yes good luck to you both , Frenckiwi who you going for ? win win
mazolaman Posted October 16, 2011 Author Posted October 16, 2011 Potentially a great final. On the one hand,I can't see anyone defeating NZ,on the other,you know who their bogie side is... Australia put up a good fight in the second half.
El Presidente Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Congrats to the Kiwi's We were never in the game, simply too good. Ken was texting me throughout the game from France. All went silent 20 minutes to go. I suspect he was looking for something high to jump from !LOL!
frenchkiwi Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 The all blacks were true to form, they stepped up their intensity a little bit from the Argentina match but played the same suffocating style. The wallabies defended well but their weaknesses from the south africa game were once again on display. i don't think any team in the world could have coped with the level of intensity brought by the black tide last night. the south africans may have done better but unlikely. i take my hat off to those boys for producing a complete team performance, again. and 20yr old cruden looks sharper than colin slade did at first five. it's just a pity australia couldn't conjure something out of the bag to make it a more dramatic finale. as to France, well, they didn't send Warburton off,the bloody ref did, and as is often the case with an early sending off, they decided to play territory and wait for the welsh to crack. except they did that pretty poorly and the welsh had multiple chances to take the game. so in the end the welsh have to be kicking themselves. the first blow to wales was adam jones limping off early, their scrum was monstered after that, and the french were stealing lineouts as well. that's about all the french did well but that can win you games in tight WC rugby. now if they also "clicked" like in '99 semi they could beat NZ. Highly unlikely but a lot of these guys are the same ones who won against the run of play (and against the run of just about everything else) in 2007. My suspicion is the all blacks will at least have parity with them at set piece and up front but will cut them up in the backs, where Parra Rougerie etc aren't the best defenders (as the first match showed). There will be a great contest at scrum time (Servat Poux i think were left out of starting XV in the first game). But it will take some '99 magic AND their best defensive effort to date for them to win... i will back the all blacks because they deserve this WC and have waited long enough. 2011 vintage perhaps less dynamic than 2007 but they have more experience, more nous. (and haven't had to face an imploding referee - yet). as a frenchman also i must unfortunately say that this french team is 2007 WC English team that doesn't really deserve to be in the final, they stumbled there and won "a l'anglaise". ;-)
Chaki Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Agreed - the All Blacks deserve to win this WC ...now if only they could score 27 points: the 5 Piramides will be mine
mazolaman Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 AAhhh but,in 2007,we stumbled our way to the final,but we then deserved to win the final! Alls fair in love and sport I suppose!
dicko Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 coming along to Ken's "plant" theory re robbie deans, and cooper i guess well done NZ though
Ken Gargett Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 AAhhh but,in 2007,we stumbled our way to the final,but we then deserved to win the final! Alls fair in love and sport I suppose! actually, not really sure you did but what counts is what is in the records, so all yours. wales did score three tries to zip against you at suncorp and still manage to let it slip (perhaps they should be called chokers, not the kiwis) while against us, had flatley's kick not hit the post, you'd have lost. and had the toxic hobbit had the brains to leave rogers out for latham, who knows. but can't change the final result, which is different to 'deserved'.
mazolaman Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 actually, not really sure you did but what counts is what is in the records, so all yours. wales did score three tries to zip against you at suncorp and still manage to let it slip (perhaps they should be called chokers, not the kiwis) while against us, had flatley's kick not hit the post, you'd have lost. and had the toxic hobbit had the brains to leave rogers out for latham, who knows. but can't change the final result, which is different to 'deserved'. All mine indeed. You state my point very well,all that matters is the scores on the doors. We can all see when sides win without deserving it. But it's just chitter chatter and sour grapes. I reckon the two finalists "deserve" their place. The Kiwis have not really faltered on their march,and the French have been reasonably astute,taking their chances. England were shite,Australia a little better,SA were this years bottlers. The word deserved is best used in this contest with reference to the Welsh,who were on the end of a terrible decision,which despite what anyone says,affected their chances.Undeserved.
Chaki Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 The Welsh deserve to be in the final because they fought bravely, played better rugby but were unlucky on a couple of kicks, not because the referee's decision was terrible. That decision was perfect: the ref strictly applied the rule. Now, we might disagree with that rule but that's a separate discussion.
Guibou Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Remember wilko drop kick in 2003? At the end we'll remember England winning the cup. Well the point is "only the result counts", period.
kiwirwe Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Not the best game the allblack have played, BUT im so proud of them and it put a tear in my eye. Well done boys and Kia Kaha!!
laficion Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I would like to congratulate the All Black for winning the title & well deserved. However, I would like to say that I'm proud of our french team who only lost by 1 point. They both played a fine game and like every game, there's a winner & a loser . They both gave us an enjoyable, fin de match. Bravo
frenchkiwi Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 I would like to congratulate the All Black for winning the title & well deserved. However, I would like to say that I'm proud of our french team who only lost by 1 point. They both played a fine game and like every game, there's a winner & a loser . They both gave us an enjoyable, fin de match. Bravo J'etais fier d'eux - fier qu'ils ont finalement eu un vrai sursaut d'orgueil, quelle performance monstrueuse. And a tight match is a more entertaining one. in the end the all blacks deservedly won the Cup but the french have reminded everyone just how proud a rugby nation they are. (Lievremont must be wondering what he said this time that he hadn't said before - great behind the scenes video http://coupe-du-monde.tf1.fr/rugby/video/marc-lievremont-je-t-aime-moi-non-plus-6784584.html )
mazolaman Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 yeah,not a beautiful match,but gripping nevertheless. It wasn't a tournament for the beautiful game though. well done to NZ,they played well consistantly throughout. The French played most of the rugby in the final,and once again,deserved more.they are are either brilliant or terrible! Thanks to all for contributing to this thread,nice to see that even though I invited you to gloat,there has been little jingoistic rubbish,and plenty of sportsmanship....
frenchkiwi Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 don't know where else to put this, just got sent in an email today... (apparently Argentina who are missing for some reason have 50k+ players) Comparison of Total Registered Rugby Players to Total Population. Country Population TRRP % Total Population Samoa 187,000 23,372 12.498% Tonga 104,000 6,891 6.626% England 52,132,000 2,549,196 4.890% Fiji 861,000 36,030 4.185% Ireland 4,581,000 153,080 3.342% New Zealand 4,416,000 137,835 3.121% Wales 3,020,000 50,557 1.674% RSA 50,586,000 632,184 1.250% Scotland 5,222,000 38,500 0.737% France 65,821,000 313,877 0.477% Australia 22,705,000 89,952 0.396% Namibia 2,088,000 5,822 0.279% Italy 60,626,000 66,176 0.109% Japan 127,950,000 122,598 0.096% Georgia 4,436,000 4,181 0.094% Canada 34,581,000 23,853 0.069% Romania 21,413,000 9,612 0.045% United States 312,200,000 88,151 0.028% Russia 142,914,000 14,519 0.010%
rckymtn22 Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Down in the bottom right corner it says that the Argentine data is not available.
mazolaman Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 Those stats make interesting reading.Thanks for posting. France get to the final,with only 0.477% of players. England should be right up there,if these numbers are a guide,but we're importing players like most other teams...says more about the systems in place,I think. Interesting reading,rugby union is an expanding sport.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now