Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Rugby WC 2011
shame Tonga didnt make it
nor did Scotland, though they really deserved it against a defensive non-inspired England.
nor did Scotland, though they really deserved it against a defensive non-inspired England.
The way things are faring, France and England both playing well below their best, it could quite easily be NZ v Wales/Ireland in the final.
as i predicted...ireland wins their group and SA will face AU in the quarters :)
if`s funny that 2 matches will be between southern hemisphere teams and 2 with northern hemisphere teams...NZ-Argentina, SA-Au, Fr-En and Ir-Wales :)
if`s funny that 2 matches will be between southern hemisphere teams and 2 with northern hemisphere teams...NZ-Argentina, SA-Au, Fr-En and Ir-Wales :)
It is a little bit. Strange how it works sometimes. What's not really funny is that there is only one NH side playing any kind of rugby atm and in form and that's Wales. Will be difficult to swallow should any other side in that side of the draw qualify. England and France have been well below par with England clearly showing a desire to cheat at all costs. Ireland rely on receiving scrum penalties but I'm pretty confident that will change against Wales.
I would expect NZ,England and Wales to progress through to the semi finals, I'm not sure about Aus v SA. Ordinarily I'd back in Australia but we've hardly looked like the side that won the Tri Nations a few weeks back. Could be interesting.
I would expect NZ,England and Wales to progress through to the semi finals, I'm not sure about Aus v SA. Ordinarily I'd back in Australia but we've hardly looked like the side that won the Tri Nations a few weeks back. Could be interesting.
??
Did Scotland "deserve it"? Romania, maybe, yeah, sure, Romania!!!
It was clearly the most complicated group, and just looking at the score of the matches between the three top teams you realize that it was not easy for any of them and that, in fact, you could say that of any of the three.
In these situations, at the end of the day, the details decide, that "little something" that gives someone the plus. And with regard to that, Scotland is, unfortunately for them, the team that lacked "that little something": it's not only that they lost two games in the last 10 minutes, but also that they did not even scored tries in those games. We can't seriously expect to be in a WC quarterfinal without scoring a try against at least one of your main opponents (come on, Canada scored 2 against NZ!!! :P).
Those three matches were so close that the story could have been entirely different (the Pumas could have beaten England and Scotland could have beaten England and now England would be out... Scotland could have kept its concentration in one of the two matches and now they would be in QF). Where was the difference? It was in the fact that two of these 3 teams did what they have to do in at least one match.
So: undeserved? really? who did "deserve it" better?
Of course, these Pumas are not close to those of 2007 (some players retire, Juan Martín Hernández is for the Pumas more important than what Dan Carter is for NZ) but that's precisely the good thing: not being at their best, their managed not to fail exactly when in previous WC they had failed (2003, for instance).
In any case, the big three (NZ, Aus, SA) are in a different league, and out of the three, NZ seems now to be practically unstoppable, so I only hope the Pumas lose with some dignity, that's my only expectation for next Sunday :P
Did Scotland "deserve it"? Romania, maybe, yeah, sure, Romania!!!
It was clearly the most complicated group, and just looking at the score of the matches between the three top teams you realize that it was not easy for any of them and that, in fact, you could say that of any of the three.
In these situations, at the end of the day, the details decide, that "little something" that gives someone the plus. And with regard to that, Scotland is, unfortunately for them, the team that lacked "that little something": it's not only that they lost two games in the last 10 minutes, but also that they did not even scored tries in those games. We can't seriously expect to be in a WC quarterfinal without scoring a try against at least one of your main opponents (come on, Canada scored 2 against NZ!!! :P).
Those three matches were so close that the story could have been entirely different (the Pumas could have beaten England and Scotland could have beaten England and now England would be out... Scotland could have kept its concentration in one of the two matches and now they would be in QF). Where was the difference? It was in the fact that two of these 3 teams did what they have to do in at least one match.
So: undeserved? really? who did "deserve it" better?
Of course, these Pumas are not close to those of 2007 (some players retire, Juan Martín Hernández is for the Pumas more important than what Dan Carter is for NZ) but that's precisely the good thing: not being at their best, their managed not to fail exactly when in previous WC they had failed (2003, for instance).
In any case, the big three (NZ, Aus, SA) are in a different league, and out of the three, NZ seems now to be practically unstoppable, so I only hope the Pumas lose with some dignity, that's my only expectation for next Sunday :P
Well, I meant the Puma-Scotland game. That game could never been won by Argentina with a decent referee. Oh well, good luck. :)
Historically there have been more issues with referees and the Pumas than the other way around, so let's say that this was a tiny "give back" (but we're still not even!! :P:P).
Anyway, I think that it is also exaggerated to say that the whole match was down to one single referee call (I assume that you talk about Contempomi's offside). It's like en football: sometimes a referee misses a penalty, o calls one when there was not one, and the mach finishes 1-0, and all the people and the press only talks about that call. But if your game depended just on that call, that means that you have a bad game, otherwise you would have scored more goals and the mistake would have been just history (as it has happened many times). Referees are human, they can have mistakes, and that's part of the game, and that has to be part of your game plan to.
As I said, Scotland was unable to score a single try in its two more important matches. When that happens, you end up depending on fortune. This time wasn't theirs.
Anyway, I think that it is also exaggerated to say that the whole match was down to one single referee call (I assume that you talk about Contempomi's offside). It's like en football: sometimes a referee misses a penalty, o calls one when there was not one, and the mach finishes 1-0, and all the people and the press only talks about that call. But if your game depended just on that call, that means that you have a bad game, otherwise you would have scored more goals and the mistake would have been just history (as it has happened many times). Referees are human, they can have mistakes, and that's part of the game, and that has to be part of your game plan to.
As I said, Scotland was unable to score a single try in its two more important matches. When that happens, you end up depending on fortune. This time wasn't theirs.
Nice french defense now... Will they get anough stamina to keep this strengh ?
pretty close :)
Really enjoying it, bit imo England is failing too hard with handling errors on crucial moments :)
Really enjoying it, bit imo England is failing too hard with handling errors on crucial moments :)
Indeed England made too much mistakes in 1st half to be able to win... Nice fight to see... Nice intensity... Nice match today. Happy to see french boys recovered their concentration.