Fiji deserved to win, and their try was a class move after the forward pass. But the Yanks pushed them all the way with a lot of determination and Fiji played horrifically badly at times. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3187930.stm
Well blimey. Close call by the Fijians. Not to take anything away from the Americans, but damn Fiji were attrocious at times. Anyone that vaguely follows the sport knows that Fiji specialise in the 7's game and their (how shall we put it?)..relaxed way of playing the game suits it well. But all too often they do their sevens style in the 15 game. And it doesn't work. They needed to pressure the US far, far, far more than they were. An example would be after kicking upfield, they hardly ever followed it up with the big lads - compare and contrast this with the top countries. Having seen what Fiji have done, my guess is that Japan will actually give the US a harder game. But I still think Scotland and France are a bit too much. We shall see.
Poor old Hercus! Missing the conversion in injury time that would've give the US Eagles a famous victory.
Fiji had that penalty kick in the last couple of minutes. They should've booted it through for the 3 points. It would not have only put the game almost out of reach for the Americans, but deny the Eagles that point for losing by less than 7 points. Now we see Fiji blaming the game ball for this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/fiji/3193914.stm
You know what? At the newspaper office where I work, I had to sub-edit that story (assigning a headline to it and copy-editing it as well), and that was a painful exercise. To those who remember Scott Norwood missing that 47-yard field goal at the end of Super Bowl XXV, and those Buffalo Bills fans that still grimace to that moment to this very day, I know what that feels like now. That was, as a moment, very much equivalent to what happened in Brisbane last night...
Can't wait to see the Fiji - USA game on Fox Sports World this weekend. Everything I've read says it was an entertaining match.
So far, the most impressive team are France. New Zealand, England and South Africa were expected to write off their opposition, but the French hammered a threatening side. However, I still think it'll be one of either Australia New Zealand or England that will win 'Billy' in the finish up.
Looking at the way the smaller teams are being hammered, should there be a 'two-tier' tournament? Maybe a World Cup for the biggies and a World Plate/Shield for the smallies? Or do you think it helps the smaller nations to play against the best of the best, if only to see how far a gap they need to make up? Personally, although it can look ridiculous score-wise, I think playing Big V. Small is good. Since Italy joined the 5 nations (making it 6 nations) they've come on in leaps and bounds. Argentina need to join the Tri-Nations in the S Hemisphere, although I've heard that the Aussies voted against it because they wouldn't get as much TV money (so thats the new spirit of the game!). Could someone confirm/refute that rumour for me?
They could have the third place teams in each pool play for a Shield. It would be short and sweet. One thing I noticed by watching every match, is how much the top teams are in better condition than the "minnows". The scores are somewhat misleading. Of course the top teams are more skillfull and just better, but these matches are somewhat close untill they just wear them down. If the minnows were in better shape you may (or not) have closer matches.
A good number of those teams that are getting beat can provide much of a better challenge. The problem is that financial restrictions prevent them from putting their best teams in. The Canadians did well against the All Blacks despite putting in their 2nd string side.
Australia beat Romaina 90-8. Group table: 1-Australia 9pts. 2-Argentina 5pts. 3-Ireland 5pts. 4-Romaina 0pts. 5-Namibia 0pts. Ireland and Namibia play tommorow.
Personally I think they should keep it as it it is. As you say the competition gives them and the rest of us an idea of how close (or far away) the next tier is from the the top sides. And as we've seen so far in this WC, the difference between the top and the next lot is diminishing. I don't remember the 1987 RWC but I did watch the 1991 RWC and the NZ score against Japan was something silly like 145-0. The gaps are closing. Whether the WC is the reason is debateable (I would motion that international movement and knowledge has more input) but what is certain is that it's not quite so pointless watching the minnows play the big boys. In the old days it really was just one team scoring constantly - at least now there's some points on the board and there might even be a try or two! Heck that half-time scoreline in the France-Japan match says it all. And having now seen both Japan games, I think the US team ought to be concerned. So far they've scored 29 points against France, with 10 minutes to go. That's not bad at all.
England v SA just about to start. First clash of the big teams. Loser finishes second in the group and goes into the NZ's half of the draw. And basically goes out of the competition. There's no way you can beat the teams in that half of the draw one after the other. Best win the group.
Well, almost halftime. And England seem to be doing their best to bugger things up. Fortunately the SA fly-half is doing the worst kicking job I've seen in a long time. Halftime: 6-6.
Final score, England 25 - South Africa 6. Very sloppy first half from England after controlling the opening 10 minutes. They got a bit better in the second half, scoring 19 unanswered points, but far from perfect. To be fair to South Africa they did play very well indeed, they showed why they're a team which beat Australia in the last Tri Nations. So barring something hugely unexpected it looks like South Africa - New Zealand in the 1/4 finals with Australia in the semis, and England to play Wales in the 1/4's with France in the semis.
Wow, I never expected such a large victory for England. Wish I didn't have to wait 3 days to be able to see it.
If one was to believe the hype that's surrounding the England team (over here) and to believe how badly things were going for South Africa recently - then actually this result was expected. I personally expected a win for England and by a scoreline not too dissimilar from the one that happened. However - actually watching that match will tell you that England were a touch flattered by this - and by no means are either 1)England going to get to the final without breaking sweat or 2) SA out of the picture. God help us if we lose Wilkinson. Not a pretty win, but a win. England can relax a bit now that the tricky match is done. Hopefully get Dawson back to full fitness, but having said that, Bracken had a great game in his place at scrum-half.
Did you really think so? I only saw the first half live and the second half in highlights as I went to Highbury today. But I thought Bracken's service was ponderous from the base of the scrums and rucks resulting in Wilkinson being under more pressure than normal. I think that Dawson's better passing provides much quicker ball for his backs to use. He's also much more dangerous sniping around the sides of the breakdown. I don't think Bracken had a particularly bad game, but there's no doubt in my mind who is England's best scrum-half at the moment.
Well, yes, if there's a straight choice between Dawson and Bracken I'd go for Dawson almost in a heart beat. But England weren't afforded that luxury. IMO Bracken had a great game given the circumstances and general scrappy play overall by both teams. I saw him at least twice pounce on the opposition scrum-half and make a good turn-round. Sure Dawson is number one (well, number 9 actually...) but Bracken really didn't embarass himself today. Lest we forget also, that England were playing some proper opposition, so if there was some discrepancy between the relative qualities of Bracken and Dawson, then I think the level of opposition should be worked into it. Also a bit unfair because you saw the crap half, perhaps if you'd watched the second half in full you'd have seen what I did. Doesn't matter really though, because unless Bracken impressed the powers that be, very significantly - Dawson will be back in the side for the next game, which is over a week away. Samoa next. No push-overs, so is it another full-strength squad?
I saw the game when it was 12-6 in favor of England and after asking someone if it was close, they said it had for the entire match. With that said, I figured England would win, but by how much depended on which Springboks showed up(based on their inconsitency at times). When I saw the game, it looked like SA was giving England a arun for their money and looked to be with a point or two, but the try was called back(can anyone explain what the reason was?). England turned the tide when they blocked the kick and got the try. After that, SA fell apart. Its like they ran into a brick wall. Just my two cents.
Ireland 64 Namibia 7 Also, Wales 27 Tonga 20. There's conrtoversy in the Ireland game as Irish Lock Paul O'Connell could be thrown out; http://www.rugby.ie/news/story.asp?j=3082 p.s. Which Super 12/NRL team plays in the Aussie Stadium? I'm sure Craig the Aussie knows.
Did anyone see the rugby commercial informing everyone that Rugby 7s will bet at the HD in LA during Feb 14th and 15th?
This is of course, very true. The smaller teams do okay until their stamina comes into question in the 2nd half of games.
Schalk van der Merwe Don't even try to wind up Namibia flanker Schalk van der Merwe. Full story - http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364483476.html