Ah, les jours de gloire! This was the greatest World Cup of them all,
there is no doubt. This is not to deny the political significance of South
Africa 1995 or the open-hearted and meticulous events of Australia 2003. But
France 2007 has been magnificent, and it is difficult to believe that it
will not remain the best World Cup for some time to come. Perhaps the
infinite cultural variety of France itself was the backbone, on and off the
field. And if rugby union was smug already about its essential inner
goodness, now it is going to be insufferable. And rightly so.
Among the thunder of the play and desperation for success, among the
modern-era commercial rapacity and the tumult, rugby’s magnificent spirit
was burnished to a glossy gold. The standards of sportsmanship on the field,
the lack of rancour surrounding the matches and the fabulous interaction
among the travelling supporter multitudes was phenomenal.
After Fiji went down to South Africa in their quarter-final in Marseilles,
they marked their exit with the longest lap of honour of all time. They
wandered slowly around the field, apparently acknowledging each of the
55,000 crowd individually, full of Fijian ritual and thanks. It must have
been about 45 minutes after the end of the game when they came back to the
top of the tunnel. There, still waiting to clap them off, were the
Springboks. That was class.
The figures are impressive. The tournament will make about £90m profit, most
of which will be reinvested in the sport around the world. I hope a great
chunk of this will go to the Tier Two and Tier Three nations, whose amazing
improvement gave this tournament an edge and a colour and a tear-jerking
quality.
The crowd numbers have also been amazing. Many times we walked to a stadium
expecting to be reasonably lonely at what seemed to be an unattractive match
– say, Argentina v Georgia – and found every seat in the house taken. Better
still, we found the French were open-hearted, generous, eager to party and
with a love of the underdog that was positively British. The French public,
in the stadiums or in the country at large, grasped their responsibilities
to the rugby world and discharged them superbly. This was some feat of
multi-tasking, as they were all smoking at the same time.
The standard of play was also higher, on a different planet to 1995 and 2003.
The previous World Cups were played chiefly by those for whom the
professional game had arrived in their mid-careers or later. The players of
France 2007 were children of the professional era. They had learnt their
basic skills, their rugby excellence, their grasp of conditioning and
nutrition and the mental side, right from the sporting cradle.
So if you accept that rugby union was never meant to flow continuously, that
it is meant to have aggravations, that there are odd intervals when players
bash the ball up round the fringes at about one foot per minute, if you
grasp that the desperation not to turn the ball over in midfield will lead
to periods of aerial hoofing, as if the crowd are watching a celestial
tennis match, then the rugby here was sumptuous.
Another delight was the evidence that rugby is in a phase when it can be
played in different styles. We have been through some horrible homogenous
eras, in which all that distinguished the teams was that they played in
different coloured kit. But consider what we have seen here in France.
We have seen the all-out attacking brilliance of the Fiji-Wales match, with
both sides launching themselves early in the phases – no need to bash
endlessly on until the defence collapses with boredom. But we have also seen
Argentina thrive. No wide team this, but highly compelling and completely
fronton. We saw England-Australia in the quarter-finals, a thunderous blast
at the contact points, which was won not necessarily by the team with more
rugby skills, but by the team that had more men standing at the end.
Hail rugby’s variety. It was not infinite, and we have not been presented with
a torrent of new attacking ideas. But coaches can once more choose a way to
play. This was the World Cup that could elevate the jagging side-steps of
Seru Rabeni, the gorgeous all-round class of Juan Martin Hernandez and the
frightening power of Andrew Sheridan and Schalk Burger.
What we feared most – too many predictable outcomes – never came to pass. If
you disagree with me, you must have expected New Zealand and Australia to be
packed off home, and known that Argentina would beat France in the opening
game and then smash Ireland to pieces. You must have been sanguine as
Georgia led Ireland, as Tonga and Samoa menaced England and as Fiji came
level towards the end with South Africa. You must have expected the
cheetah-quick Bryan Habana to be beaten for pace on the outside by an
American, and not been surprised as Habana, prone, gazed at the retreating
back of Takudzwa Ngwenya.
It has been obvious by the day here that the old world order is changing.
Therefore, it is incomprehensible that the International Rugby Board (IRB),
whose investment in the other tiers of rugby did so much to bring about the
improvement and which is amazed by the pace of it, should even countenance
the possibility of reducing the number of teams in the World Cup finals. But
it is.
And so today, I repeat the call we made last week. Would the New Zealand Rugby
Union, hosts of 2011, please announce immediately that it wants 20 teams.
Otherwise we shall see merit in the arguments of those who say that New
Zealand have overreached themselves, that they do not have the beds, the
stadiums or the public to stage a proper World Cup to rival this French
phenomenon. For them and for the IRB, it is more than a question of beds and
bums on seats. It is a question of morality, of a vision, and a question of
rewarding those so-called lesser nations that have made the past two months
a joy.
What next? How big can rugby get? On these occasions, everybody seems unable
to avoid comparisons with football, as if rugby’s progress will drag it into
football’s orbit. It is nonsense. Football will always be far bigger and
different. Rugby does not want to be football, to emulate it, to rival it.
It certainly does not want to import any of football’s vicissitudes,
although in my opinion, rugby is best in those places where it shares
football’s appeal to the masses.
In November, all of rugby’s so-called stakeholders will gather – among them
unions, professional clubs, referees, sponsors – to discuss the future of
the game.
The idea is to reorganise Test rugby, to avoid burnout and silly tours, to fit
all the competitions into a structured season and to ensure that it can
continue to prosper without devaluing the currency of the international
game; and to talk about the shape of the game itself.
It would be wonderful to think that they will take a global view, rather than
sitting around trying to feather their own nests. And while any aspirations
to football’s dominance are preposterous, one thing is obvious. If rugby
makes the correct decisions in the next few months, it has a future in terms
of size and prosperity and a pull on the world’s sporting public that was
unforeseen as recently as a decade ago, or even five years ago. It has not
only a playing attraction, it has values that appear to be more coveted as
time goes by.
What else must we demand of our grandees of the game? Most definitely, that
rugby should not try to copy football. Rugby was put on this earth for a
purpose. It was put here for those who want to be irked, occasionally. It
was put here for those who do not expect perfection but who are prepared to
wait, sometimes for ages, for the perfect moment; for those who do not want
to be patronised by the idea that only smooth sporting action can be
entertaining. For people who want things to come tough.
It was put here for participants who expect to have to fight for territory and
honour, and put here for people of all shapes and sizes and both sexes. It
is 15 against 15, using a violently unpredictable oval ball, carrying the
action through an arcane series of set-pieces and loose conflagrations.
Sometimes in wind and wet, with a useless ref. I ask you. Was rugby ever
meant to be perfect?
And yet again we find it at the crossroads. Yet again we find that people in
authority, or people who think they are in authority, have decided it must
be made simpler, more flowing, with more scores. Yet again people are
reacting to the success of the sport, especially in Europe and especially in
France 2007, by making potentially catastrophic assertions about what comes
next.
Swilling around the game at the moment are the ELVs – experimental law
variations. They are currently being trialled. Some of these will profoundly
alter the face of rugby. Their sponsors, and the committee that breathed
life into them, point out that they do not depower the game, do not reduce
the importance of the tight phases and produce quasi-basketball. If that is
correct, then why last week did the three southern hemisphere rugby giants
demand that they be allowed to use the experimental laws in all their big
rugby almost immediately, before the trial periods have even been assessed?
I do not fault the motives of the IRB’s technical people. I am suspicious of
the motives of people in authority in Australia and New Zealand, who have
recently been pasted by European teams. The laws are meant to be for the
good of the sport. When was the last time you heard a major southern
hemisphere union pass a resolution that was for the benefit of everyone? I
strongly suspect that down south, the ELVs are seen as a means to fight
private battles against other sports in their own arenas, and to try to
reduce the playing and commercial power of rugby in Europe.
How fatuous can rugby get? At a time when the box office has never been so
busy, when it is playing to packed stadiums and when a clamour of television
and commercial interests are hammering on the door, it wants to make the
same mistake that it has made several times in the past, and wants to chase
a bogus concept of entertainment. The truth is that rugby, in its lovely,
teeth-gnashingly frustrating way, has never been so entertaining. IT HAS
been impossible to spend time in France these past two months and not be
assailed by a barrage of images on the eye and the mind. Today they will
remove the giant rugby ball and the laser posts from the Eiffel Tower and
the old Meccano set will be restored to its austere self. All that is left
this morning are the warm memories of the emotion and competition of the
sport and the aftermath, with the giant brotherhood and sisterhood that the
game attracts. They say back at home that the kids have been enchanted. In
my mind I can still see the scene at the end of the first game, when
Argentina had sensationally beaten France. A riotous group of Pumas were
celebrating on the field.
In the middle of them was the tiny figure of Agustin Pichot, the man of this
tournament. The Argentina captain was trying to cool the frenzy. He knew
that the job had started stunningly but had not yet finished. Gus was
fighting a losing battle. His team was enveloped in something high as a
kite. It has been impossible to pour cold water on the experience and the
dramas. In France 2007, even for the cynical and the seen-it-all, it was
impossible not to be all-consumingly excited by the whole thing.
Team of the tournament
Full-back
Jason Robinson (Eng) Hail and farewell to the inspirational tiny giant
Reserve: Chris Latham (Aus)
Wing
Vilimoni Delasau (Fiji) Genius. He made space when there was none
Reserve: Sean Lamont (Sco)
Centre
Stirling Mortlock (Aus) Played with power and class. One of the game’s
greats
Reserve: Seru Rabeni (Fiji)
Centre
Seremaia Bai (Fiji) Brilliant stepping and running, and he reproduced
it at fl y-half
Reserve: David Marty (Fra)
Wing
Bryan Habana (S Africa) If he got the ball in space, wave goodbye to
the Bok rocket
Reserve: Sitiveni Sivivatu (NZ)
Fly-half
Juan Martin Hernandez (Arg) Maestro. Not the archetypal fl y-half but a
genius
Reserve: Jonny Wilkinson (Eng)
Scrum-half
Fourie du Preez (S Africa) Not always on his game but when he was, what
a range of talents
Reserve: Mosese Rauluni (Fiji)
Loose-head prop
Andrew Sheridan (Eng) This man had dynamite in his hands when
scrummaging
Reserve: Rodrigo Roncero (Arg)
Hooker
Mario Ledesma (Arg) The old legs carried him heroically
Reserve: Marius Tincu (Rom)
Tight-head prop
Carl Hayman (NZ) He did his bit up front. Talented and aggressive
Reserve: Census Johnston (Samoa)
Lock
Simon Shaw (Eng) Lineout banker, great power and showed an ability to
handle the ball like a fl y-half
Reserve: Alun Wyn-Jones (Wal)
Lock
Victor Matfield (S Africa) So he is the real thing, after all.
Outstanding lineout man
Reserve: Patricio Albacete (Argentina)
Blindside flanker
Schalk Burger (S Africa) He added the gift of sporting wisdom to his
all-out aggression
Reserve: Louis Stanfi ll (USA)
No 8
Sisa Koyamaibole (Fiji) With respect, the others were nowhere.
Wonderful power runner
Reserve: Julien Bonnaire (Fra)
Openside flanker
Juan Smith (S Africa) What a player. Big, fast and harsh, a
game-breaker who ate up the field
Reserve: Thierry Dusaustoir (Fra)
how many times do people need to be told - Schalk Burger is an OPEN side flanker - ok so he wears 6 but that is what South Africa do, just have a look at his positioning at scrums and other breakdowns - it's so obvious to anyone witha bit of rugby knowledge - the team is ok though since you have got Smith on the other flank.
Andy, Penrith, United Kingdom
South Africa the world champs. Funny they can't beat the All blacks or the Australia away from home. The most fortunate team in world rugby with the easiest draw in history. Hard to argue with that.
James, Maidstone,
France penalised twice in their quarter final? Conspiracy, or biased refereeing but the journalist are too gutless to investigate it. and would rather it was all swept under the carpet. With the northern hemisphere dominated IRB you can forget about the All Blacks winning another World Cup it is all window dressing. They are going to be stitched up on or off the field, or both.
Ian, London, UK
Robert Richardson, Eng DID get a sniff of the tryline. (SH) TMO said it wasn't a try though, and selective stills from the TV coverage seem to confirm that. Photos never lie, of course. :-)
The right winners though, and about a fair margin, though the bits of off-the-ball stuff to which M.Roland didn't react might have made it closer.
Oh, and to the 'purists'; Even the most short-sighted SH supporter would have to admit Eng ran the ball as much as the Bokke as soon as personnel changes took away plan A.
Dave Robinson, Cayman,
I disagreee with Mr Atttwood Smiths comments, he clearly doesn't know much about Rugby.
Daniel Mitchell, Kingswood, United Kingdom, Surrey
Whilst I believe its a good (emotional) article, it is written against a backdrop of Stephen Jones' passion for rugby's history, and his general dislike, and specific suspicion of anything SH related. This is the guy who believes no stadium roof should ever be closed, no matter how windy or how much rain is falling, so he is 'old school'.
I was at the 1/4 finals in Marseilles, and the Semis and Final in Paris. Only the Fiji / SA game rose to any great heights (because Fiji chanced their arm with some breathtaking attack). Sure a lot of the games were tight, and that in itself maintained the interest, but they were arm-wrestle, slog it out type of affairs. It may be that the prize is so great, teams limit their attack for fear of error and ultimate loss (eg. Argentina in the Semi).
The fact the ball was kicked 89 times in the Final, and that there were numerous attempts at drop goal during the finals games I think is telling us something. I am not sure what is to be done, but the content on the field did not match the unbelievable atmosphere and awesome feeling amongst the fans off the field. I don't want a try-fest, but I would like to see an attempt to play some expansive rugby. Habana is a great player but he might as well have been sitting beside me at the Final.
I have the utmost respect for the way Eng turned themselves around and played to there strengths. Their mental and physical toughness was awesome and was rewarded with a Final berth. It does not get more simple than tackle your guts out, smash every ruck and maul, play field position, and then wait for a penalty or drop a goal. Well done. Do I like that type of rugby - on a regular basis - no.
Being an aussie, I like to see some attack, and for me, that was largely lacking in the latter part of the tournament. Consider how many drop goals Michael Lynagh kicked in his International career ("if I am close enough to kick a drop goal, then we are close enough to score a try"), Stephen Larkham has kicked ONE International drop goal and its not high on Dan Carters list. But I am talking cultural preferences here. The Kiwis and the Aussies, to a lesser extent the Boks, love to attack. Eng will take a Jonny 4 penalty 12-10 win any day of the week.
Is it the tournament or is it the rules ? I am not sure, but I clearly did not enjoy the content of the 1/4's, semis and Final as much as Stephen Jones. Maybe I should have been a prop instead of a fullback...................
kent bray, london,
If you don't like the play of the English, you don't like Rugby Union. My suggestion, either Suit Up, Show Up, and Man Up, or Shut Up and switch to League or Ozzie Rules. It's a game for Men, not twinkle toed femme's.
DekeD26, Savannah, USA
An entirely spurious tournament 15, Rabeni produced 4 knock ons in the space of 10 mins in one game. As for England that squad was damage limitation from the start so well done to them. The building needs to start now for England and we need a leader that is confident enough to trust new player, not do the best he can with what was left of Clives battered heroes.
TW, Leeds, England
Who choked in the final?
Dave Robinson, Cambridge,
Never mind 2011 Stuart of London England will be in N.Z next year and lets see who gets a pasting then
Gareth Williams
Gareth Williams, Powys,
Mr. Jones says Simon Shaw showed an ability, quote, "to handle the ball like a fly-half." Indeed. It was a shame Mr. Shaw didn't get a start in the No. 10 jersey. With some positive backline direction, we (England) might have scored a try in the final. As it was, we were extremely fortunate to score even ONE single try in ALL THREE knockout matches, and that was thanks to a lucky bounce and awful defense by the French fullback. In their combined three matches against SANZAR opponents (Boks x2, Wallabies x1) England scored a total of ZERO touchdowns. Those are damning statistics, no matter how many times Mr. Jones explains it all away by throwing sand in our eyes with rubbish about "morality" and "pastings." England needed to score tries, and couldn't have done any worse with Simon Shaw at flyhalf. Well done South Africa.
Duncan Smith, Halifax, UK
In this chart there are 5 fijians players. That's wrong, if Fiji lose in quarters how can they have 5 best players of the world cup?
Where are Corletto, Felipe Contepomi, Pichot or Fernandez Lobbe?
Ernesto , Rosario, Argentina
"And so today, I repeat the call we made last week."
Luckily the rugby world doesnt answer to tabloid hacks. The IRB is deciding the number of teams in 2011, as you very well know, but choose to ignore.
As for pasting of Aus and NZ. 2 points is a pasting? Get a grip son. You might like to spin this tournament as excting rugby, it wasnt, kick... kick.. kick... kick... thats not how rugby should be played, backilne moves, hitting space at pace, forwards strongly picking and driving, testing defences in multiple ways.. not just the ability to catch a ball. England played dour rugby last night, and they lost, they join the other 18 losers at the WC. Except they also have very little to look forward to if this is thier tactics going forward.
As for the new rules, you seem t imply its an Aus and NZ plan ... sorry Stephen, they are not, they might be faster to want to get used to them, but hey were not the driving forace behind them.
Tay Morris, Sydenham, London
2 points may not be a pasting and the last 4 years results may have not have been rose tinted. But the fact is New Zealand choked and Australia were no where near as good as their own silly hype. The pasting was dished out in the scrum by an england pack who ravaged the Aussies. As for the match officials and the press conspiring to cheat the All Blacks (who take themselves far too seriously and paid the price for it) what a load of stupid naval gazing nonsense. You lot down there should grow up, and yes lets see you in 2011 when the presure will be so intense the All Blacks (who will no doubt by then have even more logos on the "sacred jersey") may not make it to the knockout stages. Maybe then tehey will blame the hole in the ozone layer for their early exit.
stuart , london, england
The end was a letdown. It should have been closer to a 40-point win with the wide gulf in class between the two sides. England is a very negative team. The 36-0 result from pool play is a much more accurate reflection. The young Bok players were nervous, yes, but England players are ancient and decrepid, and their imagination is similarly stone-age. It was like watching "Quest For Fire" in slo-mo for 80 minutes, as memorable for the wrong reasons as Argentina at the 1990 FIFA World Cup Final. Boks fans will take this championship, but it would have been much more satisfying beating the All Blacks or Wallabies, because England isn't top quality, and the final would have almost certainly have been a more exciting showcase for rugby fans everywhere.
P. Proulx, San Ysidro, CA, USA
The southern hemisphere teams beat the six nations team 7 times out of 10 . When they do its often by 10, 20 points.
the lions got a good kicking last time they came to nz and even when ausi and nz suffer loss its never by a huge margain.
Rugby union is hardly popular in aus anyway.
its like 4th on the list .
If every oval ball sportsperson in ausi played union they as a nation would be head and shoulders aver every other team in the world, as the big games there are league and australian rules.
England and france have significantly more registered rugby union players than nz and aus.
But over the last 10 years have won significantly less games.
Although full credit to england for making the final.
Credit were credit is due though eh?
ben, chch, nz
I fully support Stephen Jones's call that the NZRU issue a public statement as soon as possible that they can and will accommodate 20 teams in RWC 2011. That was a condition of their bid in 2005 and they cannot and must not be allowed to slide away from that now. It would be a huge scandal. Nor must the IRB be allowed to help NZ renege on this basic commitment which is essential for the health of the game worldwide. (Allegedly there is a vote at the IRB on November 25-27th on this issue.)
If New Zealand can't handle 20 teams then give RWC 2011 to Japan which certainly can!!
The Laird of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu, Japan
Why Simon Shaw? What did he do?
You cannot rate people for their personality, you know. Bakkies Botha outplayed in in every single facet of BOTH games.
And Robinson, please, you should have gone to Specsavers...
Jacq, Jbay, SA
I think Mr Jones has been at the bottom of one too many rucks. First, the SA v England score from the RWC was SA 36+15 = 51 and England 0+6 = 6. Now THAT is a pasting Mr Jones. Second, the SH dominates the NH in rugby as evidenced by their sheer domination of the RWC winners list. That alone is enough reason for the IRB to take heed of the SH plea to review the game's rules so that the punters can understand and enjoy it. Third, if Mr Jones believes that the style of rugby played during the RWC was exciting and entertaining then he must enjoy watching paint dry.
Colin, Brisbane, Australia
It s a shame that jones spoils his writing with his unnecessary and over the top hatred for the southern hempishere (in particular the All Blacks)
Referring to the 2 point losses by the australians and kiwis as pastings just shows he is so blinded with his ridiculous envy of the south that it is almost pointless to read his stuff. It just comes across as so childish and silly that it makes his writing a bit of a joke.
but if losing by two points is considered by you to be "pastings" then please mr jones what wht do you call losing 36 - Nil?
a spirited loss?
or was it a triumphant setback?
a proud defeat?
what was it?
Congratualtions to England though. Of all the losing teams they came first. They are the first of all the losers.
Ben, Auckland,
Not a bad article ..had to check if it was the infamous Mr Jones who'd written it..and it was. (20 teams it will be for 2011 by the way.)
Best game of the tournament? Wales/Fiji followed closely by mini final Argentina/France.
Gutsiest team? Tonga
Most disappointing team? Australia (closely followed by us (NZ)).
Biggest surprise..Poms getting to final
Biggest almost shock? Fiji coming so close to whipping the SAFs.
Best Overall team of the tournament prize goes to..ARGENTINA!..Extraordinary in every facet of play and a joy to watch.
Host Nation Rating? 12/10
As cliches go..the big winner? Rugby Union.
Matt Bell, Cheshire, UK
Good piece.
I totally agree (I am an AB supporter). There has been too many rule changes already. (Eliminating rucking bad..scrum restart when ball over dead ball line...good). Lets NOT change the game to look anything remotely resembling rugby league, its fine the way it is.
All the IRB need to do is lock up the refs in a room and decide on consistent rulings, then evaluate the refs constantly. Sort it out Paddy.
Simple.
James Wilson, Brisbane, Australia
Stephen,
You obviously did not try to travel to the ground on Saturday evening from central Paris using the metro!
The completely un-supervised chaos was frightening with fans becoming increasing desparte as really dangerously over-crowded trains crawled through each packed station at ten minute intervals to greet the next 20 deep pack of would-be travellers.
Give me the wonderfully efficient, friendly staffed Sydney to Telstra stadium trains as at 2003 every time!
But the French did not completely ignore us.
They made sure there was a squad of 15 or so heavily armed riot police at every station on the return journey, each group leering aggressively at the returning fans and clearly looking for trouble. Must have cost the French more than a bit.
Being rugby fans from all countries mingled together, there was of course no trouble anyway.
CHRIS DICKIN, DERBY, UK
Ian, are you seriously suggesting that New Zealand only lost to France because of a huge conspiracy? Get a grip mate. If you guys continue to think like that instead of addressing the flaws in your game (of which there are not many), then you will continue to fail in tight games.
Congrats to South Africa, the best all-round team in the competition, they deserved the win. Although I would say that I missed the free-flowing game packed with flair and attacking adventure that apparently all southern hemisphere teams play with. Maybe South Africa won because they worked out how to win important rugby matches.
BTW, Stephen; 'Pastings' is stronging it a bit. Aus & NZ may have lost but they hardly got their butts kicked.
Sammy, London,
The good showings by minnows; the unpredictability and upsets of several matches; and the great spectator turnout all make this a remarkable World Cup. But the best ever...? Not on your life. Most of the rugby, particularly the knockout stages, was appalling rubbish that was boring for any neutral observer. Many of us Canadian fans were complaining bitterly for a year because the IRB priced the RWC beyond the affordability of Canadian networks, and for the first-ever time Canadians could not see the RWC on basic cable TV. Many of us are now secretly happy it wasn't shown, because that sort of rugby won't attract ANY new participants. We have to be big enough to admit that rugby matches that don't feature a single touchdown are borefests.
F. Martin, Peterbotough, Ontario, Canada
So Stephen Jones' definition of a pasting is a two-point loss? What is a three-point loss? A flogging? Maybe NZ and Aus should not even send a team to the North Hem if they can't expect to win or draw.
Guy Harding, Vancouver,
England were boring, they are the worst defending RWC champs by a long country mile. Stephen Jones can play his broken record about the Southern Hemisphere teams getting "pasted" (by all of two points), but at the end of the day the record will tell us that a SANZAR team is the World Champion; that a SANZAR team is the World Cup champion again for the 5th time in six RWCs; and that the arrogant and boring English lost twice to the same SANZAR opponent in a month, and couldn't score a single try in either of those contests. (Mr. Jones might also recall that *another* Southern Hemisphere team just pasted France, the Six Nations champs, twice in a single tournament, too.) England were "heroic," sure, but they could contest another 160 minutes of rugby against the Boks and still won't get a sniff of the tryline. And please, somebody thank the referee Alain Rolland for finally having the nerve to call England on their constant infringing, obstruction and blatant cheating. Congrats SA!
Robert Richardson, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
There was some marvellous rugby in the pool stages, but not from England the biggest and richest union. One you might expect to lead the way. Come the knock out stages it would seem it was too much lost revenue for the IRB to contemplate not having France in the semifinals, so the match officials were given their instructions and the press by the sounds of it. So much for the All Blacks expecting a fair game of rugby in what should be a great sporting ocassion, instead they've been on the receiving end of uninformed sensationalist criticism and cheapshots, from the media and ex-rugby players you thought might know better. Its not the southern hemisphere that the rugby world needs to worry about but the coniving of the northern hemisphere dominated IRB who seek to manipulate results to make the northern hemisphere look good or not so bad. We can do without their patronising Imperialistic attitudes, reminisent of the public schools so many of them went to.
Ian, London, UK
Martin Sneddon stated over a week ago that 20 teams were expected in New Zealand. Doubt over this matter comes from the IRB. Get up to date Mr. Jones your supposed to be the rugby expert in fact it is rumoured you get paid for it.
Ian, London, UK
2 point wins are deemed Pastings according to the NH brigade! Hillarious stuff.
Bobby, London,
this a such an england-centric article in so many facets..starting from this.."Better still, we found the French were open-hearted, generous, eager to party and with a love of the underdog that was positively British.".....oh man.....
baobab, vienna, austria
SH 15, NH 9.
NH ref,no tries.
Says it all Stephen.
See you in 2011
Smokey, Brisbane ,
The game works as it is period .The weaker teams in terms of pack physicality will benifit most fm the tinkering . I dont see how bringing the mauls down will benifit the game, it will simply cause a pile up and potentially greater injuries. the suggested 22 rules will encourage more kicking not less...and moving the touch line is just a joke. Ive been watching-playing -watching rugby my whole life and im sure there are many out there who have too...and will agree.. leave my game alone.. the refering needs looking at but aside from involving the linemen more and moving away fm the suspicuious hint that health and safty are gettting involved (if a player is on the ground on the wrong a good shoeing is wat is needed to persude him that it might not be a good idea to be there..provided no stamping on heads is allowed) thats all ..this world cup proves that the subtleties of the game are as facinating as the potetic violence.. its the game they play in heaven stop screwing abt with it.
zugerman, zurich, switzerland
Asides from yourself, I don't know of anyone else who is interested in watching the current trend, of rugby turning into soccer, with the endless kicking for territory that is marring the game.
The original idea of William Web Ellis was to run with the ball.
Something that seems to be eluding many teams at the moment and the main driver for the ELV's which have the intention of keeping the ball in play for longer while rewarding positive play.
As for "I am suspicious of the motives of people in authority in Australia and New Zealand, who have recently been pasted by European teams." - not quite sure when two point wins started equating to pastings but I guess, after the results of the last 4 years, something is needed to add a bit more of a red rose tint to the spectacles!
Peter Annand, Wellington, New Zealand