**The OFFICIAL Rugby World Cup Thread**

[Bert Le Clos]

What are people's opinions on how these smaller nations can improve? Yes it's a good thing Argentina will be playing in the Tri-Nations on paper, but in theory would they not have been better being entered into the 6 Nations?

 

The distance from Argentina to Europe is not far different from the distance to Oz/NZ or SA. The majority of Argentina's squad play in Europe, and I would think there would be far more support from ex-pat Argies and Latin sympathisers in Europe than in any of the Southern Hemisphere nations.

 

However, in the game's current format, I would like to see a 6 Nations qualifying tournament held at the time of the Autumn/Winter internationals, where the 2nd teir European sides compete for a place in the following years 6 (7) Nations. The likes of Spain, Portugal, Russia, Romania, Georgia etc. could compete with the winner of the group/knockout competition taking a place in the main tournament the following season.

 

This would give sides something real to compete for, and could be run along with the Churchill Cup.

 

Distance would be more of a problem, but could a similar thing be done with the Pacific(ish) teams, with USA, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga competing for a place in the following seasons Tri-Nations? It would perhaps be more appropriate for these teams if one country were to host say a month long competition rather than teams travelling huge distances to home or away fixtures.

[shaun.lawson]

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.

 

Right, so let's get this straight. If Scotland - always competitive against other home unions, with far more of a tradition than Argentina, far more resources than Argentina, far more of an obvious opportunity of reaching the semis (because your probable quarter-final wasn't against New Zealand, and turned out to be against... Argentina); and who, unlike Argentina, were seeded; had reached the last four, then thrashed hosts France 34-10 with a magnificent, flowing, open performance of running rugby - you wouldn't have hailed it, but instead, would've gone "meh. It was always on the cards"?

 

:keys:

 

What are people's opinions on how these smaller nations can improve? Yes it's a good thing Argentina will be playing in the Tri-Nations on paper, but in theory would they not have been better being entered into the 6 Nations?

 

The distance from Argentina to Europe is not far different from the distance to Oz/NZ or SA. The majority of Argentina's squad play in Europe, and I would think there would be far more support from ex-pat Argies and Latin sympathisers in Europe than in any of the Southern Hemisphere nations.

 

However, in the game's current format, I would like to see a 6 Nations qualifying tournament held at the time of the Autumn/Winter internationals, where the 2nd teir European sides compete for a place in the following years 6 (7) Nations. The likes of Spain, Portugal, Russia, Romania, Georgia etc. could compete with the winner of the group/knockout competition taking a place in the main tournament the following season.

 

This would give sides something real to compete for, and could be run along with the Churchill Cup.

 

Distance would be more of a problem, but could a similar thing be done with the Pacific(ish) teams, with USA, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga competing for a place in the following seasons Tri-Nations? It would perhaps be more appropriate for these teams if one country were to host say a month long competition rather than teams travelling huge distances to home or away fixtures.

 

The great difference between Argentina and all other developing nations is that they're always so strong in the pack. So many other sides have real talent - but just get bulldozed up front. That's how Scotland scrambled past Fiji in 2003; how France, aided considerably by the most lamentable, embarrassing refereeing performance of Paddy O'Brien's generally illustrious career, also beat Fiji wholly undeservedly in 1999; and how Japan have lost to far less talented opponents time and time again. To be frank, Japan will never be a rugby power until a handicap system is invented.

 

The Pumas' potential was apparent in the time of the great Hugo Porta, and even more so in 1995, when they lost all three pool matches, but probably should've won the lot: they just didn't have any kind of reliable place kicker, which did for them again last weekend, of course. But their innate rugby talent is marvellous, and I've long believed the World Cup should be held either there or jointly between them and Uruguay. That'd do absolute wonders for the development of the sport.

 

But then, the IRB - content with leaving Argentina to rot; allowing the Pacific Islanders to be continually stripped of all their talent by New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, Australia, both of whom hardly even deign to play Test matches in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga (rape the countries, then ignore them: delightful ); giving the developing sides disgraceful, ruinous schedules at World Cups, while their professional opponents get a full week to recover between matches; providing monstrously little extra funding for the developing nations; and allowing these sides to be victims of ludicrous refereeing bias time and time again, aren't much interested in development.

 

The final straw was when, instead of giving this year's World Cup to Japan, they stuck with the tried and tested, and went with New Zealand instead. I remember spitting with rage about that decision: only made because the NZRFU have friends on the International Board, and behaved as though it was their divine right to host it.

 

And even now, why the Pumas haven't been allowed into what'd become a Seven Nations is simply beyond me. This is an age of jet travel. Why on earth can't the home unions travel there, even mid-season? What is the big deal here? The solution which has been arrived at instead will no doubt result in the Tri Nations continuing to patronise Argentina, and probably sending second string sides there. It's all very unsatisfactory - but that's the IRB for you. Making money's what they're all about: the actual good of the game hardly matters to them at all.

[DETTY29]

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

I agree.

 

Scotland should have beaten Argentina in the quarters but for 2 key problems:-

 

Dan Parks

 

And our now 20 year inability to pass the ball from scrum half to our backs. Gary Armstrong included, who was an outstanding 4th back row man.

[shaun.lawson]

I agree.

 

Scotland should have beaten Argentina in the quarters but for 2 key problems:-

 

Dan Parks

 

And our now 20 year inability to pass the ball from scrum half to our backs. Gary Armstrong included, who was an outstanding 4th back row man.

 

I'd add a third problem to those. Total lack of ambition and belief until it was too late.

 

Scotland's rugby at the 2007 event was generally awful. Spooked by what had happened at Murrayfield against Italy earlier in the year, Hadden effectively coached all the running rugby out of the side, and just beefed them up to an almost ridiculous extent instead.

 

This left the team unable to play much attractive rugby; and, as ever, obsessed with reaching the quarter-finals. This is Scotland's one and only target at every single bloody World Cup. So guess what happens? You get knocked out at that stage every time.

 

The team finally woke up to the massive opportunity it had against Argentina only in the final 10 or 15 minutes. The Pumas were openly tiring and trying to defend their way to victory - but Scotland's over-cautious, Pyrrhic approach got what it deserved. Someone ought to tell the short-term obsessed SRU that, when Wales and Ireland got knocked out in the first round in 2007, both went on to win the Grand Slam over the subsequent two Championships; and that when the Irish lost to Argentina in 1999, rather than the sky fall in and the end of the world become nigh, they actually embarked on far and away their most successful decade at international level ever.

 

But all the SRU - and actually, far too many Scotland fans - ever worry about, is reaching the last eight. It's a philosophy which restricts coach after coach, and is as self-fulfilling and limiting as they come.

[DETTY29]

I'd add a third problem to those. Total lack of ambition and belief until it was too late.

 

Scotland's rugby at the 2007 event was generally awful. Spooked by what had happened at Murrayfield against Italy earlier in the year, Hadden effectively coached all the running rugby out of the side, and just beefed them up to an almost ridiculous extent instead.

 

This left the team unable to play much attractive rugby; and, as ever, obsessed with reaching the quarter-finals. This is Scotland's one and only target at every single bloody World Cup. So guess what happens? You get knocked out at that stage every time.

 

The team finally woke up to the massive opportunity it had against Argentina only in the final 10 or 15 minutes. The Pumas were openly tiring and trying to defend their way to victory - but Scotland's over-cautious, Pyrrhic approach got what it deserved. Someone ought to tell the short-term obsessed SRU that, when Wales and Ireland got knocked out in the first round in 2007, both went on to win the Grand Slam over the subsequent two Championships; and that when the Irish lost to Argentina in 1999, rather than the sky fall in and the end of the world become nigh, they actually embarked on far and away their most successful decade at international level ever.

 

But all the SRU - and actually, far too many Scotland fans - ever worry about, is reaching the last eight. It's a philosophy which restricts coach after coach, and is as self-fulfilling and limiting as they come.

Shaun,

 

Interestingly you didn't recognise my second point.

 

Since Laidlaw and Rutherford we have never had half backs who can pass a flat ball at pace into the backs midrifs.

 

Why is that?

 

Over cautious tactics?

 

Forwards not getting the ball back quick enough? I think we've had a good pack for a while now.

 

Or is it simply a realisation we can never put much more than 3 or 4 very good players on the pitch at a single moment in time and we have to go horses for courses - Something some Hearts fans are already starting to wish PS would revert too.

[leginten]

But all the SRU - and actually, far too many Scotland fans - ever worry about, is reaching the last eight. It's a philosophy which restricts coach after coach, and is as self-fulfilling and limiting as they come.

 

I think it's more than that. We're looking at an extraordinary dearth of good, international-class players behind the scrum over a period which now stretches back at least ten years. When our players try to play fast, expansive rugby they drop the ball. Our version of fast also looks like France in slow motion. And in terms of ambition, don't forget that we're talking about the SRU here - the organisation which, a few years ago and apparently with a straight face, devoted time and money to coming out with the laughable mission statement that had Scotland pitching to become the best rugby nation in the world.

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun,

 

Interestingly you didn't recognise my second point.

 

Since Laidlaw and Rutherford we have never had half backs who can pass a flat ball at pace into the backs midrifs.

 

Why is that?

 

Over cautious tactics?

 

Forwards not getting the ball back quick enough? I think we've had a good pack for a while now.

 

Or is it simply a realisation we can never put much more than 3 or 4 very good players on the pitch at a single moment in time and we have to go horses for courses - Something some Hearts fans are already starting to wish PS would revert too.

 

I'm going to be frank about this. At the last World Cup, there really wasn't much difference in ability levels between Scotland and England. England spent most of the first round looking no better than the abject Welsh and Irish sides of much of the 90s, for whom the quarter-finals represented real achievement. OK, we had Wilko - but he was a pale shadow of the player he'd been in '03 anyway, and we were World Champions in name only.

 

Yet what happened? A squad of bloody-minded Englishmen refused to go down in history like that. Their attitude made all the difference, as did Australian and French complacency. Attitude and mindset makes a quite colossal difference in international rugby; and it won't matter who Scotland have or don't have at half back if your national obsession with just reaching the quarter-finalists is never thrown off.

[shaun.lawson]

I think it's more than that. We're looking at an extraordinary dearth of good, international-class players behind the scrum over a period which now stretches back at least ten years. When our players try to play fast, expansive rugby they drop the ball. Our version of fast also looks like France in slow motion. And in terms of ambition, don't forget that we're talking about the SRU here - the organisation which, a few years ago and apparently with a straight face, devoted time and money to coming out with the laughable mission statement that had Scotland pitching to become the best rugby nation in the world.

 

Oh, I agree about basic skill levels. Among the traditional Big Eight nations, Scotland's basic skill levels have been the worst for aeons. Thing is though, England's are frequently second worst - yet it doesn't stop us. Why?

 

And sure: people can point to our huge advantage in terms of resources and playing population. Yet the England side four years ago was complete horseshit - but ended up in the final regardless.

[Denny Crane]

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:

 

But their run and the French and Irish results in particular were a shock given the strength of those respective squads. To humiliate the host nation in the manner that they did was a surprise. At the risk of repeating myself, while the possibility of them sneaking past Ireland for the second qualifying spot was there, no one (the Puma players excepted of course) expected them to top the group. A potential quarter-final (as runner up in that pool) against New Zealand was the best that many pundits (who have played at the highest level - not just writers) thought they could do if they turned up and Ireland didn't. That they were able to avoid the All Blacks by topping their group and gaining a more 'even' quarter-final draw with Scotland was a surprise (and it was even given how Scotland - as stated earlier - nearly won the game with the final play).

 

As for their results beforehand. The Lions I'll give you but in the wider context, a few weeks after that game showed this to be one of the most disjointed Lions team since the 83 tourists as the All Blacks not just beat but destroyed them. England were ripe for the picking when they met in 2006 and had lost six beforehand. This one sealed Andy Robinson's fate.

Ireland and Wales sent weakened squads (the Irish especially: O'Driscoll, D'Arcy, O'Gara and O'Connell stayed at home) to Argentina for the tours which I'm assuming you were referring to. Argentina dispatched them but a proper gauge of where their real standard actually lay couldn't be taken until the 2007 World Cup came along. Winning six games out of seven - five of which played against established opposition who could not claim the "our better players were left behind" card and that they produced this display and run of results away from home (they once had the tag of being "bad travellers").

 

Your insult at the end is duly noted and not at all surprising.

 

 

What are people's opinions on how these smaller nations can improve? Yes it's a good thing Argentina will be playing in the Tri-Nations on paper, but in theory would they not have been better being entered into the 6 Nations?

 

The distance from Argentina to Europe is not far different from the distance to Oz/NZ or SA. The majority of Argentina's squad play in Europe, and I would think there would be far more support from ex-pat Argies and Latin sympathisers in Europe than in any of the Southern Hemisphere nations.

 

However, in the game's current format, I would like to see a 6 Nations qualifying tournament held at the time of the Autumn/Winter internationals, where the 2nd teir European sides compete for a place in the following years 6 (7) Nations. The likes of Spain, Portugal, Russia, Romania, Georgia etc. could compete with the winner of the group/knockout competition taking a place in the main tournament the following season.

 

This would give sides something real to compete for, and could be run along with the Churchill Cup.

 

Distance would be more of a problem, but could a similar thing be done with the Pacific(ish) teams, with USA, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga competing for a place in the following seasons Tri-Nations? It would perhaps be more appropriate for these teams if one country were to host say a month long competition rather than teams travelling huge distances to home or away fixtures.

 

Argentina had been lobbying constantly to join one of the two competitions. The Six Nations was their preferred choice given that most of their players play professionally in the Northern Hemisphere and they wanted to go into that competition on an equal footing (ie. their players playing club rugby at the same time as everyone else as opposed to taking on the Southern hemisphere's big three with players fatigued by a long club season against SH players whose own club campaign would have only just started and be more fresher than the Argentines). They even offered to play their "home games" in Spain but for some reason (inverted snobbery is my hunch), the Six Nations were not having it.

They'll play in the Tri Nations next year but a franchise or two based in Argentina must be (IMO) established and added to the Super 15 competition that is competed for by clubs in NZL, Aus and SA otherwise I fear (although I may be proved wrong) they will struggle with players coming off the back of long European seasons with their clubs.

As for the other European nations on the fringes, there is a second tier competition (European Nations Cup which has a couple of its former winners already playing in the Six Nations). Georgia and Romania have dominated this of late but, the Six Nations doesn't want to know. Portugal and Spain also play in this and if at some point, one or both of them start to dominate this competition then the cynic in me suggests the Six Nations would see the nations, populations and respective media frameworks of the two to be very attractive in terms of marketing, TV deals - more lucrative than anything the two former Eastern Bloc nations already mentioned would have to offer. Again we're back to my hunch of inverted snobbery and while I hope that is not the reason for not extending the invite to Georgia and Romania, a part of me thinks it is.

I personally think there should be a promotion/relegation set up between the Six Nations and the European Nations Cup with the bottom side of the former travelling to the winner of the latter in a winner-take-all play-off match - after all, if the Six Nations is meant to be of a higher standard, surely its worst team in any given season could handle a match in Georgia with ease? Only I think they don't want to take the chance and I know that one turkey in particular (stand up the SRU) does not want to vote for Christmas.

[DETTY29]

I think it's more than that. We're looking at an extraordinary dearth of good, international-class players behind the scrum over a period which now stretches back at least ten years. When our players try to play fast, expansive rugby they drop the ball. Our version of fast also looks like France in slow motion. And in terms of ambition, don't forget that we're talking about the SRU here - the organisation which, a few years ago and apparently with a straight face, devoted time and money to coming out with the laughable mission statement that had Scotland pitching to become the best rugby nation in the world.

We were probably the last 'major' international rugby tean to embrace professionalism.

 

I also get your point re our version of fast.

 

Scottish football clubs are now embracing possession football. But possesion for the sake of it - and lethargic

 

Football is now about fast possesion, closing down when not in possession. We are about 20 years behind.

[shaun.lawson]

 

I personally think there should be a promotion/relegation set up between the Six Nations and the European Nations Cup with the bottom side of the former travelling to the winner of the latter in a winner-take-all play-off match - after all, if the Six Nations is meant to be of a higher standard, surely its worst team in any given season could handle a match in Georgia with ease? Only I think they don't want to take the chance and I know that one turkey in particular (stand up the SRU) does not want to vote for Christmas.

 

Spot on.

[Denny Crane]

I agree.

 

Scotland should have beaten Argentina in the quarters but for 2 key problems:-

 

Dan Parks

 

 

Dan was culpable for what proved to be the match-winning try but in fairness to him, that was his only error of that tournament (voted as Scotland's best player in that year's RWC) and had Sean Lamont been able to catch his cross-kick on the Argentine line, Parks would have set up Scotland's winning try.

 

I'd add a third problem to those. Total lack of ambition and belief until it was too late.

 

Scotland's rugby at the 2007 event was generally awful. Spooked by what had happened at Murrayfield against Italy earlier in the year, Hadden effectively coached all the running rugby out of the side, and just beefed them up to an almost ridiculous extent instead.

 

This left the team unable to play much attractive rugby; and, as ever, obsessed with reaching the quarter-finals. This is Scotland's one and only target at every single bloody World Cup. So guess what happens? You get knocked out at that stage every time.

 

The team finally woke up to the massive opportunity it had against Argentina only in the final 10 or 15 minutes. The Pumas were openly tiring and trying to defend their way to victory - but Scotland's over-cautious, Pyrrhic approach got what it deserved. Someone ought to tell the short-term obsessed SRU that, when Wales and Ireland got knocked out in the first round in 2007, both went on to win the Grand Slam over the subsequent two Championships; and that when the Irish lost to Argentina in 1999, rather than the sky fall in and the end of the world become nigh, they actually embarked on far and away their most successful decade at international level ever.

 

But all the SRU - and actually, far too many Scotland fans - ever worry about, is reaching the last eight. It's a philosophy which restricts coach after coach, and is as self-fulfilling and limiting as they come.

 

Spot on. I long for a repeat of 1991 when we reached the semis and the chance to better that finish.

 

Shaun,

 

Interestingly you didn't recognise my second point.

 

Since Laidlaw and Rutherford we have never had half backs who can pass a flat ball at pace into the backs midrifs.

 

Why is that?

 

Over cautious tactics?

 

Forwards not getting the ball back quick enough? I think we've had a good pack for a while now.

 

Or is it simply a realisation we can never put much more than 3 or 4 very good players on the pitch at a single moment in time and we have to go horses for courses - Something some Hearts fans are already starting to wish PS would revert too.

 

Armstrong and Chalmers were a pretty useful 9/10 combo as were Armstrong and Townsend. Admittedly it does help and inspire confidence when the likes of Tait, Lineen, Leslie, Metcalfe and the Hastings boys are behind you. Is that the issue? A lack of confidence in one's team-mates? I hope not but it would not at all surprise me.

 

Oh, I agree about basic skill levels. Among the traditional Big Eight nations, Scotland's basic skill levels have been the worst for aeons. Thing is though, England's are frequently second worst - yet it doesn't stop us. Why?

 

And sure: people can point to our huge advantage in terms of resources and playing population. Yet the England side four years ago was complete horseshit - but ended up in the final regardless.

 

I would say that England have acquired the art of being more 'streetwise' (for want of a better term) and savvy in certain situations that they know they can dig deep, disrupt the opposing team's flow and pattern and ultimately grind out a victory. Scotland are clueless in this respect whereas England are not. Take the recent England v Argentina game. Had that been Scotland v Argentina do you think the Pumas still would have lost? I personally doubt it.

[Kiwidoug]

Reading through all this I think people are overly nervous about Scotland's ability and chances in this toutnament. They have developed a winning habit and their pack was immense against Georgia.

 

I'm going to watch them train tomorrow and I'll be telling them that everyone on Kickback is 100% behind them.

[Harry Palmer]

Reading through all this I think people are overly nervous about Scotland's ability and chances in this toutnament. They have developed a winning habit and their pack was immense against Georgia.

 

I'm going to watch them train tomorrow and I'll be telling them that everyone on Kickback is 100% behind them.

 

Report what Dan Parks does....

 

He's mince.

[Ray Winstone]

Reading through all this I think people are overly nervous about Scotland's ability and chances in this toutnament. They have developed a winning habit and their pack was immense against Georgia.

 

I'm going to watch them train tomorrow and I'll be telling them that everyone on Kickback is 100% behind them.

 

 

We won't be able to play our best scrumager against Argentina because of his religious beliefs. Geoff Cross and Ally Dickinson are not the answer, even against a weakening Argentinian pack.

 

And just to clarify in 'rugby circles' Argentina making the semis in 07 was not a massive upset, as some on here would have you believe.

 

I prefer to go with the opinons of people that have been involved at the very top level of rugby...opinions that are backed up with hard evidence gentlemen....

[chrissyd2003]

there is some knoweledgable rugby brains on this forum learning alot fair play.

Im out in NZ now and enjoying the rugby getting into it, never was a rugby man, but even the Japan v NZ game last night was entertaining everyone knew who would win but i was up off the chair when the Japanese boy scored, and watching some of the NZ ball handling was class, sunnyville williams (a boxer by trade im told) running with the ball in one hand was quality.

This brings me to the ball handling situation with Scotland, even though they were terrible against Georgia, I have see the same slippery ball syndrome in loads of other Scotland games, granted it was a wet night but If NZ were playing in the same conditions they could still pull off a string of passes without some numpty dropping the ball.. Isnt handling just basic for a proffessional rugby player, you either have it or not, and how can they get away with making so many mistakes..???

[chrissyd2003]

there is some knoweledgable rugby brains on this forum learning alot fair play.

Im out in NZ now and enjoying the rugby getting into it, never was a rugby man, but even the Japan v NZ game last night was entertaining everyone knew who would win but i was up off the chair when the Japanese boy scored, and watching some of the NZ ball handling was class, sunnyville williams (a boxer by trade im told) running with the ball in one hand was quality.

This brings me to the ball handling situation with Scotland, even though they were terrible against Georgia, I have see the same slippery ball syndrome in loads of other Scotland games, granted it was a wet night but If NZ were playing in the same conditions they could still pull off a string of passes without some numpty dropping the ball.. Isnt handling just basic for a proffessional rugby player, you either have it or not, and how can they get away with making so many mistakes..???

 

 

just watched the argentina game and sorry to be negative but they will pump us, hope it doesnt happen though..

[kingantti1874]

I'm always a little confused as to why people expect Scotland to be a competitive rugby nation, it's no more than a minority sport in this country largely ignored outside outside of private education...

 

The numbers playing in each of the other home nations are far greater than they are here... I actually think we do ok and are probably picking at or above our weight..

[chrissyd2003]

I think we have had a head start as rugby nation compared to some, has to count for something, not sure of that though? I always want my country to do well just flustrating to see them getting basics wrong. Fair point in that its a minority sport but just with our history would like us to do a bit better..

 

I'm always a little confused as to why people expect Scotland to be a competitive rugby nation, it's no more than a minority sport in this country largely ignored outside outside of private education...

 

The numbers playing in each of the other home nations are far greater than they are here... I actually think we do ok and are probably picking at or above our weight..

[magicTs]

Argentina gave an excellent performance earlier though I did feel that Romania were not quite as concentrated and their application was not as great as it was in the opener against us. Not taking anything away fro the Argies though as they had some tremendous passages of play and there was a real continuity about their game. Thought the full back had a superb game and we definitely need to watch out for him. The conditions were a lot better than either of our matches as well. However the warning signs are there for Scotland and we need to cut out a hell of a lot of the basic errors as they will punish us far more severely.

 

South Africa have also stepped up their game massively after a well below par showing against the Welsh. Fiji have been brushed aside and the SA pack has dominated them from start to finish. Pretty impressive given several key players out.

 

Looking forward to the Ireland v Australia now, probably the big game of the World Cup so far.

[kingantti1874]

I think we have had a head start as rugby nation compared to some, has to count for something, not sure of that though? I always want my country to do well just flustrating to see them getting basics wrong. Fair point in that its a minority sport but just with our history would like us to do a bit better..

 

Aye fair enough mate, I watch it and hope Scotland do well also.. However - like football history doesn't count for much and given the comparatively small number who watch, and tiny number who play the game we are always going to struggle against countries who play the game in far larger number... I worked in Ireland for a year and was genuinely surprised at how popular it was and how many people were involved in some way.

 

But as I said above I think we do ok, given the number who play down south - we punch well above our comparative weight compared to England. I think we will beat one of Argentina or England

[chrissyd2003]

Aye fair enough mate, I watch it and hope Scotland do well also.. However - like football history doesn't count for much and given the comparatively small number who watch, and tiny number who play the game we are always going to struggle against countries who play the game in far larger number... I worked in Ireland for a year and was genuinely surprised at how popular it was and how many people were involved in some way.

 

But as I said above I think we do ok, given the number who play down south - we punch well above our comparative weight compared to England. I think we will beat one of Argentina or England

 

 

would love to see that, mon scotland

[Bert Le Clos]

I personally think there should be a promotion/relegation set up between the Six Nations and the European Nations Cup with the bottom side of the former travelling to the winner of the latter in a winner-take-all play-off match - after all, if the Six Nations is meant to be of a higher standard, surely its worst team in any given season could handle a match in Georgia with ease? Only I think they don't want to take the chance and I know that one turkey in particular (stand up the SRU) does not want to vote for Christmas.

 

I can't agree with a play-off. I think it's highly unlikely the side finishing top of the European Nations would ever be able to beat even the side finshing bottom of the 6 Nations in a one off match carrying such importance. I'd prefer to see the winner of the European Nations promoted to make a 7 Nations, which would then give them 6 matches against top 10 sides for at least a year.

 

After that I top side from the European Nations Cup should be promoted, and the side finishing bottom of the 6 Nations relegated.

 

I'm always a little confused as to why people expect Scotland to be a competitive rugby nation, it's no more than a minority sport in this country largely ignored outside outside of private education...

 

The numbers playing in each of the other home nations are far greater than they are here... I actually think we do ok and are probably picking at or above our weight..

 

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. It's certainly far less popular in the west, but in the East and the Borders I would suggest playing numbers probably rival football. Obviously in the country as a whole football dwarfs rugby, but I think Scottish sport in general is probably low in numbers compared to other countries of similar sizze, but that's another argument.

 

I play for Musselburgh RFC, who have youth teams from Primary 3 right up to U18, and 3 senior sides which is more than the majority of local football clubs provide.

[Homme]

Ireland are impressing early on against the Aussies. Winning 6-3 currently.

[magicTs]

The goalkicking in this World Cup so far has been pretty brutal.

[Harry Palmer]

Ireland 9-6 and had the chance to go 12-6.

 

Think they might win here.

[neilnunb]

Irish are playing really well. Oh man, so unlucky from that penalty that hit the post. Can't help but think they're gonna rue these missed chances.

[magicTs]

Sexton may well cost the Irish, 3 great opportunities all missed.

[Harry Palmer]

I'm retracting my previous post and on board the neilnunb bus.

[Sexton Hardcastle]

The goalkicking in this World Cup so far has been pretty brutal.

 

Martin Johnson was claiming the ball was at fault.

 

Wilko would never miss 2 in a row let alone 4/5 or what ever he missed the other night.

[neilnunb]

surely now O'Gara is on they should put him onto the penalty kicking.

[Harry Palmer]

Further retraction and I'm going with my other post!

 

12-6

[neilnunb]

surely now O'Gara is on they should put him onto the penalty kicking.

 

 

they must have heard me 12-6

[rossthejambo]

Martin Johnson was claiming the ball was at fault.

 

Wilko would never miss 2 in a row let alone 4/5 or what ever he missed the other night.

 

I thought they'd been playing with the ball for the last year? Not sure it's a valid excuse tbh.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

This to wrap it up!!

[Harry Palmer]

Ireland are going to win.

 

15-6

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

This is the best the Irish forwards have played in 3 years - the back row has been magnificent as has Rory Best at hooker.

[Harry Palmer]

This is the best the Irish forwards have played in 3 years - the back row has been magnificent as has Rory Best at hooker.

 

Have to agree. Totally dominant in the scrum which has led to a few penalties being awarded.

 

Edit: WTF was that pass about?

[neilnunb]

Aussies piling on the pressure and so close, but surely the Irish can hold on with so little time left.

[Harry Palmer]

ITV commentator: "They've got their noses over the white line!"

[Say What Again]

Ohhh!!

 

That would have been the icing on the cake.

[Harry Palmer]

Ireland have done it...

 

Was shouting "Run ya ****!"

[Tiberius Stinkfinger]

Great stuff !!

[Homme]

Great stuff. Well done Ireland

[Harry Palmer]

How do you get a losing bonus point?

 

Well done Ireland.

[Sexton Hardcastle]

By loosing than fewer than 7 points

[rossthejambo]

How do you get a losing bonus point?

 

Well done Ireland.

 

Lose by less than a try (I think)

 

Good on them, very well deserved. My tips are doing what all my tips tend to do, perform utter pish

[Harry Palmer]

By not loosing by fewer than 7 points

 

 

Lose by less than a try (I think)

 

Good on them, very well deserved. My tips are doing what all my tips tend to do, perform utter pish

 

Cheers...don't understand it but there you are.

 

Just seems weird...

[Prince Buaben]

Good Win for Ireland

[Jamdub]

Great result for Ireland...... Nobody will live with the All Blacks in this and most other World Cups, FACT....