**The OFFICIAL Rugby World Cup Thread**

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Can we stop with the england Scotland slanging. Tournament is only two f****ng days old

[Pete Seeger]

Can we stop with the england Scotland slanging. Tournament is only two f****ng days old

 

Agreed.

 

Both looked awful in their first matches. Can't see Scotland getting a result against Argentina. They'll destroy our front row and England will struggle to get out of the quarters.

 

I'm also not really looking forward to the Scotland England match in the group. I honestly can't see how we'll compete with them in the pack. Unless Murray can get fit ASAP they'll destroy us up front too. Big Richie Gray flatters to deceive for me and while he's undoubtedly got potential I'd stick Hines in for him against Georgia. We need more experience in the front 5.

[Denny Crane]

It's not trolling.

 

The whole post was a reasonable response to a ridiculous statement.

 

Of course it was. You knew exactly what you were doing and what reaction it would bring.

[Sten Guns]

Of course it was. You knew exactly what you were doing and what reaction it would bring.

 

If people can't handle England success they need to grow up!

 

People creaming their pants when they were down, then spitting the dummy when they came back - cringe!

[shaun.lawson]

Of course it was. You knew exactly what you were doing and what reaction it would bring.

 

Ah. So that means that when you mention, for the 3,753rd time on this forum, England's approach before the 1990 Grand Slam decider, that'd be trolling too, right? Because you'd know what you were doing and the reaction it would bring.

 

Sten Guns simply pointed towards factual evidence that England aren't always hopeless. We are, however, invariably awful in the first game or first big game of any World Cup. Sometimes (as in '07, or '03, or '91, or '90, or '86, or '66), we get a lot better as the tournament develops; sometimes (as in '95, when we were again ludicrously fortunate to beat an Argentine side who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo), we at least do something significant before bowing out; sometimes, as with last year or 2006, we remain hopeless all tournament long. Conversely, on the very rare occasion that we start really well ('99 or '82), we fade and die in no time; in fact, that phenomenon happens to almost all sporting teams who start major tournaments on fire.

 

So what did today tell us, in either England or Scotland's cases? Not very much. It's a long tournament - and the group showdown between us will be something to behold. Though one other thing. In 2007, every single European side began appallingly - because every single one was completely undercooked. I think we'll see this happen again as well. This event begins simply too early for northern hemisphere sides to be fully hardened yet: notice France having all sorts of problems with Japan earlier as well?

 

So the early narrative will, I expect, be that the southern hemisphere are miles ahead - but then there'll be plenty of twists in the tale as we get into the knock-out stages. There always are.

[Denny Crane]

If people can't handle England success they need to grow up!

 

People creaming their pants when they were down, then spitting the dummy when they came back - cringe!

 

I look forward to you passing the same comment if and when Hibs get their act together and 'come back'.

 

 

Ah. So that means that when you mention, for the 3,753rd time on this forum (don't exaggerate), England's approach before the 1990 Grand Slam decider, that'd be trolling too, right? Because you'd know what you were doing and the reaction it would bring.

 

Shaun I think you'll find that I have used that example in the following context - how like the Scottish football team in 1978, it is never a good idea to display hubris (like the English players that day did) before getting the job done.

 

Sten Guns is doing what a certain Walter Mitty, who drinks Blue Nun in economy class, used to do before being dumped on his arse by trolling for the purpose of getting a reaction - which he has succeeded in doing. I'm sure this thread have taken him to heights of ecstasy that not even James Bond could attain.

 

 

As for the games themselves, poor performances but wins for the NH teams in action today. I'll put that down to first night rustiness and expect all three to play a lot better as the pool stages progress. If any of them are playing like that come the business end of Round One then there will be cause for concern. Besides, Argentina are a team that are capable of competing for the Six Nations title if they were regular competitors so England do deserve some credit for squeezing past them by means of taking the chance that was offered to them late on.

[shaun.lawson]

I look forward to you passing the same comment if and when Hibs get their act together and 'come back'.

 

 

 

 

Shaun I think you'll find that I have used that example in the following context - how like the Scottish football team in 1978, it is never a good idea to display hubris (like the English players that day did) before getting the job done.

 

Sten Guns is doing what a certain Walter Mitty, who drinks Blue Nun in economy class, used to do before being dumped on his arse by trolling for the purpose of getting a reaction - which he has succeeded in doing. I'm sure this thread have taken him to heights of ecstasy that not even James Bond could attain.

 

 

As for the games themselves, poor performances but wins for the NH teams in action today. I'll put that down to first night rustiness and expect all three to play a lot better as the pool stages progress. If any of them are playing like that come the business end of Round One then there will be cause for concern. Besides, Argentina are a team that are capable of competing for the Six Nations title if they were regular competitors so England do deserve some credit for squeezing past them by means of taking the chance that was offered to them late on.

 

There's much wisdom in this post, chief. Incidentally, on the subject of hubris before big games, the worst example I've ever come across in international rugby - or probably international sport - was Geoff Evans' comment before his side met New Zealand, Lomu et al, in the 1995 RWC:

 

"We are bigger, stronger and better than the All Blacks".

 

The result of this titanic battle between elephant and mosquito?

 

New Zealand 34-9 Wales.

[Sten Guns]

I look forward to you passing the same comment if and when Hibs get their act together and 'come back'.

 

 

 

 

Shaun I think you'll find that I have used that example in the following context - how like the Scottish football team in 1978, it is never a good idea to display hubris (like the English players that day did) before getting the job done.

 

Sten Guns is doing what a certain Walter Mitty, who drinks Blue Nun in economy class, used to do before being dumped on his arse by trolling for the purpose of getting a reaction - which he has succeeded in doing. I'm sure this thread have taken him to heights of ecstasy that not even James Bond could attain.

 

 

As for the games themselves, poor performances but wins for the NH teams in action today. I'll put that down to first night rustiness and expect all three to play a lot better as the pool stages progress. If any of them are playing like that come the business end of Round One then there will be cause for concern. Besides, Argentina are a team that are capable of competing for the Six Nations title if they were regular competitors so England do deserve some credit for squeezing past them by means of taking the chance that was offered to them late on.

 

If responding to nonsense about England, pointing out they aren't always shite, is trolling, your on drugs and I'm glad you aren't moderating this board!

 

The incoherent England bashing is actually a whole lot closer to trolling than me pointing out the facts!

 

In fact, the "reaction" your alluding too says a damn sight more about the idiocy of the poster responding, than it does about my harmless post itself.

 

It's not a crime to be Scottish and not hate England. Honest!!!

 

Anyway, lets just enjoy the WC.

[Sheriff Fatman]

If responding to nonsense about England, pointing out they aren't always shite, is trolling, your on drugs and I'm glad you aren't moderating this board!

 

The incoherent England bashing is actually a whole lot closer to trolling than me pointing out the facts!

 

In fact, the "reaction" your alluding too says a damn sight more about the idiocy of the poster responding, than it does about my harmless post itself.

 

It's not a crime to be Scottish and not hate England. Honest!!!

 

Anyway, lets just enjoy the WC.

 

It is also not a crime to be English and yet be able to see their faults.

 

I am annoyed with England because the team that played today can play much better, but they came out with the wrong attitude and were out played for most of the match.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

There's much wisdom in this post, chief. Incidentally, on the subject of hubris before big games, the worst example I've ever come across in international rugby - or probably international sport - was Geoff Evans' comment before his side met New Zealand, Lomu et al, in the 1995 RWC:

 

"We are bigger, stronger and better than the All Blacks".

 

The result of this titanic battle between elephant and mosquito?

 

New Zealand 34-9 Wales.

 

Let's not forget Rory Underwood:

 

"You can feel the confidence oozing. There's just no way we'll come off that pitch having lost."

 

Enter Jonah Lomu.

[shaun.lawson]

Let's not forget Rory Underwood:

 

"You can feel the confidence oozing. There's just no way we'll come off that pitch having lost."

 

Enter Jonah Lomu.

 

Oh God, I remember that too!

 

England had scraped past a poor Australia, while New Zealand had hammered everyone in sight; England had also made no plan for Lomu at all. I knew we'd lose, and had done my best to prepare classmates at school for a possible shock; but the bookies made us favourites for the match!

 

That was the sole occasion, other than Murrayfield 1990, when the "English arrogance" accusation was spot on: when our very mental approach guaranteed defeat. International rugby's an odd beast, though. Quite often, you can feel a shock coming when a side is written off just too much. No-one gave France a prayer against NZ in 1999 - but the pundits' attitudes were so ridiculous towards what, after all, was a clash between two rugby giants, that I got a strong sense something funny was going to happen. I felt the same before their meeting four years ago; I also felt it when everyone wrote off Italy before their first ever Six Nations match, against Scotland in 2000.

 

Then there are the times when someone really puts their foot in it, eg. John O'Neill, "everyone hates the English", in the days before his Wallabies met England in 2007. Talk about doing the opposition's team talk for it... Or the times when teams really do just choke: the worst example I've seen being France's ludicrous attempt to defend a 1 point lead against England, and of all people, Jonny Wilkinson, for the whole of the last 20 minutes of the semi-final.

 

And finally, there are occasions when, deep down, a team knows it's over-matched, and can't possibly win. Brian Ashton thinks that many of his players didn't believe they could beat South Africa in the final - and the thing is, they were quite obviously right.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Ireland will do what Scotland did against Romania in our game against the US.

 

Still reach the final though!

[Jeremy beagle]

Ireland made hard work of that. Hope they don't regret missing out on the bonus point...

[grumpy rebus]

None of the home nations have looked good........ yet.

 

Next up, Wales agains the Saffies.

[Flankengott]

Tremendous performance so far by Wales. Great if they can sustain it to the end of the game.

[leginten]

Tremendous performance so far by Wales. Great if they can sustain it to the end of the game.

 

South Africa are leaden and slow. They don't look as if they have an alternative game-plan either. But if Wales continue to fumble close to the line, they could let S. Africa back into it. One 7-pointer for Wales in the next few minutes puts it out of reach though, I think.

[neilnunb]

Wales, like Argentina, are gonna rue these missed kicks. They deserve to win.

[magicTs]

Tremendous all round effort from Wales and like Argentina they should have won but just missed too many crucial opportunities.

 

I pointed out the possibility after the NZ opener and its proven right, the bookies have had an absolute shocker with the OTT handicaps they offered. Thats 8 out of 8 matches whereby the underdog has covered (on many occasions very very comfortably).

[shaun.lawson]

I hate this sport sometimes. It seems to offer so many opportunities to completely out-played overdogs to somehow end up on the right side of the scoreline against the most gallant of underdogs. In 24 years of this tournament, Big Five teams have been in desperate trouble on so many occasions against non-Big Five opponents - yet in that entire time, only England (against Wales in 1987), and France (against Argentina in 2007), actually lost a fully live, competitive match. If we include third place play-offs, that figure rises to a paltry four times out of goodness knows how many.

 

The real sickener for Wales lies in how on earth they now pick themselves up and go again against Samoa and Fiji, both of whom feed off their free, open style. I think they're in trouble now: which is ridiculous given how head and shoulders they look above all the other home unions so far.

 

I'll state here right now that the Springboks won't lose to either of those opponents. And despite being complete and utter pants, and despite the utter moron of a coach that is Peter de Villiers, I even have a nasty feeling in my water that we just watched this tournament's version of England '07/Germany '02/Argentina '90. In other words, they might grind and frustrate all the way to the final, infuriating everyone in the process.

 

Hard luck Wales. I can hardly recall feeling more gutted for a rugby team in defeat.

[magicTs]

Agree with much of that Shaun but Wales and Argentna only have themselves to blame for the 2 matches over the last 24hrs. These are not wet behind the ears teams with few resources, they have hardened professionals playing around the world. They blew it plain and simple. Huge chances from kicks and had their superior opponents right were they needed them. They didn't get the job done and lived to regret it. As you were watching each game the outcome was almost inevitable as the opportunities came and went, similar to when you should kill of Sellik given their ability to score late goals(s).

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

Agree with much of that Shaun but Wales and Argentna only have themselves to blame for the 2 matches over the last 24hrs. These are not wet behind the ears teams with few resources, they have hardened professionals playing around the world. They blew it plain and simple. Huge chances from kicks and had their superior opponents right were they needed them. They didn't get the job done and lived to regret it. As you were watching each game the outcome was almost inevitable as the opportunities came and went, similar to when you should kill of Sellik given their ability to score late goals(s).

 

Actually magic - Argentina do have few resources, and still don't even play in the Tri Nations, though that's finally about to change. And there's another reason why we fail to kill off Celtic: useless officials. Wales won that game 19-17, as the ITV guys are currently pointing out: how can the officials have made such a basic mistake?

 

But off the top of my head: Scotland (v France in '87); Ireland (v Australia in '91); Argentina (v England in '95); Scotland (v France in '95); Fiji (v France in '99); Ireland (v Australia in '03); Wales (v England in '03); and now Wales again (v South Africa in '11) all deserved to win, yet no-one did - and today was the biggest travesty of the lot.

[Boof]

Wales won that game 19-17, as the ITV guys are currently pointing out: how can the officials have made such a basic mistake?

 

What's that about?

 

I switched off after the final whistle...what happened?

[shaun.lawson]

What's that about?

 

I switched off after the final whistle...what happened?

 

Hook kicked a pen during the first half which went through the posts. The officials thought it missed.

[Boof]

indeed

 

Not sure if the ref is allowed to consult TMO for those type of uncertainties. Should be, but maybe isn't?

[shaun.lawson]

indeed

 

Not sure if the ref is allowed to consult TMO for those type of uncertainties. Should be, but maybe isn't?

 

I think you're right. That's two successive World Cups in which Wayne Barnes has been horrendously let down by his touch judges, with decisive consequences in terms of the outcome: 4 years ago, Kiwis were burning him in effigy after he failed to spot the very obvious forward pass during the move leading to Michalak's try!

 

But he's the man in charge - and he has to find a way to see things like that.

[DETTY29]

I think you're right. That's two successive World Cups in which Wayne Barnes has been horrendously let down by his touch judges, with decisive consequences in terms of the outcome: 4 years ago, Kiwis were burning him in effigy after he failed to spot the very obvious forward pass during the move leading to Michalak's try!

 

But he's the man in charge - and he has to find a way to see things like that.

Didn't watch the whole match but later on 5live said they could definitely go to the TMO and the Welsh captain and possibly Hook asked, near pleaded for him to refer.

 

From what I did watch, Barnes seemed to be a bit more condescending when talking to the Welsh guys than the South Africans. And dear god, the decision to go to the TMO for the Welsh try? They would be as well now saying that every try where a player has been tackled near the try line then they go to the TMO.

[I P Knightley]

Hook kicked a pen during the first half which went through the posts. The officials thought it missed.

 

Something the touch judges are doing behind the posts that they didn't used to do is check with each other before raising their flags. Surely, each should signal it as he sees it & if one flag's up and the other down, it goes to the judge?

[Boof]

Another question that I've often pondered - not being strong enough for it to ever affect my kicking - is why do kickers kick the ball so bleedin' high and risk any doubt creeping into the TJs' minds? Surely as long as the ball is high enough to go over the bar that's adequate? Obviously they want to give it a bit of leeway but booting it so high just seems pointless to me.

 

Any proper kickers able to explain?

 

And it seems as if the TMO could have been consulted so my error earlier.

[I P Knightley]

Another question that I've often pondered - not being strong enough for it to ever affect my kicking - is why do kickers kick the ball so bleedin' high and risk any doubt creeping into the TJs' minds? Surely as long as the ball is high enough to go over the bar that's adequate? Obviously they want to give it a bit of leeway but booting it so high just seems pointless to me.

 

Any proper kickers able to explain?

 

And it seems as if the TMO could have been consulted so my error earlier.

 

 

The kicker wants to be consistent with every kick possible so keeps everything as close to identical whether it's close in or from the half-way line. The exception I often notice is the conversion from in front of the post where they sometimes shorten the run up and give it more of a chip.

[Bert Le Clos]

BBC Sport reporting Courtney Lawes has been given a 2 match ban for "clashing" with Ledesmo against Argentina with his knee. Which to you and I means he kneed him in the head.

 

The offence usually carries a 3 match ban, but the judicial officer said it had been lowered to 2 matches as Lawes previous disciplinary record was good and he showed remorse.

 

He pled not guilty so I'm not sure how exactly he has shown remorse.

[Tazio]

BBC Sport reporting Courtney Lawes has been given a 2 match ban for "clashing" with Ledesmo against Argentina with his knee. Which to you and I means he kneed him in the head.

 

The offence usually carries a 3 match ban, but the judicial officer said it had been lowered to 2 matches as Lawes previous disciplinary record was good and he showed remorse.

 

He pled not guilty so I'm not sure how exactly he has shown remorse.

 

I think he was pretty lucky not to get cited for the other cheap shot in the game that knackered the other guys knee.

[I P Knightley]

He pled not guilty so I'm not sure how exactly he has shown remorse.

 

A very good point. Deny that you did it and then, when it's confirmed that you were in the wrong, show remorse... makes no sense.

[Bert Le Clos]

A very good point. Deny that you did it and then, when it's confirmed that you were in the wrong, show remorse... makes no sense.

 

Back in time for the Scotland game......... :boom:

 

 

That said, compared to Richie Gray (haircut aside) Lawes looks a :bitgay:

 

The second row is one area I think Scotland are stronger than England. My main worry is the 13 channel. I'm not convinced that either Ansbro or De Luca's defence is the best and if England have their backs working, especially Tuilangi, they might run wild there.

 

I think we'll improve against Georgia, and they will be good preparation for Argentina who play very similar styles of rugby. We'll scrape through against the Argies who will fade in the last quarter.

 

Then England..........

[I P Knightley]

That said, compared to Richie Gray (haircut aside) Lawes looks a :bitgay:

 

 

... and he's got a girl's name.

[Templeton Peck]

Looks like the Kiwis have got their own Kenny MacAskill....

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5619398/Williamson-boisterous-during-Australia-game

[Bert Le Clos]

Another question that I've often pondered - not being strong enough for it to ever affect my kicking - is why do kickers kick the ball so bleedin' high and risk any doubt creeping into the TJs' minds? Surely as long as the ball is high enough to go over the bar that's adequate? Obviously they want to give it a bit of leeway but booting it so high just seems pointless to me.

 

Any proper kickers able to explain?

 

And it seems as if the TMO could have been consulted so my error earlier.

 

I think a lot of it is to do with the carry needed to get the ball over the posts. No matter how hard you hit the ball, if you keep it low there's no guarantee it will make it over the bar. I'm sure that with most teams now having specialist kicking coaches they will have analysed players kicking styles to try and deliver the best angle the ball leaves the tee from, much like javelin, hammer and shot putters release their respective objects at to maximise distance.

 

From my experience of kicking conversions and penalties in rugby, I find that if you try and drive the ball low there's also more chance of hooking it left, if you're right footed.

[Denny Crane]

Looks like the Kiwis have got their own Kenny MacAskill....

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5619398/Williamson-boisterous-during-Australia-game

 

But the Aussie journo who outed him was guilty of an anti-Scottish tirade after we had beaten Australia at Murrayfield two years back.

[SUTOL]

Here we go again!

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Going to be another slugger of a match.

[I P Knightley]

Dan bloody Parks!!!

[SUTOL]

Are there any streams for the match?

 

STV player keeps cutting out on me.

[Chad Sexington]

Dan Parks is shit.

[Gershwin]

Dan bloody Parks!!!

 

Don't watch much of Scotland these days but Parks is ******* horrific.

[Tazio]

Parks is having a mare.

 

Again.

[Chad Sexington]

Great kick, Dan.

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Better but this bonus point is looking very unlikely

[:shitwine:]

Parks gets one eventually.

[Sexton Hardcastle]

**** me man

[japanjambo]

Bloody hell Parks!

[Tazio]

Parks seems to have the concentration span of a goldfish. Good drop goal followed by the worst attempt at stopping play ever.