Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rugby & Aussie Rules' started by olckicker, Sep 5, 2007.
...would a U.S. win be considered as big an upset as USA's soccer victory over England in 1950 WC?
Bigger, because upsets are intrinsically more difficult to come by in rugby than in football unfortunately.
think Appalachian State over Michigan
Bigger - as big as a mismatch as that was, England weren't the defending World Champions in 1950.
put it this way, I don't know what the longest odds you've ever seen for a soccer match are, but you can get 180-1 on a USA victory with betfair here.
Put 5 quid on the Yanks for me, will you?
There's no real way to judge which talent disparity is greater between the top nations and the small fries in rugby versus in soccer almost 60 years ago.
However, the rugby caste system seems much more entrenched than it ever was in soccer--as someone said above, an upset is at least thinkable in soccer. In rugby, on the other hand, the minnows don't even come close--far from it.
I'm only a casual rugby fan, so I'd be interested in the opinions of others.
The thing is that it's exponentially harder to fluke a win in rugby than soccer.
In soccer, you can get really bloody lucky. As in 1950, the USA had one chance and scored, while England hit the post 3-4 times. You see this all the time in soccer. A team gets completely outplayed, but rides their luck to a 1-0 win. Anybody who saw Man City play Man United knows what I mean.
In rugby you have to fundamentally outplay the other team, as the physicality and odds of doing something silly like dropping the ball on the tryline are much smaller than missing a bunch of clear cut chances.
So you get less upsets, but when you get one the upsetters have truly deserved it.
To put it in perspective Canada lost 64-13 to the All Blacks, and that was considered a respectable display by the Canucks
I, too, an new to rugby (although as a longtime fan of the USMNT in soccer, I'm not new to the concept of a moral victory in a World Cup).
What would be considered a respectable margin for the Eagles to lose by?
English just cheated. Bastard defender just killed Emerick's knee.
3-3 after 14 minutes. Eagles!
The back line is holding up so far, I admit that I'm pleasantly surprised. How much longer till we reach the moral victory threshold? Let's keep it up!
The match tracker implies that the penalty kick the Americans scored on was long as hell. Can you confirm?
Cue up images of General Patton, General MacArthur, Vince Lombardi, Mike Ditka:
"The only moral victory is a victory!"
Whatever the score, remind all English fans you meet that the U.S. lost to Canada 56-7 in Newfoundland last year.
Drat. England 14-3.
Nice little drop goal attempt! I was trying to will it the extra meter or two so it would go over, but that didn't work.
On a drop goal, you have to bounce it off the ground first, right?
In "our football", Doug Flutie infamously did one as an extra point a couple years ago. He was the first person to convert one in the NFL in something like 65 years.
Yup. It was a really nice effort, considering the pressure we were under.
I'm a Pats fan and totally remember watching that game. I couldn't believe my eyes!
Looks like the US is going to get blown out if England plays like that in the coming half.
I remember Flutie's reaction after doing it. He was ecstatic.
Just looked. There used to be a video on YouTube of it, but NFL forced them to remove it.
Why no try?
Just saw it a little late on my feed. They did award a try, in the end. Although there was an Eagle hand in there and none of the replays actually show the ball being grounded.
No, I was talking about the one the Americans almost scored.
I didn't see that! That's what I get for turning away for a second to make lunch.
As a rugby noob of sorts, the U.S. performance of sorts strikes me that we've been able to stop the England in the open field, they've killed us off the scrum, and we've been able to be stout in defense somewhat if not able to attack all that well.
I'm following the Guardian commentary and they're saying England has been dire. Since we're predominantly amateurs and they're the defending champs I can see the reason for such and I suppose they should be beating us by a hundred. But I can't point to one thing they're doing wrong all that much. Is it just they should be blasting past us or is it something more technical?
Yay. We got a try. Moeakiola.
And conversion. 28-10!
The USA are tied with England in the second half, 7-7.