|
Yeah we have done it through to the final!!!!:PARTY: :PARTY:
I can't wait until tomoorow I work with 5 Kiwis and 4 Froggies. They will be sick as Dogs ha ha ha. Plus I should be onto winning the sweep stakes if I am lucky- shame I can't remember what score I put. :beer: :beer: |
Yep I cant wait either.....i work in an office full of kiwis who have constantly put england down and crowed about All Black superiority (huh). I am going to have a *great* day tmw :D :D
What a game eh. The french kicker was bloody useless lolol must get to bed, 2am here. All that beer is not going to help!!!! Russ |
Great, the 2 teams I dislike the most in world rugby through to the final. How crap were France & NZ, let me down again.
Who to support?. Although I don't like England much, I despise the Wallabies, So reluctantly, I'm going for England. Good luck to them. |
Originally posted by Amazulu Great, the 2 teams I dislike the most in world rugby through to the final. How crap were France & NZ, let me down again. Who to support?. Although I don't like England much, I despise the Wallabies, So reluctantly, I'm going for England. Good luck to them. You can't be that hard up ... can I make a suggestion being in the same dilemma as you "who to support" - support the team who "tries" and runs with the ball it's tough one isn't it.. but if last nights match is anything to go by... wake me up when it's all over when they've finished booting over penalty goals instead of tries.. yawn cheers:) |
Originally posted by Ceri I'm stifling a yawn.. :) You can't be that hard up ... can I make a suggestion being in the same dilemma as you "who to support" - support the team who "tries" and runs with the ball it's tough one isn't it.. but if last nights match is anything to go by... wake me up when it's all over when they've finished booting over penalty goals instead of tries.. yawn cheers:) |
hear hear (Sorry Ceri!)
In 1991, England in the last England-Aussie final England attempted to run the ball. They lost and were castigated for it. England are quite capable of scoring tries - look at any game 2000-2003. Except maybe France 2000, NZ 2003. The minority. They even scored a few against Australia in June. But they will be careful this time. Stick to soccer Ceri. You get lots of 'chances' (most of them blown) - I believe that is the word they use in soccer circles - in that game to score goals so that you can tun around taking off your shirt, acting like a spoilt, Oscar winning, overpaid, puny, overgrown educationally subnormal schoolboy. Come to think of it, often not a single goal is scored in an entire game. How 'boring' is that? Badge:D |
Originally posted by Ceri I'm stifling a yawn.. :) You can't be that hard up ... can I make a suggestion being in the same dilemma as you "who to support" - support the team who "tries" and runs with the ball it's tough one isn't it.. but if last nights match is anything to go by... wake me up when it's all over when they've finished booting over penalty goals instead of tries.. yawn cheers:) |
Originally posted by Amazulu Bollocks, It's about winning. In tight tense games like cup finals, where the loser gets nothing, winning by any means is all that matters. If that means kicking penalties & drops, then so be it. I agree with Ceri - see the other sweet chariot thread for my reasons... |
Originally posted by jandjuk well sure, if you want to limit the fanbase and global reach of the game - then that's fine.... I agree with Ceri - see the other sweet chariot thread for my reasons... |
So everyone.. what do we think will be better for the rugby fanbase?
England playing for tries and loosing...coming home saying that the played beautifully and "proper" rugby (after the Aussies won on kicked points too.....) OR England playing the dogged kicking game and possibly coming home with a trophy. I know which i would prefer...... |
well if i was an English fan I would prefer the latter as well. If the AB's had played this style and won, I'd be thrilled they won, but I wouldn't be proud of it as a great display of rugby.
But I was a objective newbie fan, or a marketer or businessman in a part of the world that doesn't currently play rugby, which product would I prefer? the first.... The latter is great for the existing fanbase, but the difference with the UK vs NZ, is that there is enough people to support rugby no matter what - in NZ, if it's boring product, people will do something else, and the crucial money will go elsewhere. Anyway, i can see I'm pissing in the wind here.... and besides England and Aus just might put on a great game and we'll all be happy - they're both capable of it :) |
Originally posted by jandjuk well if i was an English fan I would prefer the latter as well. If the AB's had played this style and won, I'd be thrilled they won, but I wouldn't be proud of it as a great display of rugby. But I was a objective newbie fan, or a marketer or businessman in a part of the world that doesn't currently play rugby, which product would I prefer? the first.... The latter is great for the existing fanbase, but the difference with the UK vs NZ, is that there is enough people to support rugby no matter what - in NZ, if it's boring product, people will do something else, and the crucial money will go elsewhere. Anyway, i can see I'm pissing in the wind here.... and besides England and Aus just might put on a great game and we'll all be happy - they're both capable of it :) |
Originally posted by muppetking That chip on your shoulder must really get you down! If you knew your rugby WC history you would know that kickers and a solid defence win world cups. Not Super 12 all singing all dancing backlines as imagined by the Kiwi public. Look back on the finals of all the previous cups and check the number of tries. Wales might have entertained but they came to win a WC and failed. Your tireless dismissal and utter disdain for all things English wears thin after a while. Elton Flatley kicked all the Wallaby points and they scored an intercept try from a poor pass. And yet you would have it that they 'tried to score tries'! Don't they all? If France had won I would support them wholeheartedly because we share a close and long history as well as the Northern hemisphere connection. Shame you don't feel the same. enjoy: http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0...-29160,00.html FIELD goals should be devalued from three points to one to see rugby played the way it was intended. So says former All Black Grant Batty, who believes England hold an unreasonable advantage in possessing a golden boot like Jonny Wilkinson. Batty claimed many were "bored to death by Jonny", who kicked three drop goals and five penalties in tryless England's 24-7 World Cup semi-final win over France last night. The former New Zealand winger called for the International Rugby Board to consider a change in the scoring, which allows only two more points for a try than a drop goal. He said one point for a drop goal would be fairer and would promote expansive ball-running. "If it was meant to be a kicking game William Webb Ellis would never have picked up the ball and ran with it in the first place. That was the idea," he said. "I have always thought three points for a drop goal was inequitable and it was a travesty to see Wales score three tries to one against England and lose (28-17) last weekend." With only three tries in two World Cup semi-finals, the defensive strength of the world's leading sides mean drop goals are an effective match-winning tactic. Batty, who played some of his 15 Tests in the days when a try was worth three points, said a change in the scoring system would have a positive effect on the game. World Cup-winning Wallaby forward Rod McCall supported Batty's plea, calling field goals a soft option. McCall, who played in the 1991 final win over England, felt it would not take long for the game's lawmakers to alter the scoring to promote running play. "An attempt at drop goal is something you do if you couldn't be bothered (attacking) or you want to take cheap points," he said. "I'd probably knock it down to at least two points and bring the value of a try up. They will eventually do it." AAP .............................................. |
Originally posted by Ceri It has got nothing to do with "English", like I have said in a previous post I would say the same about any team who did this.. enjoy: http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0...-29160,00.html FIELD goals should be devalued from three points to one to see rugby played the way it was intended. So says former All Black Grant Batty, who believes England hold an unreasonable advantage in possessing a golden boot like Jonny Wilkinson. Batty claimed many were "bored to death by Jonny", who kicked three drop goals and five penalties in tryless England's 24-7 World Cup semi-final win over France last night. The former New Zealand winger called for the International Rugby Board to consider a change in the scoring, which allows only two more points for a try than a drop goal. He said one point for a drop goal would be fairer and would promote expansive ball-running. "If it was meant to be a kicking game William Webb Ellis would never have picked up the ball and ran with it in the first place. That was the idea," he said. "I have always thought three points for a drop goal was inequitable and it was a travesty to see Wales score three tries to one against England and lose (28-17) last weekend." With only three tries in two World Cup semi-finals, the defensive strength of the world's leading sides mean drop goals are an effective match-winning tactic. Batty, who played some of his 15 Tests in the days when a try was worth three points, said a change in the scoring system would have a positive effect on the game. World Cup-winning Wallaby forward Rod McCall supported Batty's plea, calling field goals a soft option. McCall, who played in the 1991 final win over England, felt it would not take long for the game's lawmakers to alter the scoring to promote running play. "An attempt at drop goal is something you do if you couldn't be bothered (attacking) or you want to take cheap points," he said. "I'd probably knock it down to at least two points and bring the value of a try up. They will eventually do it." AAP .............................................. Running forwards with the ball was introduced at some stage (the William Webb Ellis thing is mostly a myth), but kicking goals was still the fundamental way of scoring points. They even raised the height of the goal posts to make kicking from a distance easier, and introduced the cross bar to stop defenders blocking the goal. Originally a "try" meant a "try at goal". If you put the ball down behind the oppositions goal line you were awarded a kick (try) for goal so that you could score a point. A "try" was scoreless at that time. It was only when they had the problem of too many games finishing without any goals being scored that they started awarding the game to the team that had scored the most tries as a fallback. |
Originally posted by cols Rubbish. How was rugby originally intended to be played? Kicking goals was the fundamental way of scoring in early versions of rugby. Both soccer and rugby (which were developed around the same period) evolved from earlier street games which involved kicking, handling, and pushing the ball forwards to reach a goal. Running forwards with the ball was introduced at some stage (the William Webb Ellis thing is mostly a myth), but kicking goals was still the fundamental way of scoring points. They even raised the height of the goal posts to make kicking from a distance easier, and introduced the cross bar to stop defenders blocking the goal. Originally a "try" meant a "try at goal". If you put the ball down behind the oppositions goal line you were awarded a kick (try) for goal so that you could score a point. A "try" was scoreless at that time. It was only when they had the problem of too many games finishing without any goals being scored that they started awarding the game to the team that had scored the most tries as a fallback. British Australian Rules Football League (BARFL) Destined to sweep aside all other corupted codes and dominate the Universe! In case you need the real thing: Official Website of the Australian Football League |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:46 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.