Re: Did you know............. yeah, and it was last played back in 1924! it would be great to see it in the olympics.
England 111 - Uruguay 13 One-sided, but brave second half spell from Uruguay and a good try for them. But England scored 17 tries in reply. Wales 37 - New Zealand 53 Another near upset, this time a pretty unexpected one in Wales - NZ, it was very close for most of the game after a great attacking performance by Wales. The game was decided by a very dubious try when it was 37 - 38 and approaching the last 10 minutes, it was a clear forward pass for NZ right before the try line but was inexcusably missed by the touch judge. That broke Wales' spirit a bit and NZ ran in another converted try and got a penalty to stretch the score out in the last 5 minutes. New Zealand looked sharp at running with the ball (mostly), but disappointing at everything else, especially defending. So only France of the big guns have not had a close match, but I think that was more to do with their comparitively weak group. Will be interesting to see how they cope with a fired up Ireland in the 1/4 final. But the key game of the 1/4 finals should be South Africa Vs New Zealand. South Africa have looked much better than expected and could go all the way, while New Zealand have looked more vulnerable than anyone thought.
Okay, group stage is over. For those in the know, who has been the surprise (good or bad)? Who is the dark horse? Who is the favorite?
Dark horses:South Africa and Ireland. SA pushed England all the way in their match until the drop goal which sealed the win for England. Ireland was unlucky not to have beaten Austrilia. I can see them beating France. England and New Zealand were picked by several people at my school(we have a few Africans, Europeans, and Kiwis who follow the game). Not too sure if they both will make it. They seem to have been exposed in group play. Maybe they will turn it up a notch. SA Vs NZ will be the match of the 1/4s. If SA can recover after losing their flanker(name escapes me), the might have a chance to go all the way.
I don't think there has really been any major surprises so far, other than that the big guns aren't as invincible as first thought, and the outside contenders are much more capable of raising their games when it counts. The favorite is still just about England, who were in great form in the months leading up to the World Cup and are ranked number one in the world after beating Australia and New Zealand at their home grounds this year. But in the group games against South Africa and Samoa they didn't play well at all, gave away too many penalties and lacked a bit of creative running in the backs to break down defences. But they still ground out wins in those games and will almost certainly improve in the pressure games. After having the toughest group, they're now in arguably the easier side of the draw which has all Northern Hemisphere teams. Should make the final, unless France pull off another glorious semi-final performance like they did to New Zealand last time. Second (and very close) favorite is the All Blacks (New Zealand). They're the best of the Southern Hemisphere teams, which is really saying something, but they're in the side of the draw which contains all three Southern teams. I would expect them to beat South Africa and Australia, but I wouldn't say it was certain by any means, because they're very tough matches, and to do so would drain them before the final. They have by far the best broken play finishers in the world though, absolutely electric. Australia has been pretty disappointing, still capable of winning it as a slightly distant third favorite, but they haven't been great for some time and just seem to lack a bit of brilliance. They have home advantage though and an easy 1/4 final against Scotland (the worst of the 1/4 finalists). They may well be able to use this to take advantage of a tired New Zealand or South Africa in the semi finals. And then once they're in the final, anything can happen. France and South Africa have both been arguably the biggest suprises and are very close fourth and fifth favorites. I would say they're both slightly better teams than Australia in terms of quality, but are only a bit further behind because of questionable consistency and of course the Aussies home advantage. They both look much more like contenders now than they did before the World Cup, were they were both a little dodgy. I would expect it to be a mighty effort for a team to beat either of these two now. South Africa looked very strong against England and devastating against a disjointed Samoa. France on the other hand absolutely ran away with their group and have a lot of flair. Saying that though, not being really tested in their group may come back to haunt them. Ireland and Wales did extremely well in their games against the big guns in their group, but in the end they both still lost (although Ireland could easily have stolen a win) and were rather poor in some of their other group games. Will be interesting to see if they can continue to play at a high level or lose a bit of their flow now. I rate Ireland as being a tough match for France and certainly the sixth favorite, they beat France in the 6 Nations this year and have some class individuals. Scotland - Unfortunately they haven't really shown anything good so far at all. May well be able to raise their game to test the Aussies, but I'm not confident for them. Most disappointing team so far.
thanks AT3 and so. Next question: What is the deal with players changing nations? I keep hearing about players not being payed enough by their nation of origin, so they go somewhere else. What is the deal with that?
If you can find a grandparent or better, or serve a 3 year residency, you can play for a country. They have toughened it up a lot - you used to be able to just move from country to country (the rationale was that you weren't actual representing the country, you were representing the countries rugby union). The Pacific Islands in particular get raped & pillaged, especially by New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Australia & Japan.
Quarter-finals Saturday 8 November New Zealand v South Africa Australia v Scotland Sunday 9 November France v Ireland England v Wales Here comes the good stuff we all been waiting for. This World Cup is open for any team except for Scotland.
i expect an easy one for the kiwis, a tight match with the aussies getting through, france over the irish, and the english winning with ease over wales.
First group of quarter finals played today. New Zealand 29 - South Africa 9 New Zealand are looking class again with three tries today in what should have been a competitive match. Once the serious business starts the top players start producing. Quite interesting to note that this is the first time NZ have beaten South Africa in a World Cup match. They lost the 1995 final to them and also the 1999 third place match. It's also the first time South Africa have failed to make it to at least the semi finals. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031108/325/edehf.html Scotland 16 - Australia 33 Pretty poor game by the two weakest 1/4 finalists. Scotland have been awful in this World Cup, while Australia have the ability but are unconvincing and should be a lot better than they are. Despite the size of the score Australia did not show anything special except a fairly good defensive organisation. It was 9-9 in the first half but Scotland fell apart in the second half with stupid penalties given away, weak defense and no ideas or speed in attack. Australia showed some good running but lack individual talent with the Rugby League players still struggling to adapt and they give away a lot of penalities. Unless they improve dramatically they will get soundly beaten by New Zealand in the semis. Tomorrow is France-Ireland, Wales-England.
Ok, here's the ignorant s.o.b. question of the day: What's the difference between Union and League, and which one is being played in the World Cup? extra ignorant s.o.b. points if this has already been covered.
Union - formerly the amateur side of things (but is now pro) has 15 players. League - formerly the only pro rugby and has 13 players. There are also numerous rule differences. Union is the one being played currently.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031109/325/edgar.html France 43 - Ireland 21 France brush Ireland aside and the scoreline makes it look closer than it actually was. France were 27-0 up at halftime and then stretched it out to 37-0 in the second half before Ireland got three later tries to give them back some pride. A shame for the Irish, their a good team and I'm not sure what went wrong, I think after their very big performance against Australia last week it was difficult for them to produce another a week later against a stronger team. France have been hugely impressive especially going forward with the ball - but can they do it against the big guns? With all due respect to Ireland and Scotland, there's a significant difference between them and the likes of New Zealand and England defensively and in attack. Give France their dues though for soundly beating whatever has been put in front of them and being thoroughly entertaining.
It's going all pear-shaped. Mind you being an England fan (doesn't really matter which sport), one gets used to that. wales 10-3 up. And missed their 2 conversions -so it could be worse. So it's either NZ or France for the cup in my estimation - although it would be quite funky if the Welsh did it.
England 28 - Wales 17 Great comeback from England in the 20 minute period after halftime. Robinson's tremendous break lead to a try, then Wilkinson kicked Wales to death with his penalties, conversions and a drop goal at the end. Mike Catt subbing into the game at half time changed everything for England. Wales were the stars in the game though, especially running in the backs where they were electric, scored three tries and looked superb every time they came forward. Defensively they also looked tough and organised, the New Zealand performance was no accident and this was a step up in gear which was even more encouraging for them. However England were a bit flawed again, better than the group games but still giving up two stupid penalties when 25-10 ahead which really let Wales back into it and lacking a cutting edge in the middle of the backs. If England tighten up and play with Mike Catt like they did for most of the second half then they should edge out France. However if they play anything like they did in the first half they will lose, especially considering how tremendously well France have been playing. Before the World Cup started England would be clear favourites, but now it should be very tight and France must be confident. So: Australia Vs New Zealand England Vs France
New Zealand are now ranked number 1 in the world. Not surprising really as their ability to score tries is awesome and they've really piled them in this world cup. Australia should be very worried, not only at the prospect of losing the game, but of also losing convincingly in front of their own fans. I think France are slightly favoured and deservedly so as they are at the absolute top of their form at just the right time. England have the stronger squad and team, but that's no good when they're not playing anywhere near their peak. But on the other hand I think France being favoured suits England. They've struggled to cope with the pressure and expectancy of not only winning every game, but of winning convincingly every time. I think France are similar in that their best performances have usually come over the years when they've been an underdog or at least not the hot favourite. Should be a fascinating match and certainly should be the best of the two semi finals.
rugby world cup coverage in mainstream u.s. media The Chicago Tribune published a couple paragraphs about USA's victory over Japan. Otherwise I've seen none.
It's getting no mainstream coverage in the Bay Area, which is atrocious considering the US plays lots of matches at Boxer Stadium (and usually sells them out). Only time there was mainstream coverage recently was a couple years ago when England played the US at Boxer. This sucks ass, because the two semifinals should both be ones for the ages, given the national rivalries involved.
on the other hand, lack of mainstream coverage means I can watch the delayed matches on FSW and not know who won... though some golf commentator talking about Ernie Els being bummed about South Africa losing in the quarterfinals made last night's telecast of the SA/All Blacks match less compelling than it might have been otherwise. We'll have to keep this in mind next time someone complains about soccer coverage. Other sports have come even less far, and thus have a longer way to go.
There were single paragraphs in the miscellaneous sports blurbs portion of my local paper about a couple of the US games, but that's been about it. I would imagine they'll probably have a similar single paragraph blurb about the final. I personally haven't been able to avoid seeing results of the games and thus when I've watched them on delay I've always known the outcome. I tried fairly hard to make it work for the US/Japan match, but made the mistake of looking at the web site for our local rugby union where scores of our matches are posted, and they had the US/Japan result on the front page. Oh well.