**The OFFICIAL Rugby World Cup Thread**

[Gershwin]

Is that Oliver Reed playing No. 3 for Georgia?

[Chad Sexington]

Better but this bonus point is looking very unlikely

 

Not many will get a bonus point against Georgia.

 

Parks at the end there.

[:shitwine:]

Dan Parks

 

 

Can't believe a player so bad has scored all our points.

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Not many will get a bonus point against Georgia.

 

Parks at the end there.

 

England will move up a gear for them and im pretty sure the Argies will as well.

 

Were they not saying last night the weather in this town was rank. Why the **** arent they running it more then?

[magicTs]

As I understand it rugby is quite big in Australia so I presume there is quite a bit of talent and therefore some more than decent stand offs. How the feck did we end up with Dan Parks in that case ?! His effort at ending play for half time was embarassing.

 

Samoa were the first and only favorite to cover the handicap so far in the WC, Scotland were giving up 18pts in this so could be 10 out of 11 for the underdogs the way things are going.

[Gershwin]

Morrison is pish an' aw.

[The Mighty Thor]

Parks is what they class as 'mercurial' which roughly translated means absolutely fecking rancid 95% of the time with the odd flash of brilliance. Gregor Townsend was the same and given he's on the coaching staff he probably thinks Parks is brilliant.

 

Our ball retention is pish poor. 18 turnovers in the first game and it's like a bar of soap again today.

 

We'll most likely squeak through this....................hopefully.

[Sexton Hardcastle]

How many times are they going to drop the ball in simple situations

[jamb0_1874]

Better but this bonus point is looking very unlikely

 

Even a victory isn't looking like a dead cert right now.

[Gershwin]

Sean '*******' Lamont.

[reaths17]

Parks is what they class as 'mercurial' which roughly translated means absolutely fecking rancid 95% of the time with the odd flash of brilliance. Gregor Townsend was the same and given he's on the coaching staff he probably thinks Parks is brilliant.

 

Our ball retention is pish poor. 18 turnovers in the first game and it's like a bar of soap again today.

 

We'll most likely squeak through this....................hopefully.

 

 

THIS....

 

park, townsend, just as i've always seen them, as for ball retention, our handling has been terrible for a couple of years now, even on a dry sunny day the balls like a bar o soap

 

 

[Tams bird]

They should have it in a country with good weather like Scotland (today)..

[japanjambo]

Jeezo Parks!

[The Mighty Thor]

we could really do with getting more than a score ahead here........................Parks is still due a zaliukas moment between now and 80 mins

[rossthejambo]

We must really be struggling for players at fly half if Parks is getting picked on a consistent basis. He's murder 98% of games.

 

 

[:shitwine:]

Parks finds his kicking boots at the right time.

[Chad Sexington]

Great display from the pack. Ropey display from the backs.

 

Take the win and get out of Dodge.

[jamb0_1874]

Job done!

[Moriarty]

9 points from 2 games will do will be all about the Argentina game IMO but a win over the English would be pleasing.

[magicTs]

Good rest before what surely is the key game against the Argies. Need to iift every aspect of the performance for that one.

 

Apparently only the 2nd WC group game ever not to have a try.

[Victorian]

banana skins avoided. now for the real tests. beating argentina would once have been expected... if not a foregone conclusion. at this present time i think it would be almost an unexpected bonus. there's no way scotland will beat england.

[Denny Crane]

For all the Dan Parks haters (and I sincerely hope your dislike is for his rugby ability only), given the dearth of talented fly-halves in Scotland (and that Jackson had just played a competitive game only days before and needed to be rested - recovery between games is a lot longer for rugby players than it is for footballers given that it's more of a contact sport) who else would you have? If our fly-half pool was as strong in depth as the one we have for back-row forwards then there might be a case to have someone else. However, that is not so. Godman has been shown (after numerous chances) to not be good enough at international level, Duncan Weir is still in the development stages of his career so Jackson and Parks are the best available to Andy Robinson at this current moment in time.

[Jambo66]

I thought that was a good performance and a good result. The tight 5 were superb - so much so that it is difficult to see how Kellock gets back in next weekend. Unfortunately, we won't have Euan Murray.

 

We made too many errors, but the result was never in doubt once we got our noses in front. If our forwards play like that against Argentina, we will beat them without too much trouble.

 

2 wins, 9 points - onwards and upwards.

[Bert Le Clos]

Having not seen the game, I assume Dan Parks was quality again?!

 

Surprised at Morrison getting stick, he's been very good recently. We were unlikely to play much running rugby with Parks at 10 because he plays so far behind the gain line so I'm not surprised the backs haven't had a good write up.

 

Before the game the concern was the forwards against a very strong Georgia pack. They are a rugby nation not many know about, but they are on the up. The government has made rugby the national sport and are investing heavily with an aim to being included in the 6 Nations. If our pack held up against them I'm more than comfortable that we'll be a match for the Argies.

 

And then the England game, as always will be a cup final. Who knows.

[grumpy rebus]

As has been said, Parks is the problem, but we have very few options at 10. My issue with him is that he never challenges the gain line and makes it very easy to defend agains us. And when we defend, he's a liability.

 

Personally I'd play Paterson at 10. It may not be his best position, but he'd still be an improvement on Parks.

[Ray Winstone]

As has been said, Parks is the problem, but we have very few options at 10. My issue with him is that he never challenges the gain line and makes it very easy to defend agains us. And when we defend, he's a liability.

 

Personally I'd play Paterson at 10. It may not be his best position, but he'd still be an improvement on Parks.

 

 

Far too late now - I think Hadden tried him at 10 and it was a complete failure.

 

If they had taught him to play that position maybe 10 years ago it would have worked - but with all the build up and training we have done before the tournament it would be hopeless to throw Twiggy in at 10 now.

[Gershwin]

I used to play directly against Godman at school. Now he was a good bit better than me but I was really surprised he turned pro and made it into the Scotland set up. I guess having Frank Hadden as your school coach and then the international coach had something to do with it.

[Kiwidoug]

Scotland will beat Argentina with something to spare and we might just beat England if we get them on a dry night.

 

Our forwards are competitive against any pack in this tournament.

[Bert Le Clos]

Interesting visual guide to what Scotland are up against on the international stage. Found this on rugbydump.com showing playing numbers for the nationas at the World Cup. What struck me was that out of all the major rugby playing nations (6 & Tri Nation sides) Scotland are by far the lowest in terms of playing numbers. England are the highest by an insane amount. Wales are probably the best example of what can be achieved despite their relatively low numbers.

 

[Tazio]

Pretty impressive that Italy now have more people playing rugby than Scotland.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Pretty impressive that Italy now have more people playing rugby than Scotland.

 

Getting left behind at every sport going, apart from curling.

[Moriarty]

I might just be missing them but argentina seem to be omitted.

 

edit: sorry, just saw the line at the bottom saying they didnt have any info for them.

[Bert Le Clos]

Getting left behind at every sport going, apart from curling.

 

Italy has a population of over 60million. As soon as they gained entry into the 6 Nations they were always going to have a higher number of rugby players than Scotland.

 

I think it actually shows Scotland to be doing fairly well in terms of how we compare to the nations we are competing with. Scotland desperately needs a 3rd professional team though. When Fiji, population 849,000 can boast only 2500 less players than Scotland it shows how much rugby is struggling in Scotland.

[Harry Palmer]

Dan Parks is fecking shite.

 

I'm sure there are loads of Kiwi/Ozzie Scots that are better than him.

[chrissyd2003]

Interesting visual guide to what Scotland are up against on the international stage. Found this on rugbydump.com showing playing numbers for the nationas at the World Cup. What struck me was that out of all the major rugby playing nations (6 & Tri Nation sides) Scotland are by far the lowest in terms of playing numbers. England are the highest by an insane amount. Wales are probably the best example of what can be achieved despite their relatively low numbers.

 

 

Interesting visual, supprised at englands numbers, thats huge, though thought Auz would have more also.

Just wondering who everybody else thinks will get through to the semi finals, not sure how the quarters are set up and who will meet who, but I think England NZ Australia South Africa will be in the semis, who can really say all if not 3 out of 4 of these teams will be there at that point in October? and then whats the point of all these group games with contries like Japan, Nambia, georgia etc, not saying that its pointless to play these games as it gives the smaller rugby nations a good run out but will this be the same for a long time and isnt international rugby a bit predictable??

[Denny Crane]

Interesting visual, supprised at englands numbers, thats huge, though thought Auz would have more also.

Just wondering who everybody else thinks will get through to the semi finals, not sure how the quarters are set up and who will meet who, but I think England NZ Australia South Africa will be in the semis, who can really say all if not 3 out of 4 of these teams will be there at that point in October? and then whats the point of all these group games with contries like Japan, Nambia, georgia etc, not saying that its pointless to play these games as it gives the smaller rugby nations a good run out but will this be the same for a long time and isnt international rugby a bit predictable??

 

Shocks have happened in the pool stages in the past. (Western) Samoa beating Wales in 1991 & 1999 (the former actually ensured Wales wouldn't qualify from their group. Argentina denying Ireland a place in the last eight in 1999. Fiji making the quarter-finals at Wales expense in their final pool match in 2007. Lest we forget Argentina beating France and Ireland in their pool in 2007 with the Irish exiting the tournament early because of it. And while Tonga didn't beat South Africa in their pool match in 2007, they were one unlucky bounce on the try-line away in the final play of that match from gaining a draw and a chance of a conversion attempt to win it. Scotland have had a couple of close calls in the past (Fiji 2003 & Italy 2007) while Georgia were unlucky not to beat Ireland in 2007. The Irish themselves nearly upset Australia in 2003.

 

Pool matches in the RWC can be interesting and throw in the odd surprise.

[grumpy rebus]

and then whats the point of all these group games with contries like Japan, Nambia, georgia etc, not saying that its pointless to play these games as it gives the smaller rugby nations a good run out but will this be the same for a long time and isnt international rugby a bit predictable??

 

Much the same as the football or cricket world cup, you start the tournament with 4 or 5 teams that can win it. But you have other teams trying to improve on where they've previously reach - Scotland getting beyond the group stage at the football WC for instance. And as DC says, there's always some shock results in all these tournaments. England losing to Ireland at cricket, Scotland losing to Peru and Cosa Rica and drawing with Iran, while beating Holland.

[Bert Le Clos]

Interesting visual, supprised at englands numbers, thats huge, though thought Auz would have more also.

Just wondering who everybody else thinks will get through to the semi finals, not sure how the quarters are set up and who will meet who, but I think England NZ Australia South Africa will be in the semis, who can really say all if not 3 out of 4 of these teams will be there at that point in October? and then whats the point of all these group games with contries like Japan, Nambia, georgia etc, not saying that its pointless to play these games as it gives the smaller rugby nations a good run out but will this be the same for a long time and isnt international rugby a bit predictable??

 

Rugby union is only the 4th most popular sport in Australia, behind League, Cricket and Aussie Rules.

 

I think it will be the big 3 Southerm Hemisphere teams plus France in the semis. England just don't like they have enough in attack against the better sides at the moment.

 

Looking at the scores, I think the gap between the smaller nations and the big teams is narrowing. There's still a huge gap I agree, but how do you expect rugby to grow in popularity in smaller countries without them gaining entry to the big tournaments?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Looking at the scores, I think the gap between the smaller nations and the big teams is narrowing.

 

This is just my opinion but I think what's happening in international rugby is what's happened in international football over several years - many of the nations who would traditionally have been considered cannon fodder have been coached to a level where, if nothing else, they can do the basics and make a game of most matches. They've got little or nothing in the way of flair or talent but they know their way around the field. They're also being pretty cute with the players they rule eligible for selection.

 

That said, I can't imagine a time when the semi-final places at the World Cup are taken up by anything other than four countries from the same group of five or six.

[Tazio]

The only real thing anyone learnt from this morning's match is that New Zealand need to wrap carter in bubblewrap to keep him fit.

[Denny Crane]

This is just my opinion but I think what's happening in international rugby is what's happened in international football over several years - many of the nations who would traditionally have been considered cannon fodder have been coached to a level where, if nothing else, they can do the basics and make a game of most matches. They've got little or nothing in the way of flair or talent but they know their way around the field. They're also being pretty cute with the players they rule eligible for selection.

 

That said, I can't imagine a time when the semi-final places at the World Cup are taken up by anything other than four countries from the same group of five or six.

 

Argentina knocked over the applecart in 2007 by reaching the semis.

[Ray Winstone]

Argentina knocked over the applecart in 2007 by reaching the semis.

 

 

I wouldn't say so - they were expected to get through their group and they were expected to beat us in the quarters. They played to form.

[shaun.lawson]

I wouldn't say so - they were expected to get through their group and they were expected to beat us in the quarters. They played to form.

 

Sorry Rich, that's utter nonsense. Argentina were expected to go out in the first round. They were up against the hosts - and many people's idea of the 2nd favourites - France; and far and away the most heavily fancied home union, Ireland. Some pundits had Ireland down as possible finalists.

 

Argentina have an amateur domestic league, don't play in either the Six Nations or Tri-Nations, and have desperately few resources. To have promptly won their group, and secured four wins out of four against Six Nations opposition (including an absolute humiliation of France at the Parc des Princes in the third place match) was a quite magnificent achievement. I still think they might well have beaten England had they got to the final too.

[Denny Crane]

I wouldn't say so - they were expected to get through their group and they were expected to beat us in the quarters. They played to form.

 

I refer you to Shaun's answer. Argentina's success in 2007 was a shock.

[Ray Winstone]

Sorry Rich, that's utter nonsense. Argentina were expected to go out in the first round. They were up against the hosts - and many people's idea of the 2nd favourites - France; and far and away the most heavily fancied home union, Ireland. Some pundits had Ireland down as possible finalists.

 

Argentina have an amateur domestic league, don't play in either the Six Nations or Tri-Nations, and have desperately few resources. To have promptly won their group, and secured four wins out of four against Six Nations opposition (including an absolute humiliation of France at the Parc des Princes in the third place match) was a quite magnificent achievement. I still think they might well have beaten England had they got to the final too.

 

Argentina had a very strong team last time around and they were expected to compete against France and Ireland....which they did.

 

It was a perhaps a surprise that they topped the group against a heavily favoured France but those who followed the international game in any great depth would have been unsurprised to see Argentina compete so well against Northern Hemisphere sides. You have to take into account that Ireland have a very poor record against Southern Hemisphere sides.

 

And then in the quarters we ran them close before they got put out by a very impressive South African side.

 

Lets not forget they defeated your very own England (who made the final) at the end of 2006 and also defeated Ireland twice in the lead up to the World Cup.

 

Since the 99 World Cup Argentina have gone from strength to strengh, perhaps their momentum is now coming to an end with an ageing side.

 

Yes they didn't have a professional league in Argentina but the majority of their top players did play professional rugby abroad.

[shaun.lawson]

Argentina had a very strong team last time around and they were expected to compete against France and Ireland....which they did.

 

It was a perhaps a surprise that they topped the group against a heavily favoured France but those who followed the international game in any great depth would have been unsurprised to see Argentina compete so well against Northern Hemisphere sides. You have to take into account that Ireland have a very poor record against Southern Hemisphere sides.

 

And then in the quarters we ran them close before they got put out by a very impressive South African side.

 

Lets not forget they defeated your very own England (who made the final) at the end of 2006 and also defeated Ireland twice in the lead up to the World Cup.

 

Since the 99 World Cup Argentina have gone from strength to strengh, perhaps their momentum is now coming to an end with an ageing side.

 

Yes they didn't have a professional league in Argentina but the majority of their top players did play professional rugby abroad.

 

Oh, no doubt the quality of Argentina's side in the years leading up to the '07 RWC. But with their draw, you'd have struggled to find anyone anywhere backing them to make the semis: the best case scenario seemed to be 2nd in the group, followed by inevitable exit in the quarters to the All Blacks.

 

That instead, they ended up 3rd - and for my money, were quite conceivably the 2nd best team in the whole event - was extraordinary, and represented an epic statement on their part. Keep in mind that before the '07 RWC, only one Big Five team had ever lost to non-Big Five opponents at a World Cup - and that was before England were considered an elite side anyway, when Wales beat us in 1987. Yet the Pumas promptly went and did it twice in the same event, against the hosts.

 

Yes, the majority of their players play professional rugby overseas - but their schedule at every World Cup before this one has been completely unfair because they'd always been unseeded; and the point is that, in between World Cups, they effectively play no internationals with any real meaning attached to them at all. All the traditional sides plus Italy play such games every year; Argentina have found themselves consigned more or less to oblivion by the IRB, which made their achievements in 2007 all the more laudable.

[leginten]

In my view the two France vs Argentina encounters at either end of the tournament were by a distance the outstanding matches of RWC 2007. Two of the most enthralling internationals I've seen for a long, long time. The magnificence of the second game was all the more surprising in that it came in the match no-one usually wants to play.

[Ray Winstone]

Oh, no doubt the quality of Argentina's side in the years leading up to the '07 RWC. But with their draw, you'd have struggled to find anyone anywhere backing them to make the semis: the best case scenario seemed to be 2nd in the group, followed by inevitable exit in the quarters to the All Blacks.

 

That instead, they ended up 3rd - and for my money, were quite conceivably the 2nd best team in the whole event - was extraordinary, and represented an epic statement on their part. Keep in mind that before the '07 RWC, only one Big Five team had ever lost to non-Big Five opponents at a World Cup - and that was before England were considered an elite side anyway, when Wales beat us in 1987. Yet the Pumas promptly went and did it twice in the same event, against the hosts.

 

Yes, the majority of their players play professional rugby overseas - but their schedule at every World Cup before this one has been completely unfair because they'd always been unseeded; and the point is that, in between World Cups, they effectively play no internationals with any real meaning attached to them at all. All the traditional sides plus Italy play such games every year; Argentina have found themselves consigned more or less to oblivion by the IRB, which made their achievements in 2007 all the more laudable.

 

As I said, 2 victories over Ireland and as well as beating England and Wales (twice) in the years leading up to the world cup (and a draw with the Lions side before the toured NZ with a second choice side) showed that they had the strength to compete with the home nations sides.

 

The only surprise really was their margin of victory over a French side who buckled under severe public pressure to perform.

 

They were then expected to beat Scotland and to be defeated by SA.

 

One surprise victory and they got to the semi-finals, that is not a complete shock if you ask me, and anyone who follows rugby closely would agree that they were not surprised to see Argentina put in an appearance in the semi finals following their test results in the years leading up to it.

[Denny Crane]

As I said, 2 victories over Ireland and as well as beating England and Wales (twice) in the years leading up to the world cup (and a draw with the Lions side before the toured NZ with a second choice side) showed that they had the strength to compete with the home nations sides.

 

The only surprise really was their margin of victory over a French side who buckled under severe public pressure to perform.

 

They were then expected to beat Scotland and to be defeated by SA.

 

One surprise victory and they got to the semi-finals, that is not a complete shock if you ask me, and anyone who follows rugby closely would agree that they were not surprised to see Argentina put in an appearance in the semi finals following their test results in the years leading up to it.

 

There was the possibility of them grabbing second spot in their pool at Ireland's expense but the odds were not in their favour given that this was a strong Irish team. Had they done that then the All Blacks would have ended their involvement. To go and top the pool at the host nation's (France) expense was a real shock and avoided the need to play the NZL as the draw had them up against ourselves in a tie that was too close to call (Scotland remember were an outstretched finger-tip from Sean Lamont in the final play of the game from knocking Argentina out and making the last four).

Prior to that tournament, Argentina had been getting one off results against Six Nations sides in test matches but stringing a run together like they did in 2007 was a surprise and confirmed that they had stepped up to the next stage of their ongoing development.

As for their players mostly playing in for Northern Hemisphere clubs. First of all, they had to start somewhere and no doubt had to work harder to get noticed or even fund themselves abroad in order to "take a chance" on their career(s). Even so, given the NH calendar is not conducive to aiding a Southern Hemisphere nation in preparing for internationals, the Puma players would invariably be more fatigued for a SH international campaign. Which makes what they have done in recent years more remarkable. There is talk of establishing an Argentine franchise or two in the Super 15 club rugby competition. Their progress could rocket if they firstly, are established and secondly, attract their stars back "home" and do well in it.

 

And yes I do follow rugby closely having reported on the game in Scotland and internationally for seven years prior to moving to my current position last year.

[Ray Winstone]

There was the possibility of them grabbing second spot in their pool at Ireland's expense but the odds were not in their favour given that this was a strong Irish team. Had they done that then the All Blacks would have ended their involvement. To go and top the pool at the host nation's (France) expense was a real shock and avoided the need to play the NZL as the draw had them up against ourselves in a tie that was too close to call (Scotland remember were an outstretched finger-tip from Sean Lamont in the final play of the game from knocking Argentina out and making the last four).

Prior to that tournament, Argentina had been getting one off results against Six Nations sides in test matches but stringing a run together like they did in 2007 was a surprise and confirmed that they had stepped up to the next stage of their ongoing development.

As for their players mostly playing in for Northern Hemisphere clubs. First of all, they had to start somewhere and no doubt had to work harder to get noticed or even fund themselves abroad in order to "take a chance" on their career(s). Even so, given the NH calendar is not conducive to aiding a Southern Hemisphere nation in preparing for internationals, the Puma players would invariably be more fatigued for a SH international campaign. Which makes what they have done in recent years more remarkable. There is talk of establishing an Argentine franchise or two in the Super 15 club rugby competition. Their progress could rocket if they firstly, are established and secondly, attract their stars back "home" and do well in it.

 

And yes I do follow rugby closely having reported on the game in Scotland and internationally for seven years prior to moving to my current position last year.

 

 

Drawing with a Lions team, beating England, Wales twice and Ireland twice is not what would be described as 'one off results'.

 

Look at the facts and not the 'assumptions' gentleman and you will see that it was no shock - Argentina had been putting results together against 6 nations sides in the years leading up to the 2007 World Cup.

 

They beat 3 of those 6 nations sides on their way to a semi-final place.

 

No shock there.

 

And as someone with some experience in the 'journalism industry' I have come across many an 'expert reporter' who didn't know their erse from their elbow and would report on hear-say and...you guessed it....assumptions.

 

:greggy: